[SCRAPPED] The Conventional Weapons Testing Act

[Labrellus]

WA Resolution:

The Conventional Weapons Testing Act

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Significant

RECOGNIZES that the testing of new and unknown weapons is vital for advancing weapon technology in a nation.

REALIZES the lack of adequate testing standards for new and unknown conventional weapons.

REALIZES that PMC's (Private Military Corporations)and Nations will test these weapons on unwilling victims without their knowledge for the sake of cutting costs.

DEFINES unlawful conventional weapon testing testing as the use of weapons in an experimental manner on unwilling participants within or outside of said nation's boarders or a PMC's region.

DEFINES conventional weapons as any weapon that can be used by the common soldier during times of war.

BELIEVES that the welfare of the common citizen is more important than the cost-efficient testing of new conventional weapons.

The World Assembly Hereby resolves:

Article I: Singular Citizen Testing
1.The unlawful testing of conventional weapons is hereby banned in all member nations.
2.Citizens, or families if said citizen is unable to receive compensation, that have been wronged by PMC's or Nations as a result of unlawful testing are to receive adequate compensation for any negative side effects of the testing process.
3.UCWTIB(The Unlawful Conventional Weapons Testing Investigative Board) will be established to investigate any claims by member nation citizens that they have been subject to unlawful conventional weapons testing.
Article 2: Mass Citizen Unlawful Testing
1.Any unlawful testing performed on more than 20 persons will also be investigated by UCWTIB and is defined as Mass Citizen Unlawful Testing.
2.PMC's found in violations of this article will be forced to strike all contracts with member nations null and void and will be subject to a massive change in personnel.
3.UCWTIB will decide on appropriate compensation for those affected in all cases of mass unlawful citizen testing. This should be appropriate for medical bills as well as psychological damages.
Article 3: False Testing
1.This form of testing is acquiring the consent of a citizen to test something they have agreed to, but instead the institution performs tests with different conventional weapons on them; not receiving the consent of said citizen.
2.UCWTIB will also be called to monitor consensual testing in order to find discrepancies in what the test-subject has agreed to and what is actually being performed on them.
3.Compensation will also be granted to those who have been victims of False Testing.


This is the changed draft of the Anonymous Testing Act, what do we think of this?

[Normlpeople]

"Welcome to the festering snakepit that is the WA ambassador! As to the draft itself, at first glance, it would seem to duplicate both GAR #29 (Patients Rights, which grants the patient a say in their treatment) and GAR #82 (Universal clinical trials act) which requires the patient to give consent to the trial. As such, it is unnecessary."

[Jarish Inyo]

Opposed. The government of Jarish Inyo will not let an international committee invalidate any license issued by the government. Nor will it let an international committee investigate within it's boarders or assess compensation.

[Labrellus]

"Welcome to the festering snakepit that is the WA ambassador! As to the draft itself, at first glance, it would seem to duplicate both GAR #29 (Patients Rights, which grants the patient a say in their treatment) and GAR #82 (Universal clinical trials act) which requires the patient to give consent to the trial. As such, it is unnecessary."

Yes it would seem to duplicate those at fist glance but #29 only protects against patients say in the treatment from already approved methods recommended by their physician. #82 also only protects the wrongful participation in clinical trials, and because Anonymous Testing is the method of getting around clinical trials, those citizens are not actually protected.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: I don't really see how this sort of anonymous testing would pass an Institutional Review Board.

[Labrellus]

OOC: I don't really see how this sort of anonymous testing would pass an Institutional Review Board.

ooc: Anonymous testing is done in secret, it's basically a way of testing medicine secretly on people without jumping through the hoops of committees and clinical trial fees. What it actually is primarily used for is research, so all side affects and effectiveness can be determined without actually needing approval from anyone. Here's an example: Let's say a medical research facility wants to test a new type of aerosol drug. The drug's only purpose would be to see how they could make aerosols more viable as a treatment option. Rather than actually get this licenced, they can just anonymously test this new method to apply it to all future aerosols, which means they cut costs and time on testing this new aerosol at the expense of exposing people to unknown substances without their consent.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Again: how would that possibly be legal given the Medical Research Ethics Act?

REQUIRES WA member nations to create and regulate an IRB system
...
FURTHER REQUIRES that any entity within a WA nation that performs medical research on any individuals must have this research verified as ethical by the IRB to which their nation subscribes.
...
ESTABLISHES that all prospective researchers must provide the following documentation to the IRB:
...
ii. The subject consent form, which accurately details the study and provides info about contacts for complaints.
...
FURTHER ESTABLISHES that research must be reviewed every year by an IRB. If the research is not approved, termination of the research must occur when all patients can be considered stable for release, and the IRB may take measures to ensure this happens in a timely manner for quick termination.
...
REQUIRES that the IRBs reject any research that they reasonably believe may:
i. Cause participation that is not a result of an informed, impartial, and rational decision to provide consent except where the subject’s legal rights were removed by due process of law
...
ENSURES that WA nations regulate issues regarding consent of individuals and how that consent can be responsibly terminated.

[Everlyn]

1.Any anonymous testing performed on housing institutions that house more than 20 persons will also be investigated by ATIB.

This just needs to be clarified. Then, maybe I'll support this.

[Labrellus]

Again: how would that possibly be legal given the Medical Research Ethics Act?

REQUIRES WA member nations to create and regulate an IRB system
...
FURTHER REQUIRES that any entity within a WA nation that performs medical research on any individuals must have this research verified as ethical by the IRB to which their nation subscribes.
...
ESTABLISHES that all prospective researchers must provide the following documentation to the IRB:
...
ii. The subject consent form, which accurately details the study and provides info about contacts for complaints.
...
FURTHER ESTABLISHES that research must be reviewed every year by an IRB. If the research is not approved, termination of the research must occur when all patients can be considered stable for release, and the IRB may take measures to ensure this happens in a timely manner for quick termination.
...
REQUIRES that the IRBs reject any research that they reasonably believe may:
i. Cause participation that is not a result of an informed, impartial, and rational decision to provide consent except where the subject’s legal rights were removed by due process of law
...
ENSURES that WA nations regulate issues regarding consent of individuals and how that consent can be responsibly terminated.

I guess my rationale was that if researchers did it in secret and they were not actually intending on submitting Anonymous Testing to an IRB that the IRB would not cover it. So I guess this Act is worthless now. What if I were to change it to a global disarmament act that forbade Nations from testing experimental bioweapons/chemical weapons on its citizens? Would that work then or is it still covered? As I said I am new to this so I still need to familiarize myself with all past legislation.

[The Dark Star Republic]

What if I were to change it to a global disarmament act that forbade Nations from testing experimental bioweapons/chemical weapons on its citizens? Would that work then or is it still covered?

That still seems like medical research to me. Both the Biological Weapons Convention and Chemical Weapons Accord would permit weapons research, but if it's any sort of research for medical purposes it seems to be covered by the Medical Research Ethics Act.

The idea of weapons testing not for medical purposes but rather to test the effectiveness of weapons is an interesting one, though. It's not exactly covered by Prevention of Torture: I would be interested to see whether anyone else thinks such things are legal under WA law. (Not that I'd really be in favour of banning them, with Convention on Execution in place.)

[Labrellus]

What if I were to change it to a global disarmament act that forbade Nations from testing experimental bioweapons/chemical weapons on its citizens? Would that work then or is it still covered?

That still seems like medical research to me. Both the Biological Weapons Convention and Chemical Weapons Accord would permit weapons research, but if it's any sort of research for medical purposes it seems to be covered by the Medical Research Ethics Act.

The idea of weapons testing not for medical purposes but rather to test the effectiveness of weapons is an interesting one, though. It's not exactly covered by Prevention of Torture: I would be interested to see whether anyone else thinks such things are legal under WA law. (Not that I'd really be in favour of banning them, with Convention on Execution in place.)

Yes the main purpose of it would be to test the effectiveness of weapons, not for medical research. And not to ban weapons, just not allowing them to be tested on citizens.

[Chester Pearson]

That still seems like medical research to me. Both the Biological Weapons Convention and Chemical Weapons Accord would permit weapons research, but if it's any sort of research for medical purposes it seems to be covered by the Medical Research Ethics Act.

The idea of weapons testing not for medical purposes but rather to test the effectiveness of weapons is an interesting one, though. It's not exactly covered by Prevention of Torture: I would be interested to see whether anyone else thinks such things are legal under WA law. (Not that I'd really be in favour of banning them, with Convention on Execution in place.)

Yes the main purpose of it would be to test the effectiveness of weapons, not for medical research. And not to ban weapons, just not allowing them to be tested on citizens.

That would violate clause 2 of the CWA:

. The use of chemical weapons that have a reasonable probability of affecting civilian populations shall be prohibited,

[Labrellus]

Yes the main purpose of it would be to test the effectiveness of weapons, not for medical research. And not to ban weapons, just not allowing them to be tested on citizens.

That would violate clause 2 of the CWA:

. The use of chemical weapons that have a reasonable probability of affecting civilian populations shall be prohibited,

I guess I'll just abandon this idea then, since it really doesn't have anything to offer.

[The Dark Star Republic]

I guess I'll just abandon this idea then, since it really doesn't have anything to offer.

OOC: Well, I think you've hit across a possible loophole in international law. Maybe not for chemical weapons, but for conventional munitions? I'm really not sure that testing the effectiveness of weapons on human targets is intrinsically illegal at present: it's not medical research, it's not "for the purposes of" torture, and it's not necessary covered by extrajudicial execution. It's sort of thin, but there might be a proposal in that, albeit others might be able to weigh in and suggest otherwise.

[Labrellus]

I guess I'll just abandon this idea then, since it really doesn't have anything to offer.

OOC: Well, I think you've hit across a possible loophole in international law. Maybe not for chemical weapons, but for conventional munitions? I'm really not sure that testing the effectiveness of weapons on human targets is intrinsically illegal at present: it's not medical research, it's not "for the purposes of" torture, and it's not necessary covered by extrajudicial execution. It's sort of thin, but there might be a proposal in that, albeit others might be able to weigh in and suggest otherwise.

OOC: Yeah I guess you are right on that one, what exactly are you proposing? The testing of conventional weapons i.e guns, on civilians? If that is something that we could write up I would be more than happy to do it.

[The Dark Star Republic]

It's certainly worth exploring. It probably intersects with other laws I can't anticipate, but in general, the testing of weapons (such as guns or bombs) on live subjects doesn't seem to be illegal, providing it's weapons research rather than medical research (e.g. "what is the blast radius of this grenade?").

[Labrellus]

It's certainly worth exploring. It probably intersects with other laws I can't anticipate, but in general, the testing of weapons (such as guns or bombs) on live subjects doesn't seem to be illegal, providing it's weapons research rather than medical research (e.g. "what is the blast radius of this grenade?").

Yeah like seeing how many rounds need to be shot to kill a variety of different built humans, or how close someone can get to a bomb without dying. It does seem like there isn't any provision for those.

[Frisbeeteria]

OOC: I used to work in the pharmaceutical industry, and I think the author is using a fundamentally flawed definition of "Anonymous Testing". The actual definition is "Testing in which no name is used -- there is total anonymity -- to identify the person tested. For example, the State of Florida requires that each county have a site for anonymous HIV testing." The key fact is that there is no PII (Personably Identifiable Information) available to the testor or anyone who uses the clinical data in further analysis. It may be necessary to record pertinent facts, such as gender, age, and prior medical history; but that information is isolated from any PII that makes it possible to identify the individual.

The process described in this proposal is completely and utterly unethical and should most certainly be banned, but it isn't "anonymous testing". Perhaps another name should be chosen.

[Labrellus]

OOC: I used to work in the pharmaceutical industry, and I think the author is using a fundamentally flawed definition of "Anonymous Testing". The actual definition is "Testing in which no name is used -- there is total anonymity -- to identify the person tested. For example, the State of Florida requires that each county have a site for anonymous HIV testing." The key fact is that there is no PII (Personably Identifiable Information) available to the testor or anyone who uses the clinical data in further analysis. It may be necessary to record pertinent facts, such as gender, age, and prior medical history; but that information is isolated from any PII that makes it possible to identify the individual.

The process described in this proposal is completely and utterly unethical and should most certainly be banned, but it isn't "anonymous testing". Perhaps another name should be chosen.

Oh I didn't know what the actual name was, I was just picking something that described it sufficiently, but that has been thrown out and we are seeing if the concept is worth applying to the testing of conventional weapons.

[Labrellus]

This act has been edited to cover unlawful testing of conventional weapons.

[Wrapper]

This act has been edited to cover unlawful testing of conventional weapons.

WTF? This is a joke, yes? Who the hell tests weapons on live persons?

[Labrellus]

This act has been edited to cover unlawful testing of conventional weapons.

WTF? This is a joke, yes? Who the hell tests weapons on live persons?

Nations or companies that do not wish to pay fees/taxes for testing new weaponry and would rather waste a couple people unlawfully than spend any extra money than the have to.

OOC: This happens in real life too btw....

[Wrapper]

You're missing the point. Should we next have international law that bans the testing of automobile crash-worthiness using live persons instead of dummies? Or an international law that bans testing safety equipment like harnesses on unwilling participants? Such proposals, like yours, are far too oddly specific.

[The Dark Star Republic]

This act has been edited to cover unlawful testing of conventional weapons.

WTF? This is a joke, yes? Who the hell tests weapons on live persons?

OOC: As I pointed out, Unit 731 did exactly that. Or is this going to be another case of "nee-ner-nee-ner no RL examples allowed"?

[Labrellus]

You're missing the point. Should we next have international law that bans the testing of automobile crash-worthiness using live persons instead of dummies? Or an international law that bans testing safety equipment like harnesses on unwilling participants? Such proposals, like yours, are far too oddly specific.

They actually aren't that oddly specific. The reason for this is because technological progress in inevitable and we will get new and better technology every day. With conventional weapons, a category that is in dire need of safety regulation, this proposal is here to make sure new conventional weapons are tested properly and PMC's and Nations aren't taking shortcuts that put people in danger. So I don't really see the problem with making sure weapons are tested properly.