[DEFEATED] Repeal "Nuclear Material Safeguards"

[Katganistan]

Repeal "Nuclear Material Safeguards"

The General Assembly:

AFFIRMING that the security of nuclear weaponry is necessary to prevent their acquisition and use by terrorist organizations;

REGRETTING that GAR#351, "Nuclear Material Safeguards", is flawed in its attempt to accomplish this goal;

DISTRESSED by the lack of clarity in clause 2, which in fact does not serve to secure intellectual property associated with nuclear weapons and reactors, and instead promotes the dissemination of intellectual property, thereby increasing the chances of such knowledge getting into "the wrong hands";

CONCERNED in particular that "the wrong hands" as referenced in clauses 3 and 4 are undefined and that "the wrong hands" is a fatally flawed concept, to wit:

-- Lacking an internationally accepted definition of "the wrong hands", in a war between two nations or groups of nations, each side would subjectively consider the other "the wrong hands";

-- The qualifier including "those which conspire against the stability of member nations" would essentially render all parties to war involving member nations "the wrong hands", as many acts of war (e.g. bombing military targets, killing opposing soldiers, infiltration and spying) intentionally attempt to destabilize opposing nations as a goal of war;

ALARMED that clause 4 enables poorer nations who nevertheless have obtained a nuclear technology by ill-gotten means to receive funding and technological assistance from the NESC as a reward for doing so;

HOPING that this well-intentioned but indefensible resolution will be replaced by one that genuinely serves to secure nuclear technology and materials;

HEREBY repeals GAR#351, "Nuclear Material Safeguards".

The original resolution: GAR#351

As promised. Fire away!

[The Constellation Islands]

"The Constellation Islands hereby approves this resolution."

[Wallenburg]

"The Wallenburgian delegation is prepared to support this."

[The Underwood Industrial Empire]

The U.I.E. wholeheartedly supports this resolution.

[Tinfect]

"The Imperium can offer no formal stance on this at the moment. However, We see little that is objectionable in the arguments presented."

[Wrapper]

Minor edit, DISTRESSED clause, changed "exacerbates" to "encourages". Really would prefer a better word there; not sure it would really make a difference though.

EDIT: "promotes". That works.

[Cheyenne and Arapaho Systems]

Standing Feather, ironically, takes the stand. "The Cheyenne and Arapaho recognize that weapons without the inherent capacity to limit civilian deaths to be entirely unethical for use, and campaign constantly for disarmament. While peace would certainly be the best alternative, we should work towards a future where civilian casualties are the extreme outlier, and never the norm. On behalf of the unified tribes of the Cheyenne and Arapaho, we support this measure."

[KopaLand]

Damn it i replied on wrong thread. IGNORE THIS.
As for the weapons, I really didn't know WMDs are "legal" in WA nations... yes, that would blur white/black morality.
perhaps the proposal would have been better if it only restricted use of nuclear materials for research purpose only.

[Wallenburg]

sadly the technology can be used to produce WMD (like the tsar bomba and ivy mikes from IRL), but we can limit the research only to produce power plants, and ban from using it as weapon of mass destruction.

"Actually, we can't. There is already World Assembly law in place protecting the right of nations to possess weapons of mass destruction."

[Cheyenne and Arapaho Systems]

sadly the technology can be used to produce WMD (like the tsar bomba and ivy mikes from IRL), but we can limit the research only to produce power plants, and ban from using it as weapon of mass destruction.

"Actually, we can't. There is already World Assembly law in place protecting the right of nations to possess weapons of mass destruction."

"That is a terrible mistake, I fear," the old man says wearily.

[Wallenburg]

"Actually, we can't. There is already World Assembly law in place protecting the right of nations to possess weapons of mass destruction."

"That is a terrible mistake, I fear," the old man says wearily.

"I couldn't agree less. Nuclear weapons can be essential to the existence of certain nations."

[Cheyenne and Arapaho Systems]

"I couldn't agree less. Nuclear weapons can be essential to the existence of certain nations."

"Any weapon that cannot be contained to military targets is too dangerous to use. Our history has shown what becomes of detonating crude nuclear reactors in the atmosphere of a habitable planet, and it is not worth any victory. It poisons the land and harms the innocent, and this can never be tolerated. The Cheyenne and Arapaho rely on much more advanced, if perhaps sparse, defense systems. Our phasers and photon torpedoes are enough. But given the choice of permanently wounding the land and killing innocents or being destroyed, there is no choice. Any nation who's existence is so achieved has forfeited it."

[Wrapper]

Ambassadors, please, we're getting off topic here. The resolution is question is on the safeguarding of nuclear material, not the merits of possessing or using nuclear weaponry. Thank you.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Ambassadors, please, we're getting off topic here. The resolution is question is on the safeguarding of nuclear material, not the merits of possessing or using nuclear weaponry. Thank you.

Parsons: (hitherto silent) Really, it's about safeguarding national rights to nuclear material. Different kind of safeguards.

[Cheyenne and Arapaho Systems]

Ambassadors, please, we're getting off topic here. The resolution is question is on the safeguarding of nuclear material, not the merits of possessing or using nuclear weaponry. Thank you.

"Many apologies, ambassador. Were I to comment, this clause seems to miss the opportunity for broader argument."

DISTRESSED by the lack of clarity in clause 2, which in fact does not serve to secure intellectual property associated with nuclear weapons and reactors, and instead promotes the dissemination of intellectual property, thereby increasing the chances of such knowledge getting into "the wrong hands";

"You mention intellectual property, but do not mention how the lack of clarity might run afoul of national and possibly General Assembly intellectual property law. While many nations may rely on good faith requirements in their patents, some may be more protective of such property. Demonstrating the potential for dissemination to undercut industry profits through poorly kept trade secrets would add to this."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Ambassadors, please, we're getting off topic here. The resolution is question is on the safeguarding of nuclear material, not the merits of possessing or using nuclear weaponry. Thank you.

DISTRESSED by the lack of clarity in clause 2, which in fact does not serve to secure intellectual property associated with nuclear weapons and reactors, and instead promotes the dissemination of intellectual property, thereby increasing the chances of such knowledge getting into "the wrong hands";

Parsons: In a world where clause 2 had spoken of international property rights for nuclear reactors, I believe it would duplicate extant legislation.

[Cheyenne and Arapaho Systems]

DISTRESSED by the lack of clarity in clause 2, which in fact does not serve to secure intellectual property associated with nuclear weapons and reactors, and instead promotes the dissemination of intellectual property, thereby increasing the chances of such knowledge getting into "the wrong hands";

Parsons: In a world where clause 2 had spoken of international property rights for nuclear reactors, I believe it would duplicate extant legislation.

"Even if no blatant contradiction occurred, the clause is vague enough to interfere with domestic and international patent laws that are not regulated by the World Assembly. Noting that international intellectual property laws are those laws which deal with intellectual property originating abroad, and not supranational law, the concern is valid."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Parsons: In a world where clause 2 had spoken of international property rights for nuclear reactors, I believe it would duplicate extant legislation.

"Even if no blatant contradiction occurred, the clause is vague enough to interfere with domestic and international patent laws that are not regulated by the World Assembly. Noting that international intellectual property laws are those laws which deal with intellectual property originating abroad, and not supranational law, the concern is valid."

Parsons: It appears to me that you're unaware of the existence of Foreign Patent Recognition, Foreign Copyright Recognition, and Foreign Trademark Recognition, which are supranational laws which deal with intellectual property originating from abroad.

OOC: By the way, Wrapper, can you linky to the resolution in the OP? Secondarily, I don't see how there being a right for nations to get knowledge leads to a violation of international property rights. Explain this to me please.

[Wrapper]

OOC: By the way, Wrapper, can you linky to the resolution in the OP?

Ah, certainly.

[Wrapper]

Ambassadors, please, we're getting off topic here. The resolution is question is on the safeguarding of nuclear material, not the merits of possessing or using nuclear weaponry. Thank you.

Parsons: (hitherto silent) Really, it's about safeguarding national rights to nuclear material. Different kind of safeguards.

And yet, the title reads "Nuclear Material Safeguards". Seems rather misleading then.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Parsons: (hitherto silent) Really, it's about safeguarding national rights to nuclear material. Different kind of safeguards.

And yet, the title reads "Nuclear Material Safeguards". Seems rather misleading then.

It's safeguarding your right to have nuclear material!

[Wrapper]

And yet, the title reads "Nuclear Material Safeguards". Seems rather misleading then.

It's safeguarding your right to have nuclear material!

And yet it's not entitled "Nuclear Material Rights" or "Safeguarding Nuclear Material Rights". We despise resolutions that purposefully use disingenuous titles to help ensure their passage.

[Imperium Anglorum]

It's safeguarding your right to have nuclear material!

And yet it's not entitled "Nuclear Material Rights" or "Safeguarding Nuclear Material Rights". We despise resolutions that purposefully use disingenuous titles to help ensure their passage.

'Nuclear Material Possession Safeguards', 'Nuclear Material Ownership Safeguards', 'Safeguarding Nuclear Materials', etc. all carry the same interpretable conclusion.

'Nuclear Material Rights' and SNMR doesn't work because it doesn't interact with the latter two clauses unless a provision were inserted saying that unless you safeguard the nuclear materials, you don't get the rights, but then they wouldn't be rights... What you've suggested are outright lies. At least the title covers all bases of the resolution without omission. Comparatively, that makes it a better title, since it doesn't lie by omission.

[Wrapper]

And yet it's not entitled "Nuclear Material Rights" or "Safeguarding Nuclear Material Rights". We despise resolutions that purposefully use disingenuous titles to help ensure their passage.

'Nuclear Material Possession Safeguards', 'Nuclear Material Ownership Safeguards', 'Safeguarding Nuclear Materials', etc. all carry the same interpretable conclusion.

'Nuclear Material Rights' and SNMR doesn't work because it doesn't interact with the latter two clauses unless a provision were inserted saying that unless you safeguard the nuclear materials, you don't get the rights, but then they wouldn't be rights... What you've suggested are outright lies. At least the title covers all bases of the resolution without omission. Comparatively, that makes it a better title, since it doesn't lie by omission.

Mmm hmmm. So let me ask you this. What exactly do those latter two clauses do?

[Wallenburg]

'Nuclear Material Possession Safeguards', 'Nuclear Material Ownership Safeguards', 'Safeguarding Nuclear Materials', etc. all carry the same interpretable conclusion.

'Nuclear Material Rights' and SNMR doesn't work because it doesn't interact with the latter two clauses unless a provision were inserted saying that unless you safeguard the nuclear materials, you don't get the rights, but then they wouldn't be rights... What you've suggested are outright lies. At least the title covers all bases of the resolution without omission. Comparatively, that makes it a better title, since it doesn't lie by omission.

Mmm hmmm. So let me ask you this. What exactly do those latter two clauses do?

They require member states to institute practical policy to keep the wrong individuals and groups from obtaining nuclear material, and provide aid to nuclear powers unable to meet this requirement using their own resources.