NationStates

Posted: **Sun Oct 20, 2013 1:21 pm**

So, I've talked with Chester Pearson, and he's agreed to work with me on a repeal and replace of GA#266. He's currently working on his replacement, but I thought I'd get the ball rolling on the effort by posting this here. Input is both welcome and encouraged.

The World Assembly,

Believing that chemical weapons may cause loss of life and environmental damage that is unconscionable to the members of this august assembly,

Bemoaning, however, that the "Chemical Weapons Protocol"(GA#266) contains a number of flaws that preserve an environment in which chemical weapons may still easily fall into the hands of those who would use them recklessly,

Regretting that the resolution fails to make a case for the use of incapacitating agents, which are non-lachrymatory, non-lethal, and heavily restricted by GA#266,

Noting that nearly any chemical "is capable of causing death or severe harm... primarily through its toxic chemical properties" and therefore nearly any chemical is thus classified as a chemical agent for the purposes of GA#266,

Specifying that the World Assembly is committed to improving this legislation, to both reduce flaws, and ensure a more balanced resolution on Chemical Weapons,

Believing that under these circumstances a repeal of GA#266 is both reasonable and expected,

Hereby repeals the "Chemical Weapons Protocol"(GA#266),

Co-Authored by Chester Pearson

Chester's Replacement is here, if you'd like to discuss that. This thread is about the repeal.

FEED ME FEEDBACK.

Posted: **Sun Oct 20, 2013 6:01 pm**

The Dourian Embassy wrote:Specifying that both myself and the author of GA#266 are committed to improving this legislation, to both reduce flaws, and ensure a more lasting and balanced resolution on Chemical Weapons.

I'd be very willing to supply you with some more in depth contributions in the near future, but in the mean time, the use of personal pronouns in this line seems like a branding violation.

Posted: **Sun Oct 20, 2013 7:09 pm**

Sciongrad wrote:but in the mean time, the use of personal pronouns in this line seems like a branding violation.

I would tend to agree.

Posted: **Sun Oct 20, 2013 10:31 pm**

Chester Pearson wrote:
Sciongrad wrote:but in the mean time, the use of personal pronouns in this line seems like a branding violation.

I would tend to agree.

Yeah that was ill-advised, and fixed.

Posted: **Mon Oct 21, 2013 3:38 am**

The Ambassador rises to address the representative of Douria.

"We find ourselves in agreement that WA Resolution #266 is a troubling document, but as a general principle in matters of 'repeal and replacement', we prefer to see both repeal and replacement to ensure that, first, a bad law is not being replaced by a worse law, second, that the replacement is of sufficient strength that the lengthy process of legislative overhaul is worth investing effort in, and third, that no bait-and-switch as most heinously practised in the case of a former body of international law's repeal of its World Heritage List resolution is at hand.

"Nonetheless, a couple of minor comments on your proposed language while we await such a companion proposal.

"I am uncertain how much 'Noting that nearly any chemical ... is thus classified as a chemical agent for the purposes of GA#266' is in fact of relevance, given that this resolution appears to only legislate 'chemical agents' insofar as they are used 'as weapons', and hence that very little active damage is done by this admittedly overly broad definition.

"It would also be good stylistic practice to consistently capitalise 'world assembly' within your text.

"We look forward to seeing further progress on this discussion, but will for now withhold definitive support or opposition."

Posted: **Mon Oct 21, 2013 6:08 am**

The Dark Star Republic wrote:"I am uncertain how much 'Noting that nearly any chemical ... is thus classified as a chemical agent for the purposes of GA#266' is in fact of relevance, given that this resolution appears to only legislate 'chemical agents' insofar as they are used 'as weapons', and hence that very little active damage is done by this admittedly overly broad definition.

For example: Using say, water hoses in riot control(because "may injure military personnel" and "may destroy the environment" are also overly broad) would be banned under that definition.

Mr. Pearson is working on the replacement, so I can't speak to it just yet. But he'll be sending it my way for some input before it goes up on the boards. As soon as it's ready, we'll let you know.

Posted: **Mon Oct 21, 2013 6:29 am**

The Ambassador rises to address the representative of Douria.

The Dourian Embassy wrote:For example: Using say, water hoses in riot control(because "may injure military personnel" and "may destroy the environment" are also overly broad) would be banned under that definition.

"Respectfully, that seems an extreme stretch. The only possible way that interpretation stands is if water is defined as a chemical agent. Water intoxication is, while technically possible, extremely rare, and it would be a bizarre act of legislative self-flagellation to deliberately adopt such an interpretation. Of course, if you could demonstrate the likelihood of someone being poisoned to death by exposure to a water hose, we would not only drop our objection, but also drop our pants, revealing a 'Vote For Repeal!' tattoo freshly emblazoned on our buttocks. As it is, we are comfortable remaining clothed.

"Resolution #266 appears to be a poor law and you have made some reasonable arguments for its repeal, but we have never looked favourably upon the underhand practice of wilfully misinterpreting legislation to its detriment solely to advocate for repeal. In this, particular, instance, we do not feel the language in your draft matches the actual severity of issue posed by that article. We would prefer to see language concentrating on the lack of technical detail, the confused definitions, and poorly delineated scope of the Useless Committee."

Posted: **Mon Oct 21, 2013 6:30 am**

While I do not support this law, I also feel that it strikes a decent balance which is why I have not pushed for a repeal myself.
I cannot support a replacement that would add even more unnecessary restrictions on the member nations.
However I could support one that eased the current restrictions somewhat.

So, without a replacement to review I cannot offer the support of the Ainocran people at this time.

Posted: **Mon Oct 21, 2013 9:01 am**

The Dark Star Republic wrote:*snip*

Yes, that reading of the law is quite insane, but it's not open to interpretation. The resolution does what the resolution says.

What we're looking forward to here, is rewriting it to tighten those definitions.

Posted: **Mon Oct 21, 2013 11:17 pm**

Many of our friends in the chemical manufacturing industries have taken a huge hit in sales since this resolution was passed. We support the repeal, if only to ensure the survival of chemical industry is not hindered by cumbersome laws.

Posted: **Tue Oct 22, 2013 5:12 am**

Lobbyists wrote:Many of our friends in the chemical manufacturing industries have taken a huge hit in sales since this resolution was passed. We support the repeal, if only to ensure the survival of chemical industry is not hindered by cumbersome laws.

"We find this exceedingly difficult to believe given that GAR#266 does not actually ban the production or sale of chemical agents under desirable circumstances. Then again, verity and lobbyism may as well be antonyms."

Posted: **Tue Oct 22, 2013 5:23 am**

Valendia wrote:
Lobbyists wrote:Many of our friends in the chemical manufacturing industries have taken a huge hit in sales since this resolution was passed. We support the repeal, if only to ensure the survival of chemical industry is not hindered by cumbersome laws.

"We find this exceedingly difficult to believe given that GAR#266 does not actually ban the production or sale of chemical agents under desirable circumstances. Then again, verity and lobbyism may as well be antonyms."

Ah, but there are nations who decided not to add to their stock of chemicals, because the requirements that they guard their stock was too demanding on their war-stretched resources.

Posted: **Tue Oct 22, 2013 5:25 am**

Lobbyists wrote:
Valendia wrote:
"We find this exceedingly difficult to believe given that GAR#266 does not actually ban the production or sale of chemical agents under desirable circumstances. Then again, verity and lobbyism may as well be antonyms."

Ah, but there are nations who decided not to add to their stock of chemicals, because the requirements that they guard their stock was too demanding on their war-stretched resources.

"We should like to see some evidence as to how many nations did this exactly, and posit that even if any did, a) they represent an infinitesimal minority and b) an irresponsible one who quite frankly should have their access to chemical weapons curtailed."

Posted: **Tue Oct 22, 2013 5:34 am**

Valendia wrote:
Lobbyists wrote:
Ah, but there are nations who decided not to add to their stock of chemicals, because the requirements that they guard their stock was too demanding on their war-stretched resources.

"We should like to see some evidence as to how many nations did this exactly, and posit that even if any did, a) they represent an infinitesimal minority and b) an irresponsible one who quite frankly should have their access to chemical weapons curtailed."

We are not authorized to disclose the clientele and capacity of our associates' sales.

Posted: **Tue Oct 22, 2013 5:38 am**

Lobbyists wrote:
Valendia wrote:
"We should like to see some evidence as to how many nations did this exactly, and posit that even if any did, a) they represent an infinitesimal minority and b) an irresponsible one who quite frankly should have their access to chemical weapons curtailed."

We are not authorized to disclose the clientele and capacity of our associates' sales.

"Then we duly authorize ourselves to call bullshit on your claims that the resolution necessitates repeal."

Posted: **Tue Oct 22, 2013 6:51 pm**

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=266300&p=17080140&sid=53067255d3f7c5be9cfbc80703a262d3#p17080140

I support this resolution, but would oppose another 'Chemical Weapons Protocol.'

Posted: **Tue Oct 22, 2013 7:16 pm**

Parti Ouvrier wrote:http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=266300&p=17080140&sid=53067255d3f7c5be9cfbc80703a262d3#p17080140

I support this resolution, but would oppose another 'Chemical Weapons Protocol.'

Why? What is your big beef against a protocol regulating chemical weapons?

Lobbyists wrote:
Valendia wrote:
"We find this exceedingly difficult to believe given that GAR#266 does not actually ban the production or sale of chemical agents under desirable circumstances. Then again, verity and lobbyism may as well be antonyms."

Ah, but there are nations who decided not to add to their stock of chemicals, because the requirements that they guard their stock was too demanding on their war-stretched resources.

That is the single most stupid argument against the protocol I have seen to date. If they can afford the weapons, they sure as the hell can afford to spend a few dollars securing them can't they?

What's next? Are you going to use the same argument against NAPA, or The Biological Weapons Conference?

Take your briefcase and hit the bricks please!!!

Posted: **Tue Oct 22, 2013 8:50 pm**

Chester Pearson wrote:What's next? Are you going to use the same argument against NAPA, or The Biological Weapons Conference?

I would support a bioweapon ban repeal. It's simply not logical to ban bioweapons and landmines, while allowing nuclear weapons.

Posted: **Tue Oct 22, 2013 9:03 pm**

Araraukar wrote:
Chester Pearson wrote:What's next? Are you going to use the same argument against NAPA, or The Biological Weapons Conference?

I would support a bioweapon ban repeal. It's simply not logical to ban bioweapons and landmines, while allowing nuclear weapons.

Our colleagues in the biomilitary and extended microbiological industries would like us to covey their pleasure and gratitude at your stance on the issue, Ms. Leveret. Perhaps you would be willing to influence WA member nations to join your cause?

Posted: **Tue Oct 22, 2013 9:08 pm**

Lobbyists wrote:Perhaps you would be willing to influence WA member nations to join your cause?

Not really, no, unless someone else drafts up a good repeal attempt. Then I'll try to help make it better.

Araraukar isn't a WA nation anyway, so the restrictions don't apply to us (OOC: not that Araraukar has any sort of weapons of massmurder, but still), it's just more that I'm personally opposed to illogical legislation. I guess that's why I was originally appointed here. Since then I've started wondering who exactly was after my head back when that decision was made...

Posted: **Wed Oct 23, 2013 8:45 am**

The old resolution should be repealed because it incorrectly uses the word riot and then contradicts itself.

A riot is an offensive maneuver by the people against the people or the government. This resolution only allows non-lethal chemical agents to be used in riots even thought later in the resolution it says that lethal chemical weapons can be used in defensive maneuvers. It would have been better to use the word protest because a protest is normally peaceful.

Posted: **Wed Oct 23, 2013 8:57 am**

Friday Freshman wrote:A riot is an offensive maneuver by the people against the people or the government. This resolution only allows non-lethal chemical agents to be used in riots even thought later in the resolution it says that lethal chemical weapons can be used in defensive maneuvers. It would have been better to use the word protest because a protest is normally peaceful.

...which means you want to use non-lethal chemical agents against peaceful protests?

Posted: **Wed Oct 23, 2013 9:01 am**

Friday Freshman wrote:The old resolution should be repealed because it incorrectly uses the word riot and then contradicts itself.

A riot is an offensive maneuver by the people against the people or the government. This resolution only allows non-lethal chemical agents to be used in riots even thought later in the resolution it says that lethal chemical weapons can be used in defensive maneuvers. It would have been better to use the word protest because a protest is normally peaceful.

Yes... But is a riot an offensive MILITARY maneuver?

The use of chemical agents as weapons (hereafter referred to as chemical weapons) in any capacity that may injure or destroy military personnel, or the environment shall be limited to defensive or delaying operations of aggressive offensive forces,

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

I believe these two clauses may have just been over the top of your bifocals when you were reading the resolution. I have the name of a really good eye doctor who can take care of that little dilemma for you.

Warmest regards,

Posted: **Wed Oct 23, 2013 6:38 pm**

Chester Pearson wrote:
Friday Freshman wrote:The old resolution should be repealed because it incorrectly uses the word riot and then contradicts itself.

A riot is an offensive maneuver by the people against the people or the government. This resolution only allows non-lethal chemical agents to be used in riots even thought later in the resolution it says that lethal chemical weapons can be used in defensive maneuvers. It would have been better to use the word protest because a protest is normally peaceful.

Yes... But is a riot an offensive MILITARY maneuver?

The use of chemical agents as weapons (hereafter referred to as chemical weapons) in any capacity that may injure or destroy military personnel, or the environment shall be limited to defensive or delaying operations of aggressive offensive forces,

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

I believe these two clauses may have just been over the top of your bifocals when you were reading the resolution. I have the name of a really good eye doctor who can take care of that little dilemma for you.

Warmest regards,

My eyes are very good thank you very much. I could be a f****** astronaut if I wanted to. And One who engages in any offensive maneuver involved with destruction of property and attacking of other civilians and police would by considered by at least our own standards AN ENEMY COMBATANT. So what your resolution says effectively is that we are not able to fight treason. We couldn't gas anyone for treason or try to effectively fight back against a large scale riot that threatens the stability of not only a city but maybe even an entire nation.

Posted: **Wed Oct 23, 2013 7:40 pm**

Friday Freshman wrote:
My eyes are very good thank you very much. I could be a f****** astronaut if I wanted to. And One who engages in any offensive maneuver involved with destruction of property and attacking of other civilians and police would by considered by at least our own standards AN ENEMY COMBATANT. So what your resolution says effectively is that we are not able to fight treason. We couldn't gas anyone for treason or try to effectively fight back against a large scale riot that threatens the stability of not only a city but maybe even an entire nation.

It appears that you missed your calling then, Space Cadet Friday. There is a big difference between a riot and a rebellion. Besides, I'm not sure what prevents you from using other methods for stopping a riot. Rubber bullets, police with batons, water cannons, the like.

NationStates

[Passed] Repeal "Chemical Weapons Protocol"

[Passed] Repeal "Chemical Weapons Protocol"