NATION

PASSWORD

[SUBMITTED] World Assembly WMD Accord

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Cowardly Pacifists
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1457
Founded: Dec 12, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Cowardly Pacifists » Sat Feb 18, 2012 9:57 pm

United Celts wrote:
Cowardly Pacifists wrote:Here are a couple I've thought of off the top of my head: WA Peace Accords and The WA Non-Aggression Pact. I prefer the former as it has an acronym, WAPA, that really rolls off the tongue. On the other hand, WANAP does seem to fit with the Armed Republic of Cowardly Pacifists' current flag. I don't think a title that deals exclusively with WMDs would be appropriate either because the proposal does more than address WMDs.

I agree with your thinking. Personally, I'd prefer the WA Non-Aggression Pact out of the two. I don't think it's right to call it a Peace Accord when the first thing the resolution says is "CONFRONTED with the fact that while military conflict between nations should be avoided wherever possible, nations will go to war;"

I think I'm gonna take a few more suggestions then put the matter to the people via a poll.
The We Already Surrender of Cowardly Pacifists

Warning: Sometimes uses puppets.
Another Warning: Posts from this nation are always OOC.

User avatar
Cowardly Pacifists
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1457
Founded: Dec 12, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Cowardly Pacifists » Sat Feb 18, 2012 10:10 pm

Auralia wrote:Actually, the ambassador's statement makes perfect sense. We don't trust the WA to dictate morality, including which wars are "right" and which wars are "wrong." That responsibility should rest with Auralia alone.

Everything the WA does rests on a shared sense of morality. From the Restrictions on Child Labor to Food and Drug Standards to the Forced Marriages Ban Act (which Christian Democrats co-authored). There is also a category of WA resolutions called "Moral Decency." But beyond that, I'd argue that there's a moral dimension to literally every single resolution on the books.

So the question is not whether the WA should dictate morality - since clearly it should - but which areas of morality we think are so significant as to justify invoking international law. And, of course, conduct in war is certainly a moral issue of international concern.

I remind you that this body has time and again passed resolutions restricting conduct in wartime. I'll grant you that I'm taking a stab at going much further than this body has gone before. But I really cannot understand an argument that the WA should not be addressing wartime conduct. One would think that if this body is going to address Arts and Education, Gambling, and Recreational Drug Use, we had damn well better be addressing Warfare as well.
The We Already Surrender of Cowardly Pacifists

Warning: Sometimes uses puppets.
Another Warning: Posts from this nation are always OOC.

User avatar
Auralia
Senator
 
Posts: 4949
Founded: Dec 15, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Auralia » Sat Feb 18, 2012 10:15 pm

Cowardly Pacifists wrote:
Auralia wrote:Actually, the ambassador's statement makes perfect sense. We don't trust the WA to dictate morality, including which wars are "right" and which wars are "wrong." That responsibility should rest with Auralia alone.

Everything the WA does rests on a shared sense of morality. From the Restrictions on Child Labor to Food and Drug Standards to the Forced Marriages Ban Act (which Christian Democrats co-authored). There is also a category of WA resolutions called "Moral Decency." But beyond that, I'd argue that there's a moral dimension to literally every single resolution on the books.

So the question is not whether the WA should dictate morality - since clearly it should - but which areas of morality we think are so significant as to justify invoking international law. And, of course, conduct in war is certainly a moral issue of international concern.

I remind you that this body has time and again passed resolutions restricting conduct in wartime. I'll grant you that I'm taking a stab at going much further than this body has gone before. But I really cannot understand an argument that the WA should not be addressing wartime conduct. One would think that if this body is going to address Arts and Education, Gambling, and Recreational Drug Use, we had damn well better be addressing Warfare as well.


Fair enough. I admit there are certain areas where international law is necessary, but I don't think this is one of them.

Anyway, I said I wouldn't participate further in this discussion, so what am I doing here?
Catholic Commonwealth of Auralia
Also known as Railana

"Amor sequitur cognitionem."

User avatar
Cowardly Pacifists
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1457
Founded: Dec 12, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Cowardly Pacifists » Sat Feb 18, 2012 10:16 pm

Auralia wrote:Anyway, I said I wouldn't participate further in this discussion, so what am I doing here?

You'll be back. I know you can't resist. :p
The We Already Surrender of Cowardly Pacifists

Warning: Sometimes uses puppets.
Another Warning: Posts from this nation are always OOC.

User avatar
Ryouese Black Islands
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1754
Founded: Nov 01, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Ryouese Black Islands » Sat Feb 18, 2012 10:19 pm

No ban on WMDs! No Ban on War! Long with total aggression!
Colonies of Ryou
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.
New Age people claim The "Space Brothers" are coming. I say "Do they have Space Sisters?"
StGeorge: you're pathetic
13:25 StGeorge: seriously
13:25 StGeorge: just leave ns already
13:25 StGeorge: you're an embarrassment to the site
13:25 StGeorge: and should have been thrown out months ago

User avatar
Cowardly Pacifists
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1457
Founded: Dec 12, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Cowardly Pacifists » Sat Feb 18, 2012 10:22 pm

Ryouese Black Islands wrote:No ban on WMDs! No Ban on War! Long with total aggression!

Melvin flashes a smirk and a scolding glance at the Ryouese delegation
The We Already Surrender of Cowardly Pacifists

Warning: Sometimes uses puppets.
Another Warning: Posts from this nation are always OOC.

User avatar
Sionis Prioratus
Senator
 
Posts: 3537
Founded: Feb 07, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Sionis Prioratus » Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:04 pm

Cowardly Pacifists wrote:Everything the WA does rests on a shared sense of morality. [T]here's a moral dimension to literally every single resolution on the books. So the question is not whether the WA should dictate morality - since clearly it should - but which areas of morality we think are so significant as to justify invoking international law.


I just wanted to say for now that the above quote is made of pure epic win. I am even thinking about sigging it.

Yours,
Cathérine Victoire de Saint-Clair
Haute Ambassadrice for the WA for
✡ The Jewish Kingdom of Sionis Prioratus
Daughter of The Late King Adrian the First
In the Name of
Sa Majesté Impériale Dagobert VI de Saint-Clair
A simple truth

User avatar
Cowardly Pacifists
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1457
Founded: Dec 12, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Cowardly Pacifists » Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:08 pm

Sionis Prioratus wrote:I just wanted to say for now that the above quote is made of pure epic win. I am even thinking about sigging it.

Thank you Ambassador, I appreciate the sentiment.
The We Already Surrender of Cowardly Pacifists

Warning: Sometimes uses puppets.
Another Warning: Posts from this nation are always OOC.

User avatar
Flibbleites
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 6569
Founded: Jan 02, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Flibbleites » Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:19 pm

What I'm about to say may come as a shock to some people, so those people might want to sit down.

I Bob Flibble, author of the NAPA, support this proposal. I have no problems with the WA banning it's members from using WMDs on other WA members.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

User avatar
Cowardly Pacifists
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1457
Founded: Dec 12, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Cowardly Pacifists » Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:22 pm

Flibbleites wrote:What I'm about to say may come as a shock to some people, so those people might want to sit down.

I Bob Flibble, author of the NAPA, support this proposal. I have no problems with the WA banning it's members from using WMDs on other WA members.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

:shock:

:lol:
The We Already Surrender of Cowardly Pacifists

Warning: Sometimes uses puppets.
Another Warning: Posts from this nation are always OOC.

User avatar
Goobergunchia
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 1623
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Goobergunchia » Sun Feb 19, 2012 12:48 am

Lord Evif looks over at Bob Flibble, mutters something incoherent about NatSovs, and faints.

User avatar
The Republic of Lanos
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17727
Founded: Apr 17, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby The Republic of Lanos » Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:18 am

*the entire Lanosian delegation starts drinking a case of beer*

Well if Bob didn't give us a reason to drink on the job before...

User avatar
Globexanter
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6351
Founded: Aug 17, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Globexanter » Sun Feb 19, 2012 4:21 am

Ryouese Black Islands wrote:No ban on WMDs! No Ban on War! Long with total aggression!

"Of course, if we did so, the Ryouese Black Islands wouldn't be able to go to war and actually finish it... Oh wait, they never do."

User avatar
Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Terratories
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 145
Founded: Jan 14, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Terratories » Sun Feb 19, 2012 4:55 am

It is the view of the Party that though Weapons of Mass Destruction should not be used under ordinary circumstance, there are some nations within the WA with less regard for legislation than most. In our view, it is incredibly damaging to have no legitimate deterrant program, and any restriction on their useage could well cause hostile states to 'call our bluff' as it were.

The Party does not desire to use WMD's, but if we are forced into dire circumstance, we would feel much more secure in the knowledge that if we are forced to utilize them, we will not have a WA condemnation on our hands in addition to having the moral weight of using such weapons, not to mention repairing the damage caused by enemy WMD's on our soil.

That said, we believe there ought to be heavy sanction for nations performing a 'first strike' WMD attack.

The Ambassador glances with ill-disguised contempt at the Ryouese delegation.
Last edited by Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Terratories on Sun Feb 19, 2012 5:02 am, edited 2 times in total.
Our Labour delivers us from Tyrrany.

User avatar
Grand America
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1379
Founded: Feb 05, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Grand America » Sun Feb 19, 2012 4:57 am

Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Terratories wrote:It is the view of the Party that though Weapons of Mass Destruction should not be used under ordinary circumstance, there are many nations outside of the WA willing and able to use them. In our view, it is incredibly damaging to have no legitimate deterrant program, and any restriction on their useage could well cause hostile states to 'call our bluff' as it were.

The Party does not desire to use WMD's, but if we are forced into dire circumstance, we would feel much more secure in the knowledge that if we are forced to utilize them, we will not have a WA condemnation on our hands in addition to having the moral weight of using such weapons, not to mention repairing the damage caused by enemy WMD's on our soil.


:palm:

That's the main excuse that most nations use. Understand that this only applies if one member-state is fighting another. If you're not fighting a member-state, then WMDs aren't restricted.
People shouldn't be afraid of their governments;
governments should be afraid of their people.


Saving the World, Coalition of Steel

Economic Left/Right: -3.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.38
1/2/3/4/5

1) Full-Scale War
2) Conflict
3) High Alert
4) Elevated
5) Peace-Time
Heirosoloa wrote:
Socialist republic of Andrew wrote:Yes give up now and you will be allowed to live

JonathanAtopia wrote:Live what

You will be alive, as opposed to being dead.

User avatar
Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Terratories
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 145
Founded: Jan 14, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Terratories » Sun Feb 19, 2012 5:01 am

Grand America wrote: :palm:

That's the main excuse that most nations use. Understand that this only applies if one member-state is fighting another. If you're not fighting a member-state, then WMDs aren't restricted.


Our apologies, our argument has been restructured accordingly.
Our Labour delivers us from Tyrrany.

User avatar
Alqania
Minister
 
Posts: 2548
Founded: Aug 03, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Alqania » Sun Feb 19, 2012 5:23 am

Lord Raekevik seemed to be in a cheerful mood as he took the floor. "The Queendom finds this proposal most interesting. However, we cannot ignore that there are fellow member states, truly worthy of condemnation, that show an utter disregard and contempt for the letter of the law and violate both their own laws and international law whenever it suits them. We cannot say that these member states are worthy of the protection that this proposal would offer them. The Queendom would therefore prefer if the proposal were somehow edited to restrict these protections to member states that fulfil their obligations under international law."
Queendom of Alqania
Amor vincit omnia et nos cedamus amori
Former Speaker of the Gay Regional Parliament
Represented in the WA by Ambassador Lord Raekevikinfo
and Deputy Ambassador Princess Christineinfo
Author of GA#178
Member of UNOG and the Stonewall Alliance

User avatar
Auralia
Senator
 
Posts: 4949
Founded: Dec 15, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Auralia » Sun Feb 19, 2012 8:01 am

Alqania wrote:Lord Raekevik seemed to be in a cheerful mood as he took the floor. "The Queendom finds this proposal most interesting. However, we cannot ignore that there are fellow member states, truly worthy of condemnation, that show an utter disregard and contempt for the letter of the law and violate both their own laws and international law whenever it suits them. We cannot say that these member states are worthy of the protection that this proposal would offer them. The Queendom would therefore prefer if the proposal were somehow edited to restrict these protections to member states that fulfil their obligations under international law."


So does that mean that member states who violate international law can use WMDs?
Catholic Commonwealth of Auralia
Also known as Railana

"Amor sequitur cognitionem."

User avatar
Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Terratories
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 145
Founded: Jan 14, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Terratories » Sun Feb 19, 2012 9:12 am

Auralia wrote:
Alqania wrote:Lord Raekevik seemed to be in a cheerful mood as he took the floor. "The Queendom finds this proposal most interesting. However, we cannot ignore that there are fellow member states, truly worthy of condemnation, that show an utter disregard and contempt for the letter of the law and violate both their own laws and international law whenever it suits them. We cannot say that these member states are worthy of the protection that this proposal would offer them. The Queendom would therefore prefer if the proposal were somehow edited to restrict these protections to member states that fulfil their obligations under international law."


So does that mean that member states who violate international law can use WMDs?


I think that the Alqanian delegate means that violaters of international law would use WMDs, and still be offered the same protection from WMDs as other member states.
We do need a clause stating that any member nation who disregards this legeslation is no longer under its protection.
Our Labour delivers us from Tyrrany.

User avatar
Astro-Malsitari WA Seat
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 371
Founded: Sep 04, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Astro-Malsitari WA Seat » Sun Feb 19, 2012 9:16 am

Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Terratories wrote:
Auralia wrote:
So does that mean that member states who violate international law can use WMDs?


I think that the Alqanian delegate means that violaters of international law would use WMDs, and still be offered the same protection from WMDs as other member states.
We do need a clause stating that any member nation who disregards this legeslation is no longer under its protection.


As I've encountered when I tried to write a proposal bringing violators of international law to justice, I'm pretty sure we're not allowed to acknowledge that some nations refuse to comply with resolutions. At least not in our proposals. For all intents and purposes of our proposals, we must assume that member states will all comply all the time like good little nations.
Representing the interests of Malsitar and Astrolinium in the World Assembly
| The Sublime Island Kingdom of Astrolinium | Ambassador to the WA: Dr. Giovanni Romero, PhD | Chief Justice and Vice Magister of The South |
| The Unified Federal Republics of Malsitar | Ambassador to the WA: Dr. Chandler Whitt, LLD | Citizen of Spiritus |
And of course, Giovanni's illegitimate child and everyone's favorite pervy teen, Melvin Ruiz Walsh-Romero!

User avatar
Sanctaria
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 7374
Founded: Sep 12, 2008
New York Times Democracy

Postby Sanctaria » Sun Feb 19, 2012 9:17 am

Astro-Malsitari WA Seat wrote:
Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Terratories wrote:
I think that the Alqanian delegate means that violaters of international law would use WMDs, and still be offered the same protection from WMDs as other member states.
We do need a clause stating that any member nation who disregards this legeslation is no longer under its protection.


As I've encountered when I tried to write a proposal bringing violators of international law to justice, I'm pretty sure we're not allowed to acknowledge that some nations refuse to comply with resolutions. At least not in our proposals. For all intents and purposes of our proposals, we must assume that member states will all comply all the time like good little nations.


Dunno. The ICC was created. One would assume that if we assume member states comply all the time, such a thing wouldn't be needed.
Divine Federation of Sanctaria

Ideological Bulwark #258
Member of UNOG

Dr. Katherine Saunders ORD DSJ, Sanctarian Ambassador to the World Assembly
Author of:
GA#109 GA#133 GA#176 GA#201 GA#222 GA#297
Frisbeeteria wrote:Do people not realize that moderators can tell when someone is wanking?

Luna Amore wrote:Sanc is always watching. Ever vigilant.

User avatar
Alqania
Minister
 
Posts: 2548
Founded: Aug 03, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Alqania » Sun Feb 19, 2012 9:24 am

Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Terratories wrote:
Auralia wrote:
So does that mean that member states who violate international law can use WMDs?


I think that the Alqanian delegate means that violaters of international law would use WMDs, and still be offered the same protection from WMDs as other member states.
We do need a clause stating that any member nation who disregards this legeslation is no longer under its protection.


"What I meant was that member states who violate any resolution should not be protected by this one. There are, to name a couple examples of abhorrent practices, member states who engage in slavery and genocide, even if such things are banned by this assembly and through the work of the compliance commission incorporated as national law in those very member states. The Queendom is of the position that such barbarians should receive the same treatment from us that non-member states engaging in such atrocities do.

To clarify, resolutions are incorporated into member states' national law. The law of any member state is therefore in compliance with every resolution. However, there are governments in member states that disregard the law and act illegally. The compliance gnomes are bureaucrats, they are not an army or police force."
Queendom of Alqania
Amor vincit omnia et nos cedamus amori
Former Speaker of the Gay Regional Parliament
Represented in the WA by Ambassador Lord Raekevikinfo
and Deputy Ambassador Princess Christineinfo
Author of GA#178
Member of UNOG and the Stonewall Alliance

User avatar
Astro-Malsitari WA Seat
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 371
Founded: Sep 04, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Astro-Malsitari WA Seat » Sun Feb 19, 2012 9:30 am

Sanctaria wrote:
Astro-Malsitari WA Seat wrote:
As I've encountered when I tried to write a proposal bringing violators of international law to justice, I'm pretty sure we're not allowed to acknowledge that some nations refuse to comply with resolutions. At least not in our proposals. For all intents and purposes of our proposals, we must assume that member states will all comply all the time like good little nations.


Dunno. The ICC was created. One would assume that if we assume member states comply all the time, such a thing wouldn't be needed.


That's not the vibe I got from the responses to this early draft of mine before I turned it into a joke to save face.
Representing the interests of Malsitar and Astrolinium in the World Assembly
| The Sublime Island Kingdom of Astrolinium | Ambassador to the WA: Dr. Giovanni Romero, PhD | Chief Justice and Vice Magister of The South |
| The Unified Federal Republics of Malsitar | Ambassador to the WA: Dr. Chandler Whitt, LLD | Citizen of Spiritus |
And of course, Giovanni's illegitimate child and everyone's favorite pervy teen, Melvin Ruiz Walsh-Romero!

User avatar
Sanctaria
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 7374
Founded: Sep 12, 2008
New York Times Democracy

Postby Sanctaria » Sun Feb 19, 2012 9:34 am

Astro-Malsitari WA Seat wrote:
Sanctaria wrote:
Dunno. The ICC was created. One would assume that if we assume member states comply all the time, such a thing wouldn't be needed.


That's not the vibe I got from the responses to this early draft of mine before I turned it into a joke to save face.


Whether that's the case or not, the ICC does exist. I dunno, it's one of those fine lines I guess.
Divine Federation of Sanctaria

Ideological Bulwark #258
Member of UNOG

Dr. Katherine Saunders ORD DSJ, Sanctarian Ambassador to the World Assembly
Author of:
GA#109 GA#133 GA#176 GA#201 GA#222 GA#297
Frisbeeteria wrote:Do people not realize that moderators can tell when someone is wanking?

Luna Amore wrote:Sanc is always watching. Ever vigilant.

User avatar
Astro-Malsitari WA Seat
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 371
Founded: Sep 04, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Astro-Malsitari WA Seat » Sun Feb 19, 2012 9:48 am

Sanctaria wrote:


Whether that's the case or not, the ICC does exist. I dunno, it's one of those fine lines I guess.


I think the difference is that individual people can be wrong, but whole nations cannot.
Representing the interests of Malsitar and Astrolinium in the World Assembly
| The Sublime Island Kingdom of Astrolinium | Ambassador to the WA: Dr. Giovanni Romero, PhD | Chief Justice and Vice Magister of The South |
| The Unified Federal Republics of Malsitar | Ambassador to the WA: Dr. Chandler Whitt, LLD | Citizen of Spiritus |
And of course, Giovanni's illegitimate child and everyone's favorite pervy teen, Melvin Ruiz Walsh-Romero!

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads