[Passed!!] Responsibility in Transferring Arms

[Imperium Anglorum]

It is described as A resolution to slash worldwide military spending. But all it does is regulate commerce between countries engaged in the arms industry. It needs to be edited if it's going to be archived and make sense. I vote no till that happens.

It does slash worldwide military spending. Let's say you export military rifles. If there are now restrictions how you can and to whom you can export those rifles, you will sell fewer of them. And thus, there is a reduction in military spending on rifles, which is a form of — you guessed it — military spending. This isn't even a stretch.

[Ticostan]

Does "conquest" include nation building or overthrowing the puppet states of my enemies?

Yes according to me

[Imperium Anglorum]

Does "conquest" include nation building or overthrowing the puppet states of my enemies?

Yes according to me

Does nation-building or regime change involve conquering anything?

[Gages Icelandic Army]

It is described as A resolution to slash worldwide military spending. But all it does is regulate commerce between countries engaged in the arms industry. It needs to be edited if it's going to be archived and make sense. I vote no till that happens.

It does slash worldwide military spending. Let's say you export military rifles. If there are now restrictions how you can and to whom you can export those rifles, you will sell fewer of them. And thus, there is a reduction in military spending on rifles, which is a form of — you guessed it — military spending. This isn't even a stretch.

If my country is importing rifles, all the resolution says is that I have to have a certificate saying I won't sell it.

If my country is exporting rifles (which arms sales for us are private anyway, but theoretically speaking), then my government makes less money. But that doesn't necessarily entail a military spending cut. Because... expenditure redistribution! I'm not going to let my military be underfunded because of of bureaucracy in gun sales. If I was a more right winged country, all this legislation would do is incentivize me to redirect spending from "non vital" funds (like environmental protections, welfare, healthcare, etc) and give it to the military.

So yes, it is a stretch saying this resolution will cut military spending. This resolution is more directed art right winged countries anyway, who (if I'm free to stereotype a little) are more willing then other groups to cut funding from other expenditures and give it to the military.

[Imperium Anglorum]

It does slash worldwide military spending. Let's say you export military rifles. If there are now restrictions how you can and to whom you can export those rifles, you will sell fewer of them. And thus, there is a reduction in military spending on rifles, which is a form of — you guessed it — military spending. This isn't even a stretch.

If my country is importing rifles, all the resolution says is that I have to have a certificate saying I won't sell it.
If my country is exporting rifles (which arms sales for us are private anyway, but theoretically speaking), then my government makes less money. But that doesn't necessarily entail a military spending cut. Because... expenditure redistribution! I'm not going to let my military be underfunded because of of bureaucracy in gun sales. If I was a more right winged country, all this legislation would do is incentivize me to redirect spending from "non vital" funds (like environmental protections, welfare, healthcare, etc) and give it to the military.

The World Assembly does not consider non-static fiscal effects.

[Gages Icelandic Army]

If my country is importing rifles, all the resolution says is that I have to have a certificate saying I won't sell it.
If my country is exporting rifles (which arms sales for us are private anyway, but theoretically speaking), then my government makes less money. But that doesn't necessarily entail a military spending cut. Because... expenditure redistribution! I'm not going to let my military be underfunded because of of bureaucracy in gun sales. If I was a more right winged country, all this legislation would do is incentivize me to redirect spending from "non vital" funds (like environmental protections, welfare, healthcare, etc) and give it to the military.

The World Assembly does not consider non-static fiscal effects.

Agreed. That's why I'm not voting for it.

[Lord Dominator]

"Hmm, yes, I believe I can support this resolution at vote. Stop bad people from getting arms, blah blah blah, human rights, etc. I voted for, can't really see any reason not to."

OOC: I notice that "reasonable evidence" isn't defined. Can't help it if my level of reasonable is so very high.

[Crito]

The fundamental issue here is that arms are property. Like any other piece of property, the idea that some international body would presume to interfere in the trade of arms that happens solely within the boundaries of one nation is outrageous. Further, to regulate what "end users" do with their physical property is beyond the pale. I vote no and you can pry our guns out of Crito's cold dead hands.

[Sweet Baby Jones]

I should be able to sell my weapons to anyone! Even if they have a criminal record over a few miles long!

[Lord Dominator]

The fundamental issue here is that arms are property. Like any other piece of property, the idea that some international body would presume to interfere in the trade of arms that happens solely within the boundaries of one nation is outrageous. Further, to regulate what "end users" do with their physical property is beyond the pale. I vote no and you can pry our guns out of Crito's cold dead hands.

"Ambassador, I suggest you reread clause 5, which specifically states that this resolution doesn't do anything at all with internal movements of arms."

[Excidium Planetis]

"What? Are you serious? Ambassador, you must be joking. Clause 8(c) clearly states that only evidence that the weapons would be used in a war of conquest is sufficient to meet the standards of prohibition."

"Yes, exactly. Evidence the weapons would be used, not in a specific war, but just a war. Ambassador Santos has already agreed that such a war does not even need to exist, but as long as evidence exists that the weapons would be used, if such a war were to possibly occur, it meets the standards of prohibition.

"I am quite confident, Ambassador Ogenbond, that your nation would use foreign arms it had acquired in a war of conquest should it ever occur. Please correct me if I am wrong, and your nation acquired them only to use them solely in defensive wars even if a war of conquest is initiated."

"No. If we don't like your environmental protection regime we can embargo you; or if we find your policies inimical to sustainable development or poverty reduction. All of those things are kicked to the curb when you put boots on another country's soil, or when, as you alluded to, you start flinging nukes. Please see Clauses 2a and 2d."

"But Ambassador, we haven't put boots on the ground or started flinging nukes. As I have argued, and as the Scionite delegation stated agreement with, there doesn't even need to be a war for the terms of this resolution to apply.

"Additionally, your nation could only prohibit arms to Excidians, under GA#209, 'only if such a suspension does not constitute discrimination between goods and services from different member nations with similar issues'. As Excidium Planetis is not at war, you would have to prove that our environmental and sustainability policies are not similar to any other nation you do transfer arms to. I think upon inspection, you will find that Excidium Planetis is quite committed to sustainable development and the environment. Absent wartime, of course."

"But even without that sort of elaborate argument, I don't see how 'reasonable evidence to suggest [the arms] will be used to initiate... a war of conquest' fails to meet the standard of a 'serious international dispute.' You're grasping at straws, Ambassador, and it is becoming more and more painful to watch."

"I don't think buying weapons is a serious international dispute. Maybe if we were actually at war and trying to buy the weapons for that specific war, I could agree that it was a serious international dispute. But if my nation were at peace, and trying to buy handguns, I don't think you could reasonably claim that a serious international dispute was occurring."

[Bears Armed]

It is described as A resolution to slash worldwide military spending. But all it does is regulate commerce between countries engaged in the arms industry. It needs to be edited if it's going to be archived and make sense. I vote no till that happens.

OOC: All proposals submitted in this category are automatically given that line by the game's coding.

[Doppio Giudici]

Does "conquest" include nation building or overthrowing the puppet states of my enemies?

"If those nations do not pose a persistent existential threat to your nation, yes, it is conquest."

So this is a pro-slavery treaty, because every single nation locked in war for the sake of their fellow man, would be put under an arms embargo.

This would include the most powerful and respectable arms dealers, if they were part of the WA.

Due to this, I urge all anti-slavery arms dealers or nations, to pull out of the WA and leave it to it's slavery protecting schemes.

[Holy Tedalonia]

"Ok guys give up your right to trade with whoever you want, reasons to trade MILITARY ARMS like PROMOTE warfare, and give up your ability to run your trade yourself, yeah let's the oppressive corrupt WA international bureaucracy, mahahahahaha!" - evil socialist


Seriously though why would you want the WA to run it for all you know some corrupt employee from a enemy country could just decide, "hmmmmm, those spears are awfully pointy could threaten the human rights if the 'innocent bystander' would lace these spears with some nasty poison" starts lacing it, "ohhhhh, look how dangerous these spears are, now the Tedalonia is breaking WA law, how evil of Tedalonia!"

[Morlago]

On second thought, there is one point we would like clarified. This does, in essence, ban conquest, no? For it seems to us that prohibiting the international movement of arms if it is suspected to be used in conquest, means that no aggressive conflict can start, as soldiers cannot carry weapons outside of their own state borders.

[Doppio Giudici]

On second thought, there is one point we would like clarified. This does, in essence, ban conquest, no? For it seems to us that prohibiting the international movement of arms if it is suspected to be used in conquest, means that no aggressive conflict can start, as soldiers cannot carry weapons outside of their own state borders.

Also it prevents you from invading Slavers.

Anything that prevents you from killing as many slavers as possible is work of The Dark One.

[Excidium Planetis]

On second thought, there is one point we would like clarified. This does, in essence, ban conquest, no? For it seems to us that prohibiting the international movement of arms if it is suspected to be used in conquest, means that no aggressive conflict can start, as soldiers cannot carry weapons outside of their own state borders.

"An interesting interpretation, but as there is an absence of international bodies that actively tell other nations how to interpret resolutions, it is generally accepted that nations interpret resolutions using a reasonable interpretation which benefit a them most, so long as it is compliance in good faith." Ambassador Blackbourne explains.

"Basically, nations initiating conquest would not likely interpret this resolution as to prohibit their own movement of arms to a warzone, but the selling of them only as intended by the author of this resolution."

Also it prevents you from invading Slavers.

Anything that prevents you from killing as many slavers as possible is work of The Dark One.

"Well, yes, it would do that."

[Morlago]

On second thought, there is one point we would like clarified. This does, in essence, ban conquest, no? For it seems to us that prohibiting the international movement of arms if it is suspected to be used in conquest, means that no aggressive conflict can start, as soldiers cannot carry weapons outside of their own state borders.

"An interesting interpretation, but as there is an absence of international bodies that actively tell other nations how to interpret resolutions, it is generally accepted that nations interpret resolutions using a reasonable interpretation which benefit a them most, so long as it is compliance in good faith." Ambassador Blackbourne explains.

"Basically, nations initiating conquest would not likely interpret this resolution as to prohibit their own movement of arms to a warzone, but the selling of them only as intended by the author of this resolution."

"Of course, as with all laws, there is always some ambiguity, some grey areas that are open to interpretation. We imagined the situation would be as you explained. We merely wanted to hear the author's opinion on our view, for we believe that the intent of the bill, though not as important as its wording, should still be considered. The author's own interpretation of his words influences our vote."

[Doppio Giudici]

"4. Defines "conquest" as the acquisition of territory through military force by a successful state at the expense of another state; for the purpose of this resolution, conquest shall not include:

instances where member nations seek to neutralize hostile states that pose a persistent or existential threat to their sovereignty or security or
instances where member nations seek to reclaim territory taken from them by force with no intervening period of de facto peace;"

If I have an ally that is very far away, but who is very close to me, and they get invaded....This law would put me under an arms embargo.

Why? Because I would be waging a war of "Conquest", because I am waging a war against a hostile that isn't a huge wooping threat to me specifically.

What happens if this other power invades my ally twice and I am forced to invade them in turn, to force their military to be deactivated as much as possible? I'm going to have to stand around disarming them and making them pass laws to not be so aggressive, while under arms embargo.

What changes if this other nation nuked my ally, raped millions of people, and brutally killed millions more?

Nothing, I am still under arms embargo, because I am forced to do what America did to Germany and Japan; stand around and teach them to not be violent, lunatics.

[Andrew Wiggin]

If I have an ally that is very far away, but who is very close to me, and they get invaded....This law would put me under an arms embargo.

Why? Because I would be waging a war of "Conquest", because I am waging a war against a hostile that isn't a huge wooping threat to me specifically.

What happens if this other power invades my ally twice and I am forced to invade them in turn, to force their military to be deactivated as much as possible? I'm going to have to stand around disarming them and making them pass laws to not be so aggressive, while under arms embargo.

What changes if this other nation nuked my ally, raped millions of people, and brutally killed millions more?

Nothing, I am still under arms embargo, because I am forced to do what America did to Germany and Japan; stand around and teach them to not be violent, lunatics.

"It would seem that Section 8(c) allows nations to join a war on the side of the target of a war of conquest:

8. Prohibits the international transfer of armaments if: (c) there is reasonable evidence to suggest they will be used to initiate, or aid the party conducting, a war of conquest

"By no means would your coming to an ally's defense be "initiating" a war of conquest, and you certainly would not be aiding the party conducting this war of conquest. Therefore, provided that you come to your ally's aid via some sort of defensive alliance, you are allowed to fight in the war as you please."

Alexi turns to the dais: "I have bee instructed by my government, after participating in a debate for the first time, to read the following message verbatim:

"I am Alexi Alexis Alexander, ambassador for a nation that has since left this planet in search of less inhabited fields. It is an honor to represent my homeland at this esteemed institution. I promise to you all to represent the values and morals of my nation as an independent actor. I will never take direction from my country, so any actions I take, you know, will come from my own conscience. My role is as an independent actor, not a political tool. I receive advice and intelligence from my homeland and nothing more, so you can be sure when you are dealing with me you truly are dealing only with me. On a personal note, I am so happy to be here and quite excited to continue the good work of improving human kind one instrument at a time. Thank you. Tear up as you slowly look around among the delegations. End transmission."

Alexi wipes his tears, throws what appears to be a quartered onion into the trashcan on his desk, and retakes his seat.

[Azaman]

As a representative for my nation, I wish to formally announce that should this act be passed, we refuse to abide by it. Weapons and mass military are our protection being a region full of dictatorships and monarchy nations. We can't feel safe relying on the World Assembly alone to protect us. Any act, or sanction, that forces us to cut our weapons manufacturing or military, will be overlooked, and we will gladly say Deal With It.

[Kitzerland]

As a representative for my nation, I wish to formally announce that should this act be passed, we refuse to abide by it. Weapons and mass military are our protection being a region full of dictatorships and monarchy nations. We can't feel safe relying on the World Assembly alone to protect us. Any act, or sanction, that forces us to cut our weapons manufacturing or military, will be overlooked, and we will gladly say Deal With It.

"Uh.. Did you read the proposal?"

[Wallenburg]

As a representative for my nation, I wish to formally announce that should this act be passed, we refuse to abide by it. Weapons and mass military are our protection being a region full of dictatorships and monarchy nations. We can't feel safe relying on the World Assembly alone to protect us. Any act, or sanction, that forces us to cut our weapons manufacturing or military, will be overlooked, and we will gladly say Deal With It.

"I echo Ambassador Whiskers's words. Please read the text of the resolution before casting your vote on it."

[Wallenburg]

"What? Are you serious? Ambassador, you must be joking. Clause 8(c) clearly states that only evidence that the weapons would be used in a war of conquest is sufficient to meet the standards of prohibition."

"Yes, exactly. Evidence the weapons would be used, not in a specific war, but just a war. Ambassador Santos has already agreed that such a war does not even need to exist, but as long as evidence exists that the weapons would be used, if such a war were to possibly occur, it meets the standards of prohibition.

"Ambassador, your capacity to interpret this resolution so far beyond reasonability--even to the point that you choose to threaten the interests of your own nation to defend your convoluted interpretation--astounds me. At this rate, I feel inclined to vote for this resolution simply to spite your office."

"I am quite confident, Ambassador Ogenbond, that your nation would use foreign arms it had acquired in a war of conquest should it ever occur. Please correct me if I am wrong, and your nation acquired them only to use them solely in defensive wars even if a war of conquest is initiated."

"I doubt Wallenburg would use more than a handful of foreign weapons anyway, since Wallenburgian firearms and guns tend to be cheaper and more effective than foreign imports."

[Morlago]

As a representative for my nation, I wish to formally announce that should this act be passed, we refuse to abide by it. Weapons and mass military are our protection being a region full of dictatorships and monarchy nations. We can't feel safe relying on the World Assembly alone to protect us. Any act, or sanction, that forces us to cut our weapons manufacturing or military, will be overlooked, and we will gladly say Deal With It.

"In addition to the words of our fellow ambassadors, we remind you that you are bound by GAR #122, and given your response, also recommend that you consider hiring more than just one sapient, literate employee."