Inhumane Arms Act (Draft)

[The Peninsular]

*I'm not a native english speaker*

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Significant

The World Assembly,

Concerned that some weapons are designed to cause permanent damage or a slow, painful death,

Convinced that the use of such weapons is unnecessary cruelty and has no place in a civilized society,

Worried that such weapons may be used not only by criminals but sometimes even the armed forces as weapons of terror,

Hereby,

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, an "inhumane weapon" as a weapon or weapon system that has been designed with the specific aim to

1. not to kill the victim, but instead to inflict permanent physical damage,
2. not to kill the victim quickly, but rather to cause a painful death over a long period of time,

2. Requires member nations to search for and seize all inhumane weapons within their borders to be destroyed,

3. Bans possession of inhumane weapons in all member nations, with the exception of state-appointed officials Wheel they seize, transport, store or destroy the inhumane weapons,

4. Bans production of inhumane weapons in all member nations.

5. Additionally bans the use of inhumane weapons by government officials, law enforcement officers, members of the armed forces as well as all civilians of member nations,

6. Forbids selling or trading inhumane weapons to non-member nations instead of destroying them,

7. Mandates that member nations criminalize all actions violating any of the clauses in this resolution, and prosecute the violators accordingly.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Welcome to the GA forum!

I can see you have some inkling of what resolutions should look like in format, but I can also see things you've missed, like having category and strength (or Area of Effect, whichever is applicable). I also doubt you've checked your proposal against existing resolutions (the one that bans torture comes to mind), so I'm going to link to both the proposal rules and the passed resolutions thread, as the latter is easy to search for keywords with the forum search function.

Proposal rules: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=159348
Passed resolutions: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30

Also, random pointers (I don't have time to comb through it thoroughly)...

• Learn to use list code and insert empty lines between clauses. The draft is currently one huge wall of text.
• You'd also be banning a lot of hunting and fishing gear, including most fishing hooks. I doubt that was the intention.
• Not everyone's population is human.
• The 1.c. subclause could ban most modern military firearms when they're using non-exploding bullets. (Wounded soldiers are a resource and moral drain for the enemy, so ammunition doing damage instead of killing outright is better.)
• Clause 4 goes off on weird tangents after the words "selling them". Are you seriously trying to use a weapons-restrictions proposal to make crossing national borders a crime? That probably contradicts a resolution or three...
• I honestly have to leave sorting out clause 6 for someone else, because damn, that's one big mess, and has similar stumbling blocks as clause 4.

You had the sense to post it here before submitting, so that's a big thumbs up for you.

[The New European Order]

OOC: Welcome to the GA forum!

I can see you have some inkling of what resolutions should look like in format, but I can also see things you've missed, like having category and strength (or Area of Effect, whichever is applicable). I also doubt you've checked your proposal against existing resolutions (the one that bans torture comes to mind), so I'm going to link to both the proposal rules and the passed resolutions thread, as the latter is easy to search for keywords with the forum search function.

Proposal rules: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=159348
Passed resolutions: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30

Also, random pointers (I don't have time to comb through it thoroughly)...

• Learn to use list code and insert empty lines between clauses. The draft is currently one huge wall of text.
• You'd also be banning a lot of hunting and fishing gear, including most fishing hooks. I doubt that was the intention.
• Not everyone's population is human.
• The 1.c. subclause could ban most modern military firearms when they're using non-exploding bullets. (Wounded soldiers are a resource and moral drain for the enemy, so ammunition doing damage instead of killing outright is better.)
• Clause 4 goes off on weird tangents after the words "selling them". Are you seriously trying to use a weapons-restrictions proposal to make crossing national borders a crime? That probably contradicts a resolution or three...
• I honestly have to leave sorting out clause 6 for someone else, because damn, that's one big mess, and has similar stumbling blocks as clause 4.

You had the sense to post it here before submitting, so that's a big thumbs up for you.

OOC: Damn, you stole my response while I was writing it

[The Peninsular]

OOC: Welcome to the GA forum!

I can see you have some inkling of what resolutions should look like in format, but I can also see things you've missed, like having category and strength (or Area of Effect, whichever is applicable). I also doubt you've checked your proposal against existing resolutions (the one that bans torture comes to mind), so I'm going to link to both the proposal rules and the passed resolutions thread, as the latter is easy to search for keywords with the forum search function.

Proposal rules: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=159348
Passed resolutions: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30

Also, random pointers (I don't have time to comb through it thoroughly)...

• Learn to use list code and insert empty lines between clauses. The draft is currently one huge wall of text.
• You'd also be banning a lot of hunting and fishing gear, including most fishing hooks. I doubt that was the intention.
• Not everyone's population is human.
• The 1.c. subclause could ban most modern military firearms when they're using non-exploding bullets. (Wounded soldiers are a resource and moral drain for the enemy, so ammunition doing damage instead of killing outright is better.)
• Clause 4 goes off on weird tangents after the words "selling them". Are you seriously trying to use a weapons-restrictions proposal to make crossing national borders a crime? That probably contradicts a resolution or three...
• I honestly have to leave sorting out clause 6 for someone else, because damn, that's one big mess, and has similar stumbling blocks as clause 4.

You had the sense to post it here before submitting, so that's a big thumbs up for you.

I hope that sorts out at least some of the issues.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Damn, you stole my response while I was writing it

OOC: *haz ninja skillz*

---

OOC: Author, I suggest you learn to use the list code for the clauses that have subclauses. Here's how it works:

Code: Select all

Clause name
[list=a][*]first subclause
[*]second subclause[/list]

And here is what it would make your first clause look like when used:

(1) DEFINES “Inhumane Arms“ as:

1. Weapon systems and weapons that use alkaline, acidic or any corrosive substances or agents against the victim.
2. Weapon systems and weapons whose specific aim it is not to kill the victim, but to inflict permanent damage that can not be cured.

As you can see, that would make it much clearer as to which ones are subclauses.

I'll get back to you on the actual content later, but just a pointer that after you have defined the inhumane arms, you don't need to use quote marks around the words every time, nor do you need to capitalize the first letters of the words themselves.

[Ricoux]

I like it but its like Global Disarming of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. it will be very hard to do.

[The Peninsular]

I like it but its like Global Disarming of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. it will be very hard to do.

But it is possible. And after some improvements I think it's gonna have a chance

[Araraukar]

OOC: What category and strength?

[The Peninsular]

OOC: What category and strength?

Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Significant

I'm not gonna run it as "Global Disarmament" as that would cause resistance among the WA members.

[Stalgard]

Weapon systems and weapons that use alkaline, acidic or any corrosive substances or agents against the victim.

as far as i know, none exist irl. Acid generally is not a good weapon.

Weapon systems and weapons whose specific aim it is not to kill the victim, but to inflict permanent damage that can not be cured.

that would lead to baning all small arms, especially since nato specifically adopted 5.56 to wpund enemies, not kill

[The Peninsular]

Weapon systems and weapons that use alkaline, acidic or any corrosive substances or agents against the victim.

as far as i know, none exist irl. Acid generally is not a good weapon.

Weapon systems and weapons whose specific aim it is not to kill the victim, but to inflict permanent damage that can not be cured.

that would lead to baning all small arms, especially since nato specifically adopted 5.56 to wpund enemies, not kill

But wounds caused by the 5.56 can be healed, it is about weapons specifically designed to cause permanent damage.

[Ricoux]

I like it but its like Global Disarming of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. it will be very hard to do.

But it is possible. And after some improvements I think it's gonna have a chance

Imnot saying i dont want it, i do and will support you fully but it has a slim chance of passing to to the large number of influential dictatorships in the world.

[Grays Harbor]

OOC: What category and strength?

Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Significant

I'm not gonna run it as "Global Disarmament" as that would cause resistance among the WA members.

And your chosen category, "moral decency", renders this illegal.

[Ricoux]

OOC: What category and strength?

Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Significant

I'm not gonna run it as "Global Disarmament" as that would cause resistance among the WA members.

If you run it as anything else then people will still think of it as global disarmamant. be ready for heavy resistance by dictator ships

[Ricoux]

Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Significant

I'm not gonna run it as "Global Disarmament" as that would cause resistance among the WA members.

And your chosen category, "moral decency", renders this illegal.

True

[The Peninsular]

But it is definetly worth a try!

Also, then category's gonna be "Global Disarmament".

[The Peninsular]

Also, I added some more definitions. Also, some dictatorships may agree if they read it properly as it doesn't effect their militaries and their torture chambers too much. I think.

[Stalgard]

as far as i know, none exist irl. Acid generally is not a good weapon.

that would lead to baning all small arms, especially since nato specifically adopted 5.56 to wpund enemies, not kill

But wounds caused by the 5.56 can be healed, it is about weapons specifically designed to cause permanent damage.

please tell me what you consider permanent damage? burns from firethrowers can be healed. Whatthere is left? explosives? mines? why the hell ban acids? is there even one weapon that uses them?
thinking about it technically lasers would be banned by this, but irl everyone agreed to not use them since blinding whole population of given country is too inhumane

[The Peninsular]

But wounds caused by the 5.56 can be healed, it is about weapons specifically designed to cause permanent damage.

please tell me what you consider permanent damage? burns from firethrowers can be healed. Whatthere is left? explosives? mines? why the hell ban acids? is there even one weapon that uses them?
thinking about it technically lasers would be banned by this, but irl everyone agreed to not use them since blinding whole population of given country is too inhumane

I consider permanent damage for example as:
- A weapon that leaves the victim without eyesight.
- A weapon that is specifically designed to leave the victim paraphlegic.
- A wepaon that destroys nerves inside the human body, to a degree where there's too much damage.
- A weapon that is designed to radiate radiation to cause mental illness which cannot be cured (autism, etc.)

Also, think of corrosive substances in gas. (Gas grenades etc.)

[Araraukar]

- A weapon that leaves the victim without eyesight.

OOC: So anything that can damage the eyes, from bullets to gases to lasers.

- A weapon that is specifically designed to leave the victim paraphlegic.

Guillotine? Give me an example, please.

- A wepaon that destroys nerves inside the human body, to a degree where there's too much damage.

An example, please. I honestly can't think of anything that would destroy nerves but not the surrounding tissue. Also, not everyone's population is human.

- A weapon that is designed to radiate radiation to cause mental illness which cannot be cured (autism, etc.)

...the fuck? Example, please? IC or OOC, I don't care, because I honestly can't figure out what this means.

Also, think of corrosive substances in gas. (Gas grenades etc.)

Toxic gas weapons are specifically allowed for defensive use by an existing resolution, which also specifically allows crowd control type of things. You'll run into trouble with that.

[The Peninsular]

- A weapon that leaves the victim without eyesight.

OOC: So anything that can damage the eyes, from bullets to gases to lasers.

- A weapon that is specifically designed to leave the victim paraphlegic.

Guillotine? Give me an example, please.

- A wepaon that destroys nerves inside the human body, to a degree where there's too much damage.

An example, please. I honestly can't think of anything that would destroy nerves but not the surrounding tissue. Also, not everyone's population is human.

- A weapon that is designed to radiate radiation to cause mental illness which cannot be cured (autism, etc.)

...the fuck? Example, please? IC or OOC, I don't care, because I honestly can't figure out what this means.

Also, think of corrosive substances in gas. (Gas grenades etc.)

Toxic gas weapons are specifically allowed for defensive use by an existing resolution, which also specifically allows crowd control type of things. You'll run into trouble with that.

1. Weapons that are designed to damage eyes to a point where the damage is too much to be healed.
2. - 4. To prevent any of these get invented or used in the first place.
5. Deadly weapons with corrosive substances. Things that probably won't be used for crowd control.

[The Peninsular]

Also, I just thought about the fact that when I started thinking about this last week, the draft wasn't even half a page long.

[Araraukar]

1. Weapons that are designed to damage eyes to a point where the damage is too much to be healed.

OOC: I feel like repeating myself, but an example, please?

2. - 4. To prevent any of these get invented or used in the first place.

You might as well want to ban the use of telepathy, in case it's ever invented. (And before someone else corrects me about their RP, yes, I know, but remember that most WA voters don't care about RP and will think it nonsense.) In any case, if even you don't think they exist, then shouldn't you be banning developing them?

5. Deadly weapons with corrosive substances. Things that probably won't be used for crowd control.

Tear gas is deadly if you spray too much of it. Most substances are. It all comes down to how much is used.

Also, I just thought about the fact that when I started thinking about this last week, the draft wasn't even half a page long.

Mostly because it was all bunched up into a wall-o-text.

EDIT: You still haven't added the category and strength into the first post.

[The Peninsular]

1. Weapons that are designed to damage eyes to a point where the damage is too much to be healed.

OOC: I feel like repeating myself, but an example, please?

2. - 4. To prevent any of these get invented or used in the first place.

You might as well want to ban the use of telepathy, in case it's ever invented. (And before someone else corrects me about their RP, yes, I know, but remember that most WA voters don't care about RP and will think it nonsense.) In any case, if even you don't think they exist, then shouldn't you be banning developing them?

5. Deadly weapons with corrosive substances. Things that probably won't be used for crowd control.

Tear gas is deadly if you spray too much of it. Most substances are. It all comes down to how much is used.

Also, I just thought about the fact that when I started thinking about this last week, the draft wasn't even half a page long.

Mostly because it was all bunched up into a wall-o-text.

EDIT: You still haven't added the category and strength into the first post.

Okay, so:

1. Corrosive substances designed to be sprayed onto someone's eyes and blind him like this. Honestly, I do not think this is used in a military scale, but it is an option for terrorists.

2.-4. I could forbid development of this kind of weaponry, thanks for the idea.

5. For example, gases intended to be used to kill a victim. Tear gas isn't intended to kill.

I really appreciate your efforts to make this draft better. Thanks

[The Peninsular]

Also, before I posted it here, I talked some things through with the delegate of my region. Before that, it was about this long:

[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[