Repeal GA Resolution #266, "Chemical Weapons Protocol"

[Chester Pearson]

GENERAL ASSEMBLY PROPOSAL
ID: paulsland_1382022995

Repeal "Chemical Weapons Protocol"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.


Category: Repeal

Resolution: GA#266

Proposed by: Paulsland

Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #266: Chemical Weapons Protocol (Category: International Security; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: Description: The World Assembly,

Acknowledging the well-meaning intentions of GA Resolution #266, "Chemical Weapons Protocol",

Understanding that chemical weapons are dangerous weapons of mass destruction,

Noting that the term "reasonable probability" is too broad and doesn't properly define what determines "reasonable probability",

Saddened that GA Resolution #266, "Chemical Weapons Protocol" prohibits "the production, sale, or transfer" of chemical weapons without defining what would actually violate the "intentions and provisions" of the resolution,

Likewise saddened that GA Resolution #266, "Chemical Weapons Protocol", doesn't properly define who "individuals whom have the intent to violate the intentions and provisions of this protocol" are,

Concerned that such broad language without proper definition creates conflicts in interpretation which in turn could possibly undermine the acknowledged well-meaning intentions of the original resolution,

Open to future legislation that properly addresses the issue of chemical weapons use, production, and transfer,

Hoping that any potential future legislation regarding the issue of chemical weapons use, production, and transfer be more definitive and less open to interpretation,

Hereby repeals GA Resolution #266, "Chemical Weapons Protocol".

As the author could not have the decency to put this up in a thread, I will.

[The Akashic Records]

Seems like the author wants a dictionary in every resolution.

[Chester Pearson]

Seems like the author wants a dictionary in every resolution.

Yup.... I will be making my comments on this shortly, but needless to say, this may be illegal.

[The Dourian Embassy]

This is a bad repeal. I'm not saying that a repeal isn't needed, this just ain't it.

[Chester Pearson]

[quote="Chester Pearson";p="17016308"]

GENERAL ASSEMBLY PROPOSAL
ID: paulsland_1382022995

Repeal "Chemical Weapons Protocol"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.


Category: Repeal

Resolution: GA#266

Proposed by: Paulsland

Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #266: Chemical Weapons Protocol (Category: International Security; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: Description: The World Assembly,

Acknowledging the well-meaning intentions of GA Resolution #266, "Chemical Weapons Protocol",

Understanding that chemical weapons are dangerous weapons of mass destruction,

Noting that the term "reasonable probability" is too broad and doesn't properly define what determines "reasonable probability", Does it really need to? Can common sense not prevail on this one, or is your nation full of drunk, inept hillbilles?

Saddened that GA Resolution #266, "Chemical Weapons Protocol" prohibits "the production, sale, or transfer" of chemical weapons without defining what would actually violate the "intentions and provisions" of the resolution, Does NAPA, The Landmine Convention, or The Biological Warfare Convention either?

Likewise saddened that GA Resolution #266, "Chemical Weapons Protocol", doesn't properly define who "individuals whom have the intent to violate the intentions and provisions of this protocol" are, See above...

Concerned that such broad language without proper definition creates conflicts in interpretation which in turn could possibly undermine the acknowledged well-meaning intentions of the original resolution, No they don't. The resolution does exactly what it says, and intends to do.

Open to future legislation that properly addresses the issue of chemical weapons use, production, and transfer, Illegal for attempting to legislate.

Hoping that any potential future legislation regarding the issue of chemical weapons use, production, and transfer be more definitive and less open to interpretation, Illegal for attempting to legislate.

Hereby repeals GA Resolution #266, "Chemical Weapons Protocol".

So the author wants the whole dictionary in the resolution as well? Would that not violate the 3000 character count?

Either way if this begins to scare quorum, I will be submitting a GHR based on the illegalities.

I suspect we will not hear from the author on this one, considering they were too ignorant to even start a drafting thread. It is also amusing to see some of the biggest and most experienced delegates in the world approving this... If it is deemed illegal, I would hope the nations of those regions begin to question the morals and qualifications of their duly elected officials?

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: I'm not gonna lie, I was shocked when I saw the author of this thread...

IC: This is bloody ridiculous...we finally get a halfway tolerable resolution on chemical weapons, you'd think the repeals would at least try to be halfway tolerable...

[Chester Pearson]

you'd think the repeals would at least try to be halfway tolerable...

Why?? Language preservation was repealed on a whole resolution full of lies and bullshit. This comes down to one simple arguement: "YOU TOOK AWAY MY TOYS, SO NOW I AM GOING TO THROW A TEMPER TANTRUM, AND TALK TO THE OTHER PARENT TO GET MY TOYS BACK!!!!!" There is the whole repeal argument in a nutshell.

[Separatist Peoples]

you'd think the repeals would at least try to be halfway tolerable...

Why?? Language preservation was repealed on a whole resolution full of lies and bullshit. This comes down to one simple arguement: "YOU TOOK AWAY MY TOYS, SO NOW I AM GOING TO THROW A TEMPER TANTRUM, AND TALK TO THE OTHER PARENT TO GET MY TOYS BACK!!!!!" There is the whole repeal argument in a nutshell.

Like I said, they could at least try. Can't say I agree about all the repeals following that formula, but I can agree this time, it is definitely the case.

[United Territories of Progorica]

The Ambassador feels that this repeal is lacking a substantive basis. The main criticisms are based on semantics, rather than what is fundamentally wrong with the resolution. There may be problems with the resolution, but it has not been identified here.

[Sciongrad]

This repeal is shamefully weak. I'm not a fan of GAR#266, but I can't, in good faith, support something with so little merit. The only thing that this repeal articulates successfully is the author's inability to use either a dictionary or context.

[Chester Pearson]

This repeal is shamefully weak. I'm not a fan of GAR#266, but I can't, in good faith, support something with so little merit. The only thing that this repeal articulates successfully is the author's inability to use either a dictionary or context.

You're not a fan? Really?

You should be, you helped write over half the damn thing.

[Talkistan]

This repeal is shamefully weak. I'm not a fan of GAR#266, but I can't, in good faith, support something with so little merit. The only thing that this repeal articulates successfully is the author's inability to use either a dictionary or context.

You're not a fan? Really?

You should be, you helped write over half the damn thing.

I can almost sense Mr. Pearson gloating over his passed resolution while making every single one of these comments...

[Chester Pearson]

You're not a fan? Really?

You should be, you helped write over half the damn thing.

I can almost sense Mr. Pearson gloating over his passed resolution while making every single one of these comments...

No not really. I wrote GAR# 266 for the benefit all Assembly members as a whole, not for personal glory, thanks.

Several esteemed Ambassadors of this Assembly were crucial in the drafting process. This was a team effort more than anything, and those Ambassadors that assisted know who they are and should feel very proud of themselves.

Warmest regards,

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

What a hopeless argument over semantics. The law does what the law says. And it's very obvious what it says.

Noting that the term "reasonable probability" is too broad and doesn't properly define what determines "reasonable probability",

Reasonable probability means what is reasonable. What else does it mean? What is reasonable and what is not reasonable is a basic tenant of law simply because it is impossible to otherwise define what such a subjective term. However, you know what reasonable is even if you can't describe it.

Saddened that GA Resolution #266, "Chemical Weapons Protocol" prohibits "the production, sale, or transfer" of chemical weapons without defining what would actually violate the "intentions and provisions" of the resolution

Would not "violating the intent and provisions of the resolution" violate the "intent and provisions of the resolution"? If you don't know what the intent and provisions are, say so, we can explain.

Likewise saddened that GA Resolution #266, "Chemical Weapons Protocol", doesn't properly define who "individuals whom have the intent to violate the intentions and provisions of this protocol" are

Again, probably exactly what it says. If an individual intends to violate the blah blah blah then they must be one of those individuals who you can't find.

[Paulsland]

As the author could not have the decency to put this up in a thread, I will.

Haha. Someone trying to repeal your short-sighted and broad resolution? Insult them!

That's Washington logic, but it's besides the point. Despite the fact I didn't start a thread on the matter, the proposal has steadily been picking up traction since yesterday, with 39 more approvals to go. I'm almost certain when this gets up to vote, the people (44% of whom didn't support the original resolution, mind you) will vote with me on this. While my main argument against your resolution in this repeal proposal focuses mainly on the poor language used in the legislation you managed to pass after forcing it through the GA (even after being defeated, what, twice?), my personal problem with this is the creation of yet another bureaucracy in the WA and the prohibition of "production, sale, or transfer" which I believe is borderline economic fascism.

However, I believe, on the other hand, that a protocol like yours IS necessary, because chemical weapons and other weapons of mass destruction should be regulated in a way that works and isn't open for interpretation. And like I wrote in my proposal, I think we should all be open to legislation regarding the matter of chemical weapons, I do not believe your protocol sufficiently deals with that problem. I guess I'm "not decent" for trying to rid the world of your bad bill that you worked "so hard" to pass, but I'm speaking on behalf of the world here, and I got several telegrams in support of my repeal. So, that's that.

Seems like the author wants a dictionary in every resolution.

Hardly! What I want is language that is clear and cannot be interpreted at will by the bureaucracy the original resolution created, NOR by "those whom have the intent to violate the provisions of this protocol", whoever that is. If he can define what a chemical agent and a riot agent is, he can define what it means to "have the intent" to violate it or who those persons may be. I don't want a dictionary in every resolution, I want well written law that can't be abused, either by the elite in the WA to punish smaller nations or the baddies that want to kill people with these kinds of weapons.

Next, I will comment on the legality of my resolution. I'm having trouble quoting the poster who went on about it being illegal, so I'll just address that here. What exactly makes it illegal? I read all the rules about posting proposals before even writing it. If I somehow missed the rule about not being able to use terrible language in a resolution to repeal it, then it is my position that that rule is a BAD RULE and it itself should be struck out. But, on checking, there is NO RULE in the repeals section regarding the language of a resolution. I'll quote the entire repeals section of rules.

Repeals

Yes, you can Repeal, provided you use the Repeal function. If you make your own Proposal in some other category and calling it a Repeal, it's going to be deleted. Remember, Repeals can only repeal the existing resolution. You can provide reasons for repeal, but not any new provisions or laws.

Furthermore, simply stating "National Sovereignty" (NatSov) is not sufficient grounds for a Repeal. Since such a stance could be used on every single Resolution, it is little more than saying "I don't like it." Religious, cultural and ethnic sovereignty also falls under the umbrella of NatSov.

Also, Repealing on the grounds of an old Resolution violating the current rules is not sufficient. On a more practical side, Repealing because a Resolution violates the rules is itself a MetaGaming violation: the laws do not "exist" from an In Character standpoint.

So, until you provide a better argument regarding the legality of my statue, please find a reason to hate my proposal that makes sense.

Open to future legislation that properly addresses the issue of chemical weapons use, production, and transfer, Illegal for attempting to legislate.

Hoping that any potential future legislation regarding the issue of chemical weapons use, production, and transfer be more definitive and less open to interpretation, Illegal for attempting to legislate.

Oh wow. I guess it is illegal to legislate in the WA now! Even so, that isn't legislating, that is saying in the repeal that the WA is open to future legislation (like other repeals) and is hoping any future legislation is better. Because those aren't written in a way that make them binding (i.e, saying that any future resolution MUST not be open for interpretation) they are completely legal. Like I said, I read all the rules and read some older resolutions in the process of writing this. Try harder.

So the author wants the whole dictionary in the resolution as well? Would that not violate the 3000 character count?

Either way if this begins to scare quorum, I will be submitting a GHR based on the illegalities.

I suspect we will not hear from the author on this one, considering they were too ignorant to even start a drafting thread. It is also amusing to see some of the biggest and most experienced delegates in the world approving this... If it is deemed illegal, I would hope the nations of those regions begin to question the morals and qualifications of their duly elected officials?

Do I want the whole dictionary in the resolution? I didn't see any part of my proposal asking such a thing. All it asks is that you write your resolutions better. You already got defeated before, and then you put it through again, and somehow it got 56% of the vote. That still means 44% don't want it. I'm trying to set a standard here. Poorly written laws can no longer be allowed to stand and I will fight so they don't.

And it is already beginning to scare quorum, so you better submit that now. In less than 24 hours, it has gotten half of the approvals it needs. But good luck on your attempt, the proposal isn't illegal.

You've heard from the author. Must be a bit of a shock. And those experienced delegates see the short-sightedness in your legislation. And no, all of them will stay in power, regardless of what happens with this proposal (All hail the NPO!).

Libraria and Ausitoria just presents a poor argument that is borderline non-sensical and somewhat of a fascist approach to law, so I won't even be responding to it.

Well, that concludes this. I hope we have cleared some things up and I hope you realize you won't be able to just bully your way out of this. "Warmest regards!" and good day to you all!

[Talkistan]

Looks like it might be going to a vote soon...

I shall vote AGAINST, as I tend to do for all repeals that say legislation is necessary on the topic, but are not associated with an attempt at a replacement draft.

[Paulsland]

Looks like it might be going to a vote soon...

I shall vote AGAINST, as I tend to do for all repeals that say legislation is necessary on the topic, but are not associated with an attempt at a replacement draft.

As it is not my resolution, I would concede I have enough respect for the OP to let him rewrite it himself, although it is much too early for a new draft - it isn't even at vote (yet). Although it only needs 37 more approvals.

[Talkistan]

Looks like it might be going to a vote soon...

I shall vote AGAINST, as I tend to do for all repeals that say legislation is necessary on the topic, but are not associated with an attempt at a replacement draft.

As it is not my resolution, I would concede I have enough respect for the OP to let him rewrite it himself, although it is much too early for a new draft - it isn't even at vote (yet). Although it only needs 37 more approvals.

Mr. Pearson doesn't really need to accommodate the points mentioned in the repeal if he posts if he decides to post a new proposal following a successful repeal. Also, we've already seen his take. If you can propose a significantly better replacement, you should.

_{OOC: If you want to make a political point, don't use your flag. (From the NS FAQ. You might consider changing it before someone calls you up on it.)}

[Paulsland]

As it is not my resolution, I would concede I have enough respect for the OP to let him rewrite it himself, although it is much too early for a new draft - it isn't even at vote (yet). Although it only needs 37 more approvals.

Mr. Pearson doesn't really need to accommodate the points mentioned in the repeal if he posts if he decides to post a new proposal following a successful repeal. Also, we've already seen his take. If you can propose a significantly better replacement, you should.

_{OOC: If you want to make a political point, don't use your flag. (From the NS FAQ. You might consider changing it before someone calls you up on it.)}

OOC:I'm not using it as a political point...my nation is called Paulsland for a reason, because I support Mr. Paul. if it is breaking some sort of rule, I'll change it, but I'm not using it in any political context, at least not that I observe.

(EDIT: On second thought, I can see how it might be perceived as a political message. Will change.)

And if Mr. Pearson tries to force through his protocol again unamended, I doubt it would succeed (it was defeated at vote once and this time around 44% of the WA voted against it). But I'm open to dialogue with Mr. Pearson regarding how this protocol can be improved. If he isn't open for such dialogue, I will consult with delegates of the world on how to improve it and together we'll draft a better resolution.

[The Akashic Records]

Seems like the author wants a dictionary in every resolution.

Hardly! What I want is language that is clear and cannot be interpreted at will by the bureaucracy the original resolution created, NOR by "those whom have the intent to violate the provisions of this protocol", whoever that is. If he can define what a chemical agent and a riot agent is, he can define what it means to "have the intent" to violate it or who those persons may be. I don't want a dictionary in every resolution, I want well written law that can't be abused, either by the elite in the WA to punish smaller nations or the baddies that want to kill people with these kinds of weapons.

I would defer you to this particular discussion. Let me give you a quick run through of the meat of your repeal, which may or may not be illegal, because I'm not a mod, nor am I experienced enough to interpret the resolution as well as the more seasoned delegates of this esteemed assembly.

Noting that the term "reasonable probability" is too broad and doesn't properly define what determines "reasonable probability",
Reasonable probability relies on the reasonable nation theory, in that nations are capable of reasoning, if put in context of the resolution. Meaning that, under the auspices of the resolution, chemical weapons are not to be used against civilians. How difficult was that?

Saddened that GA Resolution #266, "Chemical Weapons Protocol" prohibits "the production, sale, or transfer" of chemical weapons without defining what would actually violate the "intentions and provisions" of the resolution,
I'm fairly certain that anyone who plans on using the chemical weapons against the limitations of the resolution, id est, the ban on aggressive or civilian use, would fall under what would violate the "intention and provisions" of the resolution, as that was the meat of the target resolution. In effect, it requires understanding the context of usage, as well as a complete reading of the resolution to make sense of what constitutes as violation of the intentions and provisions of the resolution, and as such, member nations should not produce, sell, or transfer their chemical weapons to said entities.

Likewise saddened that GA Resolution #266, "Chemical Weapons Protocol", doesn't properly define who "individuals whom have the intent to violate the intentions and provisions of this protocol" are,
See both points above.

On the whole, your repeal depends on taking things out of context, and assuming that nations are unreasonable by nature.

Well, that concludes this. I hope we have cleared some things up and I hope you realize you won't be able to just bully your way out of this. "Warmest regards!" and good day to you all!

You do realise that most of the delegates who approved your proposal are ones fond of their chemical weapons, or are rubber stampers, while only a small portion of them really wish for a better legislation? The two former categories of approvals for your proposals so far are, for the most part, from those who are willing to approve anything to repeal the resolution, and those who will approve of anything. I'm not condescending, mind you, because I read this whole thing as sounding condescending if I didn't put this little disclaimer here.

[Zarkanians]

I'm for this repeal, even if I disagree with the reasoning. A pink bullet is still a bullet, however unfortunate it may look.

Making a point, though: weak legislation is ideal, and all the WA should be passing. The WA isn't a federal government system; they don't get to micromanage nations who, in many cases, exist in completely different circumstances than it does. This isn't really weak legislation, but it IS open to interpretation, which, again, is ideal. The only situation I can see this being a problem is in situations where it's not the nation in question that decides what constitutes an act of self-defence.

[Paulsland]

Noting that the term "reasonable probability" is too broad and doesn't properly define what determines "reasonable probability",
Reasonable probability relies on the reasonable nation theory, in that nations are capable of reasoning, if put in context of the resolution. Meaning that, under the auspices of the resolution, chemical weapons are not to be used against civilians. How difficult was that?

In response, I ask you, exactly what would determine what a "reasonable probability" of harming civilians is? For example, a nation uses chemical weapons completely in the confines of this resolution, in a defensive manner or to delay aggressive offensive attacks. If civilians are hurt in the process, does that mean that said nation used chemical weapons with knowledge of a "reasonable probability" to harm civilians? What if they were using the weapons solely in the confines of the resolution and civilians were accidentally harmed? Should they be punished? You can't just leave a glaring hole in interpretation like that in. You have to be clear. What would mean "reasonable probability"? I think it's fairly easy to define. There is "reasonable probability" of harming civilians if the chemical weapons attack is directed at residential areas, or high density commercial areas, or, if you'd like, you could go as far as saying there is "reasonable probability" that civilians will be harmed if the chemical weapons are used in the border confines of your nation. But the term "reasonable probability" itself is flawed, because almost any time chemical weapons are used, there is a good chance innocents will be harmed. Chemical weapons are WMDs after all. So, EVEN IF a nation uses chemical weapons in strict adherence with the resolution (in defense or to delay offense), you could harm civilians, and therefore be punished under this protocol, and that, is not fair, nor should it be upheld. End. Of. Story.

Saddened that GA Resolution #266, "Chemical Weapons Protocol" prohibits "the production, sale, or transfer" of chemical weapons without defining what would actually violate the "intentions and provisions" of the resolution,
I'm fairly certain that anyone who plans on using the chemical weapons against the limitations of the resolution, id est, the ban on aggressive or civilian use, would fall under what would violate the "intention and provisions" of the resolution, as that was the meat of the target resolution. In effect, it requires understanding the context of usage, as well as a complete reading of the resolution to make sense of what constitutes as violation of the intentions and provisions of the resolution, and as such, member nations should not produce, sell, or transfer their chemical weapons to said entities.

So, Nation A sells Nation B a stockpile of Agent Orange. Under the weak language of #266, that could be against the "intents and provisions" of the protocol because you could say, theoretically, that Nation B bought the weapons to use against its population. Should Nation A be punished? Nation B? What if the weapons were bought for defensive purposes? Again, it is weak language and economic fascism. In theory, a nation's economy could be based on military weapons, including chemical weapons, and this broad part of the resolution could hurt their economy. That is not fair, and should not be allowed to stand.

Likewise saddened that GA Resolution #266, "Chemical Weapons Protocol", doesn't properly define who "individuals whom have the intent to violate the intentions and provisions of this protocol" are,
See both points above.

So, Captain John Doe and the troops under his command are in possession of a chemical weapons stockpile. They could, in theory, have the intent to use those weapons against civilians. But if they don't, but they are branded as "those whom have the intent to violate the intentions and provisions of this protocol", the WA could take action against them. This would be ideal for an aggressive nation that wants to attack Captain John Doe's nation. "They're terrorists! They plan on using those weapons against their civilians! Throw them in jail!". Once again, should not be allowed to stand.

On the whole, your repeal depends on taking things out of context, and assuming that nations are unreasonable by nature.

No, not at all. It supposes that some nations would love to use the language in this proposal to harm their enemies, or weaker nations. It also sees the economic strain this resolution could place on member nations. It should be repealed. Maybe my repeal isn't the best, maybe it doesn't use the "right" arguments. But it certainly uses valid ones.



You do realise that most of the delegates who approved your proposal are ones fond of their chemical weapons, or are rubber stampers, while only a small portion of them really wish for a better legislation? The two former categories of approvals for your proposals so far are, for the most part, from those who are willing to approve anything to repeal the resolution, and those who will approve of anything. I'm not condescending, mind you, because I read this whole thing as sounding condescending if I didn't put this little disclaimer here.

The heads of the five starting regions have all approved the proposal. I can't speak for the other four, but my own delegate, Krulltopia, rarely approves WA proposal. His signature should speak volumes. But I digress. You are right. But an approval is an approval. Repealing #266, even if this repeal fails, will be my goal, until I am successful. I will crusade against any legislation that is poorly written. You could argue that nations could use the language in #266 itself to violate the intent of it. Any law like that needs immediate repeal.

Responses bolded and underlined.

On the reasonable nation theory. I believe that the loopholes in #266 are big enough that they supersede said theory. This could be argued and debated all day, but let it go to vote. Let the member nations decide. If you don't let it go to vote, you're essentially denying the WA member nations the ability to decide for themselves whether or not said loopholes and problems in interpretation are big enough that something should be done about them.

Likewise, as the link you posted says, "Moderators will often invoke Reasonable Nation Theory during proposal drafting, although it has never been established as an official rule."

So, it isn't an official rule, and while it is mostly correct to assume that nations are reasonable, there are some (an example being, like the above poster said, "those who are fond of their chemical weapons", who could take advantage of language that is too broad to continue to use their chemical weapons or catch others in a legal net.

My argument is that in this case the language is so open for interpretation that even while nations may be reasonable, they could take advantage of the language to their advantage. Which could be debated. Let the debate be a vote.

[Araraukar]

Oh wow. I guess it is illegal to legislate in the WA now!

It's illegal to try to legislate in a repeal.

[Paulsland]

Oh wow. I guess it is illegal to legislate in the WA now!

It's illegal to try to legislate in a repeal.

Like I pointed out above, it doesn't say that any future legislation MUST, it says that it HOPES that any future legislation WILL. So I believe it is legal.

[The Akashic Records]

In response, I ask you, exactly what would determine what a "reasonable probability" of harming civilians is? For example, a nation uses chemical weapons completely in the confines of this resolution, in a defensive manner or to delay aggressive offensive attacks. If civilians are hurt in the process, does that mean that said nation used chemical weapons with knowledge of a "reasonable probability" to harm civilians? What if they were using the weapons solely in the confines of the resolution and civilians were accidentally harmed? Should they be punished? You can't just leave a glaring hole in interpretation like that in. You have to be clear. What would mean "reasonable probability"? I think it's fairly easy to define. There is "reasonable probability" of harming civilians if the chemical weapons attack is directed at residential areas, or high density commercial areas, or, if you'd like, you could go as far as saying there is "reasonable probability" that civilians will be harmed if the chemical weapons are used in the border confines of your nation. But the term "reasonable probability" itself is flawed, because almost any time chemical weapons are used, there is a good chance innocents will be harmed. Chemical weapons are WMDs after all. So, EVEN IF a nation uses chemical weapons in strict adherence with the resolution (in defense or to delay offense), you could harm civilians, and therefore be punished under this protocol, and that, is not fair, nor should it be upheld. End. Of. Story.

You are aware, that, in all your semantics, "reasonable probability" also means "foreseeable circumstances", don't you? By definition, accidental is unforeseeable, and as such, your concerns are unfounded at best. If by glaring you mean wilful ignorance of content and context, then you most certainly have found something to glare at.

So, Nation A sells Nation B a stockpile of Agent Orange. Under the weak language of #266, that could be against the "intents and provisions" of the protocol because you could say, theoretically, that Nation B bought the weapons to use against its population. Should Nation A be punished? Nation B? What if the weapons were bought for defensive purposes? Again, it is weak language and economic fascism. In theory, a nation's economy could be based on military weapons, including chemical weapons, and this broad part of the resolution could hurt their economy. That is not fair, and should not be allowed to stand.

Again, I'm not getting what you're arguing here. You seem to think that a nation's economy is based solely on the sale of chemical weapons that are exclusively for use against civilians. It depends on the producing nation's discretion whether or not to sell their weapons, and if they believe that it would be used in a capacity that is against the resolution, they are to refuse. Nothing more, nothing less. If, we go by your concerns, it shouldn't be directed at the economy of the producing nation, but rather, the shirking of responsibility by the producing nation for selling the chemical weapons, then claiming ignorance of it at the time of the sale when it was used against the intent and provisions of the resolution. That, is what you should say in your repeal.

So, Captain John Doe and the troops under his command are in possession of a chemical weapons stockpile. They could, in theory, have the intent to use those weapons against civilians. But if they don't, but they are branded as "those whom have the intent to violate the intentions and provisions of this protocol", the WA could take action against them. This would be ideal for an aggressive nation that wants to attack Captain John Doe's nation. "They're terrorists! They plan on using those weapons against their civilians! Throw them in jail!". Once again, should not be allowed to stand.

Umm, no. Sorry to burst your bubble, but you've ventured into unreasonable nation territory here. While it's (reasonable nation theory) not an official rule, it is generally accepted that nations that invade other nations on simple suspicions alone are, by definition, unreasonable. There must be proof of intent, and the onus lies with the nation that declares their suspicion, accompanied by non-violent investigation into the matter, before any actual action should be taken. There's also the simple fact that I do not see anything requiring intervention or anything of the sort in the resolution. It only calls for disarmament, to an extent, and reduces the proliferation of lethal chemical weapons. Absolutely nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, and nothing, in the text that calls for any sort of international conflict justification within the resolution.

No, not at all. It supposes that some nations would love to use the language in this proposal to harm their enemies, or weaker nations. It also sees the economic strain this resolution could place on member nations. It should be repealed. Maybe my repeal isn't the best, maybe it doesn't use the "right" arguments. But it certainly uses valid ones.

I wouldn't call your points valid, but the body as a whole have been swayed by less.

Likewise, as the link you posted says, "Moderators will often invoke Reasonable Nation Theory during proposal drafting, although it has never been established as an official rule."

So, it isn't an official rule, and while it is mostly correct to assume that nations are reasonable, there are some (an example being, like the above poster said, "those who are fond of their chemical weapons", who could take advantage of language that is too broad to continue to use their chemical weapons or catch others in a legal net.

Unfortunately, there isn't anything in the resolution, save for the shirking of responsibility, that I can identify as being advantageous.

On the reasonable nation theory. I believe that the loopholes in #266 are big enough that they supersede said theory. This could be argued and debated all day, but let it go to vote. Let the member nations decide. If you don't let it go to vote, you're essentially denying the WA member nations the ability to decide for themselves whether or not said loopholes and problems in interpretation are big enough that something should be done about them.
[...]
My argument is that in this case the language is so open for interpretation that even while nations may be reasonable, they could take advantage of the language to their advantage. Which could be debated. Let the debate be a vote.

Ahahahahahaha...hah...ha..ha... Ahem. You are aware of the lemming effect in votes, and that most nations who voted for the resolution in the first place would be just as likely to vote for a repeal, while at the same time, not even bothering to debate anything? I'm all for engaging others, but, do you actually see how many people are actually regulars here?