[Legality Challenge] Protection of Nuclear Armaments

[Araraukar]

Protection of Nuclear Armaments

Category: International Security
Strength: Mild

Affirming the right for member nations to possess nuclear armaments;

Understanding that some nations may intend to promote violence with such armaments;

Acknowledging the interest of some nations in peacefully exchanging nuclear armaments;

this august Assembly hereby,

Requires that member nations with nuclear armaments take every precaution within the restriction of existing legislation to protect these armaments from entities outside of their respective militaries or those of nations with whom they engage in the peaceful exchange of nuclear armaments;

Further requires that no member nation engage in the distribution of nuclear armaments with any nation known to incite conflict on a large scale or use its military assets ambiguously.

Link to drafting thread: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=398798

Rule broken: Duplication.

The things the proposal wants to do are already done by GAR #10:

3. REQUIRES that any nation choosing to possess nuclear weapons take every available precaution to ensure that their weapons do not fall into the wrong hands.

Any nation that would use nukes to break WA laws or which isn't "engaged in the peaceful exchange of nuclear armaments", easily falls into the category "wrong hands".

Furthermore, GAR #330 already directs member nations to secure at least the explodey bits of nukes as per this clause:

7. Further demands that member nations classify all information and materials related to nuclear testing as state secrets and prevent this information or material with anyone not authorized to have access to this information,

The "materials related to nuclear testing" would definitely include the materials needed to make an exploding nuclear device, thus the same stuff needed to make an exploding nuclear weapon.

[Christian Democrats]

GenSec is reviewing your challenge. Do you have any thoughts regarding the Contradiction Rule or the Amendments Rule?

[Nilla Wayfarers]

Rule broken: Duplication.

The things the proposal wants to do are already done by GAR #10:

3. REQUIRES that any nation choosing to possess nuclear weapons take every available precaution to ensure that their weapons do not fall into the wrong hands.

Any nation that would use nukes to break WA laws or which isn't "engaged in the peaceful exchange of nuclear armaments", easily falls into the category "wrong hands".

Except the ambiguity of "the wrong hands" inherently makes nothing "easily" fall into it. Member nations can, even within the scope of a good faith interpretation, manipulate "the wrong hands" to be one of many things, regardless of how much of an actual threat these "wrong hands" are. "Protection of Nuclear Armaments" does not duplicate GAR#10, since "the wrong hands" is far too vague for the more specific requirements of this soon-to-be resolution to contradict it.

Furthermore, GAR #330 already directs member nations to secure at least the explodey bits of nukes as per this clause:

7. Further demands that member nations classify all information and materials related to nuclear testing as state secrets and prevent this information or material with anyone not authorized to have access to this information,

The "materials related to nuclear testing" would definitely include the materials needed to make an exploding nuclear device, thus the same stuff needed to make an exploding nuclear weapon.

Neither the firing of a nuclear weapon in warfare nor the transaction of a nuclear weapon with another nation qualify as nuclear testing. The only materials and information GAR#330 concerns are those of a weapon that's actually being tested. Therefore, GAR#330 lacks any legislative power regarding the use of nuclear weapons in warfare or the use of them in diplomatic transactions. "Protection of Nuclear Armaments" does not duplicate GAR#330, as they have dramatically different scopes of legislation.

[Abacathea]

GenSec is reviewing your challenge. Do you have any thoughts regarding the Contradiction Rule or the Amendments Rule?

CD,

I apologise if this is incorrect, the Secretariat was created whilst I was absent, so if I need to start a new thread to voice my own grievance let me know and I will.

I have already stated it in the original thread so don't mind reiterating it here. I would be of the opinion that the proposed legislation is at its core and amendment. The proposal accomplishes very little in my eye than adding additional stipulations to pre-acknowledging resolutions. I feel on reading it that should any "existing legislation" to paraphrase what I believe is used in the Proposal text not exist, this proposal would on it's own merits have very little to nothing to stand on.

My opinion and position to the Secretariat is that although it has never been stated by the author this could and should be viewed as an attempt to make additions to NAPA as an amendment piece.

[Nilla Wayfarers]

GenSec is reviewing your challenge. Do you have any thoughts regarding the Contradiction Rule or the Amendments Rule?

CD,

I apologise if this is incorrect, the Secretariat was created whilst I was absent, so if I need to start a new thread to voice my own grievance let me know and I will.

I have already stated it in the original thread so don't mind reiterating it here. I would be of the opinion that the proposed legislation is at its core and amendment. The proposal accomplishes very little in my eye than adding additional stipulations to pre-acknowledging resolutions. I feel on reading it that should any "existing legislation" to paraphrase what I believe is used in the Proposal text not exist, this proposal would on it's own merits have very little to nothing to stand on.

My opinion and position to the Secretariat is that although it has never been stated by the author this could and should be viewed as an attempt to make additions to NAPA as an amendment piece.

If we go by the existing rule regarding Amendments:

Amendments: A supplementary set of clauses that either enhance or modify an active proposal's text. Proposals cannot amend existing resolutions because the game's coding does not allow for it. To introduce new legislation, the active resolution must be repealed. This applies to appeals as well.

The proposal does not make any attempt to affect the text of GAR#10, so it inherently isn't an amendment.
If we were to treat this as a House-of-Cards scenario, we'd have to consider illegal every resolution with the phrase

AFFIRMING the right for member nations to possess nuclear weapons

or something along those lines.

[Araraukar]

GenSec is reviewing your challenge. Do you have any thoughts regarding the Contradiction Rule or the Amendments Rule?

I forgot about the Amendments Rule entirely...

Yes, it reads as an amendment to NAPA, and I guess if you were very literal about #330, it might be contradiction, but currently Duplication and Amendment seem the most apt.

Oh, and Nilla, I won't argue about this challenge with you, because I don't believe that's how the council should work. We talked about this on your drafting thread and couldn't agree there (hence the challenge in the first place), so I can't foresee us agreeing here either. That doesn't mean I was ignoring you.

[Nilla Wayfarers]

Oh, and Nilla, I won't argue about this challenge with you, because I don't believe that's how the council should work. We talked about this on your drafting thread and couldn't agree there (hence the challenge in the first place), so I can't foresee us agreeing here either. That doesn't mean I was ignoring you.

Understood. I just wanted to say my piece regarding each possible challenge, since CD telegrammed me about this thread. I'll let the Secretariat decide from here.

[Araraukar]

Understood. I just wanted to say my piece regarding each possible challenge, since CD telegrammed me about this thread. I'll let the Secretariat decide from here.

Oh, of course, you have every right to respond to the challenge. And I usually post on the thread when I make one of these, but forgot this time. (Teaches me to post challenge threads when very tired...)

[Separatist Peoples]

I'm not really seeing it, Ara. It doesn't really look to amend NAPA, it looks to add additional requirements, a la Reproductive Freedoms. That isn't changing the wrong hands doctrine of NAPA, but narrowing it with stand-alone legislation. Poorly, but legally.

I'm not sure anything less than trying to alter extant legislation directly as counting as an Amendment. Could you elaborate a bit more on Duplication? To me it looks like it falls in the category of acceptable duplication to clarify a topic.

[Araraukar]

I'm not sure anything less than trying to alter extant legislation directly as counting as an Amendment. Could you elaborate a bit more on Duplication? To me it looks like it falls in the category of acceptable duplication to clarify a topic.

It does nothing but duplicate NAPA's 3rd clause and expand on its "wrong hands".

I get it that since it's at vote you guys are going to let it go, but you shouldn't; it sets the dangerous precedent that simply reclarifying a wording used in an existing resolution doesn't count as amendment.

[Separatist Peoples]

I'm not sure anything less than trying to alter extant legislation directly as counting as an Amendment. Could you elaborate a bit more on Duplication? To me it looks like it falls in the category of acceptable duplication to clarify a topic.

It does nothing but duplicate NAPA's 3rd clause and expand on its "wrong hands".

I get it that since it's at vote you guys are going to let it go, but you shouldn't; it sets the dangerous precedent that simply reclarifying a wording used in an existing resolution doesn't count as amendment.

"Entities outside of their respective militaries or those of nations with whom they engage in the peaceful exchange of nuclear armaments" is more specific than "wrong hands". It doesn't sufficiently duplicate NAPA, though, and it doesn't try to alter NAPA. It functions as a ratchet by expanding WA authority in the only direction NAPA allows, not unlike Reproductive Freedoms did with the material from On Abortion. There's a discernible distinction between the two of them that hasn't been explicitly barred or implicitly blocked on a topic that has been dealt with only broadly. This kind of interpretation would mean we couldn't prevent future resolutions dealing with discrimination in any fashion because of CoCR, which would close huge swathes of possible legislation and harm the game.

I don't speak for anybody but me, but I'm struggling to see it.

[Christian Democrats]

GenSec is reviewing your challenge. Do you have any thoughts regarding the Contradiction Rule or the Amendments Rule?

CD,

I apologise if this is incorrect, the Secretariat was created whilst I was absent, so if I need to start a new thread to voice my own grievance let me know and I will.

This is the right place. Once one player opens a challenge thread, all other legality concerns should be posted there as well.

Welcome back!

[Frisbeeteria]

I get it that since it's at vote you guys are going to let it go,

At Vote isn't the deadline. Mods have the capability to nullify it anytime in the next 3 days, 18 hours, and 14 minutes. If the secretariat rules that it's illegal before that deadline, they can ask us to nullify. If it's defeated, it's moot. Once it's voted in, it's law.

[Araraukar]

I get it that since it's at vote you guys are going to let it go,

At Vote isn't the deadline. Mods have the capability to nullify it anytime in the next 3 days, 18 hours, and 14 minutes. If the secretariat rules that it's illegal before that deadline, they can ask us to nullify.

I thought it was called discarding? And in any case, various people (mods, councilors and others) have said that discarding/nullifying something that would otherwise pass, has - or at least should have - a much higher treshold than a not-at-vote challenge.

And I understand it's horrible (to the council peeps) having to make hurried decisions (and probably not very nice to the mods either for having to discard resolutions due to the inevitable backlash), but it seems that these things have to be submitted before the council will consider them at all and even then have to have some sort of realistic chance at passing, so I don't really know what else they can expect to happen...

[Frisbeeteria]

I thought it was called discarding?

It is. I forgot the term.

has - or at least should have - a much higher treshold

I'll admit that I missed a lot of that debate, but circumstances have made me the most active GA mod at the moment. At this point I'm just a button pusher for the Secretariat.

it's horrible (to the council peeps) having to make hurried decisions (and probably not very nice to the mods either for having to discard resolutions due to the inevitable backlash),

I'm ever so happy to defer such backlash to another group for a change. It's never been easy, and now the Secretariat are discovering just how much fun it can be.

[Araraukar]

I'll admit that I missed a lot of that debate, but circumstances have made me the most active GA mod at the moment. At this point I'm just a button pusher for the Secretariat.

I'm ever so happy to defer such backlash to another group for a change. It's never been easy, and now the Secretariat are discovering just how much fun it can be.

Schadenfreude tastes sweet, doesn't it?

Anyway, button pusher or not, I'm sure I'm not the only GA regular who's happy we've got at least one mod patient enough to deal with GA while Real Life's being mean to Wrapper (and probably others). Thank you for that.

[Separatist Peoples]

At Vote isn't the deadline. Mods have the capability to nullify it anytime in the next 3 days, 18 hours, and 14 minutes. If the secretariat rules that it's illegal before that deadline, they can ask us to nullify.

I thought it was called discarding? And in any case, various people (mods, councilors and others) have said that discarding/nullifying something that would otherwise pass, has - or at least should have - a much higher treshold than a not-at-vote challenge.

And I understand it's horrible (to the council peeps) having to make hurried decisions (and probably not very nice to the mods either for having to discard resolutions due to the inevitable backlash), but it seems that these things have to be submitted before the council will consider them at all and even then have to have some sort of realistic chance at passing, so I don't really know what else they can expect to happen...

They don't have to be submitted for us to hear them, we just don't want to hear challenges on proposals unlikely to go anywhere. Its subjective.

Why should the threshold for legality be any different between the two? Illegal is Illegal.

[Araraukar]

Why should the threshold for legality be any different between the two? Illegal is Illegal.

For the record, that's how I see it too...

If PNA fails to pass, will you guys still rule on this?

[Separatist Peoples]

Why should the threshold for legality be any different between the two? Illegal is Illegal.

For the record, that's how I see it too...

If PNA fails to pass, will you guys still rule on this?

Yup. Perhaps not as fast, but yup.

[Christian Democrats]

Some of you like updates; some of you dislike them. I'll go ahead and give one anyway.

2 councilors think this proposal is legal
1 councilor is leaning legal
1 councilor is leaning illegal
1 councilor thinks this proposal is illegal

Four illegal votes seem unlikely at this point. It's improbable that a discard will occur.

[Araraukar]

Some of you like updates; some of you dislike them. I'll go ahead and give one anyway.

2 councilors think this proposal is legal
1 councilor is leaning legal
1 councilor is leaning illegal
1 councilor thinks this proposal is illegal

Four illegal votes seem unlikely at this point. It's improbable that a discard will occur.

It looks like it's failing the vote anyway, but as that list only counts 5/6 councilors, why would 4 votes be necessary? 3 out of 5 would be a majority.

And yes I dislike these uncertain updates.

[Wallenburg]

Please tell me we'll get the ruling before the vote ends this time?

[Separatist Peoples]

Please tell me we'll get the ruling before the vote ends this time?

We do the best we can. Not everybody has weighed in.

[Wallenburg]

If the GenSec can't do its job, maybe it should consider dissolving. At least with the mods in charge we actually got rulings before voting ended.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Where there's a serious chance that we'll rule the proposal illegal, we have been pretty good about getting that ruling done in a timely fashion. Here there was little chance of it being found illegal (AFAICT only one of us really thinks it breaks any rules), so I don't really see any cause for concern about GenSec performance.