[Passed] Repeal "Responsible Arms Trading"

[Imperium Anglorum]

Repeal “Responsible Arms Trading”
Category: Repeal

---

Affirming the need for the securitisation of weapons for the peaceful lives of civilians across the world,

Recognising that war is an inevitable part of human nature as well as a conflict which can lead to the creation of new nations and the achievement of radical change, and

Believing that peace and prosperity are best preserved by the protection of civilians and not overregulation of arms used generally for defence,

This august World Assembly;

1. Objects to the definition of armament, as it includes the “parts necessary in their construction or production”, which includes items such as wood, metal, brass, and saltpetre, since this is an overly broad definition which includes many resources which are and are not used in armament production;
   
   
2. Realises that clause (4) is a piece of boiler-plate filler which does nothing, since it exempts from regulation weapons that are not regulated and only binds future regulations to relax gun control laws for ‘recreational purposes only’ and tighten said laws in the case of posing ‘imminent lawless action’, the first of which is irrespective of the violent nature of non-developed countries and the second of which is irrelevant, as any regulation passed would ipso facto make violations ‘imminent' and ‘lawless';
   
   
3. Objects to the requirement that ‘exporters and brokers of armaments within member nations ... register with the relevant governments of the nations in which they operate’, as this would mean government oversight over all armament production facilities and endanger the freedoms of civilians who may want to overthrow dictatorships;
   
   
4. Decries the entirety of clause (7), which prohibits the sale of weapons:
   
   
   1. if there is a possibility of diversion, which may occur in the chaos of war (e.g. blockades, interception, etc.) and or
      
      
   2. if there is a possibility of use in a ‘war of conquest or expropiation', the definition of which is not well defined, and hence, can include cases where nations may wish for payments of war indemnities (thus expropriating wealth), colonies, and or claims of uninhabited territories;
5. Believes that the mandate for the issuance of ‘end-user certificates’ is irrespective of the chaos of war, which may lead to the capture of war materiel, hence forcing that ‘said buyer’ might not be the ‘final recipient of the product’; and thus; this esteemed World Assembly;
   
   
6. Repeals the resolution on Responsible Arms Trading.

Since it might actually be voted upon and not disappear quietly into the night, I'd like to post my repeal attempt here. Apologies to you all regarding the non-posting of this when it was up for approvals. I didn't think it would actually reach quorum, even with a campaign.

Anyway, this may pass, so I'll provide some extra context. Passed Resolution Previous Attempt

From: Foreign Office, Greyhall, Londinium
To: Foreign Secretary, %NATION%

Foreign Secretary, a proposal came up to vote called Responsible Arms Trading. It attempts to regulate the transfer of armaments from one nation to another. Ever since its passage, the World Assembly has been inundated with attempts for its repeal, nearly all of which are removed for assorted illegalities regarding World Assembly resolution rules.

However that is, the target resolution has some severe flaws.

First, the definition of 'armament' given in the resolution includes 'parts necessary in their construction or production', which can be easily interpreted to include the raw materials and other factory machines required to machine and produce armaments (which are any 'military equipment ... which possess a practical application in military conflict').

Second, the target resolution attempts to force the registry of all armament production centres and stores with the government, which means that places which sell or produce guns, armour, or anything which has a 'practical application in [a] military conflict' are known and registered with all WA member nation's governments. This means government oversight and registry over all sold weapons.

Third, the resolution also prohibits nations from selling arms if (1) there is a possibility of diversion or (2) the recipient is waging a 'war of conquest or expropriation'. (1) The resolution prohibits arms sales to countries in war, since in cases of war, where ships can be intercepted, airplanes shot down, and goods seized, there is a very real possibility of diversion. (2) The resolution also prohibits the selling of arms to countries which aim to simply have their war costs repaid as reparations or parts of their country liberated from another, since this would require the expropriation of wealth or territory.

I hope that you will join me in repealing this resolution by approving it and voting in favour of its repeal. This resolution attempts to regulate the transfer of armaments, but it does so without consideration for the realities of conflict, the reasonable goals of countries in war, the affect of regulation on the sale of firearms, and or the breadth of its own definitions. Those flaws necessitate its repeal.

You can approve the Repeal of Responsible Arms Trading here: page=UN_view_proposal/id=imperium_anglorum_1431148414
Thank you in advance for your approval and support,

Sir John Clegg-Wilson,
Imperial Foreign Secretary, Imperium Anglorum

Edit 1: Whoops, posted an old draft which wasn't the one I submitted to the WA. Fixed that problem.
Edit 2: Comments and addition of a copy of the campaign telegram.
Edit 3: Corrected campaign telegram spoiler title.
Edit 4: Corrected spacing error and changed capitalisation and numeration of 'Edit' tags.
Edit 5: Changed [In Queue] to [At Vote]
Edit 6: Added the above Edit summary (Edit 5).
Edit 7: Fixed a spacing error.
Edit 8: Added context.
Edit 9: Forgot the above tag, so added that.
Edit 10: Incorrect link. Fixed.
Edit 11: Changed 'At Vote' to 'Passed' to reflect the end of voting.
Edit 12: Changed spacing system to make it look good before archival. Added spoiler for edits.

[The Arkam Asylum]

I and my region publicly support this repeal. While we would be open to a replacement proposal the current one is to vague and needs serious clarification.

[Sciongrad]

I suppose you can at least brag that this is legal. Although it seems that's all it has going for it.

Objects to the definition of armament, as it includes the “parts necessary in their construction or production”, which includes items such as wood, metal, brass, and saltpetre, since this is an overly broad definition which includes many resources which are and are not used in armament production;

This argument is intellectually disingenuous. Yes, you're right, this does include wood, metal, brass, saltpeter, among other things, but you haven't explained why it's justifiable to trade these materials when you know they'll be used to violate human rights. This argument is nice because it's specious, but no one has ever argued successfully that trading steel to ethnic cleansers is justifiable when that steel will be used to commit genocide.

[*]Realises that clause (4) is a piece of boiler-plate filler which does nothing, since it exempts from regulation weapons that are not regulated and only binds future regulations to relax gun control laws for ‘recreational purposes only’ and tighten said laws in the case of posing ‘imminent lawless action’, the first of which is irrespective of the violent nature of non-developed countries and the second of which is irrelevant, as any regulation passed would ipso facto make violations ‘imminent' and ‘lawless';

This argument doesn't make any sense. First of all, weapons can't be exempted from this clause because it blocks future international legislation. Meaning the conditions of individual countries are irrelevant. On top of that, this clause is very difficult to understand. If I've misunderstood it, please feel free to clarify and I'll try to respond.

[*]Objects to the requirement that ‘exporters and brokers of armaments within member nations ... register with the relevant governments of the nations in which they operate’, as this would mean government oversight over all armament production facilities and endanger the freedoms of civilians who may want to overthrow dictatorships;

This is fearmongering. A dictatorship bent on crushing freedom and suppressing dissent already has to power to require arms traders to register with them. Regardless of whether or not this resolution exists, that will continue to happen. Repealing GAR#325 wouldn't, in any way, prevent totalitarian regimes from requiring arms trading registration.

if there is a possibility of diversion, which may occur in the chaos of war (e.g. blockades, interception, etc.) and or

Why would anyone willingly and knowingly trade armaments if there is a significant reason to believe that they'll be intercepted and confiscated.

if there is a possibility of use in a ‘war of conquest or expropiation', the definition of which is not well defined, and hence, can include cases where nations may wish for payments of war indemnities (thus expropriating wealth), colonies, and or claims of uninhabited territories;

Conducting war to exact payment for war indemnities or to obtain colonies isn't an example of justifiable war, and claiming uninhabited land isn't either conquering or expropriating.

[*]Believes that the mandate for the issuance of ‘end-user certificates’ is irrespective of the chaos of war, which may lead to the capture of war materiel, hence forcing that ‘said buyer’ might not be the ‘final recipient of the product’; and thus; this esteemed World Assembly;

That is the purpose of an end-user certificate - the verify whether or not the end-user received the armaments. If they were captured, then obviously an end-user certificate can't be signed. The argument made here isn't a flaw in the end-user certification policy (OOC: one which is used in the real world), but in your understanding of what end-user certification is.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: Repeals should really only have one operative clause. I wrote a repeal like this (NEF, still haven't found out why it was stacked against!) so I suppose I can't complaint, but I don't think it's a good habit to get into, as you may end up veering into legislating-within-a-repeal. Some of the affirmative statements in this repeal come awfully close to the WA making broad statements of policy independent of the repeal action.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: Repeals should really only have one operative clause. I wrote a repeal like this (NEF, still haven't found out why it was stacked against!) so I suppose I can't complaint, but I don't think it's a good habit to get into, as you may end up veering into legislating-within-a-repeal. Some of the affirmative statements in this repeal come awfully close to the WA making broad statements of policy independent of the repeal action.

I'll keep that in mind in the future. Thanks.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Being an overwhelmingly huge fan of the Gun Control blocker in RAT, I can't support this. I believe I promised your delegation's satellite office that I wouldn't advice an Against vote in TNP based on the lack of posting for debate, but I will have to advise one based on the removal of this lovely blocker."

[Almorica]

Repeal “Responsible Arms Trading”
Category: Repeal

---

Affirming the need for the securitisation of weapons for the peaceful lives of civilians across the world,

Recognising that war is an inevitable part of human nature as well as a conflict which can lead to the creation of new nations and the achievement of radical change, and

Believing that peace and prosperity are best preserved by the protection of civilians and not overregulation of arms used generally for defence,

This august World Assembly;

1. Objects to the definition of armament, as it includes the “parts necessary in their construction or production”, which includes items such as wood, metal, brass, and saltpetre, since this is an overly broad definition which includes many resources which are and are not used in armament production;
   
2. Realises that clause (4) is a piece of boiler-plate filler which does nothing, since it exempts from regulation weapons that are not regulated and only binds future regulations to relax gun control laws for ‘recreational purposes only’ and tighten said laws in the case of posing ‘imminent lawless action’, the first of which is irrespective of the violent nature of non-developed countries and the second of which is irrelevant, as any regulation passed would ipso facto make violations ‘imminent' and ‘lawless';
   
3. Objects to the requirement that ‘exporters and brokers of armaments within member nations ... register with the relevant governments of the nations in which they operate’, as this would mean government oversight over all armament production facilities and endanger the freedoms of civilians who may want to overthrow dictatorships;
   
4. Decries the entirety of clause (7), which prohibits the sale of weapons:
   
   1. if there is a possibility of diversion, which may occur in the chaos of war (e.g. blockades, interception, etc.) and or
   2. if there is a possibility of use in a ‘war of conquest or expropiation', the definition of which is not well defined, and hence, can include cases where nations may wish for payments of war indemnities (thus expropriating wealth), colonies, and or claims of uninhabited territories;
5. Believes that the mandate for the issuance of ‘end-user certificates’ is irrespective of the chaos of war, which may lead to the capture of war materiel, hence forcing that ‘said buyer’ might not be the ‘final recipient of the product’; and thus; this esteemed World Assembly;
   
6. Repeals the resolution on Responsible Arms Trading.

Since it might actually be voted upon and not disappear quietly into the night, I'd like to post my repeal attempt here. Apologies to you all regarding the non-posting of this when it was up for approvals. I didn't think it would actually reach quorum, even with a campaign.

From: Foreign Office, Greyhall, Londinium
To: Foreign Secretary, %NATION%

Foreign Secretary, a proposal came up to vote called Responsible Arms Trading. It attempts to regulate the transfer of armaments from one nation to another. Ever since its passage, the World Assembly has been inundated with attempts for its repeal, nearly all of which are removed for assorted illegalities regarding World Assembly resolution rules.

However that is, the target resolution has some severe flaws.

First, the definition of 'armament' given in the resolution includes 'parts necessary in their construction or production', which can be easily interpreted to include the raw materials and other factory machines required to machine and produce armaments (which are any 'military equipment ... which possess a practical application in military conflict').

Second, the target resolution attempts to force the registry of all armament production centres and stores with the government, which means that places which sell or produce guns, armour, or anything which has a 'practical application in [a] military conflict' are known and registered with all WA member nation's governments. This means government oversight and registry over all sold weapons.

Third, the resolution also prohibits nations from selling arms if (1) there is a possibility of diversion or (2) the recipient is waging a 'war of conquest or expropriation'. (1) The resolution prohibits arms sales to countries in war, since in cases of war, where ships can be intercepted, airplanes shot down, and goods seized, there is a very real possibility of diversion. (2) The resolution also prohibits the selling of arms to countries which aim to simply have their war costs repaid as reparations or parts of their country liberated from another, since this would require the expropriation of wealth or territory.

I hope that you will join me in repealing this resolution by approving it and voting in favour of its repeal. This resolution attempts to regulate the transfer of armaments, but it does so without consideration for the realities of conflict, the reasonable goals of countries in war, the affect of regulation on the sale of firearms, and or the breadth of its own definitions. Those flaws necessitate its repeal.

You can approve the Repeal of Responsible Arms Trading here: page=UN_view_proposal/id=imperium_anglorum_1431148414
Thank you in advance for your approval and support,

Sir John Clegg-Wilson,
Imperial Foreign Secretary, Imperium Anglorum

Edit 1: Whoops, posted an old draft which wasn't the one I submitted to the WA. Fixed that problem.
Edit 2: Comments and addition of a copy of the campaign telegram.
Edit 3: Corrected campaign telegram spoiler title.
Edit 4: Corrected spacing error and changed capitalisation and numeration of 'Edit' tags.

While the Commonwealth of Almorica agrees with the original ideals that the Responsible Arms Trading resolution tried to uphold, it is believed that because Responsible Arms Trading does not address the circumstances that occur during the chaos of conflict, it will be extremely hard for regulations implemented by the resolution such as end buyer certificates to be effective in any way. We support the repeal of Responsible Arms Trading and are looking forward towards a resubmission that not only specifically clarifies this circumstance but also many other terms it fails to define as it stands now.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I'll point out that "securitisation" is the sophisticated-sounding thing that shady-ass lenders do with the debt they own that doesn't have a chance in hell of ever being repaid, so that they can walk away like pimps while a flood of missed payments causes bank runs and general suffering beyond just the people getting kicked out of their homes. Unless you plan to screw over your buyers by, say, sticking a number of muzzle-loading flintlock muskets inside most of your crates of gas-driven automatic carbines, I'm not sure how that translates to weapons.

Supported the target resolution, have no intent to support its repeal.

[Kryozerkia]

We received a legality challenge for this repeal. We're currently reviewing the issues raised as the repeal is quorate and will go to-vote at the next update. Whether its yanked, we will post a comment on the challenge after our review.

[Kryozerkia]

After conferring with a small team of GA Moderators, we determined that this repeal can go to vote.

Secretariat Ruling

We received a 2-part legality challenge regarding Imperium Anglorum's repeal of GAR#325. The first is based on the grounds that it contains multiple "honest mistakes". The challenge targeted three specific clauses. We examined each clause on its against the original and in the context of the repeal.

"Objects to the requirement that ‘exporters and brokers of armaments within member nations ... register with the relevant governments of the nations in which they operate’, as this would mean government oversight over all armament production facilities"

The issue raised here is that the original resolution only affects manufacturers, exporters, and brokers of armaments if they export. We find this challenge claim contradicts GAR#325, article 5 which state that these individuals are "to register with the relevant governments of the nations in which they operate". This means that regardless of whether the arms are exported, registration is still mandatory, as it affects manufacturers who may not export.

"Decries clause (7), which prohibits the sale of weapons if there is a possibility"

It boils down to how "reason to suspect" and "possibility" are interpreted by a reasonable nation. Some may treat the terms as interchangeable; others may hold legal distinctions. We do not see the use of one term over the other as proof of an honest mistake. This is highly subjective, and leave this to the delegates and members of the WA to decide when this repeal hits the floor.

"Believes that the mandate for the issuance of ‘end-user certificates’ is irrespective of the chaos of war, which may lead to the capture of war materiel, hence forcing that ‘said buyer’ might not be the ‘final recipient of the product’; and thus; this esteemed World Assembly;"

This clause was the final example used in the challenge to demonstrate how the repeal violated the honest mistake rule. The challenge claimed that GAR#325 never mandated end-user certificates' but rather strongly urged. We find the challenge itself to be mistaken as the original resolution in article six plainly states:

Mandates that the export of armaments by any manufacturer, exporter, or broker operating within a member nation shall make the sale of their armaments conditional on the completion of an end-user certificate by the buyer; member nations are strongly urged to implement systems of end-use monitoring to ensure that the end-user certificate is authentic, when possible;

The original resolution clearly uses the term "mandates" and not "strongly urges".

The second issue raised was based on the "grossly offensive" rule. It specifically targeted "[...]the violent nature of non-developed countries[...]" portion of the second repeal provision. It's the opinion of the moderators reviewing this challenge that it is not offensive by any means. For an example of a proposal that is typically removed under the "grossly offensive" rule, please see this example.

For these reasons, we find that there is no 'honest mistake' and no 'grossly offensive' violations.

[Imperium Anglorum]

"Being an overwhelmingly huge fan of the Gun Control blocker in RAT, I can't support this. I believe I promised your delegation's satellite office that I wouldn't advice an Against vote in TNP based on the lack of posting for debate, but I will have to advise one based on the removal of this lovely blocker."

'Ambasador Bell, I don't see why a replacement couldn't be passed which addresses the concerns raised in the repeal text and keeping the blocker. Furthermore, I don't believe that the blocker does anything, as explained in clause 2.'

'Simply put, the argument in clause 2 is that if legislation were passed to tighten gun control laws, it would make violations of that law 'lawless', correct? Thus, it does not prevent future regulations from tightening gun control legislation. The other— that of relaxing gun control laws, as stated, does not consider the considerably more violent nature of non-developed countries (which, apparently, is not grossly offensive). Unless you are asking for a blocker against the relaxation of gun control laws — I don't see how the text in RAT could possibly block anything'.

After conferring with a small team of GA Moderators, we determined that this repeal can go to vote.

Thank you for the quick response.

I'll point out that "securitisation" is the sophisticated-sounding thing that shady-ass lenders do with the debt they own that doesn't have a chance in hell of ever being repaid

Thank you for correcting my word choice. Attempts to minimise on nominalisations will be undertaken in the future. While I disagree with the statement that securitisation is a fundamentally 'shady' thing, that is a discussion for another time.

[Separatist Peoples]

" I'm sorry, but this argument:

'Ambasador Bell, I don't see why a replacement couldn't be passed which addresses the concerns raised in the repeal text and keeping the blocker. Furthermore, I don't believe that the blocker does anything, as explained in clause 2.'

'Simply put, the argument in clause 2 is that if legislation were passed to tighten gun control laws, it would make violations of that law 'lawless', correct? Thus, it does not prevent future regulations from tightening gun control legislation. The other— that of relaxing gun control laws, as stated, does not consider the considerably more violent nature of non-developed countries (which, apparently, is not grossly offensive). Unless you are asking for a blocker against the relaxation of gun control laws — I don't see how the text in RAT could possibly block anything'.

"makes no sense to me whatsoever. The exception in the blocker is for preventing incidents of imminent lawlessness. The term "imminent" is very much a common vernacular that can't be abused with any reasonable effect. The issues of gun violence in developing nations is a nonargument, as nothing prevents those nations from enacting whatever laws they want regarding firearms ownership. What's more, it blocks any attempt to regulate what is, by definition, a domestic issue. The only reason "tighten" was targeted was because there is a significantly lower change of a "loosen" bill passing than a "tighten" bill passing."

[Defwa]

The Democratic Socialist Assembly, having voted overwhelmingly for Responsible Arms Trading, votes against this attempted repeal.

[Vandario]

"Thank the gods this is being repealed, I am For to repeal"

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Silly rabbit! Ridiculous legal interpretations are for the CSA!

Against.

[Normlpeople]

"I'll come out of semi-hiatus to voice support for the repeal. The author refused to address legitimate concerns regarding the language of the original resolution, instead preferring to paint those who disagree with the language as war mongers. The original, while its author doubtless had good intentions, was an overreaching mess that should never have passed."

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

The Federation has voted against this bullshit, as we believe there is no legitimate reason to repeal RAT and believe this is nothing more than a badge hunt by the author.

[Ainocra]

On behalf of Osiris we are in favor of this repeal. We agree with the ambassador from Normlpeople's assessment.

[Old Hope]

the violent nature of non-developed countries

And this is now official for the rest of the existance of the WA?
... against.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: What an astonishingly not really that astonishingly stupid ruling.

It boils down to how "reason to suspect" and "possibility" are interpreted by a reasonable nation. Some may treat the terms as interchangeable; others may hold legal distinctions. We do not see the use of one term over the other as proof of an honest mistake. This is highly subjective, and leave this to the delegates and members of the WA to decide when this repeal hits the floor.

LOL. So, you're just going to completely ignore what's actually written in a resolution? Eh, they're all words, they could just say the same thing. There is a possibility that if I flip a coin a thousand times, it will come up heads a thousand times. There is absolutely no reason to suspect that will happen, though, because it's so massively improbable.

Allowing people to claim legal terms mean something completely different is an asinine precedent that will simply lead to all resolutions being targeted with such ridiculous arguments.

"Believes that the mandate for the issuance of ‘end-user certificates’ is irrespective of the chaos of war, which may lead to the capture of war materiel, hence forcing that ‘said buyer’ might not be the ‘final recipient of the product’; and thus; this esteemed World Assembly;"

This clause was the final example used in the challenge to demonstrate how the repeal violated the honest mistake rule. The challenge claimed that GAR#325 never mandated end-user certificates' but rather strongly urged.

No it didn't. The challenge claimed #325 never mandated end-user monitoring. Which it doesn't: "member nations are strongly urged to implement systems of end-use monitoring". Did you even read the challenge before dismissing it?

This highlights a flaw of making your rulings immune to appeals: even when you haven't responded to the original challenge there can be no attempt to actually make you answer the original question! It's ridiculous.

It specifically targeted "[...]the violent nature of non-developed countries[...]" portion of the second repeal provision. It's the opinion of the moderators reviewing this challenge that it is not offensive by any means.

Pathetic. Apparently the grossly offensive violation only applies to first world concerns.

[Sciongrad]

It boils down to how "reason to suspect" and "possibility" are interpreted by a reasonable nation. Some may treat the terms as interchangeable; others may hold legal distinctions. We do not see the use of one term over the other as proof of an honest mistake. This is highly subjective, and leave this to the delegates and members of the WA to decide when this repeal hits the floor.

??? What? The resolution uses the term "reason to suspect." That term is decidedly not interchangeable with "possibility." There is a possibility that the world could descend into unprompted nuclear warfare at any moment, but there certainly isn't a reason to suspect that. Honestly, this is flabbergasting. This is just reading comprehension guys... :/ You can't just assign new meaning to words or phrases that have an actual legal meaning.

The second issue raised was based on the "grossly offensive" rule. It specifically targeted "[...]the violent nature of non-developed countries[...]" portion of the second repeal provision. It's the opinion of the moderators reviewing this challenge that it is not offensive by any means. For an example of a proposal that is typically removed under the "grossly offensive" rule, please see this example.

In what world is it not grossly offensive to suggest that non-developed countries are inherently barbaric?

[Almorica]

After conferring with a small team of GA Moderators, we determined that this repeal can go to vote.

Secretariat Ruling

We received a 2-part legality challenge regarding Imperium Anglorum's repeal of GAR#325. The first is based on the grounds that it contains multiple "honest mistakes". The challenge targeted three specific clauses. We examined each clause on its against the original and in the context of the repeal.

"Objects to the requirement that ‘exporters and brokers of armaments within member nations ... register with the relevant governments of the nations in which they operate’, as this would mean government oversight over all armament production facilities"

The issue raised here is that the original resolution only affects manufacturers, exporters, and brokers of armaments if they export. We find this challenge claim contradicts GAR#325, article 5 which state that these individuals are "to register with the relevant governments of the nations in which they operate". This means that regardless of whether the arms are exported, registration is still mandatory, as it affects manufacturers who may not export.

"Decries clause (7), which prohibits the sale of weapons if there is a possibility"

It boils down to how "reason to suspect" and "possibility" are interpreted by a reasonable nation. Some may treat the terms as interchangeable; others may hold legal distinctions. We do not see the use of one term over the other as proof of an honest mistake. This is highly subjective, and leave this to the delegates and members of the WA to decide when this repeal hits the floor.

"Believes that the mandate for the issuance of ‘end-user certificates’ is irrespective of the chaos of war, which may lead to the capture of war materiel, hence forcing that ‘said buyer’ might not be the ‘final recipient of the product’; and thus; this esteemed World Assembly;"

This clause was the final example used in the challenge to demonstrate how the repeal violated the honest mistake rule. The challenge claimed that GAR#325 never mandated end-user certificates' but rather strongly urged. We find the challenge itself to be mistaken as the original resolution in article six plainly states:

Mandates that the export of armaments by any manufacturer, exporter, or broker operating within a member nation shall make the sale of their armaments conditional on the completion of an end-user certificate by the buyer; member nations are strongly urged to implement systems of end-use monitoring to ensure that the end-user certificate is authentic, when possible;

The original resolution clearly uses the term "mandates" and not "strongly urges".

The second issue raised was based on the "grossly offensive" rule. It specifically targeted "[...]the violent nature of non-developed countries[...]" portion of the second repeal provision. It's the opinion of the moderators reviewing this challenge that it is not offensive by any means. For an example of a proposal that is typically removed under the "grossly offensive" rule, please see this example.

For these reasons, we find that there is no 'honest mistake' and no 'grossly offensive' violations.

We are grossly offended at the moderators' decision that the phrase "violent nature of non-developed countries" is not grossly offensive. This places a permanent label on the developing nations of the world as inherently evil and inherently liable to start conflicts. We urge the moderators to reconsider this decision on such a generalization as this.

[Kryozerkia]

LOL. So, you're just going to completely ignore what's actually written in a resolution? Eh, they're all words, they could just say the same thing. There is a possibility that if I flip a coin a thousand times, it will come up heads a thousand times. There is absolutely no reason to suspect that will happen, though, because it's so massively improbable.

Allowing people to claim legal terms mean something completely different is an asinine precedent that will simply lead to all resolutions being targeted with such ridiculous arguments.

We did not state they were the same. We stated it is left to nations to interpret. Further to this, we do not see this as an honest mistake but following a tradition of twisting words to suit the intentions of the author. It's nothing new to the festering snakepit.

No it didn't. The challenge claimed #325 never mandated end-user monitoring. Which it doesn't: "member nations are strongly urged to implement systems of end-use monitoring". Did you even read the challenge before dismissing it?

It was read. The repeal and the original resolution were also read.

We read the whole clause and accepted that it was mandated, even if the term "strongly urged" is used midway.

This highlights a flaw of making your rulings immune to appeals: even when you haven't responded to the original challenge there can be no attempt to actually make you answer the original question! It's ridiculous.

If you want to appeal, then make an appeal.

Pathetic. Apparently the grossly offensive violation only applies to first world concerns.

It didn't meet the benchmark for offensive. It was an ignorant phrase to include, but we don't police ignorance.

??? What? The resolution uses the term "reason to suspect." That term is decidedly not interchangeable with "possibility." There is a possibility that the world could descend into unprompted nuclear warfare at any moment, but there certainly isn't a reason to suspect that. Honestly, this is flabbergasting. This is just reading comprehension guys... :/ You can't just assign new meaning to words or phrases that have an actual legal meaning.

It's a common practice of repeal authors to twist words around. We don't see this as a honest mistake. An honest mistake is claiming that article seven of GAR#325: RAT prohibits any type of trading and prevents nations from procuring arms (an argument that has appeared in some of the illegal attempts).

In what world is it not grossly offensive to suggest that non-developed countries are inherently barbaric?

It's ignorant, but in terms of its level of offensiveness, the moderators reviewing felt it was mild and didn't run afoul the offensive rule.

[The Dark Star Republic]

If you want to appeal, then make an appeal.

We have been told many times that appeals of WA rulings are not allowed.

First up, though, I should point out that it was a ruling. There is no appeal once a ruling has been made.

[Separatist Peoples]

In what world is it not grossly offensive to suggest that non-developed countries are inherently barbaric?

OOC: It sounds like the textbook version of General's "All Xs are Y" trolling, honestly, so I'm even more flabbergasted that this ruling was made.