NationStates

Posted: **Wed Jan 01, 2020 10:33 am**

Co-Authored by Verdant Haven. This proposal shall be submitted on the 19th of February, 2020.

Current draft/draft 18:

Limitation of Inhumane Weaponry

Global Disarmament | Mild

The World Assembly,

LAUDING the current ban on biological weapons, established by this body,

INSPIRED by the resounding support for the Landmine Safety Protocol,

OBSERVING that other inhumane weaponry still holds a place in the world,

BELIEVING that weaponry solely designed to maim or cause permanent disability should be regulated,

HEREBY;

1. 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;

2. Defines "inhumane weaponry" as any weaponry solely designed to maim sapient targets, rather than kill them;

3. Clarifies that the incidental ability to cause such an injury is not by itself sufficient to render a weapon inhumane;

4. Prohibits the use of inhumane weaponry in all situations where lethal force would also be prohibited;

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

Draft 1:

Draft 2:

Draft 3:

Draft 4:

Draft 5:

Draft 6:

Draft 7:

Draft 8:

Draft 9:

Draft 10:

Draft 11:

Draft 12:

Draft 13:

Draft 14:

Draft 15:

Draft 16:

Draft 17:

Posted: **Wed Jan 01, 2020 10:50 am**

OOC: Anything that kills can (usually does) have a lasting effect, so you'd be banning all weaponry, more or less. Why? What's the international problem you're trying to solve? Or are you searching for a problem to solve with your solution?

Also, you're missing a very big and obvious thing from your lists: nuclear weapons.

Posted: **Wed Jan 01, 2020 10:57 am**

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Anything that kills can (usually does) have a lasting effect, so you'd be banning all weaponry, more or less. Why? What's the international problem you're trying to solve? Or are you searching for a problem to solve with your solution?

Also, you're missing a very big and obvious thing from your lists: nuclear weapons.

A good point! I forgot to include in the definition that the purpose of said weapon was to cause deliberate suffering. Also no, I wasn't trying to search for a problem to solve, I just happened to notice that there was no legislation banning such inhumane weapons that only intended to cause suffering rather than death.

I deliberately didn't include nuclear weapons as their purpose is to cause death.

Posted: **Wed Jan 01, 2020 11:44 am**

The COT Corporation wrote:
Araraukar wrote:OOC: Anything that kills can (usually does) have a lasting effect, so you'd be banning all weaponry, more or less. Why? What's the international problem you're trying to solve? Or are you searching for a problem to solve with your solution?

Also, you're missing a very big and obvious thing from your lists: nuclear weapons.

A good point! I forgot to include in the definition that the purpose of said weapon was to cause deliberate suffering. Also no, I wasn't trying to search for a problem to solve, I just happened to notice that there was no legislation banning such inhumane weapons that only intended to cause suffering rather than death.

I deliberately didn't include nuclear weapons as their purpose is to cause death.

OOC: Perhaps I'm being pedantic, but it may be worth asking if the intention of death is not a form of the deliberate infliction of suffering.

Posted: **Wed Jan 01, 2020 11:54 am**

Morover wrote:
The COT Corporation wrote:
A good point! I forgot to include in the definition that the purpose of said weapon was to cause deliberate suffering. Also no, I wasn't trying to search for a problem to solve, I just happened to notice that there was no legislation banning such inhumane weapons that only intended to cause suffering rather than death.

I deliberately didn't include nuclear weapons as their purpose is to cause death.

OOC: Perhaps I'm being pedantic, but it may be worth asking if the intention of death is not a form of the deliberate infliction of suffering.

Very true. However, this was just in the response to Araraukar. In the draft, I wrote that it was something to cause suffering but specifically not to kill.

Posted: **Wed Jan 01, 2020 12:00 pm**

The COT Corporation wrote:
Morover wrote:OOC: Perhaps I'm being pedantic, but it may be worth asking if the intention of death is not a form of the deliberate infliction of suffering.

Very true. However, this was just in the response to Araraukar. In the draft, I wrote that it was something to cause suffering but specifically not to kill.

Again, doesn’t suffering usually lead to death? Most organisms suffer before they are killed unless the central nervous system is immediately badly damaged.

Posted: **Wed Jan 01, 2020 12:06 pm**

Terttia wrote:
The COT Corporation wrote:
Very true. However, this was just in the response to Araraukar. In the draft, I wrote that it was something to cause suffering but specifically not to kill.

Again, doesn’t suffering usually lead to death? Most organisms suffer before they are killed unless the central nervous system is immediately badly damaged.

Perhaps I should refrase "suffering" to something else. Although, concerning the actual draft, I wrote that the intent was to cause suffering rather than kill. If you have suggestions for a rephrase, please tell me.

Posted: **Wed Jan 01, 2020 1:23 pm**

(c) Microwave Lasers,

Have you even researched this at all, or did you just pick scary sounding names? Microwave lasers, also known as Masers, are used primarily for communications purposes, and as the time keeping device in atomic clocks. There is virtually no mention anywhere in any source that gives them an offensive weapons usage, only a usage in a limited and purely defensive mode. Your inclusion of this is baffling.

Posted: **Wed Jan 01, 2020 1:51 pm**

Grays Harbor wrote:
(c) Microwave Lasers,

Have you even researched this at all, or did you just pick scary sounding names? Microwave lasers, also known as Masers, are used primarily for communications purposes, and as the time keeping device in atomic clocks. There is virtually no mention anywhere in any source that gives them an offensive weapons usage, only a usage in a limited and purely defensive mode. Your inclusion of this is baffling.

Whilst doing research for what to include I googled what is banned in real life, and they came up. At the time I thought it was strange to include them on the list as I had been under the impression that you are. However, the website I was on suggested they are completely different from what you described, and upon further research (Right now) I realised the website was faulty. I shall edit this pronto.

Posted: **Wed Jan 01, 2020 8:41 pm**

Poisoned and infected bullets along with pepper spray are covered by the Chemical Weapons Accord which permits their use. Also pepper spray does not have lasting effects.

Posted: **Thu Jan 02, 2020 2:26 am**

Wayneactia wrote:Poisoned and infected bullets along with pepper spray are covered by the Chemical Weapons Accord which permits their use. Also pepper spray does not have lasting effects.

I guess it depends for pepper spray for how long it lasts, but like you said, it probably wouldn't. I'll change them now.

Posted: **Thu Jan 02, 2020 9:08 am**

IC: “So, am I to understand that this proposal encourages nations at war to kill as many soldiers as possible, as opposed to using less-than-lethal technologies which may have enduring but non-life-ending side-effects? This seems like a perverse incentive to increase, rather than decrease, the level of violence experienced in conflict. When it comes to war, minimizing suffering is obviously desirable, but I believe many would express that death is the cause of more suffering than injury. Given that being struck with LTL technologies, even those with enduring effects, is likely preferable to death for most participants, perhaps further attention is needed to the situations where such technologies ought to be prohibited, such as situations where lethal technology is already excluded. I would concur that the use of technology designed to cause permanent non-lethal incapacitation would be inappropriate for situations such as management of POWs, but would dispute the suitability of such a ban to live combat situations.”

OOC: Some feedback, take it as you will:

The COT Corporation wrote: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 with lasting effects still hold place in this world,

”Inhumane weapons with lasting effects” is a very awkward phrase. It could readily be cleared up by just calling them “Inhumane weapons.” Your meaning will be abundantly clear from the rest of the document. I would also change the title of the proposed resolution to a much less awkward name like "Limitation of Inhumane Weapons"

The COT Corporation wrote:BELIEVING that any weaponry with lasting - potentially life changing - effects should be banned, and that measures shall be taken to ensure they are,

All weapons have the “potential” to be life changing in their effects - this is far too broad. If you wish to push it forward, I believe this resolution should be exclusively targeting weapons specifically designed to maim. Further, as mentioned IC above, there are plenty of situations where such a weapon would be better than the alternative – you don’t stop a tank with a taser. I would reword this clause as:

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

The COT Corporation wrote:RESOLVING BY;

This is unnecessary and lacks grammatical clarity. If you want something here, I would suggest using “Hereby” instead. Also, regardless of what you choose here, please make the active verbs of your numbered clauses match in tense! “Defines, Prohibits, Manages, Encourages, Tasks” – no ing endings needed for this part.

The COT Corporation wrote:1. Defining for the purpose of this resolution "Weaponry with lasting effects" as any non-lethal weapon that's intent would be to create an impressionable effect on a person rather than kill them, which would last for over 12 months, and would be a hinderance in daily and military life or cause severe health problems;

There’s a lot to tweak here.
- First, again, use a word like “inhumane” instead of “weaponry with lasting effects.”
- Second, drop the term “non-lethal” since people will just argue that anything can be lethal.
- Third, “that’s intent” is not a good term here… probably need to use something like “designed to.”
- Fourth… “create an impressionable effect” is an extremely bizarre phrase to use here, and typically refers to something that has a formative emotional impact on our childhoods, or which sets a certain emotional state of mind in an observer. As written, this would outlaw an impressive piece of artwork which makes a person consider light and shadow from a different perspective. Be clear in writing – say what you mean. Something like “inflict a lingering injury or disability” would be better.
- Fifth, the final clause is unnecessary. If it is considered an injury and it lasts that long, it will be considered a hinderance, so this is just filler.

The COT Corporation wrote:2. These weapons include, but are not limited to:

(a) Military Blinding Lasers,

(b) Low Calibre Expanding Bullets "Dum-Dums", of less than 400 grams,

(c) Fragmentation Weaponry that's primary intent would be to incapacitate or debilitate personnel,

My advice, drop this whole item. You keep changing it to new and different things, without actually resolving the issues, and I don’t want to be impolite, but you don’t seem to know a heck of a lot about weapons. 400 gram bullets? The depleted uranium projectiles from the 30mm auto-cannon on an A-10 Warthog weigh less than that. If you define the prohibition (maiming and permanent injury), you avoid having to try and give examples. Given that the list is non-exclusive and subject to immediate challenge, get rid of it. It isn’t an active clause anyway.

The COT Corporation wrote:3. Prohibiting the use of such weapons with intent to injure, incapacitate, destroy civil and military personnel, or harm the environment,

As per my IC feedback, I would strongly suggest the inclusion of an additional language specifying that this is to apply in scenarios where the use of lethal force would also be inappropriate. Perhaps something specifying the use of the minimum amount of injury potential required to achieve the necessary effect? It is not even slightly reasonable to prohibit LTL’s in an environment where fully lethal is the alternative.

The COT Corporation wrote:4. Mandates Member nations to take necessary measures to prevent the production, sale, or research of weapons with lasting effects, whatever the economic or social consequences,

You could rework this to prohibit the development of weaponry which can serve no legal purpose under the terms of this resolution, but all out prohibiting the development of military-grade LTL weaponry will simply result in more lethal combat, not less. Furthermore, drop that last bit about “whatever the… consequences.” A ban is a ban, and doesn’t need to be soapboxed. It will turn off voters.

The COT Corporation wrote:5. Encourages Member nations to withdraw from any arms or trade deals that involve the sale, production, or research of weapons with lasting effects, and to encourage other nations, whether they are in the World Assembly or not, to do the same

See above. Also, don’t forget terminal punctuation.

The COT Corporation wrote:6. Tasking the WHA (World Health Authority) with creating reforms in nations where people have suffered the lasting effects of the aforementioned weaponry, by utilising any resource the WHA could provide, and to take precautions that they shall not suffer again,

What are “reforms” and how will the WHA carry them out? Does a nation where people have suffered ill effect from an attacker need reforms? They’re not inherently the ones who did something being declared to be wrong. What kind of precautions are we talking? This feels like it’s out of scope for a WHA activity, and is a stretch for this resolution. I would suggest dropping this item entirely. Along with the previous suggested edits, that would give you a relatively clean 4 item resolution, with a straightforward scope and purpose.

Posted: **Thu Jan 02, 2020 4:31 pm**

Thank you very much. I will edit this in the morning but currently it is very late at night and I'm about to fall asleep.

Update: It has been edited, and I am very grateful for the help

Posted: **Sat Jan 04, 2020 8:00 am**

“Seeing as you use the term ‘inhumane weapon’ throughout the proposal, you ought to define ‘inhumane weapon’ rather than ‘inhumane weaponry’ in your first clause. You should then also add an ‘an’ after ‘resolution’.”

Posted: **Sat Jan 04, 2020 1:09 pm**

This has been noted and used. Thank you.

Posted: **Sat Jan 04, 2020 3:21 pm**

The COT Corporation wrote:1. Defines for the purpose of this resolution an "Inhumane Weapon" as any weapon designed to inflict a lingering injury or disability on a person rather than kill them, which would last for over 12 months,

OOC: Give me a RL example of such a weapon. Would designed-to-be-non-lethal-but-capable-of-causing-serious-injury-if-unlucky weapons such as those for crowd control count? Or does it actually have to be designed to cause such injuries? Because I honestly can't off the top of my mind think of such a weapon.

Also, I see you're specifying weapons, excluding ammunition that does the same.

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,

...but use of such weapons is fine when you're trying to kill someone, whether it's appropriate or not? Also, "destroy" and "non-lethal" don't match. If you can give me the example of such a weapon, you can probably give an example of such a situation as well, and what should be used instead?

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,

What would be a legal purpose for them under your terms?

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,

You should end it in period, not comma, and you should also specify peaceful means for that latter encouragement. But why is the first encouragement not a mandate?

Posted: **Sun Jan 05, 2020 10:44 am**

Thank you again, Araraukar.

Posted: **Sun Jan 05, 2020 12:51 pm**

The COT Corporation wrote:Thank you again, Araraukar.

OOC:

Give me answers instead of thanks.

The COT Corporation wrote:the examples that Araraukar has suggested I put in

OOC: I did nothing of that sort! I asked YOU to give ME examples. In a reply post. On this thread. NOT put them in the proposal.

Posted: **Sun Jan 05, 2020 1:00 pm**

Oh sorry I didn't think that's what you meant

Posted: **Sun Jan 05, 2020 1:04 pm**

Question 1: As one example, military blinding lasers.

Question 2: POW riot control, etc.

If you have more suggestions I would be happy to hear them :)

Posted: **Sun Jan 05, 2020 2:10 pm**

“Clause 3 should most likely have some limitations in scope, such that member nations don’t have to stop the deployment of inhuman weaponry in wars fought entries between non-members.”

Posted: **Mon Jan 06, 2020 11:50 am**

The COT Corporation wrote:Question 1: As one example, military blinding lasers.

OOC: Link, please. And the link needs to contain proof that the laser has been only made to blind people permanently, not any other purpose.

Question 2: POW riot control, etc.

...how does prisoner of war riot control differentiate from any other prisoner riot control?

If you have more suggestions I would be happy to hear them

My point is that I don't believe such weapons exist and if in some fringe RP they do, they are not as big a problem as to need international legislation to deal with.

Posted: **Mon Jan 06, 2020 1:48 pm**

Araraukar wrote:My point is that I don't believe such weapons exist and if in some fringe RP they do, they are not as big a problem as to need international legislation to deal with.

Although it is on wikipedia, it is an actual legislation from the United Nations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding_Laser_Weapons

Posted: **Mon Jan 06, 2020 1:51 pm**

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

There are indeed laser weapons I could link, but I figured that a RL version of this would be just as good.

Posted: **Mon Jan 06, 2020 2:03 pm**

Another very real example of these types of weapons are many anti-personnel land mines. There are types specifically designed to jump in to the air a short distance, then explode and fire fragments at mid-leg height in order to cripple those around them. The theory with these being that just killing a person eliminates that one person, but maiming them not only removes them from combat, but also the one or two comrades who now have to carry or evacuate them, plus it sends them home where they are a draw on the resources of the home nation, plus the sight of crippled soldiers is powerful anti-war propaganda that dissuades the enemy public from supporting the conflict.

Again, I don't suggest putting examples in the bill, but for anybody wondering what kind of things these are... they're out there.

NationStates

[DEFEATED] Limitation of Inhumane Weaponry

[DEFEATED] Limitation of Inhumane Weaponry