[PASSED] Nuclear Material Safeguards

[Imperium Anglorum]

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

We are confused about one clause in this proposal:

Requires that member nations safeguard the manufacture and knowledge spoken of in the first two clauses from the wrong hands;

Who exactly are the "wrong hands" here? Last we heard, Omigodtheykilledkenny already had a nuclear weapons program.

Whomever you define as the 'wrong hands'.

[Wrapper]

It would have to be 'Mandates that the manufacture of nuclear weapons or reactors ... by the legitimate governments of member nations is not to be prohibited'. That means that what is prohibited is the manufacture of nuclear weapons by your nation. You can prohibit the manufacture of nuclear weapons for anyone who is not the legitimate government of your nation, then not manufacture nuclear weapons. There is nothing wrong with this clause.

OOC: The way it reads, it can be interpreted that the "by the legitimate governments of member nations" modifier applies to the "ability to acquire said materials" part of the clause and not the entire clause. Even if it's taken to apply to the entire clause, if a nation is subdivided into jurisdictions, e.g. US states, then each individual state's government is a "legitimate government" within the member nation. If a single state wanted to manufacture nuclear weapons, the national government would be powerless to prevent them from doing so under this resolution.

[Imperium Anglorum]

It would have to be 'Mandates that the manufacture of nuclear weapons or reactors ... by the legitimate governments of member nations is not to be prohibited'. That means that what is prohibited is the manufacture of nuclear weapons by your nation. You can prohibit the manufacture of nuclear weapons for anyone who is not the legitimate government of your nation, then not manufacture nuclear weapons. There is nothing wrong with this clause.

OOC: The way it reads, it can be interpreted that the "by the legitimate governments of member nations" modifier applies to the "ability to acquire said materials" part of the clause and not the entire clause. Even if it's taken to apply to the entire clause, if a nation is subdivided into jurisdictions, e.g. US states, then each individual state's government is a "legitimate government" within the member nation. If a single state wanted to manufacture nuclear weapons, the national government would be powerless to prevent them from doing so under this resolution.

Then it's the legitimate government of a subdivision of the nation, not the nation. (OOC: Don't want to be annoying right now, but phone, can't type too much.)

[Wrapper]

OOC: The way it reads, it can be interpreted that the "by the legitimate governments of member nations" modifier applies to the "ability to acquire said materials" part of the clause and not the entire clause. Even if it's taken to apply to the entire clause, if a nation is subdivided into jurisdictions, e.g. US states, then each individual state's government is a "legitimate government" within the member nation. If a single state wanted to manufacture nuclear weapons, the national government would be powerless to prevent them from doing so under this resolution.

Then it's the legitimate government of a subdivision of the nation, not the nation. (OOC: Don't want to be annoying right now, but phone, can't type too much.)

OOC: Not annoying at all. Look, you know I'm going to oppose this IC anyway, that's obvious, but my point still stands that clause 1 is very poorly worded because it can easily mean what you don't want it to mean. Surely you could have conveyed what you truly want to do in a clearer manner than you have here. Regardless, GHR filed on category and strength; we'll see how the mods read it.

[Tinfect]

OOC: The way it reads, it can be interpreted that the "by the legitimate governments of member nations" modifier applies to the "ability to acquire said materials" part of the clause and not the entire clause. Even if it's taken to apply to the entire clause, if a nation is subdivided into jurisdictions, e.g. US states, then each individual state's government is a "legitimate government" within the member nation. If a single state wanted to manufacture nuclear weapons, the national government would be powerless to prevent them from doing so under this resolution.

OOC:
I'm afraid I don't really see that first bit holding any water. It'd certainly be an oddball interpretation, and absolutely not one that any Member State would reasonably accept. As for the second bit, that actually makes a fair deal of sense, but if its a Federal System, or a Confederate System, the subdivisions tend to have a significant amount of power anyway. Granted, significantly less so in a Federal System, where I can see it being a much larger problem.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC: The wording of Clause 6 also seems to imply that the intent of Clause 1 is to allow any organization to produce nuclear weapons. Why else would anyone seek to regulate "facilities, companies, and universities on their activities regarding the first two clauses given that such knowledge is safeguarded per the third clause?"

I mean, I believe you when you say that's not the intent... but there's thousands wouldn't.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: The wording of Clause 6 also seems to imply that the intent of Clause 1 is to allow any organization to produce nuclear weapons. Why else would anyone seek to regulate "facilities, companies, and universities on their activities regarding the first two clauses given that such knowledge is safeguarded per the third clause?"

I mean, I believe you when you say that's not the intent... but there's thousands wouldn't.

The reason Clause 6 exists is so someone can't write legislation telling people that the people developing nuclear weapons can't develop nuclear weapons. Protecting the meta-supply chain.

[Wrapper]

OOC: The wording of Clause 6 also seems to imply that the intent of Clause 1 is to allow any organization to produce nuclear weapons. Why else would anyone seek to regulate "facilities, companies, and universities on their activities regarding the first two clauses given that such knowledge is safeguarded per the third clause?"

I mean, I believe you when you say that's not the intent... but there's thousands wouldn't.

The reason Clause 6 exists is so someone can't write legislation telling people that the people developing nuclear weapons can't develop nuclear weapons. Protecting the meta-supply chain.

OOC: Thus, free trade. You haven't addressed that part of my concern yet, that this is FT and not IS.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The reason Clause 6 exists is so someone can't write legislation telling people that the people developing nuclear weapons can't develop nuclear weapons. Protecting the meta-supply chain.

OOC: Thus, free trade. You haven't addressed that part of my concern yet, that this is FT and not IS.

Clause 3.

[Wrapper]

OOC: Thus, free trade. You haven't addressed that part of my concern yet, that this is FT and not IS.

Clause 3.

OOC: That one clause is greatly overshadowed by clauses 1, 2 and 6.

[Siarea]

1. If this is just referring to WA passing a resolution that you can't prohibited these things, I don't think that's allowed. You can just file a repeal if it gets passed and vote no on any resolution that implies these things.

2. If this is referring to average citizens then anyone can build a nuke in their backyard with nobody to stop that. Just in case you don't know, that's bad...

[Imperium Anglorum]

Clause 3.

OOC: That one clause is greatly overshadowed by clauses 1, 2 and 6.

Also Clause 4. [EDIT] However it is, it wouldn't fit into free trade. It doesn't strike down barriers to commerce. Instead, it creates more of them. Since the Nuclear Security Convention is repealed, that means that a net negative of free-trade-vibes compared to if there were no regulation at all.

---

1. If this is just referring to WA passing a resolution that you can't prohibited these things, I don't think that's allowed. You can just file a repeal if it gets passed and vote no on any resolution that implies these things.

The blocker rule only refers to a proposal being nothing but a blocker.

2. If this is referring to average citizens then anyone can build a nuke in their backyard with nobody to stop that. Just in case you don't know, that's bad...

Read the earlier posts in this discussion.

[Wrapper]

OOC: That one clause is greatly overshadowed by clauses 1, 2 and 6.

Also Clause 4. [EDIT] However it is, it wouldn't fit into free trade. It doesn't strike down barriers to commerce. Instead, it creates more of them. Since the Nuclear Security Convention is repealed, that means that a net negative of free-trade-vibes compared to if there were no regulation at all.

OOC: No, you're disallowing prohibitive laws on manufacturing (clause 1), permitting the free flow of technological knowledge (clause 2), and prohibiting excessive regulations on manufacturers (clause 6). Prohibitive laws, intellectual property control, and excessive regulations are all barriers to commerce.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Also Clause 4. [EDIT] However it is, it wouldn't fit into free trade. It doesn't strike down barriers to commerce. Instead, it creates more of them. Since the Nuclear Security Convention is repealed, that means that a net negative of free-trade-vibes compared to if there were no regulation at all.

OOC: No, you're disallowing prohibitive laws on manufacturing (clause 1), permitting the free flow of technological knowledge (clause 2), and prohibiting excessive regulations on manufacturers (clause 6). Prohibitive laws, intellectual property control, and excessive regulations are all barriers to commerce.

I'm disallowing prohibitive laws by the WA on manufacturing. Since such laws do not yet exist, this doesn't strike down any barriers. I'm disallowing the prohibition of the free flow of nuclear information by the WA. Since such laws do not yet exist, this doesn't strike down any barriers. I'm finally prohibiting excessive regulations on manufacturers regarding activities in the first two clauses by the WA. Since no laws yet exist on the first two clauses, this still doesn't strike down any barriers. Thus, since no laws yet exist on any of the activities spoken about in clauses 1, 2, and 6, this is not a resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce in comparison to the current state of legislation.

It certainly would be free trade from the perspective of the NSC. But the NSC is no longer in force. Thus, we have to compare it to the status quo. Comparisons to the current status quo mean that barriers to commerce are being created by clauses 3 and 4. Blocker clauses don't have any immediate actions and do not count in the calculus of category (because they speak about future events and not events existing right now). Now, clauses 3 and 4 also increase the budgets of security forces, making this a resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

[Wrapper]

I'm disallowing prohibitive laws by the WA on manufacturing

You're also disallowing prohibitive laws by WA nations, some of which may have such laws in place.

I'm disallowing the prohibition of the free flow of nuclear information by the WA.

You're also disallowing the prohibition of the free flow of nuclear information in WA nations, some of which may already have such prohibitions in place.

I'm finally prohibiting excessive regulations on manufacturers regarding activities in the first two clauses by the WA.

You're also prohibiting WA nations from passing excessive regulations, some of which may already have such regulations in place.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I'm disallowing prohibitive laws by the WA on manufacturing

You're also disallowing prohibitive laws by WA nations, some of which may have such laws in place.

I'm disallowing the prohibition of the free flow of nuclear information by the WA.

You're also disallowing the prohibition of the free flow of nuclear information in WA nations, some of which may already have such prohibitions in place.

I'm finally prohibiting excessive regulations on manufacturers regarding activities in the first two clauses by the WA.

You're also prohibiting WA nations from passing excessive regulations, some of which may already have such regulations in place.

'Mandates that the manufacture of nuclear weapons or reactors, possession of the materials for the manufacture, and ability to acquire said materials by the legitimate governments of member nations is not to be prohibited'. A member nation doesn't pass a law can't do something, but instead, it passes a law which states that it won't do something.

[Wrapper]

A member nation doesn't pass a law can't do something, but instead, it passes a law which states that it won't do something.

Okay now you've totally lost me.

[United Regions of Geographic Masses]

"Nuclear Materials Safeguards

Category: International Security | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: Imperium Anglorum | Proposal link | World Assembly forum thread
Description: Affirming the right of member nations to possess nuclear weapons and to use them in the case that they are attacked by hostile forces,

Observing that there does not yet exist any legislation to protect the manufacture of nuclear weapons from being banned, and believing that such action is necessary,

This World Assembly hereby:
Mandates that the manufacture of nuclear weapons or reactors, possession of the materials for the manufacture, and ability to acquire said materials by the legitimate governments of member nations is not to be prohibited;
Mandates that the knowledge of the manufacture of nuclear weapons or reactors, the possession of such knowledge, and the ability to acquire said knowledge by the legitimate governments of member nations is not to be restricted except in extraordinary cases of clear and present danger;
Requires that member nations safeguard the manufacture and knowledge spoken of in the first two clauses from the wrong hands;
Directs the Nuclear Energy Safety Commission (NESC) to ensure that nuclear materials and knowledge are secured by providing funds and assistance to nations which are unable to defend their nuclear technology, for example, in the case of terrorist infiltration or state collapse;
Establishes the Universal Nuclear Library under the purview of the Universal Library Coalition to avoid basic accidents in nuclear design and increase safety by providing such knowledge to states pursuing nuclear technologies as well as knowledge necessary for the prompt cleaning of accidents; and
Prohibits undue regulations on facilities, companies, and universities on their activities regarding the first two clauses given that such knowledge is safeguarded per the third clause."


My concerns are with points 2, 4 and 5.

4. If a nation is unable to safeguard their own nuclear technology, they should not be permitted to possess it. This, by nature, makes point 2 null & void.

4a. Point 2 should include the ability to maintain nuclear safety as well as conduct active security drills with contingency plans for such extreme events including, but not limited to, terrorism or state collapse.

5. Point 5 should be rephrased to dictate that should a nation choose to research and create nuclear weapons, that they must contribute to the funding of the Universal Nuclear Library and follow a set of protocols to ensure points 1 and 2 are enforced (once corrected).

[Bananaistan]

"We feel that this draft could have used a lot more polishing before it was submitted.

"Clause 1 appears to be a standard enough blocker clause. However, the clause also acts on member states rather than just current or future WA action. It effectively means that no member state can introduce any law prohibiting the sale of the relevant materials by their citizens or resident organisations to any other member state (with the exception that I outline below regarding diplomatic recognition), no matter how objectionable that buyer nation may be. We cannot support this.

"We have no issue with clause two. If anyone ever asks us we will say that yes we do manufacture nuclear weapons and reactors. Therefore that person will be in possession of the knowledge of our manufacture of same and we will be compliant with the clause. Of course we will be under no obligation to share the actual technical know-how.

"Clause 3 seems all well and good but the problem is that clause 1 speaks to "legitimate governments". Therefore, any regime that we conduct diplomatic relations with, IE that we recognise as the legitimate government of a nation, cannot be "the wrong hands". No matter how batshit insane they are, we can never introduce any law prohibiting the supply of the relevant materials to that government. Unless we withdraw diplomatic recognition, of course, as then we wouldn't see them as a legitimate government.

"So then we are left with the situation that we can have no in between. It's either no diplomatic recognition or "here you go lads, have a few of our nukes". (OOC: If I impose the proposal onto the RL relations between Iran and the US. If the US ever recognised the government of Iran and they formally exchanged ambassadors, they would be forced by this proposal to automatically permit all US corporations and citizens to sell nuclear materials to Iran.)

"I have no particular comment on clauses 4 and 5 at this time. Regarding clause 6, I would point out that this effectively permits any regulation that is reasonable in a given country. The definition of undue is "more than is reasonable or necessary". What's reasonable can vary vastly from culture to culture.

"Overall we are opposed due to the requirements of the 1st clause."

- Ted Hornwood.

[Imperium Anglorum]

"Clause 1 appears to be a standard enough blocker clause. However, the clause also acts on member states rather than just current or future WA action. It effectively means that no member state can introduce any law prohibiting the sale of the relevant materials by their citizens or resident organisations to any other member state (with the exception that I outline below regarding diplomatic recognition), no matter how objectionable that buyer nation may be. We cannot support this.

"We have no issue with clause two. If anyone ever asks us we will say that yes we do manufacture nuclear weapons and reactors. Therefore that person will be in possession of the knowledge of our manufacture of same and we will be compliant with the clause. Of course we will be under no obligation to share the actual technical know-how.

"Clause 3 seems all well and good but the problem is that clause 1 speaks to "legitimate governments". Therefore, any regime that we conduct diplomatic relations with, IE that we recognise as the legitimate government of a nation, cannot be "the wrong hands". No matter how batshit insane they are, we can never introduce any law prohibiting the supply of the relevant materials to that government. Unless we withdraw diplomatic recognition, of course, as then we wouldn't see them as a legitimate government.

"So then we are left with the situation that we can have no in between. It's either no diplomatic recognition or "here you go lads, have a few of our nukes". (OOC: If I impose the proposal onto the RL relations between Iran and the US. If the US ever recognised the government of Iran and they formally exchanged ambassadors, they would be forced by this proposal to automatically permit all US corporations and citizens to sell nuclear materials to Iran.)

"I have no particular comment on clauses 4 and 5 at this time. Regarding clause 6, I would point out that this effectively permits any regulation that is reasonable in a given country. The definition of undue is "more than is reasonable or necessary". What's reasonable can vary vastly from culture to culture.

Parsons: We agree that the interpretations given here can be justified due to ambiguity on the part of the English language. In the interests of avoiding a certain type of repeal, a newer version has been posted for your consideration.

[Bananaistan]

Parsons: We agree that the interpretations given here can be justified due to ambiguity on the part of the English language. In the interests of avoiding a certain type of repeal, a newer version has been posted for your consideration.

"Eh .... isn't that rather pointless given the previous draft will shortly be at vote?"

- Ted Hornwood

[Imperium Anglorum]

Parsons: We agree that the interpretations given here can be justified due to ambiguity on the part of the English language. In the interests of avoiding a certain type of repeal, a newer version has been posted for your consideration.

"Eh .... isn't that rather pointless given the previous draft will shortly be at vote?"

Parsons: (in front of a sheet of paper with the words 'Imperial Telegraph') I'm sure these issues will be transient. Now, back to the proposal!

[Bananaistan]

"Eh .... isn't that rather pointless given the previous draft will shortly be at vote?"

Parsons: (in front of a sheet of paper with the words 'Imperial Telegraph') I'm sure these issues will be transient. Now, back to the proposal!

OOC: You've lost me there.

[Wrapper]

The updated version is... interesting. We'll have to take some time to weigh the effects of the first two clauses versus the effects of the second two clauses before making a final decision on this.

Have you filed with the Secretariat to remove the first one? Our objections to category/strength were denied, though we were encouraged to counter-campaign based on the points we raised.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Have you filed with the Secretariat to remove the first one? Our objections to category/strength were denied, though we were encouraged to counter-campaign based on the points we raised.

Yes.