[Draft] Repeal "Nuclear Arms Possession Act"

[Unibot III]

Repeal "Nuclear Arms Possession Act"

The World Assembly,

Understanding that although it presents itself as a stabilizing force in international law, “Nuclear Arms Possession Act” (GA#10) can and has served as a catalyst for global destabilisation,

Bearing in mind that the greatest threats involving nuclear arms come not from advanced nations possessing careful, orderly security apparatuses, but non-state actors and pariah states – curtailing nuclear proliferation has become an even more important goal for the contemporary international agenda than nuclear deterrence,

Finding that GA#10 preserves the right of all individual nations to possess nuclear arms which, in doing so, prohibits member-nations from engaging in their own local campaigns and military and security efforts to forestall nuclear proliferation,

Believing that the final clause, which ensures member-nations take care in preventing the proliferation of their nuclear arms to “the wrong hands” is wholly insufficient as a nuclear security proviso because,

1. It is unclear whether “wrong hands” includes (1) irresponsible recipients, or simply (2) unintended recipients,
2. If GA#10 intends to curtail irresponsible recipients, it failed to provide a comprehensive test that could distinguish between responsible and irresponsible recipients of nuclear arms – member-nations can gain a significant competitive advantage in the international arms manufacturing market by lowering their national standards for what constitutes “responsible” clientele; likewise, their judgement may be influenced by the political context, as opposed to objective criteria,
3. If GA#10 intends to curtail simply unintended recipients, it failed to anticipate any transactions in the international arms market between nations and irresponsible pariah states, non-state actors, organized crime or nuclear arms traffickers,
4. The entire premise of the clause rests on the wrongful assumption that states purchasing nuclear arms will always exist – proliferation of nuclear arms to unsavory actors often follows from failed, collapsed, weak, reconstructed or highly fractured states,

Further believing that the distinction between possession and deployment drawn in GA#10 has invited a myriad of proposals attempting to curtail deployment which would either (a) significantly undermine the credibility of the nuclear deterrent anticipated by GA#10, or (b) encourage nations to ignore the spirit of such international law in bad faith insofar as member-states would need to use the threat of departing from the World Assembly as part and parcel of any future ultimatum -- an alternative proposal, which saw possession and deployment as related issues, while comprehensively addressing the issue of nuclear proliferation would make for a stronger, more constructive response to nuclear possession and the fear of an imbalance of powers,

Hereby Repeals “Nuclear Arms Possession Act”.

---

The original act can be found here. I've always found it to be one of the most flawed resolutions on the books - it is held up as the gold standard of "blockers" but in fact curtails the freedom of nations to take on their own initiatives to curtail the proliferation of nuclear weapons by using its "right to bear nuclear arms" language. Unintentionally (I suspect), GA#10 does not respect sovereign capacity and invites more issues for global security than it intends to resolve.

I do not intend to write a replacement - I may give some thoughts on a replacement, but I'd really rather some new authors take on that ambitious project.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Nuclear proliferation is covered by viewtopic.php?p=20668964#p20668964

[Unibot III]

Nuclear proliferation is covered by viewtopic.php?p=20668964#p20668964

That's a resolution discussing nuclear proliferation in general, not the proliferation of nuclear arms. Thanks though, I knew something like that had passed, but I couldn't remember the name.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: Weren't you like, literally an hour ago, complaining that there were too many repeals nitpicking proposal language? I suppose you'd rather Flibbleites had used "incorrect manual appendages" instead of "wrong hands", you grammar school snob! :p

[Unibot III]

I should clarify Kenny that my main beef with the resolution is its phrasing of the blocker clause - the lack of any substantive discussion on proliferation is a big failure though.

I suspect Flibble intended GA#10 to be solely a blocker against the WA's intervention, but the way it's phrased is way more inclusive - take for example, the War on Iraq. Let's assume for a second it wasn't mind-numbingly obvious Iraq probably never had WMDs - GA#10 would prevent such a coalition of the willing between member-states because it aimed to undermine Iraq's "Right to possess nuclear arms".

OOC: Weren't you like, literally an hour ago, complaining that there were too many repeals nitpicking proposal language? I suppose you'd rather Flibbleites had used "incorrect manual appendages" instead of "wrong hands", you grammar school snob!

OOC: Guilty as charged. The discussion more or less reminded me of this draft.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Placing aside the opinion of the moderators that additional legislation clarifying the terms under which nuclear arms must be secured is necessary without a repeal of NAPA, the voters have repeatedly rejected repeals of this resolution based on the mere fact that they do not want their right to possess nuclear weapons to be taken away. What makes you think an overly technical argument about the "wrong hands" clause is going to appeal to them?

[Railana]

I suspect Flibble intended GA#10 to be solely a blocker against the WA's intervention, but the way it's phrased is way more inclusive - take for example, the War on Iraq. Let's assume for a second it wasn't mind-numbingly obvious Iraq probably never had WMDs - GA#10 would prevent such a coalition of the willing between member-states because it aimed to undermine Iraq's "Right to possess nuclear arms".

((OOC: Even if you repeal NAPA, you've still got to deal with GAR #2, which appears to block any sort of humanitarian intervention whatsoever.))

[Three Weasels]

This is probably the most nitpicky repeal we've seen to date. As it is 100% hands off with regard to possession, we prefer the current version to one which may possibly force member nations to keep a minimum stockpile in accordance with a policy of mutually assured destruction. Conversely, a full out prohibition on nuclear weapon arsenal would be detrimental to members on the whole in light of the fact that non-member nations would see us as deliciously squishy targets with no weapons of mass destruction at our disposal. Of course, there would be the inevitable middle ground, but there would no doubt be a long debate with no one side satisfied, and then we ultimately wind up with no legislation regarding nuclear weapon possession...

[Unibot III]

Placing aside the opinion of the moderators that additional legislation clarifying the terms under which nuclear arms must be secured is necessary without a repeal of NAPA, the voters have repeatedly rejected repeals of this resolution based on the mere fact that they do not want their right to possess nuclear weapons to be taken away. What makes you think an overly technical argument about the "wrong hands" clause is going to appeal to them?

A comprehensive argument based on their security and core interests, not any intangible goals such as "world peace" or whatever is usually used in these repeals.

Authors have usually in the past only attempted repeals of NAPA because it prevents a full ban, while I'm attempting a repeal because its language actually facilitates nuclear arms trafficking and prevents member-states from taking on initiatives that curtails the proliferation of nuclear weapons to other member-states. Under this view, NAPA isn't strictly a "NatSov" resolution because it pretty significantly limits state rights and foreign policy in favour of the interests of the licit and illicit global nuclear arms market.

The fact that resolutions have been shot down time and time in fear of the potential of a full ban should boost the confidence of delegations that a full ban is not likely and any future legislation on nuclear weapons will have to be a more nuanced beast that respects states rights while addressing the global security issues I've noted and probably issues with deployment that others might have like proportionality and such (which I don't want to delve into).

I suspect Flibble intended GA#10 to be solely a blocker against the WA's intervention, but the way it's phrased is way more inclusive - take for example, the War on Iraq. Let's assume for a second it wasn't mind-numbingly obvious Iraq probably never had WMDs - GA#10 would prevent such a coalition of the willing between member-states because it aimed to undermine Iraq's "Right to possess nuclear arms".

((OOC: Even if you repeal NAPA, you've still got to deal with GAR #2, which appears to block any sort of humanitarian intervention whatsoever.))

GAR#2 is a farce that cannot even begin to be interpreted. It's not even clear it's non-intervention clause is obligatory ("refrain"), nor is it clear it applies to nuclear possession, since it only prevents intervention in the case of "economic, political, religious, and social affairs" -- nuclear possession, I'd argue is not easily definable as "political affairs" provided civilian control is distinct from the military.

NAPA is one of the worst resolutions on the book - GA#2 is the worst. It's basically never discernible in any stretch of the imagination what GA#2 is saying in any of its clauses.

Of course, there would be the inevitable middle ground, but there would no doubt be a long debate with no one side satisfied, and then we ultimately wind up with no legislation regarding nuclear weapon possession...

Which would be a better situation than maintaining NAPA because NAPA prevents any attempt to stop the spread of nuclear arms to any of your neighbors which may join the World Assembly (and given it uses "nation" more generally in that clause and "WA nation" elsewhere, the penultimate clause could even apply as a right to all nations which would be even more problematic).

[Ainocra]

Placing aside the opinion of the moderators that additional legislation clarifying the terms under which nuclear arms must be secured is necessary without a repeal of NAPA, the voters have repeatedly rejected repeals of this resolution based on the mere fact that they do not want their right to possess nuclear weapons to be taken away. What makes you think an overly technical argument about the "wrong hands" clause is going to appeal to them?

I must agree with the kennyite delegation, even if we were to agree with you on the merits of your arguments (and we don't) we feel that having the resolution remain on the books to be preferable to what may come should it be repealed.

ooc:
frankly I can see it devolving into another habeas corpus style fiasco and frankly I want no part of that.


IC:

Opposed

[Normlpeople]

"While I commend your courage, I would consider that your arguments are wholly insufficient for a repeal, especially considering the replacement that would no doubt result in WA membership involving instant conquest by a non-member nation. I stand wholly opposed to this repeal."

[The Dark Star Republic]

especially considering the replacement that would no doubt result in WA membership involving instant conquest by a non-member nation

"It seems incredibly unlikely that the WA would actually pass a replacement banning nuclear weapons. Such a resolution has never passed, even before the original Nuclear Armaments resolution passed (and two had failed, as mentioned in that resolution's preamble); the WA has meanwhile recently voted down by a large margin a resolution that wouldn't even have banned nuclear weapons but would simply have restricted their use against civilian population centres. Your confidence is misplaced."

~ Daisy Chimusic
Legislative Intern to the Dark Star WA Office

[Normlpeople]

especially considering the replacement that would no doubt result in WA membership involving instant conquest by a non-member nation

"It seems incredibly unlikely that the WA would actually pass a replacement banning nuclear weapons. Such a resolution has never passed, even before the original Nuclear Armaments resolution passed (and two had failed, as mentioned in that resolution's preamble); the WA has meanwhile recently voted down by a large margin a resolution that wouldn't even have banned nuclear weapons but would simply have restricted their use against civilian population centres. Your confidence is misplaced."

~ Daisy Chimusic
Legislative Intern to the Dark Star WA Office

Clover sighed "When it comes to the WA and our rights to properly defend ourselves, there is no confidence whatsoever."

[Hirota]

international arms market between nations and irresponsible pariah states, non-state actors, organized crime or nuclear arms traffickers,

My government has already sent me a communique directing me to vote against this proposal. The fact our nation has large arms manufacturing and uranium mining sectors is nothing to do with our opposition.

Coincidentally, tickets for the latest Hirotan Weapon-Expo are selling like hotcakes.

[Unibot III]

especially considering the replacement that would no doubt result in WA membership involving instant conquest by a non-member nation

"It seems incredibly unlikely that the WA would actually pass a replacement banning nuclear weapons. Such a resolution has never passed, even before the original Nuclear Armaments resolution passed (and two had failed, as mentioned in that resolution's preamble); the WA has meanwhile recently voted down by a large margin a resolution that wouldn't even have banned nuclear weapons but would simply have restricted their use against civilian population centres. Your confidence is misplaced."

~ Daisy Chimusic
Legislative Intern to the Dark Star WA Office

Our position on the matter exactly.

[Chester Pearson]

"It seems incredibly unlikely that the WA would actually pass a replacement banning nuclear weapons. Such a resolution has never passed, even before the original Nuclear Armaments resolution passed (and two had failed, as mentioned in that resolution's preamble); the WA has meanwhile recently voted down by a large margin a resolution that wouldn't even have banned nuclear weapons but would simply have restricted their use against civilian population centres. Your confidence is misplaced."

~ Daisy Chimusic
Legislative Intern to the Dark Star WA Office

Our position on the matter exactly.

You voted against it ffs....

[Applebania]

Our position on the matter exactly.

You voted against it ffs....

Forum Polls. They are things.

[Unibot III]

You voted against it ffs....

Forum Polls. They are things.

Yep.

[Unibot III]

I still intend to pursue this repeal. I'd like to request help in making the text stronger if possible.

[The Dark Star Republic]

I still intend to pursue this repeal. I'd like to request help in making the text stronger if possible.

OOC: If you're going to do this, and history suggests trying to talk you out of doing just about anything is folly, then you should ditch virtually the entire text.

The strongest case against NAPA is not the wrong hands bit, because the WA can pursue more comprehensive disarmament anyway. The strongest case against NAPA is surely that it makes no distinction between states. NAPA states that North Korea and the Islamic State and Sealand and any other nation-state - which in NS terms can be literally anything, and a whole lot crazier than those examples - has the right to own nuclear weapons.

But honestly, I think you're just doing this out of spite. If you're coming back to the WA, do something useful. You've written some great proposals (and some not so great ones). This is a waste of time to win a pissing contest no one else really cares about.

[Ainocra]

Fleet Marshal Enta leans over and cocks an eyebrow at Eduard. "Tis a waste of time, but it's your time to waste."


ooc
yeah language won't do you alot of good on this one, without some pretty overwhelming support I don't imagine this will go anywhere.

[Mousebumples]

If this is successfully repealed, I look forward to seeing Ambassador Flibble's promised replacement.

[Greater Louisistan]

I still intend to pursue this repeal. I'd like to request help in making the text stronger if possible.

OOC: If you're going to do this, and history suggests trying to talk you out of doing just about anything is folly, then you should ditch virtually the entire text.

The strongest case against NAPA is not the wrong hands bit, because the WA can pursue more comprehensive disarmament anyway. The strongest case against NAPA is surely that it makes no distinction between states. NAPA states that North Korea and the Islamic State and Sealand and any other nation-state - which in NS terms can be literally anything, and a whole lot crazier than those examples - has the right to own nuclear weapons.

But honestly, I think you're just doing this out of spite. If you're coming back to the WA, do something useful. You've written some great proposals (and some not so great ones). This is a waste of time to win a pissing contest no one else really cares about.

OOC: So you would support a law that would grant some nations the right to own Nuclear Weapons and not others?

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: If you're going to do this, and history suggests trying to talk you out of doing just about anything is folly, then you should ditch virtually the entire text.

The strongest case against NAPA is not the wrong hands bit, because the WA can pursue more comprehensive disarmament anyway. The strongest case against NAPA is surely that it makes no distinction between states. NAPA states that North Korea and the Islamic State and Sealand and any other nation-state - which in NS terms can be literally anything, and a whole lot crazier than those examples - has the right to own nuclear weapons.

But honestly, I think you're just doing this out of spite. If you're coming back to the WA, do something useful. You've written some great proposals (and some not so great ones). This is a waste of time to win a pissing contest no one else really cares about.

OOC: So you would support a law that would grant some nations the right to own Nuclear Weapons and not others? :blink:

OOC: We're talking about a repeal here, not a replacement, and it's not my repeal. But yes, why not? NationStates is not Real Life. In real life, nation states require some degree of external recognition: Crimea, ISIS/ISIL, theoretical micronations. In NS, any nation can declare itself a state and apply for WA member status. In real life, rogue states can be shunned. In NS, rogue states just need an email address to become a legitimate part of the international community.

In practical terms I don't think it matters. But it's not like there isn't an international interest in ensuring that nations fundamentally unable or unwilling to assure nuclear security don't abet proliferation.

[Greater Louisistan]

OOC: So you would support a law that would grant some nations the right to own Nuclear Weapons and not others?

OOC: We're talking about a repeal here, not a replacement, and it's not my repeal. But yes, why not? NationStates is not Real Life. In real life, nation states require some degree of external recognition: Crimea, ISIS/ISIL, theoretical micronations. In NS, any nation can declare itself a state and apply for WA member status. In real life, rogue states can be shunned. In NS, rogue states just need an email address to become a legitimate part of the international community.

In practical terms I don't think it matters. But it's not like there isn't an international interest in ensuring that nations fundamentally unable or unwilling to assure nuclear security don't abet proliferation.

OOC: Usually, Micronations and groups like ISIS do not possess the resources to obtain Nuclear Weapons, unless they steal them (which, I suspect would be considered illegal).