[DEFEATED] Responsible Armaments Trading

[Imperial City-States]

If you want to be that way fine , a Nation such as my own and many others who openly use what are called "Weapons of Mass Destruction " and have our military doctrines built around the use of Chemical and biological weapons . Does the WA police come and kick in our leader's doors in the middle of the night ? No.

Furthermore just because a nation ( NS or RL ) signs something doesn't mean they are going to follow though with it. Yes they may technically sign it into law however if no one in the nation cares to enforce it , it doesn't matter in the first place.

OOC: No, thats not the way this game works. You cannot avoid the statistical changes on your nation. Refusal to comply with WA law is considered godmodding, and will get you roundly ignored by everybody here. When a law passes, nations are unable to avoid outright compliance. The best they can do is "creative" noncompliance, where you find a loophole in the text of the law.

OOC: How exactly is it "God Modding " when people do it and get away with it scott free in real life ? It's like the Current UN Fire-arms trade ban that went into effect a couple years ago (2006 I believe ) Does anyone follow it ? Hell no

[Sciongrad]

OOC: No, thats not the way this game works. You cannot avoid the statistical changes on your nation. Refusal to comply with WA law is considered godmodding, and will get you roundly ignored by everybody here. When a law passes, nations are unable to avoid outright compliance. The best they can do is "creative" noncompliance, where you find a loophole in the text of the law.

OOC: How exactly is it "God Modding " when people do it and get away with it scott free in real life ? It's like the Current UN Fire-arms trade ban that went into effect a couple years ago (2006 I believe ) Does anyone follow it ? Hell no

OOC: Because NS =/= RL. In nationstates, nations are required to comply. It's that simple. Its a construct support historically by the GA community. If you're going to complain and just state that you're not going to comply, I don't see why it's necessary for you to continue to derail this thread.

[Imperial City-States]

The General Assembly,

Reaffirming its position of international peace and goodwill,

Recognizing the extreme hazard to national populations posed by the unregulated trade of weapons and armaments,

Hoping to limit the involvement of member nations and their citizens in violence made possible by the aforementioned unregulated trade of weapons and armaments,

And to this end resolves;

1. The term "armament" shall be defined as military equipment, such as firearms, ammunition, and/or any other device that may possess a practical application in military conflict, including the parts necessary in their construction or production;

2. The term "transfer" shall be defined as the movement of an armament from one member nation, political subdivisions thereof, and/or non-state entities associated with a member nation to any other such entity, including non-member nations and non-state entities not associated with any nation;

3. The term "end-user certificate" shall be defined as an affidavit completed by the buyer of armaments subject to the provisions of this resolution which verifies that said buyer is the final recipient of the product;

4. All manufacturers, exporters, and brokers of armaments within member nations shall be required to register with the relevant government(s) of the nation(s) in which they operate, and the terms of such a registration shall, at minimum, encompass the provisions of this resolution;

5. The export of armaments by any manufacturer, exporter, and/or broker operating within a member nation shall make the sale of their armaments conditional on the completion of an end-user certificate by the buyer; member nations are strongly urged to implement systems of end-use monitoring to ensure that the end-user certificate is authentic, when possible;

6. The sale or transfer of armaments shall be prohibited if:

a. There is reason to suspect they will be used to initiate, or aid the aggressor in, a war of conquest or expropriation,

b. There is reason to suspect that they will be used in contravention of extant World Assembly legislation on human rights,

c. The armaments are non-discriminatory in nature, or if they pose a long-term environmental hazard when used,

d. There is reason to suspect that they will be diverted from their originally intended recipient, or

e.There is reason to suspect that the armaments may be used in such a way that contributes to socioeconomic deterioration in the recipient nation;

7. The sale or transfer of armaments to non-member nations with the intent of then transferring them to nations where the aforementioned circumstances apply shall be prohibited.

(Back on topic , sorry I ran off the rail)

1) By this you are including practically everything , Backpacks , Bulldozers , Cargo Planes by doing this you are effectively killing everyone's economy as they by technicalities can no longer export anything that is manufactured or any machining parts as they all have military application


2) Appears that with this you are preventing the Transfer from armament between the Military of the home nation and the Militia or Minutemen of the same nation even though said transfer is residing within the parent nation


3)There is no need to verify the Buyer as it is far to easy to render these types of documents inaccurate

4)By "encompass " do you mean that the private industry will be required to abide by laws that they have nothing to do with nor something they voted for ?


5) no comment

6) With exception of C all of these are highly circumstantial to who ever is looking at them. Country A may say they are in Country B for a good reason because Country B is support terrorist action where as Country B will say that Country A is committing Imperialist Acts and attacking with only aggressive purposes

[Sciongrad]

1) By this you are including practically everything , Backpacks , Bulldozers , Cargo Planes by doing this you are effectively killing everyone's economy as they by technicalities can no longer export anything that is manufactured or any machining parts as they all have military application

I cannot repeat this enough - unless your entire economy is dependent on trading these items with individuals that would violate clause 6, then this is a non-issue. Yes, the definition does include a variety of items that could practically be used in military conflict, but the resolution only prohibits their trade if you plan on selling them to ethnic cleansers, warmongerers, terrorists, or the like.

2) Appears that with this you are preventing the Transfer from armament between the Military of the home nation and the Militia or Minutemen of the same nation even though said transfer is residing within the parent nation

What? The transfer of armaments is only affected if the weapons will be used in such a way that violates any of the enumerated subclauses of clause 6.

3)There is no need to verify the Buyer as it is far to easy to render these types of documents inaccurate

OOC: End-user certificates are actual legal documents used in real life. The clause goes on to suggest end-user verification when possible.

4)By "encompass " do you mean that the private industry will be required to abide by laws that they have nothing to do with nor something they voted for ?

The clause means that for an armaments vendor to be legally permitted to sell armaments, it must be willing to comply with the provisions of this resolution. The interests of private industry is not as relevant to this discussion as the extraterritorial impact of this resolution will be.

6) With exception of C all of these are highly circumstantial to who ever is looking at them. Country A may say they are in Country B for a good reason because Country B is support terrorist action where as Country B will say that Country A is committing Imperialist Acts and attacking with only aggressive purposes

None of the conditions are circumstantial. Is the recipient of these armaments going to use them to protract a war of aggression? Does the recipient plan on committing genocide? Is the intended recipient going to receive these weapons? All of these can only be objectively interpreted. You can't say "well, we think their actions are commendable, even if it is a war of aggression," or "that's not slavery, that's just helping lazy people out by providing work!"

[Draica]

Ambassador tung sits back in his chair. His fingers twirled his glasses around, spinning them, he was obviously nervous and had questions about this purposal


"Excuse me." he said, standing up "This does not specify weather this effects domestic imports of weapons. Draica doesn't believe in the theories or principles of Gun control or weapon control. To me this proposal is vague and I need more information. So, number one, does it effect domestic imports and exports of guns and other weapons?

Number 2, what sort of weapons does it effect? Anything can be considered a weapon. A spoon, a fork, a arm can be considered a weapon. Does this effect bayonets, AK-47s, swords, arms, feet, razors, spears, halberds..? Can you please explain..?"

[Sciongrad]

Ambassador tung sits back in his chair. His fingers twirled his glasses around, spinning them, he was obviously nervous and had questions about this purposal


"Excuse me." he said, standing up "This does not specify weather this effects domestic imports of weapons. Draica doesn't believe in the theories or principles of Gun control or weapon control. To me this proposal is vague and I need more information. So, number one, does it effect domestic imports and exports of guns and other weapons?

This specifically deals with the export of armaments - not just weapons - in any of the circumstances detailed in clause 6.

Number 2, what sort of weapons does it effect? Anything can be considered a weapon. A spoon, a fork, a arm can be considered a weapon. Does this effect bayonets, AK-47s, swords, arms, feet, razors, spears, halberds..? Can you please explain..?"

This would include any weapon with a practical application in military conflict. So spoons, forks, recycling bins, boots without soles, music stands, picture frames, office chairs, and many other items are not included.

[Normlpeople]

Forgive me if I have missed this, ambassador, but how does this affect weapons/supplies exported with the intention of public sale? It would be impossible to know either the intention of a buyer in another nation, in addition to not knowing the precise "intended recipient". Would this resolutions requirements end at the wholesaler or importer within the importing nation? Would they be an acceptable "intended recipient" for the purposes of satisfying this resolution?

[Sciongrad]

Forgive me if I have missed this, ambassador, but how does this affect weapons/supplies exported with the intention of public sale? It would be impossible to know either the intention of a buyer in another nation, in addition to not knowing the precise "intended recipient". Would this resolutions requirements end at the wholesaler or importer within the importing nation? Would they be an acceptable "intended recipient" for the purposes of satisfying this resolution?

I would first like to thank you for taking the time to ask a question - I find it a valuable quality in an ambassador to ask for clarification rather than jumping to conclusions.

To address your point - the intended recipient in this case is the retailer that is purchasing the guns from another nation, which does not violate clause 6. The responsibility, as per clause 4, is now incumbent upon the retailer not to sell these armaments to those that may abuse them. So while the retailers are an acceptable recipient, these retailers are just as accountable to this resolution as other, international vendors. I hope that clarifies things, your Excellency.

[Sciongrad]

It seems as if some hooligan is campaigning against this, as this has lost several approvals in just the last day or so. This is dangerously close to not making it to quorum in time. If that is the case, this will be resubmitted again shortly.

[The Northern Philippines]

About the arms deal, it is good BUT, is this thing can stop weapon smuggling especially in clan and private military all over the world?

[Spiritbw]

My biggest worry is that this can wind up stopping the sale of good that have important non-military uses because they could be use them for the creation of war materials. That category is very broad and can cover nearly everything that a nation produces. We talk of keeping guns and bullets out of the hands of belligerent nations, but this bill would mean regulating even the trade of non-armaments between even third party nations if there is even the slightest potential it can be used as a war material or in the manufacturing there of.

I could see agreeing with this if we restricted it to war materials, and those things which could have a direct use in the manufacturing of war materials. As it is currently written we'd be regulating the sale of steel to any nation because it could be use to make gun barrels whither it be to the belligerent nation or to a third party that would pass it along.

Also how does one define a suspicion, especially when it comes to sale to a third party? This bill as written has the potential to damage trade between nations where neither is a belligerent as it currently stands.

I understand what you are trying to do with this bill, but I I cannot support it as it is currently written.

[Sciongrad]

My biggest worry is that this can wind up stopping the sale of good that have important non-military uses because they could be use them for the creation of war materials. That category is very broad and can cover nearly everything that a nation produces. We talk of keeping guns and bullets out of the hands of belligerent nations, but this bill would mean regulating even the trade of non-armaments between even third party nations if there is even the slightest potential it can be used as a war material or in the manufacturing there of.

I could see agreeing with this if we restricted it to war materials, and those things which could have a direct use in the manufacturing of war materials. As it is currently written we'd be regulating the sale of steel to any nation because it could be use to make gun barrels, whither it be to the belligerent nation or to a third part, that would pass it along.

Also how does one define a suspicion, especially when it comes to sale to a third party? This bill as written has the potential to damage trade between nations where neither is a belligerent as it currently stands.

I understand what you are trying to do with this bill, but I I cannot support it as it is currently written.

I have told you this before privately, your Excellency. The object being traded is not necessarily what determines whether or not it can be traded - rather, it's the use. Under this resolution, I could trade a hundred tons of firearms, explosives, and ammunition to a nation, so long as there is no reason to suspect that it will violate clause 6. Conversely, I can sell the same amount of, say, software, and be in violation of this resolution if there is reason to suspect that the recipient will violate clause 6.

I can't see why it matters why the trade of any object is restricted if there's reason to suspect it will be used in violation of clause 6. And there is no way that this would impact any nation's economy unless they relied heavily on trade that protracted war of conquest, genocide, or the like.

I hope this assuages your Excellency's concerns.

[Spiritbw]

I am afraid it does not. I feel this bill is just vague and covers far to much to be an effective bill. We have talked in private and I fear we have reached a point where we simply must agree to disagree. I still would like to see this bill rewritten as I do like the intent, but as written I fear it has serious flaws.

[Sciongrad]

I am afraid it does not. I feel this bill is just vague and covers far to much to be an effective bill. We have talked in private and I fear we have reached a point where we simply must agree to disagree. I still would like to see this bill rewritten as I do like the intent, but as written I fear it has serious flaws.

You have a completely incorrect interpretation of what this proposal does, your Excellency, and I don't know how to get through to you. Yes, this proposal covers a lot, but just because something is defined as an armament does not be it can't be traded. I don't know what else to tell you. You keep referencing how the proposal should only cover firearms, but why? If a nation plans on using sticks (intentionally ridiculous for emphasis) to violate clause 6, then they should not be traded! If you can't see this, I'm very sorry, but you're not reading the resolution correctly.

[Sciongrad]

Despite widespread misinterpretations of what this resolution does and two counter campaigns, we've achieved quorum. Hopefully, this will last until the current vote is finished.

[Communist Eraser]

6. The sale or transfer of armaments shall be prohibited if:

e.There is reason to suspect that the armaments may be used in such a way that contributes to socioeconomic deterioration in the recipient nation;

That effectively blocks all sales to revolutionaries and/or freedom fighting groups in a civil war wouldn't it? All civil war contributes to "socio-economic deterioration", prolonging the civil war also maes that longer.. If socioeconomic deterioration is the criteria, then not supplying weapons and letting the oppressive dictators win is going to be better, but we feel supporting freedom is worth the price.

Unless we are asked to intepret that broadly, trusting that in the world where the rebels win, "socio-economic conditions" would be better.

[Sciongrad]

6. The sale or transfer of armaments shall be prohibited if:

e.There is reason to suspect that the armaments may be used in such a way that contributes to socioeconomic deterioration in the recipient nation;

That effectively blocks all sales to revolutionaries and/or freedom fighting groups in a civil war wouldn't it? All civil war contributes to "socio-economic deterioration", prolonging the civil war also maes that longer.. If socioeconomic deterioration is the criteria, then not supplying weapons and letting the oppressive dictators win is going to be better, but we feel supporting freedom is worth the price.

Unless we are asked to intepret that broadly, trusting that in the world where the rebels win, "socio-economic conditions" would be better.

The only way that I could see civil war as causing socioeconomic deterioration is if it was literally some hardcore guerrilla warfare that actually inhibited people from engaging in normal everyday activity, which is not the type of social unrest that the World Assembly should be encouraging.

[Ardchoille]

For info, we've ruled AGAINST the following legality challenges:

• The proposal violates Resolution 68, "National Economic Freedoms," which grants member states the authority to regulate commerce within their jurisdictions.

Not accepted, because ...

REQUIRES that no commerce be generally restricted by the WA unless:

1. Restricted by prior legislation, or
2. The enterprise causes an extreme hazard to national populations

Recognizing the extreme hazard to national populations posed by the unregulated trade of weapons and armaments,

• All proposals that limit intrastate arms trade belong in the Gun Control category

Not accepted, because ...

This proposal category discusses ONLY the private, personal possession of firearms, and does NOT address the use of guns by agents of the government (the police and military). If you want to talk about police or military weaponry, then use either "Global Disarmament" or "International Security".

1. The term "armament" shall be defined as military equipment, such as firearms, ammunition, and/or any other device that may possess a practical application in military conflict, including the parts necessary in their construction or production;

[Sciongrad]

I'd like to thank the secretariat for their fair and judicious ruling!

[The Democratic States of LibertarianLand]

Senior Delegate Pelswick VonHammerstien and Michael Wiltberger newly elected delegates from the Democratic States of LibertarianLand (from our leftest party at that!) walk onto the voting floor of the WA.

Pelswick:"As this has came to a vote to the General Assembly we have our marching orders from the executive branch and state department of our Nation. While my Vice Delegate and I think this is a wonderful proposal...our State department has commanded us to vote NO! on this resolution. Our Government has very strict protections wrote into our Constitution and body of laws that protect and affirm our citizens fundamental right to keep and bare arms and it 'shall not be infringed'. Our Government is very concerned about some of the wording in this resolution such as

"The term "transfer" shall be defined as the movement of an armament from one member nation, political subdivisions thereof, and/or non-state entities associated with a member nation to any other such entity"

which our government feels that means this resoultion can give the WA the authority to control transfers and sells originating and conducted within our domestic sovergn soil and not soley international transfers. And also my government has issue with some of the registration requirements as historically corrupt and tyrannic governmental agencies have used registration of arms by means to start confication. Personally I will abstain my vote for as long as I possibly can and try to convince my government not to listen to these crazed bitter clingers and thier conspiracy theories however it is not looking good and I may be pressured to vote No though I personally want to vote Yes. Thank you for allowing me to convey the concerns from our Foreign Affairs Department.

Pelswick and Michael the delegates from The Democratic States of LibertarianLand then sit down and drink heavily from thier pitchers of water.

[The Democratic States of LibertarianLand]

Also we have been instructed to state that Yes even though the first claus says "Military Equipment" it then just goes on to say Firearm. With a general word like Firearm. How do we know this wont attempt to regulate simply pistols or semi automatics. Both military and civilian and police use those types of "firearms" it should specifically state the type of fire arm. Automatic Machine guns the make and model. Not simply 'firearm' as firearm is too vague of a term. How do we know the WA wont use 'Firearm' to come after our pistols which is both used as 'Military equipment' and Civillian use.

[Defwa]

It is the position of the Defwaen Government that the vague nature of certain aspects of this proposal will have consequences that Ambassador Santos is either unaware of or is not being transparent about. Considering that the issues of said ambiguity have been pointed out repeatedly in clear form, I suspect the latter.
However, the peace loving people of the Defwaen Federation have voted that we should approve this measure as it does at least make war difficult.

Wizards help us.

[The Democratic States of LibertarianLand]

Our Presisent asked us to convey his message.

"I ve Changed my nations title from "the democratic states of" to "the armed republic of" to both cut out the double redundancy and as protest against the current resolution in the WA on arms trading the vague definitions and ambigous wording could. Construe the WA not only to regulate international outbound trading but internal domestic as well. We intend to vote no. Hopefully other countries who value the right to bare arms will too."

[Koderland]

Koderland votes against this resolution. As a peaceful nation we do not agree with the bloodshed caused by the often overlooked and secretive armaments trade, but this legislation is written in such a way as to be far too vague and overreaching at the same time. There are also too many conflicts with what many nations rightfully consider legal trade at a domestic and international level for this resolution to be enforceable.

From a moral perspective it would be clear that people engaging in this trade should have both a moral and legal obligation toward preventing human rights abuses, but there are many circumstances in which a completely clean trade will be dirtied by the recipient's own determination. This resolution also only "strongly urges" nations to implement systems of end-use monitoring, and therefor creates even more problems in terms of transparency and enforcement.

[Pacifist Chipmunks]

Our best wishes to the Sciongrad delegation in their endeavors--seems they've put is a lot of work on this proposal. Defending intent and interpretation is never easy in the WA, but we hope things will pull through.

Good Luck,
-BH