NATION

PASSWORD

[Passed] Repeal "Chemical Weapons Protocol"

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.
User avatar
The Dourian Embassy
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1547
Founded: Nov 15, 2007
Ex-Nation

[Passed] Repeal "Chemical Weapons Protocol"

Postby The Dourian Embassy » Sun Oct 20, 2013 1:21 pm

So, I've talked with Chester Pearson, and he's agreed to work with me on a repeal and replace of GA#266. He's currently working on his replacement, but I thought I'd get the ball rolling on the effort by posting this here. Input is both welcome and encouraged.

The World Assembly,

Believing that chemical weapons may cause loss of life and environmental damage that is unconscionable to the members of this august assembly,

Bemoaning, however, that the "Chemical Weapons Protocol"(GA#266) contains a number of flaws that preserve an environment in which chemical weapons may still easily fall into the hands of those who would use them recklessly,

Regretting that the resolution fails to make a case for the use of incapacitating agents, which are non-lachrymatory, non-lethal, and heavily restricted by GA#266,

Noting that nearly any chemical "is capable of causing death or severe harm... primarily through its toxic chemical properties" and therefore nearly any chemical is thus classified as a chemical agent for the purposes of GA#266,

Specifying that the World Assembly is committed to improving this legislation, to both reduce flaws, and ensure a more balanced resolution on Chemical Weapons,

Believing that under these circumstances a repeal of GA#266 is both reasonable and expected,

Hereby repeals the "Chemical Weapons Protocol"(GA#266),

Co-Authored by Chester Pearson


Chester's Replacement is here, if you'd like to discuss that. This thread is about the repeal.

FEED ME FEEDBACK.
Last edited by The Dourian Embassy on Mon Nov 04, 2013 1:31 pm, edited 7 times in total.
Treize Dreizehn, President of Douria.

cause ain't no such things as halfway crooks

User avatar
Sciongrad
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2981
Founded: Mar 11, 2012
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Sciongrad » Sun Oct 20, 2013 6:01 pm

The Dourian Embassy wrote:Specifying that both myself and the author of GA#266 are committed to improving this legislation, to both reduce flaws, and ensure a more lasting and balanced resolution on Chemical Weapons.


I'd be very willing to supply you with some more in depth contributions in the near future, but in the mean time, the use of personal pronouns in this line seems like a branding violation.
Last edited by Sciongrad on Sun Oct 20, 2013 6:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Natalia Santos, Plenipotentiary and Permanent Scionite Representative to the World Assembly


Ideological Bulwark #271


User avatar
Chester Pearson
Minister
 
Posts: 2753
Founded: Aug 02, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Chester Pearson » Sun Oct 20, 2013 7:09 pm

Sciongrad wrote:but in the mean time, the use of personal pronouns in this line seems like a branding violation.


I would tend to agree.
Separatist Peoples wrote:With a lawnchair and a large bag of popcorn in hand, Ambassador SaDiablo walks in and sets himself up comfortably. Out of a dufflebag comes a large foam finger with the name "Chester Pearson" emblazoned on it, as well as a few six-packs.
Economic Left/Right: -8.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.90
-17.5 / -6
Chester B. Pearson,
Ambassador, Imperial Minster of Foreign Affairs United Federation of Canada
Premier The North American Union
Secretary-General United Regions Alliance
World Assembly Resolution Author
Recognized as one of the most famous NS's ever

User avatar
The Dourian Embassy
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1547
Founded: Nov 15, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby The Dourian Embassy » Sun Oct 20, 2013 10:31 pm

Chester Pearson wrote:
Sciongrad wrote:but in the mean time, the use of personal pronouns in this line seems like a branding violation.


I would tend to agree.


Yeah that was ill-advised, and fixed.
Treize Dreizehn, President of Douria.

cause ain't no such things as halfway crooks

User avatar
The Dark Star Republic
Senator
 
Posts: 4339
Founded: Oct 19, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby The Dark Star Republic » Mon Oct 21, 2013 3:38 am

The Ambassador rises to address the representative of Douria.

"We find ourselves in agreement that WA Resolution #266 is a troubling document, but as a general principle in matters of 'repeal and replacement', we prefer to see both repeal and replacement to ensure that, first, a bad law is not being replaced by a worse law, second, that the replacement is of sufficient strength that the lengthy process of legislative overhaul is worth investing effort in, and third, that no bait-and-switch as most heinously practised in the case of a former body of international law's repeal of its World Heritage List resolution is at hand.

"Nonetheless, a couple of minor comments on your proposed language while we await such a companion proposal.

"I am uncertain how much 'Noting that nearly any chemical ... is thus classified as a chemical agent for the purposes of GA#266' is in fact of relevance, given that this resolution appears to only legislate 'chemical agents' insofar as they are used 'as weapons', and hence that very little active damage is done by this admittedly overly broad definition.

"It would also be good stylistic practice to consistently capitalise 'world assembly' within your text.

"We look forward to seeing further progress on this discussion, but will for now withhold definitive support or opposition."

User avatar
The Dourian Embassy
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1547
Founded: Nov 15, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby The Dourian Embassy » Mon Oct 21, 2013 6:08 am

The Dark Star Republic wrote:"I am uncertain how much 'Noting that nearly any chemical ... is thus classified as a chemical agent for the purposes of GA#266' is in fact of relevance, given that this resolution appears to only legislate 'chemical agents' insofar as they are used 'as weapons', and hence that very little active damage is done by this admittedly overly broad definition.


For example: Using say, water hoses in riot control(because "may injure military personnel" and "may destroy the environment" are also overly broad) would be banned under that definition.

Mr. Pearson is working on the replacement, so I can't speak to it just yet. But he'll be sending it my way for some input before it goes up on the boards. As soon as it's ready, we'll let you know.
Last edited by The Dourian Embassy on Mon Oct 21, 2013 6:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
Treize Dreizehn, President of Douria.

cause ain't no such things as halfway crooks

User avatar
The Dark Star Republic
Senator
 
Posts: 4339
Founded: Oct 19, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby The Dark Star Republic » Mon Oct 21, 2013 6:29 am

The Ambassador rises to address the representative of Douria.

The Dourian Embassy wrote:For example: Using say, water hoses in riot control(because "may injure military personnel" and "may destroy the environment" are also overly broad) would be banned under that definition.


"Respectfully, that seems an extreme stretch. The only possible way that interpretation stands is if water is defined as a chemical agent. Water intoxication is, while technically possible, extremely rare, and it would be a bizarre act of legislative self-flagellation to deliberately adopt such an interpretation. Of course, if you could demonstrate the likelihood of someone being poisoned to death by exposure to a water hose, we would not only drop our objection, but also drop our pants, revealing a 'Vote For Repeal!' tattoo freshly emblazoned on our buttocks. As it is, we are comfortable remaining clothed.

"Resolution #266 appears to be a poor law and you have made some reasonable arguments for its repeal, but we have never looked favourably upon the underhand practice of wilfully misinterpreting legislation to its detriment solely to advocate for repeal. In this, particular, instance, we do not feel the language in your draft matches the actual severity of issue posed by that article. We would prefer to see language concentrating on the lack of technical detail, the confused definitions, and poorly delineated scope of the Useless Committee."

User avatar
Ainocra
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1364
Founded: Sep 20, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Ainocra » Mon Oct 21, 2013 6:30 am

While I do not support this law, I also feel that it strikes a decent balance which is why I have not pushed for a repeal myself.
I cannot support a replacement that would add even more unnecessary restrictions on the member nations.
However I could support one that eased the current restrictions somewhat.



So, without a replacement to review I cannot offer the support of the Ainocran people at this time.
Alcon Enta
Fleet Marshal of Ainocra
Former Foreign Minister and Top Banana of Monkey Island
Former Keeper of the Deshret and Vizier of Osiris
"From far, from eve and morning and yon twelve-winded sky, the stuff of life to knit blew hither: here am I. ...Now--for a breath I tarry nor yet disperse apart--take my hand quick and tell me, what have you in your heart." --Roger Zelazny

User avatar
The Dourian Embassy
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1547
Founded: Nov 15, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby The Dourian Embassy » Mon Oct 21, 2013 9:01 am

The Dark Star Republic wrote:*snip*


Yes, that reading of the law is quite insane, but it's not open to interpretation. The resolution does what the resolution says.

What we're looking forward to here, is rewriting it to tighten those definitions.
Treize Dreizehn, President of Douria.

cause ain't no such things as halfway crooks

User avatar
Lobbyists
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 43
Founded: Oct 21, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Lobbyists » Mon Oct 21, 2013 11:17 pm

Many of our friends in the chemical manufacturing industries have taken a huge hit in sales since this resolution was passed. We support the repeal, if only to ensure the survival of chemical industry is not hindered by cumbersome laws.

User avatar
Valendia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 897
Founded: May 22, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Valendia » Tue Oct 22, 2013 5:12 am

Lobbyists wrote:Many of our friends in the chemical manufacturing industries have taken a huge hit in sales since this resolution was passed. We support the repeal, if only to ensure the survival of chemical industry is not hindered by cumbersome laws.


"We find this exceedingly difficult to believe given that GAR#266 does not actually ban the production or sale of chemical agents under desirable circumstances. Then again, verity and lobbyism may as well be antonyms."
From the desk of;
Justinius Cato, Chief Ambassador to the World Assembly
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of The Republic of Valendia
“It is the craft of speech that makes one strong; for one's greatest strength is in words, and diplomacy mightier than all fighting.”

User avatar
Lobbyists
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 43
Founded: Oct 21, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Lobbyists » Tue Oct 22, 2013 5:23 am

Valendia wrote:
Lobbyists wrote:Many of our friends in the chemical manufacturing industries have taken a huge hit in sales since this resolution was passed. We support the repeal, if only to ensure the survival of chemical industry is not hindered by cumbersome laws.


"We find this exceedingly difficult to believe given that GAR#266 does not actually ban the production or sale of chemical agents under desirable circumstances. Then again, verity and lobbyism may as well be antonyms."


Ah, but there are nations who decided not to add to their stock of chemicals, because the requirements that they guard their stock was too demanding on their war-stretched resources.

User avatar
Valendia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 897
Founded: May 22, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Valendia » Tue Oct 22, 2013 5:25 am

Lobbyists wrote:
Valendia wrote:
"We find this exceedingly difficult to believe given that GAR#266 does not actually ban the production or sale of chemical agents under desirable circumstances. Then again, verity and lobbyism may as well be antonyms."


Ah, but there are nations who decided not to add to their stock of chemicals, because the requirements that they guard their stock was too demanding on their war-stretched resources.


"We should like to see some evidence as to how many nations did this exactly, and posit that even if any did, a) they represent an infinitesimal minority and b) an irresponsible one who quite frankly should have their access to chemical weapons curtailed."
From the desk of;
Justinius Cato, Chief Ambassador to the World Assembly
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of The Republic of Valendia
“It is the craft of speech that makes one strong; for one's greatest strength is in words, and diplomacy mightier than all fighting.”

User avatar
Lobbyists
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 43
Founded: Oct 21, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Lobbyists » Tue Oct 22, 2013 5:34 am

Valendia wrote:
Lobbyists wrote:
Ah, but there are nations who decided not to add to their stock of chemicals, because the requirements that they guard their stock was too demanding on their war-stretched resources.


"We should like to see some evidence as to how many nations did this exactly, and posit that even if any did, a) they represent an infinitesimal minority and b) an irresponsible one who quite frankly should have their access to chemical weapons curtailed."


We are not authorized to disclose the clientele and capacity of our associates' sales.

User avatar
Valendia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 897
Founded: May 22, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Valendia » Tue Oct 22, 2013 5:38 am

Lobbyists wrote:
Valendia wrote:
"We should like to see some evidence as to how many nations did this exactly, and posit that even if any did, a) they represent an infinitesimal minority and b) an irresponsible one who quite frankly should have their access to chemical weapons curtailed."


We are not authorized to disclose the clientele and capacity of our associates' sales.


"Then we duly authorize ourselves to call bullshit on your claims that the resolution necessitates repeal."
From the desk of;
Justinius Cato, Chief Ambassador to the World Assembly
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of The Republic of Valendia
“It is the craft of speech that makes one strong; for one's greatest strength is in words, and diplomacy mightier than all fighting.”

User avatar
Parti Ouvrier
Minister
 
Posts: 2679
Founded: Aug 19, 2010
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Parti Ouvrier » Tue Oct 22, 2013 6:51 pm

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=266300&p=17080140&sid=53067255d3f7c5be9cfbc80703a262d3#p17080140

I support this resolution, but would oppose another 'Chemical Weapons Protocol.'
Last edited by Parti Ouvrier on Tue Oct 22, 2013 6:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
For a democratic republic of England, Scotland and Wales.
Real EU reforms: All power to the European parliament! And a democratically controlled ECB!
Level up wages and conditions, industrial unions on a European scale and for the free movement of labour
Abolish the European Council of Ministers
Abolish the EU commission and towards a Communist Party of the European Union.
Leave Nato - abolish trident

User avatar
Chester Pearson
Minister
 
Posts: 2753
Founded: Aug 02, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Chester Pearson » Tue Oct 22, 2013 7:16 pm

Parti Ouvrier wrote:http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=266300&p=17080140&sid=53067255d3f7c5be9cfbc80703a262d3#p17080140

I support this resolution, but would oppose another 'Chemical Weapons Protocol.'


Why? What is your big beef against a protocol regulating chemical weapons?

Lobbyists wrote:
Valendia wrote:
"We find this exceedingly difficult to believe given that GAR#266 does not actually ban the production or sale of chemical agents under desirable circumstances. Then again, verity and lobbyism may as well be antonyms."


Ah, but there are nations who decided not to add to their stock of chemicals, because the requirements that they guard their stock was too demanding on their war-stretched resources.


That is the single most stupid argument against the protocol I have seen to date. If they can afford the weapons, they sure as the hell can afford to spend a few dollars securing them can't they?

What's next? Are you going to use the same argument against NAPA, or The Biological Weapons Conference?

Take your briefcase and hit the bricks please!!!
Last edited by Chester Pearson on Tue Oct 22, 2013 7:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Separatist Peoples wrote:With a lawnchair and a large bag of popcorn in hand, Ambassador SaDiablo walks in and sets himself up comfortably. Out of a dufflebag comes a large foam finger with the name "Chester Pearson" emblazoned on it, as well as a few six-packs.
Economic Left/Right: -8.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.90
-17.5 / -6
Chester B. Pearson,
Ambassador, Imperial Minster of Foreign Affairs United Federation of Canada
Premier The North American Union
Secretary-General United Regions Alliance
World Assembly Resolution Author
Recognized as one of the most famous NS's ever

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13637
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Tue Oct 22, 2013 8:50 pm

Chester Pearson wrote:What's next? Are you going to use the same argument against NAPA, or The Biological Weapons Conference?

I would support a bioweapon ban repeal. It's simply not logical to ban bioweapons and landmines, while allowing nuclear weapons.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk.

Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Araraukar wrote:
Blueflarst wrote:a cosmopolitan hammer
United Massachusetts wrote:Can we all call ourselves "cosmopolitan hammers"?
Us cosmopolitan hammers
Can teach some manners
Often sorely lacking
Hence us attacking
Silly GA spammers

User avatar
Lobbyists
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 43
Founded: Oct 21, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Lobbyists » Tue Oct 22, 2013 9:03 pm

Araraukar wrote:
Chester Pearson wrote:What's next? Are you going to use the same argument against NAPA, or The Biological Weapons Conference?

I would support a bioweapon ban repeal. It's simply not logical to ban bioweapons and landmines, while allowing nuclear weapons.


Our colleagues in the biomilitary and extended microbiological industries would like us to covey their pleasure and gratitude at your stance on the issue, Ms. Leveret. Perhaps you would be willing to influence WA member nations to join your cause?

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13637
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Tue Oct 22, 2013 9:08 pm

Lobbyists wrote:Perhaps you would be willing to influence WA member nations to join your cause?

Not really, no, unless someone else drafts up a good repeal attempt. Then I'll try to help make it better.

Araraukar isn't a WA nation anyway, so the restrictions don't apply to us (OOC: not that Araraukar has any sort of weapons of massmurder, but still), it's just more that I'm personally opposed to illogical legislation. I guess that's why I was originally appointed here. Since then I've started wondering who exactly was after my head back when that decision was made...
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk.

Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Araraukar wrote:
Blueflarst wrote:a cosmopolitan hammer
United Massachusetts wrote:Can we all call ourselves "cosmopolitan hammers"?
Us cosmopolitan hammers
Can teach some manners
Often sorely lacking
Hence us attacking
Silly GA spammers

User avatar
Friday Freshman
Diplomat
 
Posts: 700
Founded: Feb 15, 2012
Democratic Socialists

Postby Friday Freshman » Wed Oct 23, 2013 8:45 am

The old resolution should be repealed because it incorrectly uses the word riot and then contradicts itself.

A riot is an offensive maneuver by the people against the people or the government. This resolution only allows non-lethal chemical agents to be used in riots even thought later in the resolution it says that lethal chemical weapons can be used in defensive maneuvers. It would have been better to use the word protest because a protest is normally peaceful.
Signed,

King Arthur Dayne I

King of the Eight Kingdoms of Friday Freshman

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13637
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Wed Oct 23, 2013 8:57 am

Friday Freshman wrote:A riot is an offensive maneuver by the people against the people or the government. This resolution only allows non-lethal chemical agents to be used in riots even thought later in the resolution it says that lethal chemical weapons can be used in defensive maneuvers. It would have been better to use the word protest because a protest is normally peaceful.

...which means you want to use non-lethal chemical agents against peaceful protests?
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk.

Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Araraukar wrote:
Blueflarst wrote:a cosmopolitan hammer
United Massachusetts wrote:Can we all call ourselves "cosmopolitan hammers"?
Us cosmopolitan hammers
Can teach some manners
Often sorely lacking
Hence us attacking
Silly GA spammers

User avatar
Chester Pearson
Minister
 
Posts: 2753
Founded: Aug 02, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Chester Pearson » Wed Oct 23, 2013 9:01 am

Friday Freshman wrote:The old resolution should be repealed because it incorrectly uses the word riot and then contradicts itself.

A riot is an offensive maneuver by the people against the people or the government. This resolution only allows non-lethal chemical agents to be used in riots even thought later in the resolution it says that lethal chemical weapons can be used in defensive maneuvers. It would have been better to use the word protest because a protest is normally peaceful.


Yes... But is a riot an offensive MILITARY maneuver?

The use of chemical agents as weapons (hereafter referred to as chemical weapons) in any capacity that may injure or destroy military personnel, or the environment shall be limited to defensive or delaying operations of aggressive offensive forces,

The use of chemical weapons that have a reasonable probability of affecting civilian populations shall be prohibited,


I believe these two clauses may have just been over the top of your bifocals when you were reading the resolution. I have the name of a really good eye doctor who can take care of that little dilemma for you.

Warmest regards,

Image
Separatist Peoples wrote:With a lawnchair and a large bag of popcorn in hand, Ambassador SaDiablo walks in and sets himself up comfortably. Out of a dufflebag comes a large foam finger with the name "Chester Pearson" emblazoned on it, as well as a few six-packs.
Economic Left/Right: -8.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.90
-17.5 / -6
Chester B. Pearson,
Ambassador, Imperial Minster of Foreign Affairs United Federation of Canada
Premier The North American Union
Secretary-General United Regions Alliance
World Assembly Resolution Author
Recognized as one of the most famous NS's ever

User avatar
Friday Freshman
Diplomat
 
Posts: 700
Founded: Feb 15, 2012
Democratic Socialists

Postby Friday Freshman » Wed Oct 23, 2013 6:38 pm

Chester Pearson wrote:
Friday Freshman wrote:The old resolution should be repealed because it incorrectly uses the word riot and then contradicts itself.

A riot is an offensive maneuver by the people against the people or the government. This resolution only allows non-lethal chemical agents to be used in riots even thought later in the resolution it says that lethal chemical weapons can be used in defensive maneuvers. It would have been better to use the word protest because a protest is normally peaceful.


Yes... But is a riot an offensive MILITARY maneuver?

The use of chemical agents as weapons (hereafter referred to as chemical weapons) in any capacity that may injure or destroy military personnel, or the environment shall be limited to defensive or delaying operations of aggressive offensive forces,

The use of chemical weapons that have a reasonable probability of affecting civilian populations shall be prohibited,


I believe these two clauses may have just been over the top of your bifocals when you were reading the resolution. I have the name of a really good eye doctor who can take care of that little dilemma for you.

Warmest regards,

Image


My eyes are very good thank you very much. I could be a f****** astronaut if I wanted to. And One who engages in any offensive maneuver involved with destruction of property and attacking of other civilians and police would by considered by at least our own standards AN ENEMY COMBATANT. So what your resolution says effectively is that we are not able to fight treason. We couldn't gas anyone for treason or try to effectively fight back against a large scale riot that threatens the stability of not only a city but maybe even an entire nation.
Signed,

King Arthur Dayne I

King of the Eight Kingdoms of Friday Freshman

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 14364
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Wed Oct 23, 2013 7:40 pm

Friday Freshman wrote:
My eyes are very good thank you very much. I could be a f****** astronaut if I wanted to. And One who engages in any offensive maneuver involved with destruction of property and attacking of other civilians and police would by considered by at least our own standards AN ENEMY COMBATANT. So what your resolution says effectively is that we are not able to fight treason. We couldn't gas anyone for treason or try to effectively fight back against a large scale riot that threatens the stability of not only a city but maybe even an entire nation.


It appears that you missed your calling then, Space Cadet Friday. There is a big difference between a riot and a rebellion. Besides, I'm not sure what prevents you from using other methods for stopping a riot. Rubber bullets, police with batons, water cannons, the like.

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat, Authority on All Existence and Chief Populist Elitist


Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads