[PASSED] Chemical Weapons Accord

[Frisbeeteria]

"Chemical Weapons Accord"
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Category: International Security | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: Chester Pearson

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging that nations may possess chemical weapons,

Realizing that some nations use chemical weapons both domestically and during military conflict,

Whilst understanding the massive casualties and long term environmental damage that these weapons may cause; also believing that small scale tactical defensive usage of these weapons is sometimes vital to the survival of smaller nations,

For the purposes of this protocol "Chemical agents" shall be defined as:

• "Chemical weapon": any substance that is used with the intention of causing death or severe harm to sapient beings, a habitable area or to the environment, solely through the toxic chemical properties of such agent,
  
  
• "Riot control agent": any chemical substance that is used with the intention of non-lethally incapacitating and subduing sapient beings, solely through the chemical effects of such agent,

The General Assembly hereby declares:

1. Non-persistent chemical weapons shall not be utilized in a first strike capacity without credible intelligence of imminent attack by a hostile nation.
   The use of non-persistent chemical weapons in all other instances shall be limited to defensive or delaying operations of aggressive offensive military forces,
   
   
2. The use of chemical weapons that have a reasonable probability of affecting civilian populations shall be prohibited,
   
   
3. The stockpiling, use or transfer of harmfully persistent chemical weapons shall be prohibited; furthermore requires their destruction or conversion to other purposes, promptly and with due regard for environmental and security concerns;
   
   
4. Member nations shall be permitted to utilize riot control agents, in accordance with international law and subject to the general principle of minimising unnecessary casualties,
   
   
5. Member nations shall refrain from using chemical weapons against fellow member nations,
   
   
6. The transfer of chemical weapons to non-state parties, to known supporters of internationally recognised terrorist operatives, and to any non-party to this Resolution shall be prohibited,
   
   
7. Member nations shall take all necessary and available precautions to secure their chemical weapon stockpiles, to prevent their chemical weapon stockpiles from accidental release, and to prevent those stockpiles from falling into the hands of individuals whom have the intent to violate the intentions and provisions of this act,
   
   
8. The World Assembly Chemical Weapons Commission (WACWC) shall be re-tasked with the following mandate:
   
   
   1. To develop and maintain a library of known chemical weapons, and to share this information with any nation that requests access to it,
      
      
   2. To assist member nations in establishing effective programs meant to defend against chemical weapons,
      
      
   3. To provide medical and humanitarian assistance to member nations subject to unprovoked offensive chemical weapon attacks, in cooperation with the International Humanitarian Aid Coordination Committee.
      
      
   4. To permit nations to seek, in consultation with WACWC, specific clarifications, exceptions, and modifications to the above definitions so as to ensure full coverage of new and developing chemical weapons while excluding those with little military application, and specifically to seek reservations to their obligations herein for:
      
      
      
      • stockpiling, use or transfer for reasons other than offensive military application, such as in industry or research,
        
        
        
      • transfer for the purposes of peaceful research, development of countermeasures and protective strategies, and decommissioning,
        
        
        
      • retention of small, secured amounts of harmfully persistent chemical weapons for peaceful research and development of countermeasures and protective strategies.

Co-Authored by: The Dark Star Republic

"Chemical Weapons Act"
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Category: International Security | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: Chester Pearson

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging that nations may possess chemical weapons,

Realizing that some nations use chemical weapons both domestically and during military conflict,

Whilst understanding the massive casualties and long term environmental damage that these weapons may cause; also believing that small scale tactical defensive usage of these weapons is sometimes vital to the survival of smaller nations,

For the purposes of this protocol "Chemical agents" shall be defined as:

• "Chemical weapon": any substance that is used with the intention of causing death or severe harm to sapient beings, a habitable area or to the environment, solely through the toxic chemical properties of such agent,
  
  
• "Riot control agent": any chemical substance that is used with the intention of non-lethally incapacitating and subduing sapient beings, solely through the chemical effects of such agent,

The General Assembly hereby declares:

1. The use of 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 military forces,
   
   
2. Member nations shall refrain from using chemical weapons against fellow member nations,
   
   
3. The use of chemical weapons that have a reasonable probability of affecting civilian populations shall be prohibited,
   
   
4. Member nations shall be permitted to utilize riot control agents, within the boundaries of current and future World Assembly legislation,
   
   
5. Member nations shall take all measures necessary and practical in preventing the sale or transfer of chemical weapons from their own nation to any other party if that transfer is intended to facilitate the violation of the intentions and provisions of this act,
   
   
6. Member nations shall take all necessary and available precautions to secure their chemical weapon stockpiles, to prevent their chemical weapon stockpiles from accidental release, and to prevent those stockpiles from falling into the hands of individuals whom have the intent to violate the intentions and provisions of this act,
   
   
7. Member nations shall use all available means to ensure chemical weapons remain fully under state control; furthermore private individuals, and corporate entities shall be prohibited from possessing chemical weapons,
   
   
8. The World Assembly Chemical Weapons Commission (WACWC) shall be re-tasked with the following mandate:
   
   
   1. To develop and maintain a library of known chemical weapons, and to share this information with member nations,
      
      
   2. To assist member nations in establishing effective programs meant to defend against chemical weapons,
      
      
   3. To provide medical and humanitarian assistance to member nations subject to unprovoked offensive chemical weapon attacks, in cooperation with the International Humanitarian Aid Coordination Committee.

Co-Authored by: The Dourian Embassy

As promised second draft is up. As always: Comments, questions, concerns, bitches are always welcome.

Please ignore the second draft. The DSR reneged on their promise to redraft this resolution in good faith with us, and decided it would be best to turn the whole debate into a filibuster as they were not getting exactly what they wanted, and only what they wanted in the draft. The current submitted draft that is up was the one that was submitted during the face off between the two competing resolutions, and was successful in achieving quorum, only to be voluntarily pulled by our delegation in hopes that the DSR would negotiate in good faith.........

[Separatist Peoples]

With a lawnchair and a large bag of popcorn in hand, Ambassador SaDiablo walks in and sets himself up comfortably. Out of a dufflebag comes a large foam finger with the name "Chester Pearson" emblazoned on it, as well as a few six-packs.

Don't mind me. I know whats coming, and I'm excited for the show.

I like it. The only thing I would change is that I might add "subject to previous legislation" to clauses 4 and 5. Its not necessary, but, as I recall, somebody made an obnoxious hullabaloo about the last resolution not "adequately defining" those who we were supposed to protect our stockpiles from. The mean-spirited lawyer part of me wouldn't mind seeing an addendum added to stifle that particular outcry before its uttered. Other then that, you have my support. If chemical weapons are going to be legislated on, I would prefer a compromise to an outright ban, and this is as fair as they come.

[Chester Pearson]

With a lawnchair and a large bag of popcorn in hand, Ambassador SaDiablo walks in and sets himself up comfortably. Out of a dufflebag comes a large foam finger with the name "Chester Pearson" emblazoned on it, as well as a few six-packs.

My very own fan club???? I...I...I... don't know what to say.

I like it. The only thing I would change is that I might add "subject to previous legislation" to clauses 4 and 5. Its not necessary, but, as I recall, somebody made an obnoxious hullabaloo about the last resolution not "adequately defining" those who we were supposed to protect our stockpiles from. The mean-spirited lawyer part of me wouldn't mind seeing an addendum added to stifle that particular outcry before its uttered. Other then that, you have my support. If chemical weapons are going to be legislated on, I would prefer a compromise to an outright ban, and this is as fair as they come.

As always, you support is greatly appreciated. As for" somebody" not being able to comprehend the resolution and use their imagination? Well as I always say "Tough titties for them".

Warmest regards,

[Chester Pearson]

OCC: Sorry for the double post here:

Would a better title be: Chemical Weapons Framework, or is the current title sufficient?

[Ainocra]

Now that I have watched this amusing scene play out, get rewound, play out, get rewound ad infinitum,
ad nauseum, that perhaps the participants would be tired of it.

Personal distaste for this repeating train wreck aside

The use of 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 military forces,

This would handicap a smaller nation, many such nations rely on a first strike doctrine or a reliable counterstrike ability for their survival. an exception for first strike based on credible intelligence is a must. Else the smaller nations that this draft claims to protect might as well surrender to their belligerent neighbors now. Something like this

"Chemical weapons shall not be utilized in a first strike capacity without credible intelligence of imminent attack by a hostile nation.
The use of chemical weapons in all other instances shall be limited to defensive or delaying operations of aggressive offensive military forces,"

Member nations shall refrain from using chemical weapons against fellow member nations,

This should be stricken completely. War can and does happen between member nations on a fairly regular basis. Again smaller nations that this draft claims to protect would be at such a disadvantage as to be defenseless. This would actually encourage belligerent states not deter them.

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

The use of such weapons will always have a reasonable chance of harming civilians. I suggest instead a clause instead prohibiting the deliberate targeting of non military targets. something along these lines.

"The deliberate use of chemical weapons against civilian populations shall be prohibited."

Member nations shall be permitted to utilize riot control agents, within the boundaries of current and future World Assembly legislation,

Howabout instead

"Affirms the right of member nations to utilize riot control agents for purposes both military and domestic."

Member nations shall use all available means to ensure chemical weapons remain fully under state control; furthermore private individuals, and corporate entities shall be prohibited from possessing chemical weapons,

The corporate entities part seems problematic, after all someone has to make these weapons.

"Member nations shall use all available means to ensure chemical weapons remain fully under state control; furthermore private individuals, and corporate entities shall be prohibited from possessing chemical weapons unless they have been specifically licensed by the nations for the purposes of manufacturing said weapons."

[The Dourian Embassy]

Ahh, one other thing. I missed this in my first read through:

4. Member nations shall take all measures necessary and practical in preventing the sale, or transfer of chemical weapons from their own nation to another party, if the transfer process is considered to violate the intentions and provisions of this protocol,

I think it might be improved to read:

4. Member nations shall take all measures necessary and practical in preventing the sale or transfer of chemical weapons from their own nation to another party if that transfer is intended to facilitate the violation of the intentions and provisions of this act,

I think that works better, as it's much clearer as to the purpose of the clause.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: I am unclear on the following construction:

...any conscious sentient person, plant, animal...

What is 'conscious' modifying? 'Person' - or also 'plant' and 'animal'? This drastically alters the meaning of the resolution.

I will also note I dislike the use of 'Protocol' (though I understand there is now regrettable precedent). A 'protocol' has a general meaning in international law of adding to existing legislation, which is not possible within the World Assembly, because amendments aren't allowed. A single law in its own right - which all WA resolutions have to stand as - cannot reasonably be considered a protocol. This is titled as an 'act', and should be referred to within the resolution text - or just as a 'resolution', actually.

I don't think my nation will support, in-character, anything less than a total ban, but I'll try to come up with some comments anyway to help this along: it's technically lacking at the moment.

[Chester Pearson]

Ahh, one other thing. I missed this in my first read through:

4. Member nations shall take all measures necessary and practical in preventing the sale, or transfer of chemical weapons from their own nation to another party, if the transfer process is considered to violate the intentions and provisions of this protocol,

I think it might be improved to read:

4. Member nations shall take all measures necessary and practical in preventing the sale or transfer of chemical weapons from their own nation to another party if that transfer is intended to facilitate the violation of the intentions and provisions of this act,

I think that works better, as it's much clearer as to the purpose of the clause.

Draft updated to take these changes into effect.

I don't think my nation will support, in-character, anything less than a total ban, but I'll try to come up with some comments anyway to help this along: it's technically lacking at the moment.

I tried three times for that already. All three times, including with Sciongrad as a primary author on the last one got trampled at vote. The protocol that I drafted was a compromise. A compromise that I wasn't particularly thrilled about, but at least it put some legislation on these weapons into place. Since then Douria pointed out a few flaws, and requested we tighten up the definitions. After several meetings with him, we have decided to simple repeal and replace it. The actual meat of the resolution isn't up for debate here, as it is ALREADY International Law...........................

Warmest regards,

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: Please don't reply to my comments that are clearly marked OOC with in-character posts. It just doesn't make any sense.

That said, I don't know whether your ambassador's just having a bad day or what, but I don't see how any of what I said has been rebutted by your bold-print scream.

[United Federation of Canada]

OOC: Please don't reply to my comments that are clearly marked OOC with in-character posts. It just doesn't make any sense.

That said, I don't know whether your ambassador's just having a bad day or what, but I don't see how any of what I said has been rebutted by your bold-print scream.

Alright fine.... I don't post OCC with Chester, and I don't usually post with two separate nations in a thread, so take it as you will.....

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: I really have no idea what that means.

[Araraukar]

OOC: I really have no idea what that means.

OOC: Means that Chester only replies in-character. That's the entire reason the puppet nation exists. And UFoC doesn't like posting on both of his nations in the same thread. I know I try to avoid the same with PPU (unless it's an at-vote thread) and Araraukar. If you're forcing him to reply out-of-character, he's most likely to reply on UFoC.

[Chester Pearson]

As the repeal is [AT VOTE], bump.

[Auralia]

"Chemical weapon": any substance that is used with the intention of causing death or severe harm to any conscious sentient person, plant, animal, a habitable area or to the environment, solely through the toxic chemical properties of such agent,

The term "any conscious sentient person, plant, animal, a habitable area or to the environment" should be replaced with "any person or the environment".

[The Dourian Embassy]

"Chemical weapon": any substance that is used with the intention of causing death or severe harm to any conscious sentient person, plant, animal, a habitable area or to the environment, solely through the toxic chemical properties of such agent,

The term "any conscious sentient person, plant, animal, a habitable area or to the environment" should be replaced with "any person or the environment".

I think he's making allowances for the non-human members of our assembly. Albeit, I'm not sure "conscious" is required in that line.

[Auralia]

The term "any conscious sentient person, plant, animal, a habitable area or to the environment" should be replaced with "any person or the environment".

I think he's making allowances for the non-human members of our assembly. Albeit, I'm not sure "conscious" is required in that line.

I can't see any reason why "person" wouldn't include non-human sapients.

[Mosktopia]

I agree that "person" would be more pleasing. Sure, it's a cosmetic difference. And we must, of course, pay due respect to our non-human members. But I think referring to them as "persons" gives them that deference without also having "incapacitating and subduing a conscious sentient plant" appear, in those words, in the proposal.

[The Black Hat Guy]

This looks better this time. I'll support it, and hope that it actually passes unlike so many past replacements

[Chester Pearson]

Draft updated to take into account further changes. If the repeal is still passing by a huge margin by the minor tomorrow, I will TG this into the queue.

[Wheeled States of Bifid]

I just have one question:

The World Assembly Chemical Weapons Commission (WACWC) shall be re-tasked with the following mandate:

Since the WACWC was part of the resolution being repealed wouldn't you have to re-establish them first? Just curious.

[Communal Ecotopia]

Should the repeal succeed, we will vote for this, but consider it far too weak. While we agree that riot-control agents don't deserve an outright ban, we are concerned both with the statement that chemical weapons are necessary and with the notion that they can be used in defensive and, especially, delaying maneuvers. Such language offers nations a ready-made excuse to use such weapons.

[Imperializt Russia]

Can you walk me through the changes? It feels pretty much identical, especially considering the reasons given in the repeal proposal.

[The Akashic Records]

I can't see any reason why "person" wouldn't include non-human sapients.

Precedence aside, person technically means a human being regarded as an individual. Or would you rather have the asinine drivel that is the multi-species arguments that tend to crop up with anthropocentric languages these days?

The term "any conscious sentient person, plant, animal, a habitable area or to the environment" should be replaced with "any person or the environment".

I think he's making allowances for the non-human members of our assembly. Albeit, I'm not sure "conscious" is required in that line.

I think that the word conscious was meant to say that they are not only sentient (in the sense of being able to feel), but are also responsive to stimuli. Though, that's what I'm drawing from the way it's worded anyway.

Can you walk me through the changes? It feels pretty much identical, especially considering the reasons given in the repeal proposal.

The definition's been changed. Chemical weapons must be used with intent (good luck finding that) for it to be banned, and non-lachrymatory chemicals may be used as riot control agents (the multi-species argument, and the argument in the repeal calling for water as a riot control agent that barely qualifies as a chemical weapon, as it may not necessarily be a lachrymatory agent).

[The Dark Star Republic]

I can't see any reason why "person" wouldn't include non-human sapients.

Precedence aside, person technically means a human being regarded as an individual. Or would you rather have the asinine drivel that is the multi-species arguments that tend to crop up with anthropocentric languages these days?

OOC: Person is a perfectly acceptable term, and I think the sapient/sentient nonsense is likely to make it more complex. As I asked - without receiving an answer - about the definition, as it stands it looks an awful lot like it's banning herbicides. Use 'person' would be my advice.

Draft updated to take into account further changes. If the repeal is still passing by a huge margin by the minor tomorrow, I will TG this into the queue.

I don't see it would be legal to submit this before the repeal had actually passed.

[Imperializt Russia]

I suppose if the author(s) are concerned about multi-species arguments being serious issue, then they could merely transpose each iterate with "individual".

Though I personally believe that "person" should be able to apply without issue to any sentient being.