NationStates

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: I’ve noticed that the draft has ‘co-authored by Verdant Haven’ above it. If you want for that to be on the submitted proposal, it will need to go at the bottom of the draft instead.)

OOC: Don't worry, I am aware. I will add it when it is proposed.

I still say this contradicts the Chemical Weapons Accord, which permits the usage of chemical weapons and riot control agents.

Wayneactia wrote:I still say this contradicts the Chemical Weapons Accord, which permits the usage of chemical weapons and riot control agents.

A good point - I'll discuss this with Verdant Haven.

Wayneactia wrote:I still say this contradicts the Chemical Weapons Accord, which permits the usage of chemical weapons and riot control agents.

GAR 272 (Chemical Weapons Accord) specifies the right to use chemical agents in two scenarios - in a military context as defense against an aggressive offensive force, and through the use of non-lethal "Riot Control Agents."

Our proposal clearly excludes military combat scenarios from its limitations (item number 4), so there is no conflict there. Defending against an aggressive offensive force is definitely a situation in which lethal force is acceptable, so the permitted military use remains fair game and unaffected.

I can see where a potential conflict could come up with Riot Control Agents though... specifically due to the excessively broad definition for that term in GAR 272. By that definition, you could bloody well use mustard gas on peaceful marchers and it would a protected and enshrined right.

However, it is very worth noting that GAR 272 does specifically make the permissible use of Riot Control Agents subject to future limitations by later resolutions, with this text:

Member nations shall be permitted to utilize riot control agents, within the boundaries of current and future World Assembly legislation,

As such, it seems to me that it permits a refinement of the definition, such as the limitation this proposal would place on agents that have the deliberate purpose of maiming, without taking it as a contradiction to the generalized right of member nations to use Riot Control Agents that do not run afoul of this later adjustment.

Your thoughts?

Verdant Haven wrote:

Wayneactia wrote:I still say this contradicts the Chemical Weapons Accord, which permits the usage of chemical weapons and riot control agents.

GAR 272 (Chemical Weapons Accord) specifies the right to use chemical agents in two scenarios - in a military context as defense against an aggressive offensive force, and through the use of non-lethal "Riot Control Agents."

Our proposal clearly excludes military combat scenarios from its limitations (item number 4), so there is no conflict there. Defending against an aggressive offensive force is definitely a situation in which lethal force is acceptable, so the permitted military use remains fair game and unaffected.

I can see where a potential conflict could come up with Riot Control Agents though... specifically due to the excessively broad definition for that term in GAR 272. By that definition, you could bloody well use mustard gas on peaceful marchers and it would a protected and enshrined right.

However, it is very worth noting that GAR 272 does specifically make the permissible use of Riot Control Agents subject to future limitations by later resolutions, with this text:

Member nations shall be permitted to utilize riot control agents, within the boundaries of current and future World Assembly legislation,

As such, it seems to me that it permits a refinement of the definition, such as the limitation this proposal would place on agents that have the deliberate purpose of maiming, without taking it as a contradiction to the generalized right of member nations to use Riot Control Agents that do not run afoul of this later adjustment.

Your thoughts?

OOC
That looks right to me. [one-sixth of GenSec]

Verdant Haven wrote:

Wayneactia wrote:I still say this contradicts the Chemical Weapons Accord, which permits the usage of chemical weapons and riot control agents.

GAR 272 (Chemical Weapons Accord) specifies the right to use chemical agents in two scenarios - in a military context as defense against an aggressive offensive force, and through the use of non-lethal "Riot Control Agents."

Our proposal clearly excludes military combat scenarios from its limitations (item number 4), so there is no conflict there. Defending against an aggressive offensive force is definitely a situation in which lethal force is acceptable, so the permitted military use remains fair game and unaffected.

I can see where a potential conflict could come up with Riot Control Agents though... specifically due to the excessively broad definition for that term in GAR 272. By that definition, you could bloody well use mustard gas on peaceful marchers and it would a protected and enshrined right.

However, it is very worth noting that GAR 272 does specifically make the permissible use of Riot Control Agents subject to future limitations by later resolutions, with this text:

Member nations shall be permitted to utilize riot control agents, within the boundaries of current and future World Assembly legislation,

As such, it seems to me that it permits a refinement of the definition, such as the limitation this proposal would place on agents that have the deliberate purpose of maiming, without taking it as a contradiction to the generalized right of member nations to use Riot Control Agents that do not run afoul of this later adjustment.

Your thoughts?

I agree. I myself hadn't read the accord, so it's jolly good that you quoted it here. Thank you, once again.

Bears Armed wrote:

Verdant Haven wrote:
GAR 272 (Chemical Weapons Accord) specifies the right to use chemical agents in two scenarios - in a military context as defense against an aggressive offensive force, and through the use of non-lethal "Riot Control Agents."

Our proposal clearly excludes military combat scenarios from its limitations (item number 4), so there is no conflict there. Defending against an aggressive offensive force is definitely a situation in which lethal force is acceptable, so the permitted military use remains fair game and unaffected.

I can see where a potential conflict could come up with Riot Control Agents though... specifically due to the excessively broad definition for that term in GAR 272. By that definition, you could bloody well use mustard gas on peaceful marchers and it would a protected and enshrined right.

However, it is very worth noting that GAR 272 does specifically make the permissible use of Riot Control Agents subject to future limitations by later resolutions, with this text:



As such, it seems to me that it permits a refinement of the definition, such as the limitation this proposal would place on agents that have the deliberate purpose of maiming, without taking it as a contradiction to the generalized right of member nations to use Riot Control Agents that do not run afoul of this later adjustment.

Your thoughts?

OOC
That looks right to me. [one-sixth of GenSec]

That's all good a well, except for this little gem right at the bottom:

5. Mandates that member nations cease development of, trade in, and funding of inhumane weaponry.

Seems to me that chemical weapons are being defined as an "inhumane weapon". Now how are nations going to be permitted to use them for defensive purposes if they can't develop, trade or fund them? Contradiction? Seems like a back door ban on chemical weapons which are permitted by WA law. I will concede that riot control agents are definitely open to further legislation, not that they are inhumane. Chemical weapons on the other hand are not open to further legislation. In fact further legislation on them seems to be blocked.

I agree with Wayneactia ^ ^ ^

The CWA defines a chemical weapon as "any substance that is used with the intention of causing death or severe harm to sapient beings, a habitable area or to the environment solely through the toxic chemical properties of such agent." So defined, chemical weapons clearly fall under the definition of "inhumane weaponry" in this proposal.

The CWA permits WA nations to use chemical weapons in military applications so long as that use is "limited to defensive or delaying operations of aggressive offensive military forces." Provision 5 of this proposal directly conflicts with that. Member nations cannot meaningfully use chemical weapons which they are legally prohibited from developing, cannot acquire through trade, and cannot fund their constructionprocurement.

The Yellow Monkey wrote:The CWA defines a chemical weapon as "any substance that is used with the intention of causing death or severe harm to sapient beings, a habitable area or to the environment solely through the toxic chemical properties of such agent."
*snip*
and cannot fund their construction.

OOC: To be fair, as defined, only the chemical is defined as the chemical weapon, and chemicals are produced, not constructed.

Araraukar wrote:

The Yellow Monkey wrote:The CWA defines a chemical weapon as "any substance that is used with the intention of causing death or severe harm to sapient beings, a habitable area or to the environment solely through the toxic chemical properties of such agent."
*snip*
and cannot fund their construction.

OOC: To be fair, as defined, only the chemical is defined as the chemical weapon, and chemicals are produced, not constructed.

Touche. Bit of a definition flaw in CWA that. Not sure it really affects my analysis, but good catch. This might all come down to a repeal and replace of CWA anyway.

Araraukar wrote:

The Yellow Monkey wrote:The CWA defines a chemical weapon as "any substance that is used with the intention of causing death or severe harm to sapient beings, a habitable area or to the environment solely through the toxic chemical properties of such agent."
*snip*
and cannot fund their construction.

OOC: To be fair, as defined, only the chemical is defined as the chemical weapon, and chemicals are produced, not constructed.

They still have to be developed do they not? Funding is required is it not?

The Yellow Monkey wrote:

Araraukar wrote:OOC: To be fair, as defined, only the chemical is defined as the chemical weapon, and chemicals are produced, not constructed.

Touche. Bit of a definition flaw in CWA that. Not sure it really affects my analysis, but good catch. This might all come down to a repeal and replace of CWA anyway.

Somehow I don't necessarily foresee that. The CWA actually gives nations the right to use chemical weapons. Any repeal and replace of that is likely to try and ban them.

Wayneactia wrote:

Araraukar wrote:OOC: To be fair, as defined, only the chemical is defined as the chemical weapon, and chemicals are produced, not constructed.

They still have to be developed do they not? Funding is required is it not?

OOC: And exactly where, in what I posted, did you see me saying anything that would argue otherwise? I just pointed out the flawed wording of the chemical weapons ban.

Araraukar wrote:

Wayneactia wrote:They still have to be developed do they not? Funding is required is it not?

OOC: And exactly where, in what I posted, did you see me saying anything that would argue otherwise? I just pointed out the flawed wording of the chemical weapons ban.

There is no chemical weapons ban. This is trying to ban chemical weapons in direct contradiction to the CWA.

OOC: The co-author’s line is placed at the ending of the proposal.

Terttia wrote:OOC: The co-author’s line is placed at the ending of the proposal.

OOC: Don't worry, I will do this when the proposal is... proposed. I hadn't put it there simply because some people would think it was part of the proposal etc.

Wayneactia wrote:

Araraukar wrote:OOC: And exactly where, in what I posted, did you see me saying anything that would argue otherwise? I just pointed out the flawed wording of the chemical weapons ban.

There is no chemical weapons ban. This is trying to ban chemical weapons in direct contradiction to the CWA.

This is not trying to ban chemicals weapons in contradiction of the CWA. The CWA permits use of chemical weapons, in a specific prescribed situation which remains permitted under this proposal.

This proposal prohibits the development, trade, and funding of a specific category of weapons, which may include some things categorized as chemical weapons.

This is a long-standing real-world distinction. For example, Prohibition in the United States prohibited the manufacture, sale, and transportation of liquor, but did not prohibit the ownership or consumption thereof. Many people had existing stocks of liquor, and were welcome to retain it and drink it. Compare it also with some jurisdictions' laws regarding prostitution, which do not target the act of prostitution itself (which remains legal), but which make it criminal to purchase the services of a prostitute (targeting demand). It's all about what aspect of an industry is targeted, and this proposal does not target the CWA's permitted usage.

Long story short, the right to use something if you've got it does not mean the right to build more of it, buy it, or do anything else with it.

“I think your preamble could do with just one clause recognising previous work done by this body, and another one explaining why this ban is necessary.”

Verdant Haven wrote:This proposal prohibits the development, trade, and funding of a specific category of weapons, which may include some things categorized as chemical weapons.

The law does what the law says. If nations cannot develop, fund or trade chemical weapons, nations which do not possess them aren't permitted to have them then. Yet the CWA clearly states that nations are permitted to have them and are allowed to use them. Hell the Chemical Weapons Commission even maintains a database of known chemical weapons and shares that information freely with nations. So yes, this is a back door ban on chemical weapons and is a direct contradiction to the CWA. Go ahead and submit it as is, and I will file a legality challenge based upon those reasons. Or you can remove article 5 and you don't have an issue. Your call.

I also maintain this will actually ban pepper spray which is a valuable tool for law enforcement, so there is that.

Wayneactia wrote:

Verdant Haven wrote:This proposal prohibits the development, trade, and funding of a specific category of weapons, which may include some things categorized as chemical weapons.

The law does what the law says.

I agree. This one clearly says it doesn't do what you're stating, so I'm not sure how to help you there. I'll look over the CWA again, but I do not believe it anywhere says anything more that permitting a nation to have and use, which are different from acquire and manufacture.

Wayneactia wrote:I also maintain this will actually ban pepper spray which is a valuable tool for law enforcement, so there is that.

How or why do you believe this would do that? This prohibits weapons "solely designed to maim sapient targets, rather than kill them" and defines "maiming" to be "the infliction of a permanent major injury or disability." Pepper spray neither maims, nor is designed to do so. I've been exposed to pepper spray multiple times, and suffice to say it had no effect on me by later the same day. If this is slipped in there somewhere, I certainly would want to adjust that.

"Clauses one and two should ideally be switched. Additionally, clause three may be more effective as a subclause of the current clause one.

Verdant Haven wrote:I agree. This one clearly says it doesn't do what you're stating, so I'm not sure how to help you there. I'll look over the CWA again, but I do not believe it anywhere says anything more that permitting a nation to have and use, which are different from acquire and manufacture.

There is no distinction. As I stated, nations which do not already possess chemical weapons now have no way of acquiring them, even though WA law clearly gives them the right to possess and use them. It is a back door ban. I don't care how you try and slice it. It is contradiction. Remove the clause or we can let GenSec decide. Your choice.

Verdant Haven wrote:How or why do you believe this would do that? This prohibits weapons "solely designed to maim sapient targets, rather than kill them" and defines "maiming" to be "the infliction of a permanent major injury or disability." Pepper spray neither maims, nor is designed to do so. I've been exposed to pepper spray multiple times, and suffice to say it had no effect on me by later the same day. If this is slipped in there somewhere, I certainly would want to adjust that.

As I stated the law does what the law say:

Defines "maiming" to be the infliction of a permanent major injury or disability, such as loss of a limb, or loss of function in sensory organs such as the eyes;

Once the "or" is there, pepper spray is banned as it does cause a loss of sensory function of the eyes. Albeit only temporarily, but there is no exception to that in that clause.

I concur with Wayneactia.

I think that we have reached the conclusion that the CWA allows for chemical weapons. I’ll include it for good measure:


Private individuals and entities are prohibited from owning chemical weapons under the provisions of the CWA:


However, this proposal bans member nations from producing inhumane weapons, as stated in clause 5:


If member nations can’t possess chemical weapons and no one else can, this contradicts CWA. Obviously, the production of something is also in that person/entity’s possession.

Thus, I find this proposal to be illegal by contradicting CWA.

Wayneactia wrote:As I stated the law does what the law say:

Defines "maiming" to be the infliction of a permanent major injury or disability, such as loss of a limb, or loss of function in sensory organs such as the eyes;

Once the "or" is there, pepper spray is banned as it does cause a loss of sensory function of the eyes. Albeit only temporarily, but there is no exception to that in that clause.

Permanent major injury or disability, such as loss of a limb, or loss of function in sensory organs such as the eyes.

Permanent is the operative word for the entire definition.

Permanent major injury, (or) permanent disability, (such as) permanent loss of limb, (or) permanent loss of function in a sensory organ such as the eyes.

I had no idea anybody could read it in the way it appears it is being read, since it's just specifying the common usage. Would it help this to re-order the words as "permanent infliction of..." rather than "infliction of permanent..." so the modifier is not possible to read in any other way? It's grammatically less correct, since it is the injury or disability that is permanent, not the act of inflicting it, but maybe that will help this confusion?

----

As for the rest, I'd be happy to let GenSec resolve it. A) You're basically trying to threaten us with an ultimatum to change a proposal that is not wrong, and B) Your attempt to conflate definitions is contrary to both real-life legal precedent (I'm not aware of a GA one for this topic), and the English language, in which we are required to write. I'm not the lead author, so COT can choose to adjust or not as suits them, but at this point I'm prepared to say that I fully understand the argument you are making, it's just that I equally fully believe that your argument is immaterial to this proposal, and therefore not a basis for challenge. Let the chips fall where they may.

Kenmoria wrote:“I think your preamble could do with just one clause recognising previous work done by this body, and another one explaining why this ban is necessary.”

Hmm, ok, so removing/combining the "recognizing" type items, and splitting/adding an additional "explaining" type? Will look in to that!

Morover wrote:"Clauses one and two should ideally be switched. Additionally, clause three may be more effective as a subclause of the current clause one.

I can see reversing the first pair, certainly. Good call - thanks.

Item 3 is split out because when item 1 was slightly longer to provide clarification itself, people said that it needed to be shorter and more succinct. It seems that short sentences with small words are unfortunately necessary. Personally, I feel that clause 3 shouldn't be required at all, since it is implicit in the definition in clause 1, but some folks were getting confused so we kind of repeated ourselves there to make sure the point got through. I think reversing the order of 1 and 2 like you suggested will make it fit better in the 3 slot though, since it will keep the clarification right next to the term in question.

OOC: The problem with the definition is the comma before the or, as that splits it from the part of the sentence that precedes it.