[PASSED] Nuclear Security Convention

[Auralia]

OOC: Doesn't this have a drafting error?

FOR THE PURPOSE defines nuclear energy as the useful energy released by nuclear fission,

I would assume that's meant to be 'for the purpose of this Convention/Resolution'.

There are two additional errors: clauses 1 and 2 use different verb tenses than clause 3 ( "take" and "maintain" versus "shall take"). There is also an extra "nuclear" between "...adequate measures are taken for" and "the safety and security..."

[Bears Armed]

There is also an extra "nuclear"

"Maybeso itself produced from an earlier occurrence by fission?"

^_^

[New Korongo]

“The government of the United Provinces of New Korongo has discussed the proposed Nuclear Security Convention and, though we are generally supportive of the restrictions described in the convention, we have decided to vote against the resolution when it is voted upon by the members of the World Assembly. This decision is primarily the result of the third mandate, which would prevent our nation from sharing nuclear technology with peaceful and stable non-member states that could greatly benefit from the development of nuclear energy as an alternative to fossil fuel power plants. It would also prevent Korongolese corporations from selling nuclear-powered warships to allied states which are not members of the World Assembly.”

Elizabeth Sharpe - Korongolese Ambassador to the World Assembly

[Chester Pearson]

Approvals: 121 (Zolonya, Hombertoland, Arctacion, Canovia, Conwy-shire, Al-Ahkri, Cliffston, Dooom35796821595, Clan MacGregor, Fralinia, Flippica, Generailia, Cpgop, Engramia, Korellia, Muzztopia, Great Zavi, Freedoniaia, Milograd, Fenshamsland, Great Israel, NeuPolska, New Cato Corellia, Gradyana, Heiis an Rayn, MDRunie, Multi-Culturalists, Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Territories, Sandwich Island, The Russian Communist Federation, Torrumbarry, ASEAN, Storalia, Verisburg, Retired WerePenguins, Maltropia, Mikeswill, NeoTarakia, Vilanthas, Neutricland WA Repersentative, Socialist Austrian Empire, Neoconstantius, Webus, The Comunazis, Olivee, Ol Facefull, Vertmont, DarthStassen, Beldia, Zandalari, Po-os, Vandelstein, Tasty Water, Christian Isles, Northland Territories, Marinar, Awesomeness YoloSwag, The Foxfyre Islands, Kecoughtan Tribe, MirrorGate, Grofazland, Voga, The Evil Despot of the Chaise Longue, Ob45, The Grand coalition of modern states, Yulis, The Templar order of Saint John, Nova Tierra, AppleJaaJ, Hicdarr, Hellany, Communist Eraser, Zombiedolphins, Extramiana, Tel Mora, Scdan2002, Servoth, New Sivonia, Austrur, Saint Gorski, United Alab Emirates, Trektopolis, Adrimond, Conoga, Malcolm X, Bodobol, Atlantica, Danitoria, Tyu H-ji, Waffia, Hesse Cassell, McMasterdonia, Criliana, The Ranponian, Dai Coon Ree, Applebania, Melegropolis, Jydara, Gebeta, Tayberia, Dundrel, The Saint James Islands, NarniaNeverWonderland, New-Netherealm, Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown, Flanderson, Beinirham, Alantrillium, Jenesia, Ceejaysnationalparty, The Justin Empire, Nicer potlimitomaha, Picts, Awas, SingapuROAR, Pacificia Empire, Partouzland, Seventh Bay Radicals, East Denmark, BradMaddox, Prozo)

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

Have submitted a GHR to have this removed due to some serious grammatical errors. I thank all the delegates that have approved this, and assure you it will not be forgotten.

Regards,

[Chester Pearson]

Fifth draft is up.....

[Imperializt Russia]

Member states are still not permitted to sell pre-built/pre-fabricated/go and build nuclear reactor systems to non-member states, yes?

[Bananaistan]

We will be happy to support this resolution.

FOR THE PURPOSE defines nuclear energy as the useful and/or destructive energy released by nuclear reactions,

Could we suggest that this is edited. Should it be "for this purpose" or "For the purpose of this resolution"?

Member nations take all necessary precautions to ensure their nuclear materials, technology and information that have to potential for weaponization are fully secured against unauthorised release,

We would also suggest that this clause be edited in some fashion to ensure that member nations take all necessary precautions in respect of materials etc present on their territory as opposed to "their" materials etc? We would be concerned that illegally held materials present in the territory of a member state or, indeed, legally held privately owned material would not fall within the remit of the resolution should an unreasonable member state choose to interpret the "their" materials provision as applying only to materials etc held by the state itself.

[Imperializt Russia]

FOR THE PURPOSE defines nuclear energy as the useful and/or destructive energy released by nuclear reactions,

Could we suggest that this is edited. Should it be "for this purpose" or "For the purpose of this resolution"?

Pretty sure someone brought this up before.
I honestly don't believe it's at all necessary.

[Goddess Relief Office]

GRO's comments below:

The World Assembly,

RECOGNIZING that nuclear power is a relatively clean and efficient source of energy, [This line is fluff, not really necessary, but okay if you want to add it]

THUS GUARANTEEING member nations the right to use nuclear energy for their energy needs, [Could have just started with this line as the first. "The World Assembly, Guaranteeing member nations the right..."]

ALSO REALIZING the potential threat posed to all members in regards to the acquisition of nuclear technology by rogue states, terrorist and/or extremist organizations,

ALARMED by the possibility of widespread devastation that could occur as the result of the uncontrolled proliferation of nuclear technology, particularly by non-members who are not bound by the conventions of international law,

FOR THE PURPOSE [something is missing here, why did you remove "of this convention" between your 3rd draft and 4th?] defines nuclear energy as the useful and/or destructive energy released by nuclear reactions,

The General Assembly hereby mandates: [Not really necessary to say "The General Assembly" twice. You already did so at the very top (where I've colored purple). If you must say it again, please be consistent ]

1. Member nations take all necessary precautions to ensure their nuclear materials, technology and information that have to the potential for weaponization are fully secured against unauthorised release,
   
2. Member nations maintain comprehensive records of processed nuclear materials, technology and information,
   
3. Member nations shall [the addition of the word "shall" here is inconsistent with the style of the two clauses above] take all necessary precautions to ensure nuclear manufacturing, design specifications, technology or materials with the intent for weaponization are not in any way proliferated to any party not bound by the terms of this convention,

NOTHING in this convention shall be interpreted as:

1. Affecting the right of member nations to research, or use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes or,
   Weird placement of punctuation here. Suggest re-write:
   "Affecting the right of member nations to research or use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, or
   
2. Denying members nations the right to possess, or produce nuclear armaments.[the comma in front of "or" is not necessary]

Co-Authored by Abacathea

Regards,
~GRO~

[Dooom35796821595]

FOR THE PURPOSE defines nuclear energy as the useful and/or destructive energy released by nuclear reactionsFission,

It was like this in the fourth draft, no reason to change it back is there.

[Chester Pearson]

Some minor edits have been made....

If no further objections, going to send this to the floor soon.

Warmest regards,

[Sciongrad]

THUS GUARANTEEING member nations the right to use nuclear energy for their energy needs,

The verb here is bizarre. Perhaps "acknowledging the right of member nations to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes."

ALSO REALIZING the potential threat posed to all members in regards to the acquisition of nuclear technology by rogue states, terrorist and/or extremist organizations,

I also dislike the phrasing of this clause. Maybe "understanding, however, the potential threat posed by nuclear technology when acquired by pariah states, terrorists, extremists, and other such entities,"

FOR THE PURPOSE of this convention defines nuclear energy as the useful and/or destructive energy released by nuclear reactions,

I've always thought of defining clauses as operative verbs. I would put after your "hereby" clause, and would start it with an operative verb. Maybe "Defining, for the purpose of this resolution, "nuclear energy" as the energy released by nuclear reactions. The useful/destructive bit is not necessary.

The General Assembly hereby:

This, as worded, makes no sense. "The World Assembly, recognizing blah blah blah, the general assembly hereby mandates. A resolution should be read as one long sentence, and the commas in your preambulatory clauses indicate that you would agree with this. You already get the "the general assembly" bit across with the very beginning of the resolution, where you wrote "the World Assembly." I would change this to "hereby."

Mandates that:

1. Member nations take all necessary precautions to ensure their nuclear materials, technology and information that have to potential for weaponization are fully secured against unauthorised release,

Perhaps a bit nitpicky, but you switch from an American spelling style to a British spelling style. I would pick one, just for the purpose of consistency. This should also read "...that have the potential for..."

1. Member nations (there is an unnecessary space here) take all necessary precautions to ensure nuclear manufacturing, design specifications, technology or materials with the intent for weaponization are not in any way proliferated to any party not bound by the terms of this convention,

This clause is a roundhouse kick to the stomach of the English language. Perhaps "member nations take all measures necessary and practical in preventing the transfer of nuclear weapons, their design specification, and the technology or the materials necessary in their construction if there is reason to suspect that they will be weaponized;"

NOTHING in this convention shall be interpreted as:

This is not a verb and does not make sense. I would write "clarifies that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as."

1. Affecting the right of member nations to research, or use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes or;

Comma splice

1. Denying members nations the right to possess, or produce nuclear armaments.

Again, remove the comma. Also, get rid of the weird spacing. Make the listed clauses closer together - it's more aesthetically pleasing, I think.

Along with the aforementioned comments, I would suggest removing the garish bolding and italics, and the weird, inconsistent letter/number listing. I'll try and comment on the content later. I would also advise you not submit this yet - it seems there's still work to be done.

[Chester Pearson]

Alrighty....

Edits made. May thanks to Sciongrad for their input.

Warmest regards,

[Sciongrad]

We appreciate your changes, ambassador Pearson, but note that you disregarded several that pointed to clear grammatical errors. I feel it may be easier if I simply present to you a hard copy with edits I feel are appropriate.

The World Assembly,

UNDERSTANDING the right of member nations to use nuclear energy for peaceful purpose,

REALIZING the potential threat posed to all member nations by the unregulated proliferation of nuclear technology, especially to dangerous groups including, but not limited to, pariah states, terrorist groups, and extremist organizations,

RESOLVING to enact a sensible policy that mitigates the potential for nuclear warfare and the consequences thereof,

Hereby,

REQUIRES that member nations maintain comprehensive records of processed nuclear materials, technology, and information;

MANDATES that member nations take all measures necessary and practical in preventing the transfer of nuclear weapons, their design specification, and the technology or the materials necessary in their construction if there is reason to suspect that they will be weaponized, for any purpose;

PROHIBITS member nations from receiving nuclear weapons, their design specifications, and the technology or the materials necessary in their construction for the purpose of weaponization, for any purpose;

CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as affecting the right of member nations to research or use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, nor denying members nations the right to possess or produce nuclear armaments with their own technological and manufacturing capacities.

Co-authored by: Abacathea

I have eliminated several clauses that serve no purpose or that were unnecessary. For example, the first clause of the initial preamble wasn't necessarily relevant, especially taking into consideration the understanding clause. The definition was pointless, as the only time you mention nuclear energy is in the clarifies clause, which is non-binding anyways. I've added a prohibits clause, as I don't think it makes sense to prohibit the sharing of weapons and technology, but not the receiving of them. I also eliminated the number system entirely, as it really wasn't very useful. And finally, I got rid of the bolding, which was really an eyesore.

I may comment more on the content at a later time.

[Chester Pearson]

We appreciate your changes, ambassador Pearson, but note that you disregarded several that pointed to clear grammatical errors. I feel it may be easier if I simply present to you a hard copy with edits I feel are appropriate.

The World Assembly,

UNDERSTANDING the right of member nations to use nuclear energy for peaceful purpose,

REALIZING the potential threat posed to all member nations by the unregulated proliferation of nuclear technology, especially to dangerous groups including, but not limited to, pariah states, terrorist groups, and extremist organizations,

RESOLVING to enact a sensible policy that mitigates the potential for nuclear warfare and the consequences thereof,

Hereby,

REQUIRES that member nations maintain comprehensive records of processed nuclear materials, technology, and information;

MANDATES that member nations take all measures necessary and practical in preventing the transfer of nuclear weapons, their design specification, and the technology or the materials necessary in their construction if there is reason to suspect that they will be weaponized, for any purpose;

PROHIBITS member nations from receiving nuclear weapons, their design specifications, and the technology or the materials necessary in their construction for the purpose of weaponization, for any purpose;

CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as affecting the right of member nations to research or use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, nor denying members nations the right to possess or produce nuclear armaments with their own technological and manufacturing capacities.

Co-authored by: Abacathea

I have eliminated several clauses that serve no purpose or that were unnecessary. For example, the first clause of the initial preamble wasn't necessarily relevant, especially taking into consideration the understanding clause. The definition was pointless, as the only time you mention nuclear energy is in the clarifies clause, which is non-binding anyways. I've added a prohibits clause, as I don't think it makes sense to prohibit the sharing of weapons and technology, but not the receiving of them. I also eliminated the number system entirely, as it really wasn't very useful. And finally, I got rid of the bolding, which was really an eyesore.

I may comment more on the content at a later time.

While I do truly appreciate your help, and input on the matter, I am not prepared to make wholesale changes such as this to this resolution. I do have my own writing style, and I prefer to keep using it.

As it stands, this is likely to go to the floor rather soon, if no further game breaking adjustments are needed.

Warmest regards,

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: Is there a hurry? I've been waiting on a legality question about National Economic Freedoms since December, but I know the mods are busy. When they get back to me, their answer would likely have a bearing on this proposal as you have not included the "extreme hazard" language; additionally, the queue is now 3 resolutions long, meaning this couldn't go to vote for a couple of weeks even if it were submitted yesterday.

[Dooom35796821595]

Approvals: 121 (Zolonya, Hombertoland, Arctacion, Canovia, Conwy-shire, Al-Ahkri, Cliffston, Dooom35796821595, Clan MacGregor, Fralinia, Flippica, Generailia, Cpgop, Engramia, Korellia, Muzztopia, Great Zavi, Freedoniaia, Milograd, Fenshamsland, Great Israel, NeuPolska, New Cato Corellia, Gradyana, Heiis an Rayn, MDRunie, Multi-Culturalists, Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Territories, Sandwich Island, The Russian Communist Federation, Torrumbarry, ASEAN, Storalia, Verisburg, Retired WerePenguins, Maltropia, Mikeswill, NeoTarakia, Vilanthas, Neutricland WA Repersentative, Socialist Austrian Empire, Neoconstantius, Webus, The Comunazis, Olivee, Ol Facefull, Vertmont, DarthStassen, Beldia, Zandalari, Po-os, Vandelstein, Tasty Water, Christian Isles, Northland Territories, Marinar, Awesomeness YoloSwag, The Foxfyre Islands, Kecoughtan Tribe, MirrorGate, Grofazland, Voga, The Evil Despot of the Chaise Longue, Ob45, The Grand coalition of modern states, Yulis, The Templar order of Saint John, Nova Tierra, AppleJaaJ, Hicdarr, Hellany, Communist Eraser, Zombiedolphins, Extramiana, Tel Mora, Scdan2002, Servoth, New Sivonia, Austrur, Saint Gorski, United Alab Emirates, Trektopolis, Adrimond, Conoga, Malcolm X, Bodobol, Atlantica, Danitoria, Tyu H-ji, Waffia, Hesse Cassell, McMasterdonia, Criliana, The Ranponian, Dai Coon Ree, Applebania, Melegropolis, Jydara, Gebeta, Tayberia, Dundrel, The Saint James Islands, NarniaNeverWonderland, New-Netherealm, Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown, Flanderson, Beinirham, Alantrillium, Jenesia, Ceejaysnationalparty, The Justin Empire, Nicer potlimitomaha, Picts, Awas, SingapuROAR, Pacificia Empire, Partouzland, Seventh Bay Radicals, East Denmark, BradMaddox, Prozo)

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

Have submitted a GHR to have this removed due to some serious grammatical errors. I thank all the delegates that have approved this, and assure you it will not be forgotten.

Regards,

Are you sure, as the third and fifth draft seem to have the same error, one I highlighted on several occasions and was the reason for my approval of the fourth draft, as the error had been addressed. If you feel you have a suitable reason for including fusion I implore you to state it. However until you either state an acceptable reason to include fusion or reverse your change I will be unable to support this resolution.

[Sciongrad]

While I do truly appreciate your help, and input on the matter, I am not prepared to make wholesale changes such as this to this resolution. I do have my own writing style, and I prefer to keep using it.

As it stands, this is likely to go to the floor rather soon, if no further game breaking adjustments are needed.

Warmest regards,

While I respect your right to your own style, I think I have to draw the line of stylistic prerogative once it either makes no grammatical sense or damages the proposal. For example, the phrase "The World Assembly, the General Assembly hereby" does not make sense. You don't have to say hereby, but you can't keep it as it is. Furthermore, you failed to incorporate the "prohibits" clause, which I think is just as important as as the demands clause. The first preambulatory clause and the definition of nuclear energy are also completely irrelevant and do not improve the proposal at all - I'd argue that they make the proposal seem more unorganized than it has to be.

So feel free to keep any listing, bolding, or wording you like, but the above changes I think are necessary to improve the actual content of the proposal, not just the looks.

[Chester Pearson]

While I do truly appreciate your help, and input on the matter, I am not prepared to make wholesale changes such as this to this resolution. I do have my own writing style, and I prefer to keep using it.

As it stands, this is likely to go to the floor rather soon, if no further game breaking adjustments are needed.

Warmest regards,

While I respect your right to your own style, I think I have to draw the line of stylistic prerogative once it either makes no grammatical sense or damages the proposal. For example, the phrase "The World Assembly, the General Assembly hereby" does not make sense. You don't have to say hereby, but you can't keep it as it is. Furthermore, you failed to incorporate the "prohibits" clause, which I think is just as important as as the demands clause. The first preambulatory clause and the definition of nuclear energy are also completely irrelevant and do not improve the proposal at all - I'd argue that they make the proposal seem more unorganized than it has to be.

So feel free to keep any listing, bolding, or wording you like, but the above changes I think are necessary to improve the actual content of the proposal, not just the looks.

This clause:

PROHIBITS member nations from receiving nuclear weapons, their design specifications, and the technology or the materials necessary in their construction for the purpose of weaponization, for any purpose;

It is very hard to incorporate such a clause, while keeping this International Security.... That clause would essentially force nations to spend less, and I am not willing to make this a GD proposal that will get blown out of the water....

[Sciongrad]

This clause:

PROHIBITS member nations from receiving nuclear weapons, their design specifications, and the technology or the materials necessary in their construction for the purpose of weaponization, for any purpose;

It is very hard to incorporate such a clause, while keeping this International Security.... That clause would essentially force nations to spend less, and I am not willing to make this a GD proposal that will get blown out of the water....

Then unfortunately, I am unable to support this. What use is a non-proliferation accord that still permits nations to receive nuclear weapons and the designs necessary to construct them? Plus, to me, this already should be a global disarmament proposal... Which isn't as big as a concern as you're making it out to be, I don't think. With proper campaigning and drafting, the category shouldn't be the determining factor in whether or not a resolution passes. I hope your Excellency is willing to reconsider his position.

EDIT: For what it's worth, the UN version of this bill was also global disarmament and, obviously, passed.

[Chester Pearson]

This clause:



It is very hard to incorporate such a clause, while keeping this International Security.... That clause would essentially force nations to spend less, and I am not willing to make this a GD proposal that will get blown out of the water....

Then unfortunately, I am unable to support this. What use is a non-proliferation accord that still permits nations to receive nuclear weapons and the designs necessary to construct them? Plus, to me, this already should be a global disarmament proposal... Which isn't as big as a concern as you're making it out to be, I don't think. With proper campaigning and drafting, the category shouldn't be the determining factor in whether or not a resolution passes. I hope your Excellency is willing to reconsider his position.

EDIT: For what it's worth, the UN version of this bill was also global disarmament and, obviously, passed.

The whole point of this resolution was to ban the sale of nuclear technology to non-member nations, which this now does not do, and will have to be tweaked. It was not designed to be a non-proliferation accord between member nations..... In fact, with a few edits, this will encourage member nations to assist other members in the development of there nuclear arsenals.

[Sciongrad]

Then unfortunately, I am unable to support this. What use is a non-proliferation accord that still permits nations to receive nuclear weapons and the designs necessary to construct them? Plus, to me, this already should be a global disarmament proposal... Which isn't as big as a concern as you're making it out to be, I don't think. With proper campaigning and drafting, the category shouldn't be the determining factor in whether or not a resolution passes. I hope your Excellency is willing to reconsider his position.

EDIT: For what it's worth, the UN version of this bill was also global disarmament and, obviously, passed.

The whole point of this resolution was to ban the sale of nuclear technology to non-member nations, which this now does not do, and will have to be tweaked. It was not designed to be a non-proliferation accord between member nations..... In fact, with a few edits, this will encourage member nations to assist other members in the development of there nuclear arsenals.

If this is the case, then I am completely and entirely opposed to this and will work to have it repealed should it actually pass. The World Assembly should not be creating a "them vs. us" atmosphere between member nations and non-member nations - that is not conducive to peace and international goodwill. Sciongrad will oppose anything short of a comprehensive nuclear non-proliferation resolution, and is very disappointed that his Excellency Chester Pearson, who we considered somewhat of an ally in the area of global disarmament, has chosen to pursue such a damaging policy.

[Chester Pearson]

The whole point of this resolution was to ban the sale of nuclear technology to non-member nations, which this now does not do, and will have to be tweaked. It was not designed to be a non-proliferation accord between member nations..... In fact, with a few edits, this will encourage member nations to assist other members in the development of there nuclear arsenals.

The World Assembly should not be creating a "them vs. us" atmosphere between member nations and non-member nations - that is not conducive to peace and international goodwill.

This promotes a collective security between member nations which is sorely lacking at the moment. By keeping member nations whom choose to abide by the conventions of international law well armed, it creates an atmosphere where member nations can guarantee their safety against more undesirable regimes....

is very disappointed that his Excellency Chester Pearson, who we considered somewhat of an ally in the area of global disarmament, has chosen to pursue such a damaging policy.

We will continue to pursue global disarmament, but it is a known fact that nuclear weapons give a somewhat firm guarantee of security.....

[Sciongrad]

This promotes a collective security between member nations which is sorely lacking at the moment. By keeping member nations whom choose to abide by the conventions of international law well armed, it creates an atmosphere where member nations can guarantee their safety against more undesirable regimes...

No, this is the WA's tacit proposal of an international "join the World Assembly and get nukes!" campaign. You seem to be under the impression that member nations are not dangerous towards other member nations, which is completely untrue. There is no resolution that prevents the unlimited use of nuclear weapons, war of conquest, etc. All this does is create a mentality where member nations and non-member nations are arbitrarily divided. This is not only bad policy, but actively detrimental to global peace.

We will continue to pursue global disarmament, but it is a known fact that nuclear weapons give a somewhat firm guarantee of security.....

Again, this is making the groundless assumption that member nations will only use nuclear weapons for self defense, and non-member nations will only abuse them. This is completely wrong. Not the mention the fact that nuclear weapons only act as a form of mutual security when all of the involved parties have them.

[Chester Pearson]

Bump