[PASSED] Chemical Weapons Accord

[The Akashic Records]

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.

OOC: *points to his sig*
On a side note, yes, I do agree that person is an acceptable legal term, but, how does it ban herbicides? *looks at the most recent draft* Oh, right, conscious was taken out. Though, if what I was drawing from the previous incarnation of the draft was correct, what was your concern then? Or are my inexperienced eyes missing a lot of things?

[United Federation of Canada]

OOC:

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.

And if we replace the definition with person, then it IS banning herbicides. Do theSENTIENT Weasels, Bears, Cats, Dogs, Plants, ect................................. not deserve protection under this too? Their votes might actually count for something you know?

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

Why? The repeal is going to pass. This would then come up for vote and be perfectly legal, and if the repeal fails by some miracle, then this could be yanked.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: Be my guest then, submit away :) I'll be more than happy to file the GHR for contradiction/duplication myself.

[Zarkanians]

OOC: Zarkanians will have the same problem with this as they had with the previous legislation: it makes no mention of preemptive self-defense. Zarkanians has a safe-zone around the Tertian Rift (the entrance to the plane Zarkanians exists on; I'll try not to go too far into this). Unauthorized ships that enter this zone are given three warnings, within thirty seconds of each other. Then a chemical agent is deployed on board the ship which renders all members of the crew unconscious (this is deployed via teleportation). Zarkanians then deploys a squad of Secret Policemen aboard the ship, who capture all individuals on-board, return them to a nearby Zarkanian ship, and deliver them back to the planet they came from. Zarkanians then breaks the ship they came in down for scrap. This method is entirely non-lethal, for the most part (occasionally someone is wearing filtration gear at the time of the attack and refuses to stand down when confronted by the SCP, but this is rare).

If this proposal is passed, Zarkanians will be forced to teleport a bomb on board the ship instead, resulting in unnecessary loss of life.

[The Dark Star Republic]

"Our objections to this proposal are as follows:

"Poverty of definition: for example, it does not take into account precursors to binary weapons, and it makes no accounting for persistence. Frankly, we see no reason why highly persistent agents should not be completely banned, and we're not convinced that Article 2 can be read to include such a ban.

"The definition also excludes ancillary equipment. While this could be included in separate legislation, your resolution is a long way under the character count and hence it is not as though they could not be covered here.

"No restriction on their use against fellow member states. If the argument against a complete ban is that not all nations are WA members, then we can at least limit their use against member states. For example - though we're not expressly advocating this - a 'no first use' policy, because unlike nuclear weapons, chemical weapons don't have the capacity for overwhelming military deterrence. Furthermore, there should be an absolute non-proliferation clause with regards to non-members.

"No prohibition on non-state ownership of chemical weapons. I can understand that some nations respect a right to bear arms - but with VX cannisters? Put together, the phrase 'all measures necessary and practical', though elegant, does not do enough to mitigate concerns about terrorism.

"No prohibition on the use of riot control agents in warfare. Given their nature, they can have military application only if used in extreme and unnecessary quantities, which renders them harmfully persistent.

"The scope of the WACWC is also extremely limited. Why is it not providing technical assistance in disposal, decommissioning, and disarmament protocols? Why is its capacity for medical and humanitarian assistance so narrowly defined? There could also be a case for an inspection regime, though we won't argue that point heavily.

"Finally, we believe this entire process has been horribly rushed, and are simply not convinced that it will not result in yet another repeal-and-replace eventually being needed."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

[Separatist Peoples]

"No restriction on their use against fellow member states. If the argument against a complete ban is that not all nations are WA members, then we can at least limit their use against member states. For example - though we're not expressly advocating this - a 'no first use' policy, because unlike nuclear weapons, chemical weapons don't have the capacity for overwhelming military deterrence. Furthermore, there should be an absolute non-proliferation clause with regards to non-members.

Would the non-proliferation clause you seek end at fabricated technology, or does that include research, schematics, and the like? I've noticed that a lot of arguments involving non-proliferation of all weapons of mass destruction fail to address that portion of it, and I've always felt the intellectual material involved in weapons development to be as important as the missile or canisters themselves, one way or another.

[The Dark Star Republic]

"Furthermore, there should be an absolute non-proliferation clause with regards to non-members.

Would the non-proliferation clause you seek end at fabricated technology, or does that include research, schematics, and the like? I've noticed that a lot of arguments involving non-proliferation of all weapons of mass destruction fail to address that portion of it, and I've always felt the intellectual material involved in weapons development to be as important as the missile or canisters themselves, one way or another.

"I wouldn't want to hijack this discussion with a diversion if the author isn't willing to include this kind of clause in his proposal - but yes, especially in the case of chemical weaponry, I think the sharing of research and schematics would be important to include. You could make an exemption for safety and security assistance, or for assisting with disarmament and decommissioning.

"This is essentially based on the premise that while we can't ban all chemical weapons worldwide, and that therefore many WA members strongly oppose chemical disarmament themselves, we can at least limit their proliferation without being injurious to our own technical and military development."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

[Separatist Peoples]

Would the non-proliferation clause you seek end at fabricated technology, or does that include research, schematics, and the like? I've noticed that a lot of arguments involving non-proliferation of all weapons of mass destruction fail to address that portion of it, and I've always felt the intellectual material involved in weapons development to be as important as the missile or canisters themselves, one way or another.

"I wouldn't want to hijack this discussion with a diversion if the author isn't willing to include this kind of clause in his proposal - but yes, especially in the case of chemical weaponry, I think the sharing of research and schematics would be important to include. You could make an exemption for safety and security assistance, or for assisting with disarmament and decommissioning.

"This is essentially based on the premise that while we can't ban all chemical weapons worldwide, and that therefore many WA members strongly oppose chemical disarmament themselves, we can at least limit their proliferation without being injurious to our own technical and military development."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

Of course. I thought that the clarification would be in the best interests of all involved in the debate.

[The Dourian Embassy]

OOC: Be my guest then, submit away I'll be more than happy to file the GHR for contradiction/duplication myself.

For the record I believe there is precedent for this being allowable. Don't quote me on that, obviously, but I seem to recall someone saying it would be ok to put one in the queue up to the point the repeal failed. It might just be better to get a ruling before submission just to be sure.

[Chester Pearson]

Would the non-proliferation clause you seek end at fabricated technology, or does that include research, schematics, and the like? I've noticed that a lot of arguments involving non-proliferation of all weapons of mass destruction fail to address that portion of it, and I've always felt the intellectual material involved in weapons development to be as important as the missile or canisters themselves, one way or another.

"I wouldn't want to hijack this discussion with a diversion if the author isn't willing to include this kind of clause in his proposal - but yes, especially in the case of chemical weaponry, I think the sharing of research and schematics would be important to include. You could make an exemption for safety and security assistance, or for assisting with disarmament and decommissioning.

"This is essentially based on the premise that while we can't ban all chemical weapons worldwide, and that therefore many WA members strongly oppose chemical disarmament themselves, we can at least limit their proliferation without being injurious to our own technical and military development."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

There is a non-proliferation clause though. It is clause four.

"Our objections to this proposal are as follows:

"Poverty of definition: for example, it does not take into account precursors to binary weapons, and it makes no accounting for persistence. Frankly, we see no reason why highly persistent agents should not be completely banned, and we're not convinced that Article 2 can be read to include such a ban. This leaves the door open for further legislation on binary weapons. Plus binary agents are a complex matter, and could get into duplication of the " Biological Weapons Confrence".

"The definition also excludes ancillary equipment. While this could be included in separate legislation, your resolution is a long way under the character count and hence it is not as though they could not be covered here. Once again, this leaves the door open to further legalization.

"No restriction on their use against fellow member states. If the argument against a complete ban is that not all nations are WA members, then we can at least limit their use against member states. For example - though we're not expressly advocating this - a 'no first use' policy, because unlike nuclear weapons, chemical weapons don't have the capacity for overwhelming military deterrence. Furthermore, there should be an absolute non-proliferation clause with regards to non-members. That was tried the first three times and failed miserably.

"No prohibition on non-state ownership of chemical weapons. I can understand that some nations respect a right to bear arms - but with VX cannisters? Put together, the phrase 'all measures necessary and practical', though elegant, does not do enough to mitigate concerns about terrorism. This is a possibility, and I will look into how to integrate that. Suggestions?

"No prohibition on the use of riot control agents in warfare. Given their nature, they can have military application only if used in extreme and unnecessary quantities, which renders them harmfully persistent. If they are being used in a harmful way they would be illegal under the first definition. Plus which is better? Bombs or tear gas?

"The scope of the WACWC is also extremely limited. Why is it not providing technical assistance in disposal, decommissioning, and disarmament protocols? Why is its capacity for medical and humanitarian assistance so narrowly defined? There could also be a case for an inspection regime, though we won't argue that point heavily. Because the committee that it relies in already has it's protocols in place, but did not cover chemical weapon attacks.

"Finally, we believe this entire process has been horribly rushed, and are simply not convinced that it will not result in yet another repeal-and-replace eventually being needed."

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: Be my guest then, submit away :) I'll be more than happy to file the GHR for contradiction/duplication myself.

For the record I believe there is precedent for this being allowable. Don't quote me on that, obviously, but I seem to recall someone saying it would be ok to put one in the queue up to the point the repeal failed. It might just be better to get a ruling before submission just to be sure.

OOC: I wish someone had told me that during the slavery replacement! It would have saved me quite a few aneurysms...

Seriously, I absolutely cannot believe that would be legal. Up until the very moment the repeal passes, CWP is WA law. No legal proposal can contradict or duplicate it, regardless of what looks a lot like happening in a day or two.

But, I've repeatedly mentioned being out of the loop - if there's been a policy change by moderators and they now allow this, then, so be it, and I'll apologise for my tone -- and then probably whinge about the good old days.

[The Dark Star Republic]

(OOC: When you reply like that, it makes follow-up responses very difficult.)

IC:

"The non-proliferation in the current draft is not 'absolute', though, as we suggested. You can still collaborate with non-members in general. And if at some future stage they violate this Act, they are not bound by its terms. We are proposing than any military, financial or technical assistance - except for purposes of safety, security, or decommissioning - with non-members in the field of chemical weaponry be prohibited. If they're going to develop them on their own, fine, but we have no cause to help them.

"We are not particularly impressed with the idea that a document that is nearly 1,000 characters shy of the character limit 'leaves the door open' to future legislation on important components of its subject. Binary agents, and chemical weapons delivery systems, and other aspects of the technology of chemical warfare, should only be excluded if there is no practicable way to legislate on them. At present, we don't see that to be the case.

"You have also made reference to past failures in this arena. So be it. But previous versions have been substantially different. Unless you believe that a restriction against use on fellow member states or a non-proliferation clause is the absolute only reason they failed, we beg you to reconsider your opposition. You have previously tried to effect a total ban, and failed; you are not doing that now, so there is cause for optimism.

"We feel you are missing the point with regard to military use of riot control agents. Their deployment in a battlefield risks escalation: once they have been deployed, opposing forces have less reason not to fear further chemical attack. Furthermore, if riot control agents are deployed, opposing forces will likely adopt PPE. So armoured, they will then be more likely to use chemical weapons themselves.

"We find your answer on the committee's duties entirely non-responsive. You are perfectly entitled to give a committee new duties, as has been seen many times in the arena of WA trade law. There is no reason why the WACWC cannot be 're-tasked' to a more expansive role.

"If our tone is harsh, we apologise. But we have seen many valiant legislative efforts on this complex matter fail and we are insistent that for legislation in this area, it is vital that a full and proper treatment be given. Our thanks for your response to our comments."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

[Norcroft]

This replacement needs to take account the great Zombie invasion that happened a so many moments ago depending on where you are within the cosmoverse.

There should be an amendment that makes it so "Cure nukes" don't count as violating the Chemical Weapons Act.

[Belzia]

This replacement needs to take account the great Zombie invasion that happened a so many moments ago depending on where you are within the cosmoverse.

There should be an amendment that makes it so "Cure nukes" don't count as violating the Chemical Weapons Act.

that is something that needs to be corrected.

[Separatist Peoples]

This replacement needs to take account the great Zombie invasion that happened a so many moments ago depending on where you are within the cosmoverse.

There should be an amendment that makes it so "Cure nukes" don't count as violating the Chemical Weapons Act.

That would make this illegal for metagaming...so no, we don't.

And they were Cure Missiles, not Cure Nukes. One is a delivery system, the other is bad slang for atomic warhead, or the start of a popular beverage.

Come on, who doesn't wish Nuka-Cola was real?

[Chester Pearson]

This replacement needs to take account the great Zombie invasion that happened a so many moments ago depending on where you are within the cosmoverse.

There should be an amendment that makes it so "Cure nukes" don't count as violating the Chemical Weapons Act.

Are zombies a "Person, Plant, or Animal"? If not then using "Cure Missiles" on them is totally within the boundaries of the protocol as passed, as well as within this act.

OOC: Sorry for needing to respond like this Darkstar, but I am really tired, and feel like fooling around with forum code right now.

"The non-proliferation in the current draft is not 'absolute', though, as we suggested. You can still collaborate with non-members in general. And if at some future stage they violate this Act, they are not bound by its terms. We are proposing than any military, financial or technical assistance - except for purposes of safety, security, or decommissioning - with non-members in the field of chemical weaponry be prohibited. If they're going to develop them on their own, fine, but we have no cause to help them. While this is true, unfortunately that is going to drag the whole debate down into the semantics of legislating upon non-members, and I would rather not get onto that.

"We are not particularly impressed with the idea that a document that is nearly 1,000 characters shy of the character limit 'leaves the door open' to future legislation on important components of its subject. Binary agents, and chemical weapons delivery systems, and other aspects of the technology of chemical warfare, should only be excluded if there is no practicable way to legislate on them. At present, we don't see that to be the case. Or you could write a resolution on them yourself. I don't feel the need to include them in this particular act. Plus we are already running out of ideas for resolutions............

"You have also made reference to past failures in this arena. So be it. But previous versions have been substantially different. Unless you believe that a restriction against use on fellow member states or a non-proliferation clause is the absolute only reason they failed, we beg you to reconsider your opposition. You have previously tried to effect a total ban, and failed; you are not doing that now, so there is cause for optimism. Sorry, but no dice... I do not believe the political atmosphere of the Assembly has changed enough to make this a reality at this time.

"We feel you are missing the point with regard to military use of riot control agents. Their deployment in a battlefield risks escalation: once they have been deployed, opposing forces have less reason not to fear further chemical attack. Furthermore, if riot control agents are deployed, opposing forces will likely adopt PPE. So armoured, they will then be more likely to use chemical weapons themselves. And if they do they are in violation of the act. All members are required to comply in good faith, as much as Auralia would have you not believe.

"We find your answer on the committee's duties entirely non-responsive. You are perfectly entitled to give a committee new duties, as has been seen many times in the arena of WA trade law. There is no reason why the WACWC cannot be 're-tasked' to a more expansive role. It really doesn't need to be expanded. It fills the role it was created to handle quite nicely already.

"If our tone is harsh, we apologise. But we have seen many valiant legislative efforts on this complex matter fail and we are insistent that for legislation in this area, it is vital that a full and proper treatment be given. Our thanks for your response to our comments."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

[The Dark Star Republic]

"Your refusal to concede on any points whatsoever isn't terribly encouraging. Passing legislation - good legislation - is a collaborative process. I may not be right, but you could at least attempt to engage with and refute my points, rather than simply dismissing them out of hand.

"Imposing a non-proliferation rule does not legislate on non-members. They are free to do whatever they like with chemical weapons. But given it is the existence of chemically armed non-members that are routinely used to justify non-disarmament, there is no reason why the WA should assist them with such projects. Absent a non-proliferation clause, your resolution frankly makes little sense.

"The same goes for not restricting their use against fellow WA members. You claim that the 'political atmosphere' has not changed, yet it was enough to pass your current Protocol. The changes we are suggesting are important - but they are not a full ban. I simply do not see how you can base your opposition to them on the failure of full bans.

"You further appear to grossly misunderstand the issue of escalation. The use of riot control agents in a military context will lead to escalation from (a) non-WA members not bound by this resolution or (b) WA members who under the terms of this resolution can still legally own and use chemical weapons. It is not an insignificant concern!

"Frankly, it is clear to us that you have no intention whatsoever of changing your legislation at all, even though it has already been demonstrated to be so flawed it necessitates repeal. Your refusal to consider additional terms and scope, more proper responsibilities for the committee, or better definitions, are all indicative of this. Worse is your refusal to even debate them! If it is indeed the case that you are resolutely set on this stubborn approach, we will have no choice but to fully oppose by any means necessary passage of this resolution."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

OOC: I do also think the zombie stuff above is a good reason for holding off on this: the Cure Missiles will be fresh in everyone's mind, and however much a tiny number of forum players know it's 'MetaGaming', I can easily see the proposal getting derailed on those grounds. All good if it gives you more time for drafting :)

[Araraukar]

And if we replace the definition with person, then it IS banning herbicides. Do theSENTIENT Weasels, Bears, Cats, Dogs, Plants, ect................................. not deserve protection under this too? Their votes might actually count for something you know?

OOC: A housecat is sentient but not sapient.
A human is sentient and sapient.

Use "sapient" to refer to human-like intelligence, please.

[Chester Pearson]

"Your refusal to concede on any points whatsoever isn't terribly encouraging. Passing legislation - good legislation - is a collaborative process. I may not be right, but you could at least attempt to engage with and refute my points, rather than simply dismissing them out of hand.

"Imposing a non-proliferation rule does not legislate on non-members. They are free to do whatever they like with chemical weapons. But given it is the existence of chemically armed non-members that are routinely used to justify non-disarmament, there is no reason why the WA should assist them with such projects. Absent a non-proliferation clause, your resolution frankly makes little sense.

"The same goes for not restricting their use against fellow WA members. You claim that the 'political atmosphere' has not changed, yet it was enough to pass your current Protocol. The changes we are suggesting are important - but they are not a full ban. I simply do not see how you can base your opposition to them on the failure of full bans.

"You further appear to grossly misunderstand the issue of escalation. The use of riot control agents in a military context will lead to escalation from (a) non-WA members not bound by this resolution or (b) WA members who under the terms of this resolution can still legally own and use chemical weapons. It is not an insignificant concern!

"Frankly, it is clear to us that you have no intention whatsoever of changing your legislation at all, even though it has already been demonstrated to be so flawed it necessitates repeal. Your refusal to consider additional terms and scope, more proper responsibilities for the committee, or better definitions, are all indicative of this. Worse is your refusal to even debate them! If it is indeed the case that you are resolutely set on this stubborn approach, we will have no choice but to fully oppose by any means necessary passage of this resolution."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

OOC: I do also think the zombie stuff above is a good reason for holding off on this: the Cure Missiles will be fresh in everyone's mind, and however much a tiny number of forum players know it's 'MetaGaming', I can easily see the proposal getting derailed on those grounds. All good if it gives you more time for drafting

Changes have been made taking some of your suggestions into account. If no further major objections, I am going to queue this up in the next few days.

[Moronist Decisions]

Ambassador Pearson, I shall defer a full reading of your proposal for a later date.

However, as a procedural note, may I remind you that in this chamber you may not name more than one co-author?

[Chester Pearson]

Ambassador Pearson, I shall defer a full reading of your proposal for a later date.

However, as a procedural note, may I remind you that in this chamber you may not name more than one co-author?

As far as I know you can have up to two co-authors. Also Sciongrad has not gotten back to me as of yet anyway.

[North East Ohio]

Ambassador Franklin Romando enters the room listening to the speech given. He clasps his hands together and smiles, "We the people of North East Ohio come here as an ally of Chester Pearson give our full support and backing of the proposed resolution. Though we voted against the repeal of the past Chemical Weapons act. But, any bill restricting chemical arms of some kind can suffice over none."

[The Dourian Embassy]

Ambassador Pearson, I shall defer a full reading of your proposal for a later date.

However, as a procedural note, may I remind you that in this chamber you may not name more than one co-author?

As far as I know you can have up to two co-authors. Also Sciongrad has not gotten back to me as of yet anyway.

Look here.

I really think we oughta be able to have more than one co-author, but meh.

[Friday Freshman]

"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,

Chester I know in the past some of my responses to your proposal have been trolling in nature. This one is a legitimate concern (at least in my opinion it is).

When you use the words sapient beings, you are banning some pesticides such as ant spray, bee spray, and wasp spray. These insects live in colonies and have a social order which would make them sapient beings. This concerns me because these insects can be very dangerous and destructive in nature. Can this be edited not include these insects so that those of us who are maybe more squirmish about these things may do as we please in our removal of them?

[Separatist Peoples]

"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,

Chester I know in the past some of my responses to your proposal have been trolling in nature. This one is a legitimate concern (at least in my opinion it is).

When you use the words sapient beings, you are banning some pesticides such as ant spray, bee spray, and wasp spray. These insects live in colonies and have a social order which would make them sapient beings. This concerns me because these insects can be very dangerous and destructive in nature. Can this be edited not include these insects so that those of us who are maybe more squirmish about these things may do as we please in our removal of them?

A pesticide that universally kills all wasps, sapient or otherwise, would only be banned if it was used with the intention of killing sapient creatures. So long as the chemical is used on non-sapient insects, you aren't in violation of the clause.