[DEFEATED] Limitation of Inhumane Weaponry

[Araraukar]

Another very real example of these types of weapons are many anti-personnel land mines.

OOC: Land mines have been already dealt with by the WA. As have dirty bombs (that is, bombs that spread radioactive material around), because they're the only other thing I could think of as being a thing that fit this. But they've been banned already.

If such things did not exist, why wouldn't the UN ban them?

OOC: Because in RL making legislation is slow, and nations and various international things try to catch emerging technologies before they cause trouble. Remote hunting (meaning, gun with a webcam set in the woods and the shooter sitting at home with the remote trigger) isn't a real thing either, but it's still been banned by various states in USA, because it could conceivably be possible to set up with today's technology, and the lawmakers would rather not have people treat real guns as a video game.

Also, I asked for a link to an actual RL existing blinding laser that's been designed for nothing else but being a blinding weapon. Even the UN thing you linked to, includes "or as one of their combat functions", and "a weapon of military interest has been banned before its use on the battlefield", which means such weapons were never a thing.

...though interestingly, only about half (108) of UN nations have agreed to the ban. And if I was you, I'd read the bit about how the ban essentially failed anyway, because nations refuse to give away laser-guiding systems etc., because of their usefulness, and similar weapons technology. If you make the wording of this one such that laser-guided systems would be banned, I promise you the proposal will fail. You will find a big uphill battle to ban any weaponry, no matter how horrific you think it may be (I still think a landmine ban is taking things too far, both in RL and NS, but I readily admit that's because of my RL distrust of our eastern neighbour that has a habit of not honoring treaties and national borders when it suits it, and nothing to do with RP realities), unless you very clearly make it only apply to weapons not applicable otherwise but this particular meaning. In which case the question then becomes, why do you think dead is better than crippled?

[The COT Corporation]

Another very real example of these types of weapons are many anti-personnel land mines.

OOC: Land mines have been already dealt with by the WA. As have dirty bombs (that is, bombs that spread radioactive material around), because they're the only other thing I could think of as being a thing that fit this. But they've been banned already.

If such things did not exist, why wouldn't the UN ban them?

OOC: Because in RL making legislation is slow, and nations and various international things try to catch emerging technologies before they cause trouble. Remote hunting (meaning, gun with a webcam set in the woods and the shooter sitting at home with the remote trigger) isn't a real thing either, but it's still been banned by various states in USA, because it could conceivably be possible to set up with today's technology, and the lawmakers would rather not have people treat real guns as a video game.

Also, I asked for a link to an actual RL existing blinding laser that's been designed for nothing else but being a blinding weapon. Even the UN thing you linked to, includes "or as one of their combat functions", and "a weapon of military interest has been banned before its use on the battlefield", which means such weapons were never a thing.

...though interestingly, only about half (108) of UN nations have agreed to the ban. And if I was you, I'd read the bit about how the ban essentially failed anyway, because nations refuse to give away laser-guiding systems etc., because of their usefulness, and similar weapons technology. If you make the wording of this one such that laser-guided systems would be banned, I promise you the proposal will fail. You will find a big uphill battle to ban any weaponry, no matter how horrific you think it may be (I still think a landmine ban is taking things too far, both in RL and NS, but I readily admit that's because of my RL distrust of our eastern neighbour that has a habit of not honoring treaties and national borders when it suits it, and nothing to do with RP realities), unless you very clearly make it only apply to weapons not applicable otherwise but this particular meaning. In which case the question then becomes, why do you think dead is better than crippled?

It may be more personal, but I'd rather die than be severely crippled for life. Just imagine, you would be practically housebound. To do what? Nothing.

[Araraukar]

It may be more personal, but I'd rather die than be severely crippled for life. Just imagine, you would be practically housebound. To do what? Nothing.

OOC: Given how people with severe physical disabilities are able to be out and about just fine in today's society, I feel like you haven't quite thought this through. I don't want to be offensive, but are you very young? The kind of black-and-white thinking and "if I can't be physically active, I'd rather die" suggest to me that you haven't lived through periods of life where you more or less are housebound, but very busy nevertheless, or at least like spending time home, and those together suggest a teenager or early 20's, because people tend to calm down afterwards.

If it's possible for you to do so, try spending a day at home bound to a chair with wheels (most people have an office chair to roll around the home). I think you'll find that even common housework takes a lot longer than usual to do.

[The COT Corporation]

It may be more personal, but I'd rather die than be severely crippled for life. Just imagine, you would be practically housebound. To do what? Nothing.

OOC: Given how people with severe physical disabilities are able to be out and about just fine in today's society, I feel like you haven't quite thought this through. I don't want to be offensive, but are you very young? The kind of black-and-white thinking and "if I can't be physically active, I'd rather die" suggest to me that you haven't lived through periods of life where you more or less are housebound, but very busy nevertheless, or at least like spending time home, and those together suggest a teenager or early 20's, because people tend to calm down afterwards.

If it's possible for you to do so, try spending a day at home bound to a chair with wheels (most people have an office chair to roll around the home). I think you'll find that even common housework takes a lot longer than usual to do.

Although a good point, I did mention that it was my personal opinion. In addition, I didn't anywhere state that it was physical activity that I would hate to be deprived of - what I meant was that I would hate to not be able to easily function. Not being able to go out and interact with others, because you have an injury that requires you to stay within a hospital, bed bound, possibly for life? Now that's what I would hate.

[Araraukar]

Not being able to go out and interact with others, because you have an injury that requires you to stay within a hospital, bed bound, possibly for life? Now that's what I would hate.

OOC: ...are we talking about the same proposal? Your definition has "lingering injury or disability". A lingering injury could mean just walking with a limp. A disability could be loss of vision in one eye, or part of a limb being amputated, or partial hearing loss. If you want your proposal to be about "needing hospital care for the rest of your life" or "being bedbound for the rest of your life", then you need to actually write it in. But as written, your proposal is about a category of X and Y, and you're using Z as an excuse for preferring death.

Also, I dare you to go to visit anyone who actually is bedbound for life but still alive, and ask them why they prefer not to die.

[The COT Corporation]

Not being able to go out and interact with others, because you have an injury that requires you to stay within a hospital, bed bound, possibly for life? Now that's what I would hate.

OOC: ...are we talking about the same proposal? Your definition has "lingering injury or disability". A lingering injury could mean just walking with a limp. A disability could be loss of vision in one eye, or part of a limb being amputated, or partial hearing loss. If you want your proposal to be about "needing hospital care for the rest of your life" or "being bedbound for the rest of your life", then you need to actually write it in. But as written, your proposal is about a category of X and Y, and you're using Z as an excuse for preferring death.

Also, I dare you to go to visit anyone who actually is bedbound for life but still alive, and ask them why they prefer not to die.

This has been observed and the proposal was changed accordingly.

[Kenmoria]

“In clause 3, ‘exempt of’ is strange phrasing. I suggest using ‘excepting’ instead.”

[Araraukar]

This has been observed and the proposal was changed accordingly.

OOC: You changed it to "permanent disability", which doesn't change the fact that quite "little" things are called disabilities. Loss of a finger is a disability (loss of thumb is a significant disability), but hardly makes you unable to enjoy life.

[The COT Corporation]

“In clause 3, ‘exempt of’ is strange phrasing. I suggest using ‘excepting’ instead.”

"Thank you, ambassador"

[The JELLEAIN Republic]

Why lauding ?

[The COT Corporation]

This has been observed and the proposal was changed accordingly.

OOC: You changed it to "permanent disability", which doesn't change the fact that quite "little" things are called disabilities. Loss of a finger is a disability (loss of thumb is a significant disability), but hardly makes you unable to enjoy life.

I'll see to this ASAP

[The COT Corporation]

Why lauding ?

I don't know if you know or not, but lauding means to highly praise someone or their achievements. In my opinion, banning biological weapons is something worth lauding.

[Verdant Haven]

Progress has definitely been made, and things are starting to look a bit more like a draft that could be put to vote. There are still plenty of modifications ahead though!

What I would consider my more major suggestions are as follows:

1. Defines for the purpose of this resolution an "Inhumane Weapon" as any weapon designed to maim or inflict a major permanent disability on a person rather than kill them, which would last for over 12 months,

The final "which would last for over 12 months" should be dropped. The injuries in question have now been defined as permanent in nature (maiming or major permanent disability), so there is no need to put a lower bound on their duration.

2. Prohibits the use of such weapons with intent to injure, incapacitate, or destroy civil and military personnel, when lethal force would be inappropriate and the maximum amount of injury would be needed to achieve the necessary effect,

The wording on this has become quite awkward. My personal re-work would be:

"2. Prohibits the use of such weapons in all situations where lethal force would also be prohibited, and where the required effect can be achieved with a lesser force."

3. Mandates Member nations to take necessary measures to prevent the development of inhumane weapons that serve no legal purpose under the terms of this resolution, excepting when their development is for war with non World Assembly nations;

Firstly I would remove the exception here. We should be holding WA nations to a higher standard period, not just a higher standard when dealing with each other. If you allow development of these weapons for conflict with non-WA nations, then every country will develop them for general use and simply claim it is for non-WA use.

Secondly, there needs to be some clarification of the primary clause. "Necessary measures to prevent the development..." could include bombing a neighbor who is developing them, assassinating researchers foreign and domestic, and generally doing anything imaginable in the name of following the rules. This can be dramatically simplified as:

"3. Mandates that member nations cease all development of inhumane weapons which serve no legal purpose under the terms of this resolution."

4. Encourages Member nations to withdraw from any arms or trade deals that involve the development of inhumane weapons, that under the terms of this resolution serve no legal purpose and to encourage other nations, whether they are in the World Assembly or not, to do the same.

The WA can't legislate for non-members, and "encouraging members... to encourage non-members" is on the cusp of utterly meaningless. I would simply leave it as encouraging member nations to withdraw from arms or trade deals involving the sale, purchase, funding, or development of inhumane weapons.

-----

This can be made in to a very lean, straight-forward, easy to understand resolution, which I think will have at least a reasonable chance of approval if it reaches vote. There are still things to clear up, and I'm sure the folks here on the forums will find a dozen more places to pick apart effect and intent, but I feel like it's moving in the right direction.

[The COT Corporation]

Verdant Haven, as you have contributed so much to this resolution, and I have used many of your suggested rewordings, I would be more than happy to list you as a co-author.

[Aranoff]

Gentleman, I would critique such a proposal here before us and suggest that this seems to be a fairly broad-painted brush that could apply to any conventional weapon, as many weapons are designed to "inflict a major permanent disability" should the weapon miss the intended target, but still impact them through collateral damage.

The Councillors of Aranoff, in coordination with the Executive, hereby propose the inclusion of the term "solely" to clause 1, such that the definition of "Inhumane Weapon" is narrowed in scope.

1. Defines for the purpose of this resolution an "Inhumane Weapon" as any weapon designed solely to maim or inflict a major permanent disability on a person rather than kill them,

The Allied States find that this would be a more satisfactory aim. Collateral damage is part of several weapons' inherent designs. We do not feel the term "rather than" provides a specific enough exclusion to make this scope narrow-enough for passage without drastically impacting the development and trading of arms that would otherwise be considered legal.

Should this come to vote, AND were this inclusion incorporated into the language of this proposal, it is no sign that The Councillors of Aranoff would indeed vote FOR such a measure, as consultation with our Economic Advisors and Military Industrial Industry would need to be considered with its impact on GDP.

[The COT Corporation]

Gentleman, I would critique such a proposal here before us and suggest that this seems to be a fairly broad-painted brush that could apply to any conventional weapon, as many weapons are designed to "inflict a major permanent disability" should the weapon miss the intended target, but still impact them through collateral damage.

The Councillors of Aranoff, in coordination with the Executive, hereby propose the inclusion of the term "solely" to clause 1, such that the definition of "Inhumane Weapon" is narrowed in scope.

1. Defines for the purpose of this resolution an "Inhumane Weapon" as any weapon designed solely to maim or inflict a major permanent disability on a person rather than kill them,

The Allied States find that this would be a more satisfactory aim. Collateral damage is part of several weapons' inherent designs. We do not feel the term "rather than" provides a specific enough exclusion to make this scope narrow-enough for passage without drastically impacting the development and trading of arms that would otherwise be considered legal.

Should this come to vote, AND were this inclusion incorporated into the language of this proposal, it is no sign that The Councillors of Aranoff would indeed vote FOR such a measure, as consultation with our Economic Advisors and Military Industrial Industry would need to be considered with its impact on GDP.

"Fixed."

[Verdant Haven]

Verdant Haven, as you have contributed so much to this resolution, and I have used many of your suggested rewordings, I would be more than happy to list you as a co-author.

That is very considerate, thank you.

When I first opened up this thread and read the draft, I admit I was both opposed to the idea being presented, and didn't hold out much hope for it. Still, it seemed worth providing feedback. What you've done with it, incorporating feedback, sculpting it towards a cogent idea, and improving it from many sources is excellent, and I now find myself both in support of the idea, and believing that with some additional drafting work, we can get this passed.

I'll take you up on your offer, and will send you a telegram later tonight with some other thoughts for discussion.

[Morover]

"Greetings, ambassador. I've left suggested grammatical additions in blue, suggested grammatical exclusions in green, and general comments in red.

Global Disarmament | Significant

The World Assembly,

LAUDING the current ban on biological weapons, as voted for by this chamber,

OBSERVING that although the legislation has banned such weaponry, other inhumane weapons (perhaps rephrase this as ", other weaponry which inflicts significant intentional harm")still hold a place in this the world,

BELIEVING that weapons specifically designed to maim or cause permanent disability should be regulated, and their usage limited as much as possible,

HEREBY;

1. Defines, for the purpose of this resolution, an "Inhumane Weaponry" (the capitalization of inhumane weaponry is odd here, in my opinion) as any weapon designed solely to maim or inflict a permanent major disability on a person rather than kill them (perhaps rephrase this as "permanent major disability on any sapient, excluding the death of the aforementioned sapient), (additionally, why is there a comma to end this clause, on top of all the preambulatory clauses, while there are semicolons on all the other operative clauses. Remain consistent, if you can.

2. Prohibits the use of such weapons (replace "such weapons" with "inhumane weaponry" in all situations where lethal force would also be prohibited, and where the required effect can be achieved with a lesser force (I'd recommend replacing "where the required effect can be achieved with a lesser force" to "when lesser force, not using inhumane weaponry, would be effective in reaching the desired goal" or something to that effect. As is, "required effect" is very off-putting);

3. Mandates that member nations cease all development of inhumane weapons (change "weapons" to "weaponry") which serve no legal purpose under the terms of this resolution;

4. Encourages Member nations to withdraw from any arms or trade deals that involve the development, purchase, or funding of inhumane weapons, that, under the terms of this resolution, serve no legal purpose (perhaps reword this as "serve no purpose which remains legal under World Assembly law").

Considering the spirit of this proposal, I would very much like to see a clause, perhaps between the current clauses 3 and 4, which goes something along the lines of "Forbids member-nations from causing harm unto a sapient, either civilian or non-civilian, for the sole purpose of causing harm unto the aforementioned sapient, through the use of either traditional or inhumane weaponry;"

OOC: Additionally, I'd recommend making usage of the [list=1] BBCode, as opposed to numbering the clauses manually. It just has a more professional aesthetic, in my opinion.

[The COT Corporation]

Verdant Haven, as you have contributed so much to this resolution, and I have used many of your suggested rewordings, I would be more than happy to list you as a co-author.

That is very considerate, thank you.

When I first opened up this thread and read the draft, I admit I was both opposed to the idea being presented, and didn't hold out much hope for it. Still, it seemed worth providing feedback. What you've done with it, incorporating feedback, sculpting it towards a cogent idea, and improving it from many sources is excellent, and I now find myself both in support of the idea, and believing that with some additional drafting work, we can get this passed.

I'll take you up on your offer, and will send you a telegram later tonight with some other thoughts for discussion.

Thank You.

I have listed you as a co-author on the draft area, and will of course list you when this is actually submitted.

[The COT Corporation]

"Greetings, ambassador. I've left suggested grammatical additions in blue, suggested grammatical exclusions in green, and general comments in red.

Global Disarmament | Significant

The World Assembly,

LAUDING the current ban on biological weapons, as voted for by this chamber,

OBSERVING that although the legislation has banned such weaponry, other inhumane weapons (perhaps rephrase this as ", other weaponry which inflicts significant intentional harm")still hold a place in this the world,

BELIEVING that weapons specifically designed to maim or cause permanent disability should be regulated, and their usage limited as much as possible,

HEREBY;

1. Defines, for the purpose of this resolution, an "Inhumane Weaponry" (the capitalization of inhumane weaponry is odd here, in my opinion) as any weapon designed solely to maim or inflict a permanent major disability on a person rather than kill them (perhaps rephrase this as "permanent major disability on any sapient, excluding the death of the aforementioned sapient), (additionally, why is there a comma to end this clause, on top of all the preambulatory clauses

2. Prohibits the use of such weapons (replace "such weapons" with "inhumane weaponry" in all situations where lethal force would also be prohibited, and where the required effect can be achieved with a lesser force (I'd recommend replacing "where the required effect can be achieved with a lesser force" to "when lesser force, not using inhumane weaponry, would be effective in reaching the desired goal" or something to that effect. As is, "required effect" is very off-putting);

3. Mandates that member nations cease all development of inhumane weapons (change "weapons" to "weaponry") which serve no legal purpose under the terms of this resolution;

4. Encourages Member nations to withdraw from any arms or trade deals that involve the development, purchase, or funding of inhumane weapons, that, under the terms of this resolution, serve no legal purpose (perhaps reword this as "serve no purpose which remains legal under World Assembly law").

Considering the spirit of this proposal, I would very much like to see a clause, perhaps between the current clauses 3 and 4, which goes something along the lines of "Forbids member-nations from causing harm unto a sapient, either civilian or non-civilian, for the sole purpose of causing harm unto the aforementioned sapient, through the use of either traditional or inhumane weaponry;"

OOC: Additionally, I'd recommend making usage of the [list=1] BBCode, as opposed to numbering the clauses manually. It just has a more professional aesthetic, in my opinion.

I'll see to this ASAP

[Verdant Haven]

Considering the spirit of this proposal, I would very much like to see a clause, perhaps between the current clauses 3 and 4, which goes something along the lines of "Forbids member-nations from causing harm unto a sapient, either civilian or non-civilian, for the sole purpose of causing harm unto the aforementioned sapient, through the use of either traditional or inhumane weaponry;"

I've sent some full drafting thoughts to The COT Corporation via telegram, which includes several of your suggestions, or versions thereof. I just wanted to give my own feedback related to your final suggestion about including an additional clause forbidding all harm for harm's sake.

I feel that that moves massively beyond the scope of weapons regulation and in to other issues, and would basically be opening a giant door for causing this to be repealed in the event it were successfully passed in the first place. A lot of my feedback on this proposal has been for tightening the focus and making it very clean and clear what it is addressing. The generalized concept of "causing harm for harm's sake" is, in my opinion, not just beyond the scope of this draft, but completely beyond the WA's grasp, as it represents a psychological problem rather than a governmental one.

The crux of the problem is that there really isn't much that could be defined as "causing harm... for the sole purpose of causing harm." Torture can be used to extract information, even if that information is usually bad. Carpet bombing civilians can be used to break enemy morale, even if it hurts your own as well. An utterly and completely senseless genocide is done for a reason - the removal of the targeted demographic. Even an individual outright sadist could claim they caused harm for a purpose... they caused harm to give themself pleasure. I don't see that as being a regulation that would affect any government, as there is no government that couldn't provide justification for even the most horrifying act under those terms. I'd rather see this limit itself to a specific and actionable subject which is cleanly within its GA category of Global Disarmament, and leave the Moral Decency or Social Justice clauses to a carefully and specifically crafted resolution on that specific subject.

[The COT Corporation]

Considering the spirit of this proposal, I would very much like to see a clause, perhaps between the current clauses 3 and 4, which goes something along the lines of "Forbids member-nations from causing harm unto a sapient, either civilian or non-civilian, for the sole purpose of causing harm unto the aforementioned sapient, through the use of either traditional or inhumane weaponry;"

I've sent some full drafting thoughts to The COT Corporation via telegram, which includes several of your suggestions, or versions thereof. I just wanted to give my own feedback related to your final suggestion about including an additional clause forbidding all harm for harm's sake.

I feel that that moves massively beyond the scope of weapons regulation and in to other issues, and would basically be opening a giant door for causing this to be repealed in the event it were successfully passed in the first place. A lot of my feedback on this proposal has been for tightening the focus and making it very clean and clear what it is addressing. The generalized concept of "causing harm for harm's sake" is, in my opinion, not just beyond the scope of this draft, but completely beyond the WA's grasp, as it represents a psychological problem rather than a governmental one.

The crux of the problem is that there really isn't much that could be defined as "causing harm... for the sole purpose of causing harm." Torture can be used to extract information, even if that information is usually bad. Carpet bombing civilians can be used to break enemy morale, even if it hurts your own as well. An utterly and completely senseless genocide is done for a reason - the removal of the targeted demographic. Even an individual outright sadist could claim they caused harm for a purpose... they caused harm to give themself pleasure. I don't see that as being a regulation that would affect any government, as there is no government that couldn't provide justification for even the most horrifying act under those terms. I'd rather see this limit itself to a specific and actionable subject which is cleanly within its GA category of Global Disarmament, and leave the Moral Decency or Social Justice clauses to a carefully and specifically crafted resolution on that specific subject.

Indeed, I agree with this. Not because I have anything against Morover, merely because this resolution is different from what Morover suggests, and what they said would fit better into another proposal.

[Morover]

Considering the spirit of this proposal, I would very much like to see a clause, perhaps between the current clauses 3 and 4, which goes something along the lines of "Forbids member-nations from causing harm unto a sapient, either civilian or non-civilian, for the sole purpose of causing harm unto the aforementioned sapient, through the use of either traditional or inhumane weaponry;"

I've sent some full drafting thoughts to The COT Corporation via telegram, which includes several of your suggestions, or versions thereof. I just wanted to give my own feedback related to your final suggestion about including an additional clause forbidding all harm for harm's sake.

I feel that that moves massively beyond the scope of weapons regulation and in to other issues, and would basically be opening a giant door for causing this to be repealed in the event it were successfully passed in the first place. A lot of my feedback on this proposal has been for tightening the focus and making it very clean and clear what it is addressing. The generalized concept of "causing harm for harm's sake" is, in my opinion, not just beyond the scope of this draft, but completely beyond the WA's grasp, as it represents a psychological problem rather than a governmental one.

The crux of the problem is that there really isn't much that could be defined as "causing harm... for the sole purpose of causing harm." Torture can be used to extract information, even if that information is usually bad. Carpet bombing civilians can be used to break enemy morale, even if it hurts your own as well. An utterly and completely senseless genocide is done for a reason - the removal of the targeted demographic. Even an individual outright sadist could claim they caused harm for a purpose... they caused harm to give themself pleasure. I don't see that as being a regulation that would affect any government, as there is no government that couldn't provide justification for even the most horrifying act under those terms. I'd rather see this limit itself to a specific and actionable subject which is cleanly within its GA category of Global Disarmament, and leave the Moral Decency or Social Justice clauses to a carefully and specifically crafted resolution on that specific subject.

OOC: You're right. For some odd reason (likely the reason that it was rather late when writing that response) I thought that the proposal wouldn't be able to be enforced because of something without a clause similar to that. Sorry about that.

[The united American-Isreali empire]

banning weapons never works, there will be folks whom circumvent them, just saying. i say nay.

[Americae Roma]

I don't think it makes sense to prohibit incendiary weapons, they have a military value, and second IRL, incendiary weapons are not outlawed, but rather, nations have an obligation to not cause civilian casualties while using incendiary weapons, anti personnel land mines are also allowed IRL, if they have a self disarmament mechanism after the war ended, one example is the Claymore mine, which since it is remotely detonated, is allowed under landmine regulations