World Assembly Protection Act

[Mediterreania]

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Mild

RECOGNIZING Resolution #8 and its the creation of a WA headquarters;

ACKNOWLEDGING the need for the WA headquarters to be a place of harmony;

AGAIN IGNORING the "disturbing prevalence among international envoys of 'drunks, stoners, weirdos, military fruitcakes, sex addicts, rejects, dear little kiddies, honest family types' and militant machistas";

The World Assembly therefore;

DEFINES:
1. "Assault units" as any vehicle, artillery piece, ship, aircraft or spacecraft armed with the intent of destroying enemies;
2. "Logistical unit" as any vehicle, ship, aircraft or spacecraft designated to carry cargoes or persons;

CREATES a 50-mile exclusion zone around, above and under the WA headquarters in which nuclear or similar weapons may not be deployed;

FORBIDS national militaries from deploying assault units, such as IFVs or artillery pieces, on the grounds or airspace of the WA;

STILL ALLOWS humanitarian transport (Resolution #6) under a nation's armed forces to be deployed on the grounds or airspace of the WA;

ALSO ALLOWS nations to deploy logistical units on the grounds or airspace of the WA, given that their purpose is to transport, secure or support delegations;

ENCOURAGES delegations to declare any weapons they carry to the Office of Building Mangement (Resolution #8);

NOTES that this will still allow delegates their personal security staff.

[Nullarni]

Ok, just to let you know, you are "building a house of cards" by repeatedly mentioning WA #8 and WA #6. Thats just not allowed. But your proposal may have some merit.

[Freeoplis]

We would like to request examples as to the type of situations that this proposal seeks to protect against, all WA members surely wouldn't seek to deploy weapons within WA territory and non WA nations who might have little disregard for such territory wouldn't be bound by legislation, we are struggling to see the necessity?

[Sionis Prioratus]

AWKNOWLEDGING the need for the WA headquarters to be a place of harmony;

AWWWW... KNOWLEDGING?

Pssst... It's "acknowledging".

Yours,

[Mediterreania]

We would like to request examples as to the type of situations that this proposal seeks to protect against, all WA members surely wouldn't seek to deploy weapons within WA territory and non WA nations who might have little disregard for such territory wouldn't be bound by legislation, we are struggling to see the necessity?

You would be surprised. This is to prevent someone from stretching the line and exploding an EMP over the WA or driving IFVs into a crowd of delegates.

[Quadrimmina]

Our Ministry of Foreign Affairs definitely NEVER planned on launching an EMP in the WA HQ.

However, we support this proposal, and look forward to its maturation.

[Mediterreania]

Our Ministry of Foreign Affairs definitely NEVER planned on launching an EMP in the WA HQ.

So sure?

[Freeoplis]

We remain unconvinced of the threat and the necessity for this proposal, we therefore cannot support the increase in unnecessary. bureaucracy.

[Mediterreania]

We remain unconvinced of the threat and the necessity for this proposal, we therefore cannot support the increase in unnecessary. bureaucracy.

Consider the number of nations that join the WA daily. Now consider the ease of access to weapons of mass destruction. Some delegations may already have self-destruct mechanisms buried under the building, or tanks ready to run down another nation's ambassadors. Does it make more sense now?

[Freeoplis]

we would direct the delegations attention to the Diplomat Protection Act

We quote:

PROHIBITS nations from sending diplomats with the express intent of committing crimes of espionage, sabotage, subversion, causing harm to the civilian population, and other related crimes committed outside of a diplomats duties

[Mediterreania]

we would direct the delegations attention to the Diplomat Protection Act

We quote:

PROHIBITS nations from sending diplomats with the express intent of committing crimes of espionage, sabotage, subversion, causing harm to the civilian population, and other related crimes committed outside of a diplomats duties

Yes, but that does not prevent one from shooting other diplomats in the WA with artillery.

[Freeoplis]

Very true but on the same logic this legislation wouldn't stop a Nation from doing it either, if a Nation wants to breach international law they shall.

[Melki]

I approve this great proposal as (inter)national security is at its utmost need currently.
Signed,

[Sionis Prioratus]

Yes, but that does not prevent one from shooting other diplomats in the WA with artillery.

We highly doubt it. Let us see...

:: shoots down Mediterreania's delegate with heavy artillery, serious injuries follow ::

Hmmmm.... We guess Your Excellency was right, our sincere apologies.

Yours in mourning Your Excellency,

[Melki]

Yes, but that does not prevent one from shooting other diplomats in the WA with artillery.

We highly doubt it. Let us see...

:: shoots down Mediterreania's delegate with heavy artillery, serious injuries follow ::

Hmmmm.... We guess Your Excellency was right, our sincere apologies.

Yours in mourning Your Excellency,

Is this an act of WAR?
OOC: This is not a warncode, nor impersonation of a mod.

[Sionis Prioratus]

Yes, but that does not prevent one from shooting other diplomats in the WA with artillery.

We highly doubt it. Let us see...

:: shoots down Mediterreania's delegate with heavy artillery, serious injuries follow ::

Hmmmm.... We guess Your Excellency was right, our sincere apologies.

Yours in mourning Your Excellency,

Is this an act of WAR?

Not at all, Your Excellency. We just wished to ensure the veracity of the late ambassador from Mediterreania's claims. Most unfortunately he was right, and no one more than ourselves lament that he was right.

Yours in mourning,

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I wonder how the honoured ambassador from Charlotte Ryberg would ever dare nuke the WA-HQ in the first place? I probably think that the WA is already neutral from engaging in conflicts.

Yours in radioactive confusion,

[Bloodstone Kay]

I'm not entirely sure this would be needed anyhow, in resolution #8 it states that the WA HQ is built on international neutral territory, which should mean it's protected by resolution #12 (Neutrality of Nations).

Kari Kagrosi
WA Pirate

[Freeoplis]

We welcome the analysis from the esteemed delegation from Bloodstone Kay, we agree and remain unconvinced of this proposal's necessity.

[Sionis Prioratus]

I'm not entirely sure this would be needed anyhow, in resolution #8 it states that the WA HQ is built on international neutral territory, which should mean it's protected by resolution #12 [sic - #14] (Neutrality of Nations).

Therefore, the WAHQ is not a "nation" in any sense. Not to say anything about the total uselessless of #14, so much it merits a repeal. All in all, here is what #14 "protects":

World Assembly Resolution #14
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » 25 Apr 2009, 13:16

Neutrality of Nations
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Charlotte Ryberg

[...]
The World Assembly,

BELIEVES that:
- It is a right of any Member Nation that is uninvolved in a said war to make a formal claim of Neutrality, and;
- A Neutral Nation must be protected from Belligerent Nations, provided that they observe obligations to justify its neutrality.

DEFINES, for the purpose of this Resolution:
- War as a armed conflict between two or more Nations;
- A Neutral Nation as a nation that has formally declared itself neutral before the World Assembly with regard to a specific state of war or hostility existing between two or more other nations, and;
- A Belligerent Nation as a nation that is currently involved in said war or a nation that is supporting the armed forces of an existing Belligerent Nation.

So, unless someone can prove us that the WAHQ is a "nation", the argument based on #14 is moot.

Yours,

[Nullarni]

I'm not entirely sure this would be needed anyhow, in resolution #8 it states that the WA HQ is built on international neutral territory, which should mean it's protected by resolution #12 (Neutrality of Nations).

Kari Kagrosi
WA Pirate

I would disagree. WA #14 covers the neutrality of nations. WA HQ is not a nation and therefore not protected. - Arg! Sionis Prioratus, you beat me to it.

Besides, WA #14 is a travesty and needs to be repealed.

I think that this isn't a huge issue, but I suppose thats why its strength is mild.

[Mousebumples]

I believe that the biggest risk (so far as firing nuclear weapons/etc. at the WAHQ) would be non-member nations.

Non member nations are not - and cannot be covered by this proposal - or any proposal.

As a result, I find this proposal to be mostly worthless and am unable to support it.

Yours,
Ambassador Lizzy Hall
Leader of the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

[Quadrimmina]

Our nation offers our Nuclear Arms Protection System to the WA HQ to protect it from nuclear attack by causing an auto-bombard of any nuclear material that passes a certain perimeter to be bombarded with antimatter that renders it unusable.

[Quadrimmina]

Our Ministry of Foreign Affairs definitely NEVER planned on launching an EMP in the WA HQ.

So sure?

We refuse to comment further on this matter.

[Unibot]

I wonder how the honoured ambassador from Charlotte Ryberg would ever dare nuke the WA-HQ in the first place? I probably think that the WA is already neutral from engaging in conflicts.

Yours in radioactive confusion,

"The World Assembly Intelligence Committee threatens rule offenders that "further breaches [of the Assembly's rules] will be punished with nuclear strikes against all offending nations, destroying them." This could drive some non-member nations to retaliate to fight for their existence, which would threaten our headquarters. Our Unibotian scholars have suggested that this was the reason behind the historical destruction of the WA's predecessor. Secretly, allied non-member nations retaliated against the UN when it threatened their existence using extra-dimensional weaponry (a ol' ray gun?). Hence why the WA gave amnesty to previous rule offenders when it was established, without publicly admitting that the United Nations had negotiated with terrorists. The whole 'multidimensional copyright' thingy was all just a big red herring. And a clever one at that. " Eduard explained.