[Draft] Repeal "Responsibility in Transferring Arms"

[Excidium Planetis]

"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.

"Hmmph. Well, you are entitled to your beliefs, I suppose." Blackbourne grimaces. "But the arguments are true. Unless you would like to accuse this Repeal of being an honest mistake...

"Per the definition of conquest in the target resolution, any acquisition of enemy territory, such as an advance, would be defined as conquest if the enemy nation is not a persistent threat and has not taken said territory or took the territory prior to a period of de facto peace. A nation which threatens it's own people with genocide, while not conquering or treating your nation, could not the target of your military attack without your nation resorting to 'conquest'. As your conquest results in the prohibition of arms transfer to your nation from WA member nations your ability to wage war will be impeded, provided you use at least some foreign armaments in usual cases."

[Secundus Imperium Romanum]

Giulia Maccini: The Roman delegation will not go back with the resolution and we will always be against other proposals of this kind.

[Excidium Planetis]

Giulia Maccini: The Roman delegation will not go back with the resolution and we will always be against other proposals of this kind.

"A strange way of doing things." Blackbourne replies. "It is my opinion that flawed resolutions should be repealed, regardless of whether you voted for them or not. In fact, my predecessor Madam Cornelia Schultz helped repeal her own resolution."

[Secundus Imperium Romanum]

"A strange way of doing things." Blackbourne replies. "It is my opinion that flawed resolutions should be repealed, regardless of whether you voted for them or not. In fact, my predecessor Madam Cornelia Schultz helped repeal her own resolution."

Giulia Maccini: Everyone has their opinion, because the delegation unanimously approved and that is why we chose this vote and do not pretend to back down.

[Excidium Planetis]

Giulia Maccini: Everyone has their opinion, because the delegation unanimously approved and that is why we chose this vote and do not pretend to back down.

"I should hate to see your stance should you happen to pass a resolution which legalizes ritual murder." Blackbourne remarks, turning away to see if anything else is added to the discussion.

[Secundus Imperium Romanum]

"I should hate to see your stance should you happen to pass a resolution which legalizes ritual murder." Blackbourne remarks, turning away to see if anything else is added to the discussion.

Giulia Maccini: And what do you mean by that?

[Excidium Planetis]

"I should hate to see your stance should you happen to pass a resolution which legalizes ritual murder." Blackbourne remarks, turning away to see if anything else is added to the discussion.

Giulia Maccini: And what do you mean by that?

"Simply that if your delegation unanimously approved, accidentally of course, a resolution which legalized ritual murder, you would doubtless defend that resolution too."

[Secundus Imperium Romanum]

Giulia Maccini: Are you calling me a murderer? Deputy, do me a favor!

[Excidium Planetis]

Giulia Maccini: Are you calling me a murderer? Deputy, do me a favor!

"I am not sure how you reached that conclusion. I simply said if you passed a resolution which had unforeseen serious negative effects, you would defend it simply because you voted for it."

[Secundus Imperium Romanum]

"I am not sure how you reached that conclusion. I simply said if you passed a resolution which had unforeseen serious negative effects, you would defend it simply because you voted for it."

Giulia Maccini: With your "i guess", the reptilians invaded the moon yesterday. Now, excuse me, I have something more important to discuss, the Roman delegation is waiting for me.

[Excidium Planetis]

Giulia Maccini: With your "i guess", the reptilians invaded the moon yesterday.

"I'm afraid I don't follow you." Blackbourne says, quite confused.

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

Giulia Maccini: With your "i guess", the reptilians invaded the moon yesterday.

"I'm afraid I don't follow you." Blackbourne says, quite confused.

Teran Saber: "I blame the lead in their wine."

[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.

I would appreciate an answer, and I believe that EP would as well.

[Sciongrad]

Pick one.

I would appreciate an answer, and I believe that EP would as well.

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.

OOC: I've already said I don't want to debate this because it will get nowhere.

[Excidium Planetis]

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.

OOC: I've already said I don't want to debate this because it will get nowhere.

OOC
Wallenburg and I already pointed out to IA that, even assuming that was what you originally meant, it has nothing to do with this resolution in any conceivable way. You are basically admitting that you said my proposal was probably illegal for something that has f*** all to do with my proposal.

And on top of that, since you have informed us all of the uselessness of drafting on this forum, this is being submitted. Like right now.

[Sciongrad]

OOC: I've already said I don't want to debate this because it will get nowhere.

OOC
Wallenburg and I already pointed out to IA that, even assuming that was what you originally meant, it has nothing to do with this resolution in any conceivable way. You are basically admitting that you said my proposal was probably illegal for something that has f*** all to do with my proposal.

And on top of that, since you have informed us all of the uselessness of drafting on this forum, this is being submitted. Like right now.

OOC: Even if it's legal, it will lose.

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC: Even if it's legal, it will lose.

How can you be so sure?

[Sciongrad]

OOC: Even if it's legal, it will lose.

How can you be so sure?

OOC: Intuition.

[Doppio Giudici]

Weeks ago I noticed that RiTA gets in the way of just offensive wars and general nation building.

For example, it would make something like "Operation Just Cause" a no no.

After all, if a drug kingpin/president takes ten of your people hostage and is a general asshole, that's not a "war of defense" or so on.

Which is why I don't know any actual serious arms dealers who are in the WA and any who stayed in it after this law got passed. The point of the law is null, because it doesn't apply to anyone who matters, most people who would abuse it aren't in the WA.

Also, the only punishments of breaking this law is maybe getting kicked out of the WA, which is pointless as there is no reason to be in the WA.

[Imperium Anglorum]

People really haven't read the definition of war of conquest at the top of the target resolution.

[Excidium Planetis]

People really haven't read the definition of war of conquest at the top of the target resolution.

I have read the definition at least ten times.

The requirements for conquest are as follows:

• Acquisition of territory by military force
• NOT retaking territory previously taken without any intervening peace
• NOT acting against an existential or persistent threat

So, If Nation A is minding their own business, killing their own people, and Nation B, which is not threatened by Nation A, decides to go in and take out Nation B's government, and in doing so launches an invasion (and therefore captures territory from Nation A), it is a war of conquest.

This is especially true if the acquisition of territory is permanent. Wars initiated to stop WA rights violations can indeed involve permanent territorial acquisition, and thus could be a war of conquest even by the strictest reasonable interpretation. I claimed that war initiated to stop rights violation may still be considered wars of conquest. Is this not true?

[Doppio Giudici]

People really haven't read the definition of war of conquest at the top of the target resolution.

I have read the definition at least ten times.

The requirements for conquest are as follows:

• Acquisition of territory by military force
• NOT retaking territory previously taken without any intervening peace
• NOT acting against an existential or persistent threat

So, If Nation A is minding their own business, killing their own people, and Nation B, which is not threatened by Nation A, decides to go in and take out Nation B's government, and in doing so launches an invasion (and therefore captures territory from Nation A), it is a war of conquest.

This is especially true if the acquisition of territory is permanent. Wars initiated to stop WA rights violations can indeed involve permanent territorial acquisition, and thus could be a war of conquest even by the strictest reasonable interpretation. I claimed that war initiated to stop rights violation may still be considered wars of conquest. Is this not true?

Like I keep saying, if the US was part of a treaty like this, they wouldn't be able to invade Nazi Germany and deconstruct the war-machine, unless Germany also declared war on them and not just France and the UK.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Like I keep saying, if the US was part of a treaty like this, they wouldn't be able to invade Nazi Germany and deconstruct the war-machine, unless Germany also declared war on them and not just France and the UK.

OOC:

...as happened in actual historical real life. You might recall the U.S. did not declare war on Germany or, you know, Japan, without prior cause. More importantly, the U.S. did not annex German territory, and the Pacific territorial acquisitions could easily have been simple temporary occupations without seriously affecting American war aims.

If I were the one selling the arms, my criteria for holding a war to be conducted free of territorial acquisitions would be fairly simple: clearly delineate the aims of the war; give either a timetable for withdrawal or the conditions under which your forces will withdraw; conduct the war in such a way as to actually advance those aims, and hold as closely as possible to those withdrawal conditions. If those criteria are met, no reasonable nation could possibly interpret the target resolution to forbid them from selling arms to the aggressor.

The target resolution was extremely carefully worded to allow precisely the type of war the U.S. waged from 1941-1945, and again from 1950-1953. It would even allow you to sell arms to the U.S. before, during, and after the Vietnam and Iraq conflicts, since there was no territorial acquisition there either.

The sides in post-WWII RL conflicts it would affect are much more local: several factions/states in the disintegration of Yugoslavia; Iraq from 1980 onwards; North Vietnam (but not the reunified Vietnam, which invaded Cambodia to put an end to the Khmer Rouge); and (here's the real can of worms) Israel. Of course, it would also prevent selling arms to the Arab states surrounding Israel as well (minus Egypt from 1978 on), so there's that. Let's see... North Korea; China from 1949 onward; Somalia from the late 70s; Indonesia from 1975-1999.

You could even sell arms to the British Empire during WWII on the understanding that they will only be used against the Germans, and not (say) India House.

The advantage this law confers to WA members is in the same vein as the advantage conferred by resolutions on the laws of war. It absolutely improves the world to have a group of nations that has officially forsworn territorial acquisition as a legitimate war aim; and the disadvantages to WA members based on limits to their conduct or weapons customers are minimal.

TL;dr - despite my IC reply on Page 1, any war that the target resolution would actually hinder isn't worth defending.

[Imperium Anglorum]

any war that the target resolution would actually hinder isn't worth defending.

This was part of the gist of my short RMB IFV (not really enamoured with that name) to residents in Europe.