NATION

PASSWORD

[DEFEATED] Responsible Arms Transfers

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Liagolas
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 357
Founded: Dec 18, 2015
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Liagolas » Fri Apr 22, 2016 7:10 pm

Excidium Planetis wrote:"Aside from the fact that we have no polo players in Excidium Planetis*, we did not wish to conduct a high stakes sporting competition, which provides no military training to our forces and thus offers no benefit to the loser in any way, whereas the Aeiouian Mock War provided much combat experience to both sides. We could indeed have created a simulation, but simulations do not mimic reality completely, do not offer quite the same training experience as the real thing, and, more importantly, I would argue that they would still be a war of conquest.

"The issue here is at what point is something merely a game rather than a war? In a simulated war in which there is a real planet at stake, is it not still a war of conquest, even if it is a cyberwar? One could even argue that because the Aeiouians are infomorphs, the war actually involved their soldiers personally."

"Regarding the possibly reduced accuracy and lesser training benefits of a digital warfare simulation, it would be the consideration of the Dominion that such would be worth the costs you would save," the Mouth says. "Sending real drones out to fight and be destroyed sounds horrifyingly expensive! However, doing it on a digital scale could cost considerably less.

"But to address what you said was more important... it is the concession of the Dominion that you may be correct. The draft declares that conquest involves military 'force,' which could conceivably not be limited to the realm of the physical and include the realm of the simulated."

The Mouth drums its fingers on the table for a bit and adds, "The Dominion has only one inquiry left. In your consensual warfare, why do you feel a need for territory acquisition to be involved? If it is, at the end of the day, little more than a glorified game or training exercise, why does territory need to be ceded?"
The Place Without a PeopleThe Dominion, brieflyThe Liagolas (leader) • MT. The dystopia pretending to be a hivemind. • When NS stats make your nation look freer than it's meant to be. • Security Council: *dips toe into roleplaying* General Assembly: *slaps SC*
In insisting it's a political simulation, NS ignores its reality as a political simulation game. Games have boundaries, and modern roleplaying games have safety tools. NS has neither, leaving it stuck as a badge-collecting pay-to-win where causticness is excused as "character," griefing/raiding is "just politics," and F7 is more courteous than General Assembly.

User avatar
Sootofgoo
Civilian
 
Posts: 1
Founded: Apr 22, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Sootofgoo » Fri Apr 22, 2016 7:31 pm

Spooky, scary skeletons
send shivers down your spine
Shrieking skulls will shock your soul
Seal your doom tonight

User avatar
Kyrusia
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 10152
Founded: Nov 12, 2007
Capitalizt

Postby Kyrusia » Fri Apr 22, 2016 8:00 pm

Sootofgoo wrote:Spooky, scary skeletons
send shivers down your spine
Shrieking skulls will shock your soul
Seal your doom tonight

This constitutes spam; don't do it. Please review the One Stop Rules Shop before you continue posting.
[KYRU]
old. roleplayer. the goat your parents warned you about.

User avatar
Excidium Planetis
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8067
Founded: May 01, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Excidium Planetis » Sat Apr 23, 2016 12:02 am

Liagolas wrote:"Regarding the possibly reduced accuracy and lesser training benefits of a digital warfare simulation, it would be the consideration of the Dominion that such would be worth the costs you would save," the Mouth says. "Sending real drones out to fight and be destroyed sounds horrifyingly expensive! However, doing it on a digital scale could cost considerably less.

"This is true. However, it worked out well in our case, as I hear we got a hostile enemy raiding party that waltzed into the battle to leave after giving them rights to the debris field."

Liagolas wrote:The Mouth drums its fingers on the table for a bit and adds, "The Dominion has only one inquiry left. In your consensual warfare, why do you feel a need for territory acquisition to be involved? If it is, at the end of the day, little more than a glorified game or training exercise, why does territory need to be ceded?"

"Don't stakes make things more exciting? That's why people like poker, right? Anyways, since lives were not really at stake in the battle, we had to give our soldiers something to fight for. Territory, in this case. The promise of new territory for Excidium Planetis, the potential loss of the rights to Chri-irah, which we never actually had in the first place."
Current Ambassador: Adelia Meritt
Ex-Ambassador: Cornelia Schultz, author of GA#355 and GA#368.
#MakeLegislationFunnyAgain
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
Tier 9 nation, according to my index.Made of nomadic fleets.


News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.

User avatar
Liagolas
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 357
Founded: Dec 18, 2015
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Liagolas » Sat Apr 23, 2016 12:33 am

Excidium Planetis wrote:"This is true. However, it worked out well in our case, as I hear we got a hostile enemy raiding party that waltzed into the battle to leave after giving them rights to the debris field."

"Still... to imagine how much it must cost your military to purchase or manufacture new weapons and drones in a technical peacetime... it is the astonishment of the Dominion that your government can sustain such an expensive hobby."

Excidium Planetis wrote:"Don't stakes make things more exciting? That's why people like poker, right? Anyways, since lives were not really at stake in the battle, we had to give our soldiers something to fight for. Territory, in this case. The promise of new territory for Excidium Planetis, the potential loss of the rights to Chri-irah, which we never actually had in the first place."

The Mouth chuckles a bit and says, "It was the impression of the Dominion that games that weren't meant to actually mean anything yielded 'bragging rights' for the victor. But, very well." The Mouth raises its hands in a defensive posture and shrugs. "It is the concession of the Dominion that it is unlikely to ever persuade you or your people to abandon your hobby, bizarre though it may seem to the Dominion.

"Though... is it really sporting to promise territory your people does not actually have the rights to? Actually, how does territory work in Excidium Planetis? Is not your people perpetually perambulating?" Now the Mouth just sounds confused, and the more it considers the matter the more it does not understand.
The Place Without a PeopleThe Dominion, brieflyThe Liagolas (leader) • MT. The dystopia pretending to be a hivemind. • When NS stats make your nation look freer than it's meant to be. • Security Council: *dips toe into roleplaying* General Assembly: *slaps SC*
In insisting it's a political simulation, NS ignores its reality as a political simulation game. Games have boundaries, and modern roleplaying games have safety tools. NS has neither, leaving it stuck as a badge-collecting pay-to-win where causticness is excused as "character," griefing/raiding is "just politics," and F7 is more courteous than General Assembly.

User avatar
Excidium Planetis
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8067
Founded: May 01, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Excidium Planetis » Sat Apr 23, 2016 12:52 am

Liagolas wrote:"Still... to imagine how much it must cost your military to purchase or manufacture new weapons and drones in a technical peacetime... it is the astonishment of the Dominion that your government can sustain such an expensive hobby."

"I believe we will get a return on our investment in the form of mining our new planet."


Liagolas wrote:"Though... is it really sporting to promise territory your people does not actually have the rights to? Actually, how does territory work in Excidium Planetis? Is not your people perpetually perambulating?" Now the Mouth just sounds confused, and the more it considers the matter the more it does not understand.

"Sporting? Perhaps not. But we never intended to lose, and we did have control of roughly 20% of the planet at the time we made the bet. We could have potentially made good on our promise to Aeiouia had we lost.

"Excidium Planetis has, technically, no inhabited territory. Chri-irah is not fully ours, and what little is marginally under our control is actually a puppet state called Tenzeni. Olber III, following the Mock War, is fully ours, but it isn't inhabited. As for the rest of what belongs to us, we don't have territorial claims per say. Our fleets merely show up in unclaimed systems and mine them out. Of course, we occasionally mess up and arrive in a claimed system, which is why Silent Fleet holds a 5 year contract with the R.u.B. Union to mine stellar objects beyond the outermost planetary orbit of the NB-174c system."
Last edited by Excidium Planetis on Sat Apr 23, 2016 12:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
Current Ambassador: Adelia Meritt
Ex-Ambassador: Cornelia Schultz, author of GA#355 and GA#368.
#MakeLegislationFunnyAgain
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
Tier 9 nation, according to my index.Made of nomadic fleets.


News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.

User avatar
Verlzonia
Envoy
 
Posts: 220
Founded: Apr 08, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Verlzonia » Sat Apr 23, 2016 1:46 am

Clause 2 of the resolution distrupts the help of other nations In events that they cannot save themselves (such as a civil war), and Is too generalized for a clear understanding of what the nation that proposed this Is trying to address.

I would also like to confirm that this whole resolution Is a blatant carbon copy of past resolutions & should be Illegal, and I am suprised If It is legal to copy & paste resolutions.

I oppose this resolution heavily.
A Revolutionary, A Tyrant. My middle name is Controversy.

MY NATION DOES NOT REPRESENT MY VIEWS

PRO: Traditional Greco-Roman-Christian values, The Following of the Phostonkaiskotia, the True Path of Earthly Immortality, The Truth Path of Heavenly Immortality, The Truth Path of Secret Knowledge
ANTI: Degeneracy in all it's forms, The False Paths, Those who fight against the Phostonkaiskotia.


There are those who do not realize that one day we all must die. But those who do realize this settle their quarrels.Dp 6

User avatar
Little Tralfamadore
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 155
Founded: May 06, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Little Tralfamadore » Sat Apr 23, 2016 3:49 am

Defines "armament" as military equipment, specifically weapons and ammunition, which possesses a practical application in military conflict, including the designs or subassemblies necessary in their construction or production;


So basically every single organic and inorganic matter known to the universe

Defines "end-user certificate" as an affidavit completed by the buyer of armaments subject to the provisions of this resolution which verifies that said buyer is the final recipient of the product;


So we're fine if we have a magic piece of paper? After anyone willing to use the weapons in conquest would never write a false affidavit

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


So all we have to do is declare that nation x is a threat to us? The more paranoid the nation the more arms they can use/trade

future resolutions which seek to relax regulations on purchasing firearms for recreational reasons only


So now you're trying to use the WA resolution to dictate that their members have to ban guns within their borders!? I guess we could always say it isn't for recreational use. Still that is non-acceptable even with the loophole

Urges member nations to implement systems of end-use monitoring to ensure that end-user certification is authentic, when possible;


Of course you only see that the certification is false after the transfer.

Prohibits the international transfer of armaments if:

There is reasonable evidence to suggest they will be used to initiate, or aid the party conducting, a war of conquest and;


So as long as they nation is going to war for any reason other than land grab we're free to sell them as many arms as we want.

no, we'll be voting no

User avatar
Excidium Planetis
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8067
Founded: May 01, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Excidium Planetis » Sat Apr 23, 2016 9:54 am

Verlzonia wrote:I would also like to confirm that this whole resolution Is a blatant carbon copy of past resolutions & should be Illegal, and I am suprised If It is legal to copy & paste resolutions.

It is legal if you are the original author. Sciongrad is.
Current Ambassador: Adelia Meritt
Ex-Ambassador: Cornelia Schultz, author of GA#355 and GA#368.
#MakeLegislationFunnyAgain
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
Tier 9 nation, according to my index.Made of nomadic fleets.


News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.

User avatar
Kasear
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 4
Founded: Nov 29, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Kasear » Sat Apr 23, 2016 2:16 pm

A large bickering gaggle of meerkats approach the podium, slapping at each other and arguing over who should speak. Soon one of them manages to grab ahold of the microphone and shouts, "In light of--" He's pulled away in the squabble and it takes another little while to calm down.

Several minutes later, they manage to get a spokeskat up who speaks timidly, as if afraid the ensuing melee behind her will claim her, "In light of our nation still making determined efforts to rebuild its economy after revolution, the Unified Meerkats have difficulty seeing the issues with the resolution. We'd kindly ask reasons we might not wish to supp--"

Before she can finish, a bunch of meerkats demanding to speak grab hold of her, and she frantically grabs onto the microphone. "THE UNIFIED MEERKATS THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME!" She, and the microphone, are ripped away from the podium, leaving sparking cables and wires behind.
Last edited by Kasear on Sat Apr 23, 2016 2:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 22873
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
Democratic Socialists

Postby Wallenburg » Sat Apr 23, 2016 3:08 pm

Kasear wrote:A large bickering gaggle of meerkats approach the podium, slapping at each other and arguing over who should speak. Soon one of them manages to grab ahold of the microphone and shouts, "In light of--" He's pulled away in the squabble and it takes another little while to calm down.

Several minutes later, they manage to get a spokeskat up who speaks timidly, as if afraid the ensuing melee behind her will claim her, "In light of our nation still making determined efforts to rebuild its economy after revolution, the Unified Meerkats have difficulty seeing the issues with the resolution. We'd kindly ask reasons we might not wish to supp--"

Before she can finish, a bunch of meerkats demanding to speak grab hold of her, and she frantically grabs onto the microphone. "THE UNIFIED MEERKATS THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME!" She, and the microphone, are ripped away from the podium, leaving sparking cables and wires behind.

Ogenbond looks up from drafting his formal opinion. "Umm...okay..." He looks around himself awkwardly before retuning to work.
While she had no regrets about throwing the lever to douse her husband's mistress in molten gold, Blanche did feel a pang of conscience for the innocent bystanders whose proximity had caused them to suffer gilt by association.

King of Snark, Real Piece of Work, Metabolizer of Oxygen, Old Man from The East Pacific, by the Malevolence of Her Infinite Terribleness Catherine Gratwick the Sole and True Claimant to the Bears Armed Vacancy, Protector of the Realm

User avatar
Ghostopolis
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 55
Founded: Apr 08, 2013
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Ghostopolis » Sun Apr 24, 2016 3:16 am

A young man walks toward the center of the assembly floor, carrying with him a small folder. He nervously clears his throat and stammers a bit as he looks wildly around him at the various delegations. He fumbles for a complementary glass of water, spilling its contents on the desk nearby. He panics and dabs at the water with the papers in his hands before realizing his mistake, eyes growing wide. After slowly sinking into the ground for a few minutes, he slowly rises back up from out of the ground and sheepishly addresses the officials closest to him, as he fails to project his voice loudly enough to be heard by the rest of the chamber.

"Ambassador Geist has authorized me to state the official position of The Versutian Federation in the current vote, as he is unable to conduct his usual business with the assembly due to a 'sudden rift in trust between the institution and the nations it governs.' His statement is as follows:

As delegate of The Versutian Federation, I have cast my vote against the resolution in question. For the most part I find the resolution to be well-crafted and broadly acceptable. I nevertheless oppose the resolution for what I assume are the same reasons as the vast majority of my region: this resolution has the effect of narrowly defining what it deems to be acceptable warfare, and in so doing fails to allow the facilitation of several types of conflicts, some of which may actually be just as justified as what this resolution contemplates. I generally prefer a great deal more flexibility in resolutions of this caliber, especially one that wades into the thorny topic of war and national defense. Regrettably, I must oppose this resolution in spite of its great goals and its otherwise well-crafted provisions.

"I also had his prepared statement regarding the previous vote and his views on its alleged illegality...but regrettably that statement was...rendered unsuitable for transmission due to...chemical failure."

The young aide mutters a few additional though unintelligible words and slowly sinks through the floor.

User avatar
Louisistan
Diplomat
 
Posts: 811
Founded: Sep 10, 2012
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Louisistan » Sun Apr 24, 2016 5:51 am

OOC: Excuse me for clarifying so late, but I was insanely busy these past two days.

To paraphrase what Paffnia already said: There was no R/D motive or old grudge behind my vote. The reason I was "stacking" against this prosposal is twofold:
  1. The votes against your proposal in the offsite poll were more than the votes in favour
  2. I checked into NS on my way to work. It just so happened that this was shortly after voting started. Since I don't always have time to check NS while I'm at work, I like to do it in the mornings and if there's a new proposal at vote, I lodge my votes according to the forum poll.

You are welcome to try and influence the offsite poll by participating in the debate on our offsite forums. The WA sub-board is open for everyone.

Your apology on your actions in days of yore has been noted and is appreciated. Thank you. I will pass it along to the Council of Nine. I will not be stacking/stomping on any of your proposals based on what happened back then.
Knight of TITO

User avatar
Gartherin
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 2
Founded: Apr 13, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Gartherin » Sun Apr 24, 2016 7:26 am

guys can anybody explain me about this simplified about what's the issue i am not understanding it :unsure: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 16989
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Separatist Peoples » Sun Apr 24, 2016 8:41 am

Gartherin wrote:guys can anybody explain me about this simplified about what's the issue i am not understanding it :unsure: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :

OOC: If you can't understand it having read it, I'm not sure you're qualified to vote on it...

His Worshipfulness, the Most Unscrupulous, Plainly Deceitful, Dissembling, Strategicly Calculating Lord GA Secretariat, Authority on All Existence, Arbiter of Right, Toxic Globalist Dog, Dark Psychic Vampire, and Chief Populist Elitist!
Separatist Peoples should RESIGN!

User avatar
Sciongrad
Minister
 
Posts: 3060
Founded: Mar 11, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Sciongrad » Sun Apr 24, 2016 8:59 am

Gartherin wrote:guys can anybody explain me about this simplified about what's the issue i am not understanding it :unsure: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :

OOC: If you can't understand it, why did you vote against it?
Natalia Santos, Plenipotentiary and Permanent Scionite Representative to the World Assembly


Ideological Bulwark #271


User avatar
Rosa do Povo
Civilian
 
Posts: 1
Founded: Apr 22, 2016
Ex-Nation

On behalf of the Republic Rose from the people, I vote no to

Postby Rosa do Povo » Sun Apr 24, 2016 10:53 am

Sciongrad wrote:
Category: Global Disarmament | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: Sciongrad


The General Assembly,

Reaffirming its commitment to promoting international peace and goodwill,

Recognizing the extreme hazard to national populations posed by the unregulated trade of armaments,

Hoping to limit the involvement of member nations and their citizens in violence made possible by the aforementioned unregulated trade of armaments,

1. Defines "armament" as military equipment, specifically weapons and ammunition, which possesses a practical application in military conflict, including the designs or subassemblies necessary in their construction or production;

2. Defines "transfer" as the movement of an armament from one member nation, political subdivision thereof, or non-state entity associated with a member nation to any other such entity, including non-member nations and non-state entities not associated with any nation;

3. Defines "end-user certificate" as an affidavit completed by the buyer of armaments subject to the provisions of this resolution which verifies that said buyer is the final recipient of the product;

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:
  1. instances where member nations seek to neutralize hostile states that pose a persistent or existential threat to their sovereignty or security or
  2. instances where member nations seek to reclaim territory taken from them by force with no intervening period of de facto peace;
5. Assures member nations of the exclusive right to determine purely internal arms trading and firearm policy, excepting:
  1. those regulations recognized by the terms of this resolution or extant international law,
  2. future regulations which seek to prevent firearms from being sold to or used by individuals that pose a danger of performing imminent lawless action, or
  3. future resolutions which seek to relax regulations on purchasing firearms for recreational reasons only;
6. Requires all manufacturers, exporters, and brokers of armaments within member nations to register with the relevant governments of the nations in which they operate and the terms of such a registration shall, at minimum, encompass the provisions of this resolution;

7. Mandates that the export of armaments by any manufacturer, exporter, or broker operating within a member nation shall make the transfer of their armaments to an intended final recipient conditional on the completion of an end-user certificate by the buyer;

8. Urges member nations to implement systems of end-use monitoring to ensure that the end-user certificate is authentic, when possible;

9. Prohibits the international transfer of armaments if:
  1. There is reasonable evidence to suggest they will be used in contravention of extant World Assembly legislation on human rights,
  2. There is reasonable evidence to suggest they will be diverted from their originally intended recipient, except in instances where the transfer is absolutely necessary in protecting national security, provided that even those transfers do not violate the other provisions of this resolution or,
  3. There is reasonable evidence to suggest they will be used to initiate, or aid the party conducting, a war of conquest and;
10. Further prohibits the transfer of armaments to non-member nations with the intent of transferring them to nations where the aforementioned circumstances apply.


The General Assembly,

Reaffirming its position of international peace and goodwill,

Recognizing the extreme hazard to national populations posed by the unregulated trade of weapons and armaments,

Hoping to limit the involvement of member nations and their citizens in violence made possible by the aforementioned unregulated trade of weapons and armaments,

1. Defines the term "armament" as military equipment, specifically weapons and ammunition, which possess a practical application in military conflict, including the parts necessary in their construction or production;

2. Defines the term "transfer" as the movement of an armament from one member nation, political subdivisions thereof, or non-state entities associated with a member nation to any other such entity, including non-member nations and non-state entities not associated with any nation;

3. Defines term "end-user certificate" as an affidavit completed by the buyer of armaments subject to the provisions of this resolution which verifies that said buyer is the final recipient of the product;

4. Assures member nations of the exclusive right to determine purely internal arms trading and firearm policy, excepting those regulations recognized by the terms of this resolution or extant international law, future regulations which seek to prevent firearms from being sold to or used by individuals that pose a danger of performing imminent lawless action, or future resolutions which seek to relax regulations on purchasing firearms for recreational reasons only;

5. Requires all manufacturers, exporters, and brokers of armaments within member nations to register with the relevant government(s) of the nation(s) in which they operate, and the terms of such a registration shall, at minimum, encompass the provisions of this resolution;

6. Mandates that the export of armaments by any manufacturer, exporter, or broker operating within a member nation shall make the sale of their armaments conditional on the completion of an end-user certificate by the buyer; member nations are strongly urged to implement systems of end-use monitoring to ensure that the end-user certificate is authentic, when possible;

7. Prohibits the sale or transfer of armaments if:
  1. There is reasonable evidence to suggest they will be used in contravention of extant World Assembly legislation on human rights,
  2. There is reasonable evidence to suggest they will be diverted from their originally intended recipient, or
  3. There is reasonable evidence to suggest they will be used to initiate, or aid the aggressor in, a war of conquest or expropriation;
[/list]
8. Further prohibits the sale or transfer of armaments to non-member nations with the intent of then transferring them to nations where the aforementioned circumstances apply.[/box]

[spoiler=Draft 3]
The General Assembly,

Reaffirming its position of promoting international peace and goodwill,

Recognizing the extreme hazard to national populations posed by the unregulated trade of weapons and armaments,

Hoping to limit the involvement of member nations and their citizens in violence made possible by the aforementioned unregulated trade of weapons and armaments,

1. Defines the term "armament" as military equipment, specifically weapons and ammunition, which possess a practical application in military conflict, including the subassemblies necessary in their construction or production;

2. Defines the term "transfer" as the movement of an armament from one member nation, political subdivisions thereof, or non-state entities associated with a member nation to any other such entity, including non-member nations and non-state entities not associated with any nation;

3. Defines term "end-user certificate" as an affidavit completed by the buyer of armaments subject to the provisions of this resolution which verifies that said buyer is the final recipient of the product;

4. Assures member nations of the exclusive right to determine purely internal arms trading and firearm policy, excepting:
  1. those regulations recognized by the terms of this resolution or extant international law,
  2. future regulations which seek to prevent firearms from being sold to or used by individuals that pose a danger of performing imminent lawless action, or
  3. future resolutions which seek to relax regulations on purchasing firearms for recreational reasons only;

5. Requires all manufacturers, exporters, and brokers of armaments within member nations to register with the relevant government(s) of the nation(s) in which they operate, and the terms of such a registration shall, at minimum, encompass the provisions of this resolution;

6. Mandates that the export of armaments by any manufacturer, exporter, or broker operating within a member nation shall make the sale of their armaments to an intended final recipient conditional on the completion of an end-user certificate by the buyer; member nations are strongly urged to implement systems of end-use monitoring to ensure that the end-user certificate is authentic, when possible;

7. Prohibits the sale or transfer of armaments if:
  1. There is reasonable evidence to suggest they will be used in contravention of extant World Assembly legislation on human rights,
  2. There is reasonable evidence to suggest they will be diverted from their originally intended recipient, except in instances where the transfer is absolutely necessary in protecting national security, so long as even those transfers do not violate the other provisions of this resolution, or,
  3. There is reasonable evidence to suggest they will be used to initiate, or aid the aggressor in, a war of conquest which, for the purpose of this resolution, will not include reclaiming lost territory;
8. Further prohibits the sale or transfer of armaments to non-member nations with the intent of then transferring them to nations where the aforementioned circumstances apply.


The General Assembly,

Reaffirming its position of international peace and goodwill,

Recognizing the extreme hazard to national populations posed by the unregulated trade of weapons and armaments,

Hoping to limit the involvement of member nations and their citizens in violence made possible by the aforementioned unregulated trade of weapons and armaments,

1. Defines the term "armament" as military equipment, specifically weapons and ammunition, which possess a practical application in military conflict, including the parts necessary in their construction or production;

2. Defines the term "transfer" as the movement of an armament from one member nation, political subdivisions thereof, or non-state entities associated with a member nation to any other such entity, including non-member nations and non-state entities not associated with any nation;

3. Defines term "end-user certificate" as an affidavit completed by the buyer of armaments subject to the provisions of this resolution which verifies that said buyer is the final recipient of the product;

4. Assures member nations of the exclusive right to determine purely internal arms trading and firearm policy, excepting those regulations recognized by the terms of this resolution or extant international law, future regulations which seek to prevent firearms from being sold to or used by individuals that pose a danger of performing imminent lawless action, or future resolutions which seek to relax regulations on purchasing firearms for recreational reasons only;

5. Requires all manufacturers, exporters, and brokers of armaments within member nations to register with the relevant government(s) of the nation(s) in which they operate, and the terms of such a registration shall, at minimum, encompass the provisions of this resolution;

6. Mandates that the export of armaments by any manufacturer, exporter, or broker operating within a member nation shall make the sale of their armaments conditional on the completion of an end-user certificate by the buyer; member nations are strongly urged to implement systems of end-use monitoring to ensure that the end-user certificate is authentic, when possible;

7. Prohibits the sale or transfer of armaments if:
  1. There is reasonable evidence to suggest they will be used in contravention of extant World Assembly legislation on human rights,
  2. There is reasonable evidence to suggest they will be diverted from their originally intended recipient, or
  3. There is reasonable evidence to suggest they will be used to initiate, or aid the aggressor in, a war of conquest or expropriation;
[/list]
8. Further prohibits the sale or transfer of armaments to non-member nations with the intent of then transferring them to nations where the aforementioned circumstances apply.


I'll be submitting this again in the near future. Comments and suggestions are, as always, most welcome. Potential name changes would also be appreciated.

User avatar
Danitze
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 11
Founded: Feb 10, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Danitze » Mon Apr 25, 2016 2:02 am

"We are somewhat confused. We understand the sovereignty problems implied in a war of conquest, but surely the proposer understands the possibility of international coalitions determined to, for example, liberate a region from warmonger tyrants? This proposal seems to forbid material support to such actions, even when they are eventually beneficial to peaceful coexistence. Even so, our main eyebrow-raise would be article 5-c, which seems to reserve the WA the right to resolve in favour of lax citizen gun ownership regulations. This seems to be completely out of the original intent of the assembly! We will hold our vote, in awe of clarification of this point from the proposer, but we must admit that it seems we won't support this resolution. Airé!"

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 16989
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Separatist Peoples » Mon Apr 25, 2016 5:25 am

Danitze wrote:"We are somewhat confused. We understand the sovereignty problems implied in a war of conquest, but surely the proposer understands the possibility of international coalitions determined to, for example, liberate a region from warmonger tyrants? This proposal seems to forbid material support to such actions, even when they are eventually beneficial to peaceful coexistence. Even so, our main eyebrow-raise would be article 5-c, which seems to reserve the WA the right to resolve in favour of lax citizen gun ownership regulations. This seems to be completely out of the original intent of the assembly! We will hold our vote, in awe of clarification of this point from the proposer, but we must admit that it seems we won't support this resolution. Airé!"

"Nothing in this would prevent you from passing strict gun laws, ambassador. It just prevents the WA from intruding on a wholly domestic issue."

His Worshipfulness, the Most Unscrupulous, Plainly Deceitful, Dissembling, Strategicly Calculating Lord GA Secretariat, Authority on All Existence, Arbiter of Right, Toxic Globalist Dog, Dark Psychic Vampire, and Chief Populist Elitist!
Separatist Peoples should RESIGN!

User avatar
The Archregimancy
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 30605
Founded: Aug 01, 2005
Democratic Socialists

Postby The Archregimancy » Mon Apr 25, 2016 6:05 am

Gartherin wrote:guys can anybody explain me about this simplified about what's the issue i am not understanding it
:unsure: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :


Let's be a bit more careful with the smilies, thank you - overuse can be construed as smiley spam, and in extreme circumstances can lead to formal moderator action.

User avatar
The Archregimancy
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 30605
Founded: Aug 01, 2005
Democratic Socialists

Postby The Archregimancy » Mon Apr 25, 2016 6:06 am

Rosa do Povo wrote: [Post redacted]



And while we're at it....

Please don't just quote a post without adding something to discussion.

Thank you.
Last edited by The Archregimancy on Mon Apr 25, 2016 6:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Danitze
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 11
Founded: Feb 10, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Danitze » Mon Apr 25, 2016 6:09 am

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Danitze wrote:"We are somewhat confused. We understand the sovereignty problems implied in a war of conquest, but surely the proposer understands the possibility of international coalitions determined to, for example, liberate a region from warmonger tyrants? This proposal seems to forbid material support to such actions, even when they are eventually beneficial to peaceful coexistence. Even so, our main eyebrow-raise would be article 5-c, which seems to reserve the WA the right to resolve in favour of lax citizen gun ownership regulations. This seems to be completely out of the original intent of the assembly! We will hold our vote, in awe of clarification of this point from the proposer, but we must admit that it seems we won't support this resolution. Airé!"

"Nothing in this would prevent you from passing strict gun laws, ambassador. It just prevents the WA from intruding on a wholly domestic issue."

"That was our first impression, ambassador, but we think there's more to it, for this is the precise wording:

5. Assures member nations of the exclusive right to determine purely internal arms trading and firearm policy, excepting:
[..]
c. future resolutions which seek to relax regulations on purchasing firearms for recreational reasons only;


Which means that member nations will not hold the exclusive rights for regulations on purchasing firearms for recreational reasons only. This clause allows for the WA to pass future resolutions relaxing firearm restrictions on recreational only firearms.
And furthermore, our other complaint about the explicit forbidance of material support to liberation wars for external regimes, including those which are a threat to their neighboring countries, no matter how heinous their crimes are. If, in a particular nation, Separatists (hope this never comes to be) were taken, rounded, and killed in mass, we think your nation would have the right to, if no other avenue or solution were possible, invade and forcefully stop the regime causing it, and it would be the duty of many of your allies to provide you with as much help as possible, including weaponry. We would surely be forced to do such a thing, were to happen to Danii on other nations. What about criminal acts against a regime's own people?
To us, these two concerns seem to come from small mishaps on the wording of the proposal, and therefore think that small clarifications would be enough for this resolution to pass, with our fervent approval, on a next voting round."

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 16989
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Separatist Peoples » Mon Apr 25, 2016 7:43 am

Danitze wrote:"That was our first impression, ambassador, but we think there's more to it, for this is the precise wording:

5. Assures member nations of the exclusive right to determine purely internal arms trading and firearm policy, excepting:
[..]
c. future resolutions which seek to relax regulations on purchasing firearms for recreational reasons only;


Which means that member nations will not hold the exclusive rights for regulations on purchasing firearms for recreational reasons only. This clause allows for the WA to pass future resolutions relaxing firearm restrictions on recreational only firearms.
And furthermore, our other complaint about the explicit forbidance of material support to liberation wars for external regimes, including those which are a threat to their neighboring countries, no matter how heinous their crimes are. If, in a particular nation, Separatists (hope this never comes to be) were taken, rounded, and killed in mass, we think your nation would have the right to, if no other avenue or solution were possible, invade and forcefully stop the regime causing it, and it would be the duty of many of your allies to provide you with as much help as possible, including weaponry. We would surely be forced to do such a thing, were to happen to Danii on other nations. What about criminal acts against a regime's own people?
To us, these two concerns seem to come from small mishaps on the wording of the proposal, and therefore think that small clarifications would be enough for this resolution to pass, with our fervent approval, on a next voting round."


"Future legislation could easily block relaxing legislation. The fact is, this couldn't cover both directions without violating certain rules on closing off categories. This is not an invitation for future legislation as much as one extra check against WA infringement. Moreover, a military campaign set to stop a war crime would not be a war of aggression, and would even be encouraged by extant laws regarding genocide. Either your concerns aren't realistic, or your allegories are lacking, ambassador."

His Worshipfulness, the Most Unscrupulous, Plainly Deceitful, Dissembling, Strategicly Calculating Lord GA Secretariat, Authority on All Existence, Arbiter of Right, Toxic Globalist Dog, Dark Psychic Vampire, and Chief Populist Elitist!
Separatist Peoples should RESIGN!

User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 22873
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
Democratic Socialists

Postby Wallenburg » Mon Apr 25, 2016 7:56 am

Wallenburgian Cabinet of War
Message from Representative Mikael Ogenbond

As a military man, I am deeply familiar with the requirements of warfare, and with the importance of steady, reliable supply lines in securing victory. This resolution, although well-intended, is far too extreme for any nation familiar with war to accept. The author has designed these mandates with the intention of effectively banning war, an entirely infeasible objective when bellicose nations of member and non-member states alike exist in abundance. Most dangerously, this resolution pretends to protect member states from invasion by making aggressive warfare impossible, but it actually imperils those member states which exist alongside hostile non-member states. Overall, this resolution is unacceptable, as it presents a multitude of problems.
  • The definitions given in clauses one through four apply to all extant and future law, and may very well constitute amendment of past resolutions. Furthermore, they suffer from serious issues:
    • The definition for "armament" includes all designs for weapons and ammunition, a ridiculous extension beyond the common use of the word "armament". This definition also suffers from a basic grammatical error in noun-verb agreement, although this shortcoming strikes me as laughably insignificant in comparison to the many other deficiencies of this resolution.
    • The definition of "transfer" is unbelievably restricted, excluding all instances of transferring non-military material.
    • Clause three, when applied in clause seven, effectively prohibits all arms transfers whatsoever, as most weapons, especially those used in the military, have no specific and guaranteed "final recipient". In addition, this definition would require any member state whose military wished to actually possess weaponry to have every individual soldier complete an "end-user certificate" and guarantee that the weapon supplied to him will never fall into enemy hands, be exchanged between fellow soldiers, or be sold to any other person or any organization, foreign or domestic, military or civilian.
  • Clause five clearly and undeniably violates the Category rule as established by the office of the Secretariat, as it legislates on domestic gun control policy when the resolution does not fall under the Gun Control category. While several clauses lean uncomfortably into gun control policy, this is among the most egregious. Furthermore, its promise of national sovereignty over domestic weapons policy carries little weight when subclauses (b) and (c) return most power to legislate on firearms to the World Assembly.
  • Clause nine, subclause (b), presents a clear danger to those states receiving weapons from member states while defending against an aggressor. Such states may experience an urgent need for such arms, but the enemy may guarantee that the transfer of armaments from one nation to the other may very well be diverted. Unless the non-member state can demonstrate that the armaments are "absolutely necessary in protecting national security", they are effectively prohibited from receiving essential war matériel.
  • The excessive, unrealistic, and sweeping requirements of this resolution clearly constitute a Strength violation, given that the author submitted this resolution under the strength category of "Mild".
The resolution at vote suffers from many inadequacies, and fails entirely in furthering the World Assembly's objective. I vote against this resolution, considering it a threat to national security, the general welfare, and overall prosperity.
While she had no regrets about throwing the lever to douse her husband's mistress in molten gold, Blanche did feel a pang of conscience for the innocent bystanders whose proximity had caused them to suffer gilt by association.

King of Snark, Real Piece of Work, Metabolizer of Oxygen, Old Man from The East Pacific, by the Malevolence of Her Infinite Terribleness Catherine Gratwick the Sole and True Claimant to the Bears Armed Vacancy, Protector of the Realm

User avatar
Danitze
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 11
Founded: Feb 10, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Danitze » Mon Apr 25, 2016 8:05 am

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Danitze wrote:"That was our first impression, ambassador, but we think there's more to it, for this is the precise wording:



Which means that member nations will not hold the exclusive rights for regulations on purchasing firearms for recreational reasons only. This clause allows for the WA to pass future resolutions relaxing firearm restrictions on recreational only firearms.
And furthermore, our other complaint about the explicit forbidance of material support to liberation wars for external regimes, including those which are a threat to their neighboring countries, no matter how heinous their crimes are. If, in a particular nation, Separatists (hope this never comes to be) were taken, rounded, and killed in mass, we think your nation would have the right to, if no other avenue or solution were possible, invade and forcefully stop the regime causing it, and it would be the duty of many of your allies to provide you with as much help as possible, including weaponry. We would surely be forced to do such a thing, were to happen to Danii on other nations. What about criminal acts against a regime's own people?
To us, these two concerns seem to come from small mishaps on the wording of the proposal, and therefore think that small clarifications would be enough for this resolution to pass, with our fervent approval, on a next voting round."


"Future legislation could easily block relaxing legislation. The fact is, this couldn't cover both directions without violating certain rules on closing off categories. This is not an invitation for future legislation as much as one extra check against WA infringement. Moreover, a military campaign set to stop a war crime would not be a war of aggression, and would even be encouraged by extant laws regarding genocide. Either your concerns aren't realistic, or your allegories are lacking, ambassador."


We respectfully disagree with your interpretation, and hope that this proposal is remade into a more refined version. We are looking forward to the debate.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads