[DEFEATED] Nuclear Material Pact

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

"Nuclear Material Pact"
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: Jean Pierre Trudeau

World Assembly,

Understanding the enormous technological, economical, and energy potential of nuclear energy,

Aware that nuclear energy requires substantial amounts of raw nuclear materials that are not always in abundance within some nations,

Believing that all member nations, and their populaces should have the right to clean, long lasting supplies of nuclear energy,

The General Assembly hereby:

1. For the purposes of this resolution defines:
   
   
   1. Nuclear energy as the sustained use of nuclear fission or fusion to generate heat and electricity;
      
      
   2. Nuclear material as a material capable of sustaining a nuclear fission or fusion chain reaction.
2. Decrees that member nations shall not subject their trading partners to unnecessary tariffs on nuclear materials destined for use in nuclear power facilities,
   
   
3. Urges members to cease trading raw nuclear materials to nations of ill repute,
   
   
4. Declares that the World Assembly shall not pass any further resolutions preventing the trade of nuclear materials destined for use in nuclear reactors.

Comments, concerns, and suggestions are always welcome.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

Given a glorious opportunity, this has been submitted. I do apologize for not leaving this up for drafting for a longer period, but it could not be helped.

[Pharthan]

Why could it not be helped?

It's highly advised that you allow a resolution to sit and be advised upon for a good period of time - at least a matter of days. Weeks is advisable.

For one, what does this resolution actually do? The only actual action it creates is to restrict "unnecessary tariffs." You need to define that clearly. What is an "unnecessary" tariff? What if my nation deems the tariff necessary to cover costs of other projects within my nation or to better my people's way of life?

I like the idea behind this resolution, but there is more that can be done.

There are other resources just as important for nuclear power; nuclear materials needs to be better defined as well. For instance, you could make nuclear power very expensive by prohibiting trade of hafnium, boron, or cadmium and silver, depending on the type of reactor. Others could be limited by trade of bismuth.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Why could it not be helped?

They wanted to pass this so as to "gut" one of the arguments in a proposed repeal of one of their previous resolutions. That meant submitting this before IA resubmitted their proposal, meaning that if this passes, IA's repeal will probably be deleted, and certainly need to be redrafted.

Yes, I know...

There are other resources just as important for nuclear power; nuclear materials needs to be better defined as well. For instance, you could make nuclear power very expensive by prohibiting trade of hafnium, boron, or cadmium and silver, depending on the type of reactor. Others could be limited by trade of bismuth.

Funnily enough, this is exactly what happened on House of Cards.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Though, on close reading, this proposal is somewhat pointless, as it does not protect the trading of nuclear materials for the purpose of weapons production.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

Though, on close reading, this proposal is somewhat pointless, as it does not protect the trading of nuclear materials for the purpose of weapons production.

Are you sure about that?

It's highly advised that you allow a resolution to sit and be advised upon for a good period of time - at least a matter of days. Weeks is advisable.

I understand you are new around here, but I am pretty confident I know what I am doing.

For one, what does this resolution actually do?

It is a blocker. Not all resolutions need to be massive in scope, and filled with scientific jargon. If you have ever looked at any of my proposals, you will see that I like to keep things simple and sweet.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Though, on close reading, this proposal is somewhat pointless, as it does not protect the trading of nuclear materials for the purpose of weapons production.

Are you sure about that?

Quite. Just like nations during a Cold War in years past, nobody trades nuclear materials — people gift them to allies for their defence.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

Are you sure about that?

Quite. Just like nations during a Cold War in years past, nobody trades nuclear materials — people gift them to allies for their defence.

Which is still classified as trade.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Quite. Just like nations during a Cold War in years past, nobody trades nuclear materials — people gift them to allies for their defence.

Which is still classified as trade.

Trade is multilateral (def: "the action of buying and selling goods and services"). Gifting is unilateral. According to Barron's Law Dictionary, what you're looking for is 'transaction' or 'transfer'.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

Are you sure about that?

Quite. Just like nations during a Cold War in years past, nobody trades nuclear materials — people gift them to allies for their defence.

Then you try to pass a resolution that restricts the "gifting" of nuclear materials if this one passes.

[Dooom35796821595]

Why does this assembly hate nuclear physics so much? It's almost like a mother telling her children not to run with their spears pointed toward themselves.

[Imperium Anglorum]

HOLD ON!

This bill prohibits the production of nuclear weapons by prohibiting the 'trade of nuclear materials to nations of ill repute'. By not defining 'ill repute', this prevents anybody from trading nuclear materials, and hence, if someone is labeled as such and if there is no nuclear material inside a nation, this bans nuclear materials trade, and hence, nuclear weapons.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

What are you talking about? It only "urges" nations not to trade with such nations.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

What are you talking about? It only "urges" nations not to trade with such nations.

Precisely. If I was going to use this to gut your repeal, do you truly believe I would try a back door ban on nuclear weapons?

[Vilatania]

There are no actual controls to ensure that a nation uses the material for reactor use. This won't pass.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

There are no actual controls to ensure that a nation uses the material for reactor use. This won't pass.

Oh yes there is.

[Opplandia]

I not sure but, isnt clause 4 against the WA-rules? it says something about no blockers, if I remember correct.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

I not sure but, isnt clause 4 against the WA-rules? it says something about no blockers, if I remember correct.

A resolution cannot ONLY be a blocker. This actually does something besides being a solely a blocker.

[Vilatania]

Suggesting that the materials cannot be traded to nations of ill-repute does not constitute as a control for prevention of mis-use. You don't need to have a poor reputation in order to lie.

[Defwa]

I am preparing to submit my recommendation to WA voters in the DSA against this proposal.
The definition of a 'necessary tariff' is conveniently missing and takes away a state's ability to control its trade for no good reason. The 'Urges' clause is useless, as most urge clauses are. And the blocker portion is completely unwanted by myself- especially considering this proposal doesn't really do anything to meaningful, removing our ability to do anything more is counter intuitive to this organization fulfilling its duties.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

I am preparing to submit my recommendation to WA voters in the DSA against this proposal.
The definition of a 'necessary tariff' is conveniently missing and takes away a state's ability to control its trade for no good reason. The 'Urges' clause is useless, as most urge clauses are. And the blocker portion is completely unwanted by myself- especially considering this proposal doesn't really do anything to meaningful, removing our ability to do anything more is counter intuitive to this organization fulfilling its duties.

It prevents any further resolutions that could attempt to ban the production of nuclear weapons, by cutting off the supply of nuclear materials, and that was the whole point behind it.

Suggesting that the materials cannot be traded to nations of ill-repute does not constitute as a control for prevention of mis-use. You don't need to have a poor reputation in order to lie.

Obviously you haven't taken the time to read passed resolutions, so allow me to point out The Nuclear Security Convention?

[Vilatania]

All that law does is require nations to ensure unauthorized release of the materials is prevented and that measures are taken when there is reason to suspect misuse. It does not account for situations where there is NO reason to suspect misuse but the misuse occurs anyways. In all honesty that resolution should actually be repealed and rewritten to account for the possibility of hidden agendas. But untill then it still stands that there is no way to control what a nation actually does with the material once they have it regardless of intent at the time of aquisition.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

All that law does is require nations to ensure unauthorized release of the materials is prevented and that measures are taken when there is reason to suspect misuse. It does not account for situations where there is NO reason to suspect misuse but the misuse occurs anyways. In all honesty that resolution should actually be repealed and rewritten to account for the possibility of hidden agendas. But untill then it still stands that there is no way to control what a nation actually does with the material once they have it regardless of intent at the time of aquisition.

Nations are required to comply with World Assembly resolutions in good faith. If there is ill intent it will violate the own laws of your nation, and the Gnomes will not allow that to happen as long as you remain a member nation.

[Vilatania]

Yet nowhere in this resolution does it say that trade is limited to member nations only. By authorizing trade of nuclear materials to nations who are not bound by the "good faith" of the WA you are still risking the misuse of the materials. In any case, there is a difference between being required to do something and actually doing it.

[Defwa]

I am preparing to submit my recommendation to WA voters in the DSA against this proposal.
The definition of a 'necessary tariff' is conveniently missing and takes away a state's ability to control its trade for no good reason. The 'Urges' clause is useless, as most urge clauses are. And the blocker portion is completely unwanted by myself- especially considering this proposal doesn't really do anything to meaningful, removing our ability to do anything more is counter intuitive to this organization fulfilling its duties.

It prevents any further resolutions that could attempt to ban the production of nuclear weapons, by cutting off the supply of nuclear materials, and that was the whole point behind it.

I seriously doubt that's a threat and in the meantime, this would impair our ability to protect against actual threats. And if something were to ever happen to the Nuclear Security Convention, there would then be another repeal necessary to replace it.