[PASSED] Repeal "Nuclear Arms Protocol"

[Wrapper]

Not mine, but this is close to quorum and warrants discussion.

Repeal "Nuclear Arms Protocol"

A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal

Resolution: GA#308

Proposed by: Plessur

Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #308: Nuclear Arms Protocol (Category: Global Disarmament; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: Recognizing that it is the foremost duty of this World Assembly to preserve the peace that allows this organisation to arbitrate between the nations of the world and create greater happiness and fulfilment;

Noting above all that it is the risk of total war that ultimately hangs over the international community and is the principal enemy of peace and fulfilment; in particular, the further expansion and use of nuclear weapons does not minimise this risk and the damage of war but in fact aggrandizes it;

Realising that not only do forces against international cooperation strengthen this threat, but also well-meaning acts that in fact stand between this World Assembly and greater peace: namely, legislation of the General Assembly that does little to confront this issue and rather prevents any real actions being done to confront the issue, on the basis that this legislation nominally accomplishes what is required;

Thus recognizing that if we wish to achieve real action against aggressive stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons by member states, repealing GAR#308 will be a step in the right direction, due to a number of key and disturbing defects in this piece of legislation, namely:

I: The exact circumstances defined in Item 2 remain distinctively unclear, and can allow belligerent nations to target civilian areas with nuclear weapons on the basis that any military assets are situated there, with no way of establishing whether the other nation deliberately established a policy of concealing ‘key strategic military assets’ within civilian areas;

II: Furthermore, the repercussions of this flaw affect Item 3, which removes all the restrictions provided in this Act in the event of one nation breaching them by deliberately targeting civilian areas, thus creating the potential of both sides being restricted in no way in their use of nuclear weapons in the event of such an incident described in Article I;

III: Above all, this legislation – though no doubt proposed with noble intentions – provides no way of enforcing the rules set out post facto, in the event of one of the accords being breached by a belligerent, particularly if it was breached under circumstances which are unclear whether they are permitted under Item 2.

Above all, this World Assembly must recognize that repealing this faulty piece of legislation will allow nations to establish new rules of warfare in a real and genuine effort to end international conflict, in an effort in which clearer terms may be set down.

Therefore, this World Assembly shall repeal General Assembly Resolution 308 "Nuclear Arms Protocol".

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Argument I claims the resolution doesn't do something it was never designed to do. It posits a situation that was already made a nonissue by previous legislation. Legislation I wrote, as happenstance has it. If the target resolution had attempted to cover the issue of targets disguised as civilian infrastructure, it would have been illegal for duplication. It's an unfair argument and an unreasonable criticism. Argument I fails to consider extant legislation, and should have been rejected. Argument II was based on a rejected argument, and should have been rejected. Argument III was based on a misunderstanding of the role the WA plays, and should have been rejected.

I discussed this with the author via TG, but it was submitted anyway. Because of Argument I, I seriously question whether or not this counts as an Honest Mistake violation.

[Wrapper]

Because of Argument I, I seriously question whether or not this counts as an Honest Mistake violation.

OOC: NOT a ruling yet, but I'm having trouble seeing Argument I as an Honest Mistake. What part of that clause is objectively, factually untrue? Whether clause 2 is clear or unclear seems to be subjective and arguable, as is whether NAP can allow belligerent nations to target civilians on the basis that military assets are present, in some set of circumstances.

If you have an argument that you think can convince us otherwise, by all means, file a GHR. We'll use the discard function if we have to.

[Separatist Peoples]

Because of Argument I, I seriously question whether or not this counts as an Honest Mistake violation.

OOC: NOT a ruling yet, but I'm having trouble seeing Argument I as an Honest Mistake. What part of that clause is objectively, factually untrue? Whether clause 2 is clear or unclear seems to be subjective and arguable, as is whether NAP can allow belligerent nations to target civilians on the basis that military assets are present, in some set of circumstances.

If you have an argument that you think can convince us otherwise, by all means, file a GHR. We'll use the discard function if we have to.

OOC: I felt it was borderline. It asserts the resolution fails to do something it couldn't do at the time without being illegal. At best it's an unreasonable argument and at worst it had a factually incorrect assumption about the target.

But since it isn't clear, I elected not to pursue it.

[The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper]

OOC: Well then. Time for the Wads to wake up....

(After some time away, the Wads enter the debate chamber. As Ari adjusts his glasses, Ahume tugs on Ari's sleeve, and points to the draft at hand.)

ARI: Oh boy. Firstly, we are unequivocally opposed to any repeal of NAP. This world needs more, not fewer, Global Disarmament resolutions.

AHUME: (muttering under his breath) Stat wanker.

ARI: What was that? (Ahume innocently looks around behind him, turns to Ari and shrugs.) Secondly, we think that clause 2 of NAP is perfectly clear in what it intends to do. It intends to prevent the deliberate targeting of civilians. If a nation has the capability of launching nuclear missiles, they certainly have the capability of ascertaining whether or not a military outpost is shielded by civilians. As far as this legislation providing no way of enforcing the rules, what legislation does? (Ahume whispers.) Ah. Good point. In reality, it does provide a way of enforcing the rules -- barbaric as it is -- by allowing nations to reciprocate against hostile nations in clause 3. That's that horrid "mutually assured destruction" scenario, isn't it, Ahume? Anyway. If and when this comes to vote, we'll gladly register our vote against.

[Sciongrad]

(After some time away, the Wads enter the debate chamber. As Ari adjusts his glasses, Ahume tugs on Ari's sleeve, and points to the draft at hand.)

ARI: Oh boy. Firstly, we are unequivocally opposed to any repeal of NAP. This world needs more, not fewer, Global Disarmament resolutions.

"Of course, the resolution in question can always be replaced with more... appropriate measures," Natalia said, as Ricardo tried to stuff a burlap sack with the words "DEFINITELY NOT THE DIVINELY PROTECTED AND ABSOLUTELY UNTOUCHABLE NUCLEAR WEAPONS OF SOVEREIGN MEMBER NATIONS" taped over the front under the Scionite delegation's desk.

[Imperium Anglorum]

This is now at vote. Not really full hearted on this one. I really despise the formatting here. But I agree with the argument presented. There really isn't much of a way to conclusively disprove the preconditions which the § 1 mentions.

[Normlpeople]

"I'll argue his first point" Clover said, standing up "Since I argued for it to be included in the original draft. Civilian populated areas are used to house military targets quite frequently. While there is living shields legislation now on the books that would prohibit deliberately doing so, there are two points to consider. The first is that non-member states are still quite free to place their military targets in civilian populated areas and us member nations are restricted by WA legislation. Without this clause, they would be entirely invulnerable without a WA resignation or willful violation of international law."

"The second point" Clover continued "Is that civilian population builds naturally around military targets. Military bases almost always attract some businesses and housing developments outside their gates and inevitably build up into communities that would be directly in harms way. These aren't deliberately placed, yet face the same invulnerability issues as if they were."

"While we do have... methods of dealing with such issues should they come up" Clover said "we do not wish to see other nations face serious security issues based upon the unfortunate proximity of civilians and military targets. As to the repeal, we voted NAY, as the alternative would be far worse."

[Excidium Planetis]

ARI: Oh boy. Firstly, we are unequivocally opposed to any repeal of NAP. This world needs more, not fewer, Global Disarmament resolutions.

"No, I think the world really does need fewer Global Disarmament resolutions." Blackbourne says. "Excidium Planetis votes for."

[Vietnam Nation]

People just read "Nuclear" and FOR without the rest?
It will destroy the peace of this world damm

[Imperium Anglorum]

People just read "Nuclear" and FOR without the rest?
It will destroy the peace of this world damm

How.

[Wrapper]

I've invited the author to come and discuss/defend the proposal, particularly since the campaign TG mentioned "important debate on where we want to direct this organisation and what we wish to do on key issues such as global security."

[Peoples Republic of Stafford]

It should be noted that the GAR#308 fails to describe what exactly a key strategic military asset is.
This could range to anything from a Division's HQ to one simple armored vehicle.

[Imperializt Russia]

It should be noted that the GAR#308 fails to describe what exactly a key strategic military asset is.
This could range to anything from a Division's HQ to one simple armored vehicle.

A single armoured vehicle cannot be justified as a strategic asset, let alone a key strategic asset. Inherently.

[Bears Armed]

A single armoured vehicle cannot be justified as a strategic asset, let alone a key strategic asset. Inherently.

Although some cultures' armoured vehicles can get quite large...
^_^

[Imperializt Russia]

If the People's Standing Army ever face a foe who deploys a vehicle of the standard of the Landkreuzer Ratte, and that force considers this vehicle to be a "key strategic asset", the war cabinet shall laugh while the foe weeps, as it disappears under a hail of cruise missiles and rocket artillery.

Ratte, for all its hype, is literally just a light cruiser whose guns were transported to the land. Making them useless, before we consider the obsolescence of such gunnery.

[Europe and Oceania]

We voted against this repeal.

[Fresynde]

"The current nuclear restrictions have some loopholes, so the world would be better off without any. Do it for peace!"

~ Repeal 'Nuclear Arms Protocol'

[Imperializt Russia]

"The current nuclear restrictions have some loopholes, so the world would be better off without any. Do it for peace!"

~ Repeal 'Nuclear Arms Protocol'

"Oh dear, we have loopholes in the regulations that control nuclear arms.
Let's remove those regulations entirely."

[Europe and Oceania]

"The current nuclear restrictions have some loopholes, so the world would be better off without any. Do it for peace!"

~ Repeal 'Nuclear Arms Protocol'

This is exactly why I never support repeals of resolutions that I support without an immediate replacement.

[The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper]

This is exactly why I never support repeals of resolutions that I support without an immediate replacement.

(Ari and Ahume, eyes wide open, look at each other, hesitate for a moment, then scurry out of the debate hall.)

[Cultural Liaisons Association of Glamour]

---

---

This Association agrees with the repealing of World Assembly: General Assembly Resolution #308 (WA/GAR#308) on the grounds that the abovementioned resolution:

FAILS TO UNDERSTAND that nuclear weapons and weaponised nuclear material are an increasing threat to global security and are proliferating at an increasingly uncontrollable pace, including amongst rogue terrorist groups and culturally hostile and internationally uncooperative nation states;

FAILS TO REALISE the concrete and unparalleled threat posed to civilian populations, infrastructure, the environment (and thereby a globally interconnected and increasingly unstable and unsustainable ecosystem), and by consequence to the global economy and human civilisation, because of the widespread existence of such weaponry;

CONCEDES ALARM that nuclear weapons' grossly destructive nature, when permitted by international law, and when steps are taken in the formulation of international law which expressly contradict the condemnation of such weapons, cannot be realistically edified by international law and that their existence and nature is intended explicitly to cause destruction of a type that obliterates target entities in their entirety and with impermissible levels of collateral damage, including the civilian populations thereof, in an entirely inhumane manner;

ASSUMES the right of member nations to possess and use nuclear weapons in a mode of warfare which is non-conventional in the extreme and which, were it to occur on a grand scale, would yield results so unconventional and unprecedented that the human species would be unprepared to respond in kind in either a humanitarian, moral, combatively retaliatory or long-term sustainability capacity;

AND THUS RESOLVES to enact an unacceptably irresponsible policy that desecrates modern democratic notions of diplomacy and fails to value the commitment to exhaustion of diplomatic avenues towards peace, even during war-time, that This Assembly owes the civilian populations of each of our nations, who should not reasonably expect This Assembly to pass resolutions that fail to honour that responsibility by causing reckless endangerment to every aspect of their lives and to this planet itself; moreover, the implementation of such a resolution would be irreconcilable with the reputation and purpose of This Assembly, which serves to uphold and progress towards a global consensus on co-operation, unless the rote resolution was to later be rightly repealed by a more sensible motion such as the resolution currently at vote.

---

This Association hereby:

i. Recognises the peaceful duty of This Assembly and the undermining of this duty that the failure to repeal WA/GAR#308 would entail;
ii. Notes that indeed pacifist and impartial nations such as The Opulent Citizenry's Demesne of The Esteemed and Liberated Land of Glamour (Glamour), as well as nations valuing international human development and the core tenets of a civilised society and modern democracy for which This Assembly is surely in operation, are unjustly and unethically jeopardised in the most surreal and nightmarish of fashions by the passive toleration of any resolution such as WA/GAR#308;
iii. Adds that the nations which voted to pass WA/GAR#308 endanger themselves by supporting such a resolution and that this is incompatible with Glamour's constancy of the pursuit of international peace, democracy, culture and diplomacy, which can only be procured by the promotion of the swift repeal of such exorbitantly dangerous resolutions by This Assembly, should it seek to build a foundation for the allowance of the continuation of such concepts, rather than adhering to antiquated law in an attempt to turn a blind eye to the proliferation of technologies which are dangerously modern and have no regard for the past, present or future of international relations or humanity itself;
iv. Realises that WA/GAR#308 must be repealed with a view to maintaining the dignity and accuracy of This Assembly in upholding a fluent system of international law, namely in refraining from passing resolutions in the future which, like the abovementioned resolution, fail to take into account even rudimentary issues such as questions of:

1. The extensively variable application of terms such as "an explosive weapon which derives it power solely from nuclear reactions", which cannot be imagined, controlled or agreed upon by the use of such nebulous terminology, let alone mitigated;
2. The limitations in times of warfare as to whether any figure(s) or committee(s) of authority in any nation state in the world that has accessed, developed, or been sold such weaponry either legally or illegally can be reasonably expected to "take all necessary precautions to ensure they do not deliberately target civilian populations with nuclear weapons", especially in the case that the deliberateness of such an action would be unlikely to be of any significance prima facie, and even that such intentions would be indiscernible in the chaos that would have an increased likelihood to ensue internationally;
3. The failure to define "civilian populations" or "strategic military assets" either in context individually or in a relational context to one another, including but not limited to scenarios which may arise if or when any such assets are mobile and/or in transit, including within the territory of third party nations;
4. The outright lack of consolidation or clarification of any of the abovementioned resolution's elements in its concluding sentence, a sentence which This Association is satisfied contradicts the justifications presented within the resolution itself and therefore alone justifies a vote to repeal it, namely the sentence therein: "Clarifies that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as affecting the right of member nations to utilize nuclear weapons against military targets as part of their defence strategy".

---

This Association THUSLY:

Votes to REPEAL absolutely the abovementioned resolution by the honour of the 44th Incumbent Diva, Alisha Nu'le Saratoga, on behalf of the Opulent Citizenry of the Demesne of Glamour.

Jasper Levesque
Global Politico-Militaristic Affairs Representative
Cultural Liaisons Association of Glamour

---

[Sciongrad]

This is exactly why I never support repeals of resolutions that I support without an immediate replacement.

(Ari and Ahume, eyes wide open, look at each other, hesitate for a moment, then scurry out of the debate hall.)

"Make it strong!" Ricardo shouted. "Take away all their guns, too!" he added, before returning to a boiling pot of soup that Natalia had made in a cauldron next to the Scionite delegation's desk.

[Separatist Peoples]

(Ari and Ahume, eyes wide open, look at each other, hesitate for a moment, then scurry out of the debate hall.)

"Make it strong!" Ricardo shouted. "Take away all their guns, too!" he added, before returning to a boiling pot of soup that Natalia had made in a cauldron next to the Scionite delegation's desk.

"You monsters!"

[Imperium Anglorum]

A single armoured vehicle cannot be justified as a strategic asset, let alone a key strategic asset. Inherently.

Although some cultures' armoured vehicles can get quite large...
^_^

Also, hippos.