[Draft] Repeal "Responsibility in Transferring Arms"

[Excidium Planetis]

"After reviewing the recent history of the World Assembly, I think we should make this a proper annual event." Blackbourne laughs as he attempts to lighten the mood.

The General Assembly,

Regretting that resolutions must be repealed to be amended,

Concerned that Responsibility in Transferring Arms significantly impedes the ability of nations to wage just war, primarily by limiting the foreign arms a nation can receive if it is engaged in a war defined as a war of "conquest",

Arguing that war intended to halt blatant abuses of World Assembly prohibitions on genocide, slavery, and other human rights violations may still be considered conquest if the offending nation does not pose a persistent or existential threat, or has not taken territory from the attacking nation.

Arguing that war intended to uphold treaty obligations, as required by GA#2, such as defensive pacts, alliances, et cetera, may result in nations being compelled to engage in wars of conquest and thus prohibited from receiving foreign arms, if any allies they come to the aid of are being attacked by a nation that does not pose a threat to the first nation,

Believing that by acting on any armaments which have potential military use, the resolution reaches too far and restricts private civilian arms, such as sporting or personal defense weapons,

Distressed by the resolution's failure to prohibit aggressive member nations from receiving arms from non-member nations, allowing nations to buy arms from non-members to use in unjust wars, while still remaining in full compliance with General Assembly resolutions,

Also noting the negative impact on the arms industry, which is important to some nations,

Hereby Repeals GA#399 "Responsibility in Transferring Arms"

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"Just wars are like civil disobedience. It's the right thing to do, or at least the less wrong thing; but it still needs to be frowned on by authorities. Like punching fascists: morally right, legally wrong, and should not under any circumstances become legal."

"Life is messed up like that sometimes. Although we applaud the sagacity and sincerity of your argument, we must oppose."

[Sciongrad]

"The arguments here are facile and unpersuasive, as we've come to expect from Blackbourne. The exceptions of this resolution cover every single instance of jus ad bellum. The resolution permits war based on just cause, which political philosophers define as the protection of innocent lives from imminent danger. The resolution is consistent with the principle of last resort -- potential enemies must pose an existential or persistent threat to the safety of the member nation. And the resolution is consistent with the principle of right intention -- that is, the war cannot be conducted solely to acquire territory or resources.

Unless you're using just war to mean something it doesn't mean, like intervening in states that abuse rights or adhere to ideologies that you find disagreeable. That is decidedly an unacceptable justification for war (OOC: and probably illegal, as it contemplates the possibility of member nations violating extant legislation).

But I don't want to debate this with you, because we all know how that will go. Instead, I advise you drop this. I can guarantee you it will fail at vote."

[Jarish Inyo]

It may not fail a vote. After all, your resolution has been repealed every time it has been passed. So why would this be any different?

[Lord Dominator]

"I can offer no support for any repeal of 'Responsibility in Transferring Arms. I rather like said resolution, any flaws or loopholes included."

[Sciongrad]

It may not fail a vote. After all, your resolution has been repealed every time it has been passed. So why would this be any different?

"Politics."

[States of Glory WA Office]

Harold: Hmm...do cream pies count as arms?

[Jarish Inyo]

Only if someone considers them for potential military use.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Only if someone considers them for potential military use.

Fairburn: Knowing this Assembly, we're going to get some Sapient Clowns coming in right about now.

[Aclion]

"I can offer no support for any repeal of 'Responsibility in Transferring Arms. I rather like said resolution, any flaws or loopholes included."

The flaws and loopholes are my favorite parts. In fact. the only parts I liked.

[Excidium Planetis]

(OOC: and probably illegal, as it contemplates the possibility of member nations violating extant legislation).

What the actual f***? Is this the same player that said:

I believe that recognizing non-compliance is totally legal and I don't think it violates the metagaming rule to adopt roleplaying paradigms.

(Emphasis added)

You yourself, alongside two other GenSec members, signed onto GR's majority opinion that explicitly said (very first sentence!):

Mentioning the possibility of noncompliance with a duly passed resolution is not a violation of the Metagaming rule.

This kind of reversal of legal opinion, just because it is either my resolution or a repeal of your resolution (maybe both), is completely ridiculous. It almost makes me not want to address the rest of your post, because debating someone with such a clear bias against me and this draft is pointless, but Blackbourne would, so I will too.

---

IC:

"The exceptions of this resolution cover every single instance of jus ad bellum. The resolution permits war based on just cause, which political philosophers define as the protection of innocent lives from imminent danger. The resolution is consistent with the principle of last resort -- potential enemies must pose an existential or persistent threat to the safety of the member nation. And the resolution is consistent with the principle of right intention -- that is, the war cannot be conducted solely to acquire territory or resources.

Unless you're using just war to mean something it doesn't mean, like intervening in states that abuse rights or adhere to ideologies that you find disagreeable. That is decidedly an unacceptable justification for war.

"I will illustrate a case of jus ad bellum that is not covered." Blackbourne replies. "Nation A is considering war against Nation B. They have just cause: protection of innocent lives from danger, after all, Nation B is carrying out genocide. The decision is made by competent authority: Nation A is a model member of the World Assembly, with free, frequent, and open elections, and a populace that stands behind civil rights and the rule of law. War is considered with right intention: to overthrow the Nation B regime so that innocent lives may be saved. Probability of success is high even without the use of disproportionate measures.

"Which brings me to last resort. You are incorrect when you say that your resolution is consistent with last resort. Last resort does not mean that the nation to be attacked must pose an existential threat, merely that all non-violent options have been exhausted. And this is the case: Nation A's negotiations and non-violent measures such as trade embargoes have failed to bring about any change in Nation B. The genocide can now only be stopped with force. War in this case is the last resort, even though Nation B poses no threat to Nation A.

"In fact, just war does mean intervening in states which abuse rights. Humanitarian intervention is a classic example of just war: the defense of innocents is, as you yourself said, just cause. When all other options have failed, just war must be used as last resort."

"I can offer no support for any repeal of 'Responsibility in Transferring Arms. I rather like said resolution, any flaws or loopholes included."

"I find any nation which supports a law which hinders the ability of nations to combat injustice and flagrant violations of civil rights, quite frankly, an enemy of the free world." Blackbourne states. "I mean no disrespect, of course."

[Sciongrad]

You yourself, alongside two other GenSec members, signed onto GR's majority opinion that explicitly said (very first sentence!):

Mentioning the possibility of noncompliance with a duly passed resolution is not a violation of the Metagaming rule.

Not at all the same thing. Resolutions can contemplate the possibility of noncompliance, and indeed, several of my own do that. It's historically been illegal for a repeal to presuppose that the resolution it's trying to repeal violates the rules or that it can be repealed because it is not being complied with. Drop the histrionics.

I'll also remind you that as the author of the resolution in question, I'll recuse myself, but this is my opinion and well established in mod precedent. Like I said, though, I don't want to debate this with you very much, so I'm going to politely refuse to continue.

[Bears Armed]

"We voted against that resolution because it means that gun dealers would only be able to buy any guns from abroad when they actually had customers already agreed to buy those, so that they could fill out the 'end user' papers, which would make it impossible for gun-shops to keep such guns in their stocks and so for potential buyers to actually examine the guns before buying them..."

Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.

[Excidium Planetis]

Obviously OOC:

Not at all the same thing. Resolutions can contemplate the possibility of noncompliance, and indeed, several of my own do that.

Oh? Can you please explain how "contemplate the possibility of noncompliance" and "contemplates the possibility of member nations violating extant legislation" are not at all the same thing? One of them you said was illegal, and the other you said your own resolutions do.

It's historically been illegal for a repeal to presuppose that the resolution it's trying to repeal violates the rules or that it can be repealed because it is not being complied with. Drop the histrionics.

If you had meant to say "for presupposing that the target is illegal", then you should have said that. If you meant to say "for presupposing that the target isn't being complied with" then you should have said that.

But even that's ridiculous. Your resolution is 100% legal, I didn't bother challenging it (I mean really, it passed once before and was defeated at vote a second time, and was legal both times). It's being complied with, that's the point. Why would arms transfers being prohibited be a problem if no one was actually complying? Where does my repeal presuppose that your resolution violates the rules? Where does my repeal presuppose that it isn't being complied with?

---

IC:

"We voted against that resolution because it means that gun dealers would only be able to buy any guns from abroad when they actually had customers already agreed to buy those, so that they could fill out the 'end user' papers, which would make it impossible for gun-shops to keep such guns in their stocks and so for potential buyers to actually examine the guns before buying them..."

"With respect to you, Ambassador Southwoods, the target resolution only requires end user certificates for sale to an intended final recipient. If gun dealers are not the final recipient, the transfer isn't being made to an intended final recipient and thus no end user certificate is required. See my emphasis here:

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;

"Only when the transfer is to an intended final recipient is the transfer conditional on the completion of an end user certificate. But if the author would like to clarify exactly what was the case here, I might be willing to include this argument."

[Lord Dominator]

"I can offer no support for any repeal of 'Responsibility in Transferring Arms. I rather like said resolution, any flaws or loopholes included."

"I find any nation which supports a law which hinders the ability of nations to combat injustice and flagrant violations of civil rights, quite frankly, an enemy of the free world." Blackbourne states. "I mean no disrespect, of course."

"Really, if you can't find ways to creativity comply with the letter of this resolution to get out of the spirit, you aren't trying hard enough. Other than that, I'm curious what you mean by the term 'free world.' Free of what. And no offense taken, even though saying no offense in no way makes something not offensive."

[Bakhton]

"We stand against. The usage of 'conquest' is obviously meant to refer solely to unprovoked military expansion and occupation onto another nation without just cause. We can see this being the intended definition through the inclusion of exceptions."

[Wallenburg]

OOC: and probably illegal, as it contemplates the possibility of member nations violating extant legislation

Resolutions can contemplate the possibility of noncompliance, and indeed, several of my own do that.

Pick one.

[Excidium Planetis]

"Really, if you can't find ways to creativity comply with the letter of this resolution to get out of the spirit, you aren't trying hard enough. Other than that, I'm curious what you mean by the term 'free world.' Free of what. And no offense taken, even though saying no offense in no way makes something not offensive."

"I didn't say 'no offense', I said I meant no disrespect." Blackbourne corrects. "I will never apologize for offending an enemy, but I will honor them with respect if they are deserving of it.

"The Free World is the portion of the universe in which sapient beings live free from oppression, and enjoy equally the rights of life, liberty, and property. The World Assembly has further expanded the rights of the Free World through its resolutions. What the target resolution does is help shield oppressors from retaliation as long as they don't pose a threat to other member nations. They can remove the freedoms of their own citizens or the citizens of non-member nations, and member nations cannot acquire foreign armaments to use against them, because any such aggressive war against a nation which poses no threat to them, however just a war, is a war of conquest according to the target resolution.

"Now, Excidium Planetis has in the past overthrown oppressive regimes and come to the aid of people subject to genocide and oppression. We have done so with the aid of foreign armaments, even, but would not be able to do so now.

"You say that we should find a way to creatively comply. I'm not sure if you understand the meaning of the word creative, but at any rate it doesn't matter, since it is not Excidium Planetis' compliance that matters, but the compliance of the nations selling us armaments. We have no control over that, so if they, complying with the resolution text and stated intent of the author, refuse to sell or lend us weapons, we can't do anything about it. There are no loopholes to exploit."

[Imperium Anglorum]

We oppose repeal.

OOC: and probably illegal, as it contemplates the possibility of member nations violating extant legislation

Resolutions can contemplate the possibility of noncompliance, and indeed, several of my own do that.

Pick one.

OOC: You missed the nuance of his argument, and the explanation that accompanies the on face interpretation of the text. What Scion said was not that 'the WA cannot contemplate non-compliance', he said (Scion, correct me if I'm wrong) that it is an invalid argument, in a repeal, to argue that a resolution ought be repealed on the basis not that it has flaws, but rather, that it is not being enforced.

[Wallenburg]

We oppose repeal.

Pick one.

OOC: You missed the nuance of his argument, and the explanation that accompanies the on face interpretation of the text. What Scion said was not that 'the WA cannot contemplate non-compliance', he said (Scion, correct me if I'm wrong) that it is an invalid argument, in a repeal, to argue that a resolution ought be repealed on the basis not that it has flaws, but rather, that it is not being enforced.

That's all fine, save for the teeny-tiny fact that this proposal doesn't use the possibility of noncompliance as an argument for repeal.

[Imperium Anglorum]

That's all fine, save for the teeny-tiny fact that this proposal doesn't use the possibility of noncompliance as an argument for repeal.

Okay? This is a legal interpretation argument. It hasn't been applied to this proposal. I haven't connected my advocacy to opposition for reason of illegality. I have said that I oppose, without prior disclosure of my reasons for doing so.

[Wallenburg]

That's all fine, save for the teeny-tiny fact that this proposal doesn't use the possibility of noncompliance as an argument for repeal.

Okay? This is a legal interpretation argument. It hasn't been applied to this proposal. I haven't connected my advocacy to opposition for reason of illegality. I have said that I oppose, without prior disclosure of my reasons for doing so.

I don't understand. If this argument has not been applied to this proposal, then what are you saying Scion is arguing?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Okay? This is a legal interpretation argument. It hasn't been applied to this proposal. I haven't connected my advocacy to opposition for reason of illegality. I have said that I oppose, without prior disclosure of my reasons for doing so.

I don't understand. If this argument has not been applied to this proposal, then what are you saying Scion is arguing?

This is an argument on what Scion is saying about the applicability of proposal rules vis-à-vis pre-established precedent, not about the premises of Scion's argument, which, if they were true, would imply the proposal is illegal. That the proposal is illegal is not my advocacy. My advocacy is that there is no contradiction between the interpretation of precedent and whether or not proposals contemplating the possibility of member nations violating extant legislation is illegal in the abstract. It is a primarily philosophical argument at a different level of this debate than direct implications, i.e. the link.

[Excidium Planetis]

We oppose repeal.

"I am disheartened to hear that, Ambassador." Blackbourne states. "But it would greatly benefit me if you would provide a reason for your opposition. The arguments presented in it are true, and I do believe the restriction on ability to wage just war should be troubling to reasonable nations."

-snip-

The question Wallenburg is asking, and I am asking, is why Sciongrad said my proposal was illegal, seemingly for a reason that is complete bogus, and then on explanation, stated a reason for illegality that doesn't even apply to my repeal.

At first it seemed Sciongrad was saying it was illegal for stating that nations could be in non-compliance, and then now Sciongrad is saying it is illegal for arguing that Responsibility in Transferring Arms should be repealed because it isn't being complied with. The latter is simply not true.

In summary, why did Sciongrad say my proposal was probably illegal?

[Imperium Anglorum]

"I am disheartened to hear that, Ambassador." Blackbourne states. "But it would greatly benefit me if you would provide a reason for your opposition. The arguments presented in it are true, and I do believe the restriction on ability to wage just war should be troubling to reasonable nations."

NORTH: We do not believe that the arguments presented in this draft are true.