Page 1 of 1
[DRAFT] Weaponised Aid Ban
Posted:
Fri Sep 23, 2022 12:45 pmby Magecastle Embassy Building A5
The World Assembly enacts as follows, subject to relevant past World Assembly resolutions still in force _
- No member nation or entity therein may provide humanitarian aid concealing any weaponry intended to physically harm a recipient of said aid.
- Each member nation must, to the best of its ability, inform the recipient of any aid provided by that nation or any entity therein in contravention of Section 1 that said aid violates Section 1.
"Discuss."
Posted:
Fri Sep 23, 2022 2:13 pmby Magecastle Embassy Building A5
Reserved
Posted:
Fri Sep 23, 2022 2:16 pmby Tinhampton
Category and area of effect? The last resolution that tried to ban humanitarian aid designed to kill people was discarded at vote for this reason
Posted:
Fri Sep 23, 2022 2:17 pmby Magecastle Embassy Building A5
Tinhampton wrote:Category and area of effect? The last resolution that tried to ban humanitarian aid designed to kill people was discarded at vote for this reason
GD -> Mild
Posted:
Fri Sep 23, 2022 2:51 pmby Minskiev
...what? Why? What's the point? What does this accomplish?
Posted:
Fri Sep 23, 2022 2:56 pmby Separatist Peoples
Magecastle Embassy Building A5 wrote:The World Assembly enacts as follows, subject to relevant past World Assembly resolutions still in force _
- No member nation or entity therein may provide humanitarian aid containing any component intended to physically harm a recipient.
- Each member nation must, to the best of its ability, inform the recipient of any aid provided by that nation or any entity therein in contravention of Section 1 that said aid violates Section 1.
"Discuss."
"Arguably bans most surgical equipment. Opposed."
Posted:
Fri Sep 23, 2022 3:00 pmby Hulldom
Magecastle Embassy Building A5 wrote:Tinhampton wrote:Category and area of effect? The last resolution that tried to ban humanitarian aid designed to kill people was discarded at vote for this reason
GD -> Mild
I'm not sure there's a good category for this, but if there is, it's certainly not GD, even if mild.
Posted:
Fri Sep 23, 2022 3:04 pmby Magecastle Embassy Building A5
Separatist Peoples wrote:Magecastle Embassy Building A5 wrote:The World Assembly enacts as follows, subject to relevant past World Assembly resolutions still in force _
- No member nation or entity therein may provide humanitarian aid containing any component intended to physically harm a recipient.
- Each member nation must, to the best of its ability, inform the recipient of any aid provided by that nation or any entity therein in contravention of Section 1 that said aid violates Section 1.
"Discuss."
"Arguably bans most surgical equipment. Opposed."
"Does the updated draft, limited to concealed weaponry, address this concern?"
~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Coletti,
Senior Staffer of the Ice World Assembly mission,
Temporary World Assembly Ambassador in the absence of Duke Vliet,
The Empire of The Ice StatesHulldom wrote:Magecastle Embassy Building A5 wrote:GD -> Mild
I'm not sure there's a good category for this, but if there is, it's certainly not GD, even if mild.
Ooc: Would Health -> International Aid be preferrible instead?
Posted:
Fri Sep 23, 2022 3:18 pmby Heidgaudr
Magecastle Embassy Building A5 wrote:Hulldom wrote:I'm not sure there's a good category for this, but if there is, it's certainly not GD, even if mild.
Ooc: Would Health -> International Aid be preferrible instead?
Probably?
Posted:
Fri Sep 23, 2022 5:07 pmby Heavens Reach
Can you motivate this ambassador? What is the problem we're trying to fix here? We get that planting a bomb or somesuch in international aid would be bad, but is there really any incentive for a nation to do this in the first place? We can't imagine it provides any militaristic advantage and would surely draw the ire and distrust of the international community, if not open up a whole can of worms (e.g. embargo, retaliation, occupation, etc.) for the offending nation
Posted:
Sat Sep 24, 2022 4:36 amby West Barack and East Obama
Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: Given the vast web of legislation on protected status and humanitarian aid, is mailing an IED alongside sacks of rice as part of "humanitarian aid" even legally possible?
Posted:
Sat Sep 24, 2022 4:40 amby The Orwell Society
No support.
Posted:
Sat Sep 24, 2022 4:58 amby Fachumonn
The Orwell Society wrote:No support.
Surely only because it's a "short resolution", not because of the quality?
It's not the greatest proposal by any stretch of the imagination but I could see this getting a lot better.
Posted:
Sat Sep 24, 2022 5:03 amby The Orwell Society
Fachumonn wrote:The Orwell Society wrote:No support.
Surely only because it's a "short resolution", not because of the quality?
It's not the greatest proposal by any stretch of the imagination but I could see this getting a lot better.
No, but like others, I really don't think it's neccessary.
Posted:
Sat Sep 24, 2022 5:07 amby Fachumonn
The Orwell Society wrote:Fachumonn wrote:Surely only because it's a "short resolution", not because of the quality?
It's not the greatest proposal by any stretch of the imagination but I could see this getting a lot better.
No, but like others, I really don't think it's neccessary.
Well, I can't agree, but ok.
Posted:
Sat Sep 24, 2022 6:18 amby Comfed
Separatist Peoples wrote:Magecastle Embassy Building A5 wrote:The World Assembly enacts as follows, subject to relevant past World Assembly resolutions still in force _
- No member nation or entity therein may provide humanitarian aid containing any component intended to physically harm a recipient.
- Each member nation must, to the best of its ability, inform the recipient of any aid provided by that nation or any entity therein in contravention of Section 1 that said aid violates Section 1.
"Discuss."
"Arguably bans most surgical equipment. Opposed."
Surgical equipment is intended to physically harm its recipient?
Posted:
Sat Sep 24, 2022 6:27 amby The Orwell Society
Comfed wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:"Arguably bans most surgical equipment. Opposed."
Surgical equipment is intended to physically harm its recipient?
It can
Posted:
Sat Sep 24, 2022 10:22 amby Juansonia
The Orwell Society wrote:Comfed wrote:Surgical equipment is intended to physically harm its recipient?
It can
"However, is surgical equipment
intended to harm those who receive it?" - Maria-Fernanda Novo, WA Ambassador for the Armed Republic of Juansonia
Posted:
Sat Sep 24, 2022 2:17 pmby WayNeacTia
Juansonia wrote:The Orwell Society wrote:It can
"However, is surgical equipment
intended to harm those who receive it?" - Maria-Fernanda Novo, WA Ambassador for the Armed Republic of Juansonia
"Intent" is in the eye of the beholder....
Posted:
Sat Sep 24, 2022 3:48 pmby Barfleur
Wayneactia wrote:Juansonia wrote:"However, is surgical equipment
intended to harm those who receive it?" - Maria-Fernanda Novo, WA Ambassador for the Armed Republic of Juansonia
"Intent" is in the eye of the beholder....
OOC: How about "harm"? I would think excising a tumor or performing a surgery would be the opposite of harm. It would be harmful to
not perform the operation, thus allowing the problem to get worse and eventually kill the patient.
Posted:
Sat Sep 24, 2022 4:15 pmby WayNeacTia
Barfleur wrote:Wayneactia wrote:"Intent" is in the eye of the beholder....
OOC: How about "harm"? I would think excising a tumor or performing a surgery would be the opposite of harm. It would be harmful to
not perform the operation, thus allowing the problem to get worse and eventually kill the patient.
The question was about "intent", not harm. Mens Reas and all of those fancy words and such....
Posted:
Sun Sep 25, 2022 2:39 pmby Barfleur
Wayneactia wrote:Barfleur wrote:OOC: How about "harm"? I would think excising a tumor or performing a surgery would be the opposite of harm. It would be harmful to
not perform the operation, thus allowing the problem to get worse and eventually kill the patient.
The question was about "intent", not harm. Mens Reas and all of those fancy words and such....
OOC: If the surgeon intends to use the tools to perform a legitimate operation with the consent of the patient (or upon a patient unable to give consent, if immediate action is needed), then I cannot see how that translates to "intent to harm."
Posted:
Sun Sep 25, 2022 3:55 pmby Separatist Peoples
Comfed wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:"Arguably bans most surgical equipment. Opposed."
Surgical equipment is intended to physically harm its recipient?
"What do you think a bone saw does, ambassador?"
Posted:
Sun Sep 25, 2022 8:49 pmby Barfleur
Separatist Peoples wrote:Comfed wrote:Surgical equipment is intended to physically harm its recipient?
"What do you think a bone saw does, ambassador?"
"It certainly can be used to mutilate a person, which is a gruesome form of harm. But it can also be used to save a person, which can hardly be considered harmful. That being said, I do support a qualifier that the proposal, if passed, would not ban genuine medical products."
Posted:
Tue Sep 27, 2022 9:24 amby Separatist Peoples
Barfleur wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:"What do you think a bone saw does, ambassador?"
"It certainly can be used to mutilate a person, which is a gruesome form of harm. But it can also be used to save a person, which can hardly be considered harmful. That being said, I do support a qualifier that the proposal, if passed, would not ban genuine medical products."
"By slicing flesh. It operates on innately destructive tendencies. Which is one reason why we anesthetize patients undergoing surgery. That's not a claim that surgery is immoral but a recognition of the nature of medical technology at this stage. Similarly to how we believe using violence to prevent worse harm is broadly acceptable, we accept limited destruction of the body to make more significant long term gains. It's hard to imagine any way surgical equipment is inapplicable under the portion of the draft as it existed when I made that comment."