[DEFEATED] Limitation of Inhumane Weaponry

[Workers Juche Liberation Front of Korea]

I would support this.

[The COT Corporation]

“I think your preamble could do with just one clause recognising previous work done by this body, and another one explaining why this ban is necessary.”

Hmm, ok, so removing/combining the "recognizing" type items, and splitting/adding an additional "explaining" type? Will look in to that!

"Clauses one and two should ideally be switched. Additionally, clause three may be more effective as a subclause of the current clause one.

I can see reversing the first pair, certainly. Good call - thanks.

Item 3 is split out because when item 1 was slightly longer to provide clarification itself, people said that it needed to be shorter and more succinct. It seems that short sentences with small words are unfortunately necessary. Personally, I feel that clause 3 shouldn't be required at all, since it is implicit in the definition in clause 1, but some folks were getting confused so we kind of repeated ourselves there to make sure the point got through. I think reversing the order of 1 and 2 like you suggested will make it fit better in the 3 slot though, since it will keep the clarification right next to the term in question.

Thanks for pointing this out. Sorry if I haven't been on recently, I had some RL shenanigans going on. The changes shall be made!

[Verdant Haven]

OOC: The problem with the definition is the comma before the or, as that splits it from the part of the sentence that precedes it.

Oof - I don't like removing the comma from a comma-delineated list (Oxford comma forever!), but as this has only 2 examples in the list I suppose it can be done if it will help with clarity for this proposal.

[The Yellow Monkey]

*snip*

We recently saw a proposal pulled from vote for contradiction because of the "significant overlap" on the issue of consent to sedation and the potential for a difference in meaning between "legal guardian" and "next of kin." I'm not sure how this proposal could survive that same reasoning...

This proposal undoubtedly has significant overlap on the issue of chemical weapons possession and use, and without resort to technicalities it's hard for me to understand on a practical level how a nation can use weapons which it is legally prohibited from funding. It's counter-intuitive to say that this does not conflict with a recognized right to use certain weapons when, over time, that's exactly what it does.

Put simply, this proposal contradicts CWA because it would effectively eliminate the right to use chemical weapons over time. Arguably the language about "development" and "funding" outlaws use of chemical weapons immediately. Even under your interpretation, nations will eventually lose the right to use chemical weapons in the way guaranteed by CWA, because they cannot replace chemical weapons as they are used/expire. That's a contradiction between the laws: one law effectively takes away a right granted by another.

As an aside, I don't believe the prohibition analogy is good because, unlike in the case of prohibition, here there is a law explicitly granting the right to use chemical weapons. There was no corresponding right to use alcohol in the case of prohibition, and I am quite sure that had there been one the legal framework around the manufacture of alcohol would have played out quite differently.

[Verdant Haven]

Thank you for providing reasoned arguments here! I'll pitch my angle in response here, for consideration/discussion.

We recently saw a proposal pulled from vote for contradiction because of the "significant overlap" on the issue of consent to sedation and the potential for a difference in meaning between "legal guardian" and "next of kin." I'm not sure how this proposal could survive that same reasoning...

I watched with interest the successful challenge of the medical proposal, and I must say, with full agreement to the decision. "Legal Guardian" and "Next of Kin" are very specific legally definable things, and they are not the same as each other. The proposal at vote was attempting to exclusively assign a particular right to one which had already been exclusively assigned to the other. That is a direct contradiction, and cannot stand in law.

This proposal undoubtedly has significant overlap on the issue of chemical weapons possession and use, and without resort to technicalities it's hard for me to understand on a practical level how a nation can use weapons which it is legally prohibited from funding. It's counter-intuitive to say that this does not conflict with a recognized right to use certain weapons when, over time, that's exactly what it does.

The Chemical Weapon Accord does not actually guarantee the right to use chemical weapons. On the topic of Chemical Weapons, it specifies only limitations, not rights. It says that their use shall be limited to certain circumstances (clause 1), and prohibited in other circumstances (clause 2). Clause 3 does guarantee the right to use Riot Control Agents (clause 3), but specifies that that right is subject to future WA legislation such as this proposal.

Clauses 4 through 7 are entirely focused on restrictions, security, and disposal of potentially extent stockpiles, and grant no specific rights to have or use them.

Put simply, this proposal contradicts CWA because it would effectively eliminate the right to use chemical weapons over time. Arguably the language about "development" and "funding" outlaws use of chemical weapons immediately. Even under your interpretation, nations will eventually lose the right to use chemical weapons in the way guaranteed by CWA, because they cannot replace chemical weapons as they are used/expire. That's a contradiction between the laws: one law effectively takes away a right granted by another.

This proposal does not contradict the CWA, not only because the CWA does not guarantee any right to use Chemical Weapons, but also because this proposal does not effectively prohibit Chemical Weapons as defined in the CWA. The CWA defines chemical weapons as " any substance that is used with the intention of causing death or severe harm to sapient beings, a habitable area or to the environment solely through the toxic chemical properties of such agent." That means it includes fully lethal chemical agents (not covered by our proposal), as well as agents designed to cause severe but non-permanent harm (not covered by our proposal). The only class of Chemical Weapon covered by our proposal would be chemical agents designed specifically to cause permanent but non-lethal severe injuries – a subcategory which does not impinge the overall ability to use products which otherwise fall in to the Chemical Weapons classification.

This extension of regulation, without effectively banning a category, is consistent with existing WA precedent permitting additional regulations, as seen in the example of Goobergunchia vs "Legalizing Prostitution" with reference to GAR 68 "National Economic Freedoms." NERVUN passed the ruling, visible here: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=7246191#p7246191. As such, even were the CWA to actually guarantee the right to use Chemical Weapons, which it does not, this proposal offering further regulation of that right would be legal.

As an aside, I don't believe the prohibition analogy is good because, unlike in the case of prohibition, here there is a law explicitly granting the right to use chemical weapons. There was no corresponding right to use alcohol in the case of prohibition, and I am quite sure that had there been one the legal framework around the manufacture of alcohol would have played out quite differently.

While I will repeat again that the CWA does not explicitly grant the right to use Chemical Weapons (only Riot Control Agents, already established as permitting future regulations), it is also worth noting that the conflation of freedom to use something with the economic activity of that industry is a modern product of post-war neoliberal economic philosophy – not some sacred cow that exists across time and culture. At the time of Prohibition, no such specific declaration of the right to drink alcohol was necessary, as it was culturally understood to be a completely separate question. Time and again the distinction was made "Target the seller, not the drinker." There is a worthwhile article from Politico on the subject of Prohibition, which focuses on the "blame" laid upon women for it, but which also has a few paragraphs touching on this very fact – that thinking the right to economically pursue something goes hand-in-hand with the individual right to use something is a modern thought process only.

The whole article, if interested, is here: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/01/13/prohibition-women-blame-history-223972

I'll quote the relevant part here though for quick access:

Contrary to popular description, prohibitionists weren’t hellbent on taking away the individual’s “right to drink.” From its very inception, the temperance movement targeted not the drink, or the drinker, but the drink seller. Just as abolitionists objected to the slave trader who profited from subjugating others, prohibitionists aimed at a predatory liquor traffic of wealthy capitalists and saloonkeepers who—together with a state that, before the income tax, relied disproportionately on liquor revenues—got rich from the drunken misery of the poor. The 18th Amendment doesn’t even outlaw alcohol or drinking. It prohibits the “manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors.” This wasn’t some oversight; the target was the traffic, not the booze.

Prohibitionists were very clear about this. The 18th Amendment was very clear, too. That we have a hard time believing it today—scoffing that outlawing booze or booze sales has the same practical outcome of restricting the rights of the individual—says more about our changing understandings of liberty than theirs. It is only in more recent generations (with the rise of Hayekian neoliberalism after World War II) that any interference with the free market is deemed a constraint on our citizenship rights. For most of American history, political liberty and economic liberty were understood to be distinct from each other. There is no “right to buy” anywhere in the constitution.

I hope people will take the time to read through my full reply, but for those who won't:
TL;DR

1) The Chemical Weapon Accord does not guarantee the right to use Chemical Weapons – it only provides limits if they are used.
2) This proposal does not prohibit all Chemical Weapons – only a small subset with particular purpose.
3) WA precedent is very clear that this kind of regulation is permissible
4) Prohibition is a relevant example – modern neoliberal economic thought is not universal.

[Terttia]

OOC: I simply disagree with Verdant Haven’s points.

Responses as given in the TL;DR section.

On the first point, the Chemical Weapons Accord does provide that member nations have the ability to use chemical weapons under certain circumstances, as noted by the italicized text.

“1. The use of chemical weapons in any capacity that may injure or destroy military personnel, or the environment shall be limited to defensive or delaying operations of aggressive offensive military forces[.]”

The italicized section indicates that member nations have the right to use chemical weapons.

On the second point, I am certain that any type of chemical weapon significantly and permanently harms the body in some fashion or another.

On the third point, additional regulations could be passed to regulate a certain area. The CWA defines

“[a chemical weapon as] any substance that is used with the intention of causing death or severe harm to sapient beings, a habitable area or to the environment solely through the toxic chemical properties of such agent[.]”

However, as I have already stated, member nations do have the right to use chemical weapons under certain conditions. The proposal is attempting to ban inhumane weapons, or weapons that inflict significant harm rather than death.

On the fourth point, I have stated that member nations have the right to use chemical weapons. However, it is impossible to obtain something when its manufacturing and production are banned, as stated in clause 5 of the proposal.

[Verdant Haven]

OOC: I simply disagree with Verdant Haven’s points.
-snip-

I can live with that disagreement, I suppose. I respect the right to have another reading, and do genuinely appreciate the feedback!

I'm confident in my interpretation of this particular aspect, and in the precedent based on everything so far presented. I'm willing to take what I consider the very minimal risk of being told otherwise by GenSec.

[Excidium Planetis]

On the first point, the Chemical Weapons Accord does provide that member nations have the ability to use chemical weapons under certain circumstances, as noted by the italicized text.

“1. The use of chemical weapons in any capacity that may injure or destroy military personnel, or the environment shall be limited to defensive or delaying operations of aggressive offensive military forces[.]”

The italicized section indicates that member nations have the right to use chemical weapons.

OOC (because y'all are talking OOC so I can't respond with my character, which makes me sad because that's like the whole point I came back to this game) :

I think, given that this proposal specifically allows military use of inhumane weapons, and only prohibits them where lethal force would not be authorized, there's no possible contradiction with CWA's clause here, which only deals with military use (IE, where lethal force is allowed).

CWA does not guarantee a right to manufacture, trade in, or fund chemical weapons. It merely allows their use.

[The Yellow Monkey]

CWA does not guarantee a right to manufacture, trade in, or fund chemical weapons. It merely allows their use.

I've already said that I find this argument hypertechnical. Technically manufacture, trade, and funding may be different than use, the same way growing, harvesting, and distributing a banana is different from eating it. But a law which prohibits manufacture, trade, and funding certainly conflicts with a law permitting the use, the same way a law against growing bananas would conflict with a law allowing people to eat them.

The actual language of the contradiction rule does not turn on such hypertechnicalities, as the recent decision to pull a proposal on sedation demonstrates. The rule prohibits proposals which "deny a concept or idea" in a way that "conflict[s] with explicit clauses within an active resolution." (Source.) There is a conflict here with CWA because this proposal's provisions conflict with the concept of permissible use of chemical weapons expressly contained in that law. The fact that it does so by an end around to deny chemical weapons use over time by "starving the beast" so to speak does not mean there's no conflict.

Importantly, CWA did not leave open the possibility of future legislation on chemical weapons the way many proposals do (and the way CWA did for riot control agents). If member nations want to outlaw the use of these weapons outright that seems like it might be a good idea. But the right way to do it under the ruleset is to repeal the offending law and pass a new one on the subject, not pass a conflicting law that can claim that, technically, it does not directly prohibit what the prior law permits.

Put very simply, a law outlawing the manufacture, trade, and funding of weapons is at least in conflict with a law permitting the use of such weapons, because (without resort to technicalities that none of us would actually apply in our serious affairs) the ability to use weapons relies on an ability to acquire them.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Re.

The actual language of the contradiction rule does not turn on such hypertechnicalities, as the recent decision to pull a proposal on sedation demonstrates.

I think we have different understandings on this decision.

The contradiction emerges necessarily under specific circumstances. In EP's example, there is no contradiction at all.

[The Yellow Monkey]

Re.

The actual language of the contradiction rule does not turn on such hypertechnicalities, as the recent decision to pull a proposal on sedation demonstrates.

I think we have different understandings on this decision.

The contradiction emerges necessarily under specific circumstances. In EP's example, there is no contradiction at all.

Only if you adopt the view that prohibiting the acquisition of certain weapons in no way conflicts with the use of those weapons. Which, as I've said, is the sort of hypertechnical argument that none of us would accept in our real lives. Of course a ban on developing weapons conflicts with a law authorizing their use the same way a ban on acquiring shoelaces would conflict with your use of your shoes.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Re. Shoes. Velcro and slip-ons?

The contradiction doesn't exist. That's why you an alienate use of your property while keeping ownership. Or sell it while keeping use. I honestly don't see how this is a debatable topic.

[The Yellow Monkey]

Re. Shoes. Velcro and slip-ons?

The contradiction doesn't exist. That's why you an alienate use of your property while keeping ownership. Or sell it while keeping use. I honestly don't see how this is a debatable topic.

Perhaps I could have used a tighter analogy than shoes and shoelaces. The point is that a law prohibiting the acquisition of a commodity conflicts with a law authorizing use of that commodity.

[The COT Corporation]

I would support this.

OOC: Cool

[Excidium Planetis]

snip

OOC:
There's plenty of real world examples where the sale or manufacture of a good is banned without the use of such goods being banned. As an example I have personal knowledge of, here in Los Angeles, the sale of menthol cigarettes are banned but their use has not been banned. I don't see why the WA couldn't also ban the sale and production of a good without banning the good itself.

I think you would have a better argument if CWA positively affirmed the right to use chemical weapons, but it doesn't, it limits their use to specific circumstances. A limitation is very different than a positive affirmation of a right. You are making your argument from an implied right to use chemical weapons, rather than an explicit right to do so. As such I don't think there's any direct contradiction. The GA can always place further limits.

It's similar to the GA policy on nuclear weapons. NAPA allows nations to possess nuclear weapons, with basically no limitation. But the GA has since limited their use. No contradiction because NAPA never guaranteed a right to unlimited use.

[Verdant Haven]

snip

OOC:
There's plenty of real world examples where the sale or manufacture of a good is banned without the use of such goods being banned. As an example I have personal knowledge of, here in Los Angeles, the sale of menthol cigarettes are banned but their use has not been banned. I don't see why the WA couldn't also ban the sale and production of a good without banning the good itself.

Thank you for the additional example! It's really pretty straight-forward. The conflation of trade activity with personal usage is a philosophy, not a legally supportable concept.

I think you would have a better argument if CWA positively affirmed the right to use chemical weapons, but it doesn't, it limits their use to specific circumstances. A limitation is very different than a positive affirmation of a right. You are making your argument from an implied right to use chemical weapons, rather than an explicit right to do so. As such I don't think there's any direct contradiction. The GA can always place further limits.

It's similar to the GA policy on nuclear weapons. NAPA allows nations to possess nuclear weapons, with basically no limitation. But the GA has since limited their use. No contradiction because NAPA never guaranteed a right to unlimited use.

This is the hugely important part. CWA does not in any way guarantee the right to use Chemical Weapons - it pointedly just provides limitations if a nation has them, and if they get used.

The fact that it specifically does guarantee the right to use Riot Control Agents makes it all the more telling that it does not make a similar guarantee for Chemical Weapons. Thankfully the author very sagely also stipulated that the guarantee with regard to Riot Control Agents is subject to future legislation. No similar language was necessary for Chemical Weapons, as Chemical Weapons received no guarantee in the first place.

[The COT Corporation]

OOC:
There's plenty of real world examples where the sale or manufacture of a good is banned without the use of such goods being banned. As an example I have personal knowledge of, here in Los Angeles, the sale of menthol cigarettes are banned but their use has not been banned. I don't see why the WA couldn't also ban the sale and production of a good without banning the good itself.

Thank you for the additional example! It's really pretty straight-forward. The conflation of trade activity with personal usage is a philosophy, not a legally supportable concept.

I think you would have a better argument if CWA positively affirmed the right to use chemical weapons, but it doesn't, it limits their use to specific circumstances. A limitation is very different than a positive affirmation of a right. You are making your argument from an implied right to use chemical weapons, rather than an explicit right to do so. As such I don't think there's any direct contradiction. The GA can always place further limits.

It's similar to the GA policy on nuclear weapons. NAPA allows nations to possess nuclear weapons, with basically no limitation. But the GA has since limited their use. No contradiction because NAPA never guaranteed a right to unlimited use.

This is the hugely important part. CWA does not in any way guarantee the right to use Chemical Weapons - it pointedly just provides limitations if a nation has them, and if they get used.

The fact that it specifically does guarantee the right to use Riot Control Agents makes it all the more telling that it does not make a similar guarantee for Chemical Weapons. Thankfully the author very sagely also stipulated that the guarantee with regard to Riot Control Agents is subject to future legislation. No similar language was necessary for Chemical Weapons, as Chemical Weapons received no guarantee in the first place.

I imagine the author had something like this in mind. Like you both say, there is no guaranteed right to use them - that would be silly. Why would you be given the guaranteed right to such a controversial object? Furthermore, why would you need the right? You could argue, yes, that smaller nations might require them to survive. However, this proposal only bans them in inappropriate situations, so they still have the right to use them.

All in all, thank you both very much for help in this proposal. I'm looking forward to the submission!

[DEN did nothing wrong]

Inhumane weapons are the best weapons.

[Araraukar]

OOC: I imagine the disagreement over the CWA contradiction can only really be solved in a Legality Challenge, if we want any clarity on it. But I guess it'll be easy enough for someone who wanted to repeal this (if it passed) based on "colourable language" hinting at this banning defensive use of chemical agents...

Does the author want the legality question solved before this goes to vote?

[WayNeacTia]

Does the author want the legality question solved before this goes to vote?

If it was me I would.

[Verdant Haven]

I'm only the co-author, but I would welcome a GenSec legality opinion in advance of vote with open arms. We're not trying to waste anybody's time - we're trying to pass an valid and legitimate resolution. Whatever facilitates that process is desirable.

I am under the impression that it is not permissible to request such an opinion before submission, though 1/6 GenSec was kind enough to already stop by and post their agreement with our interpretation that this does not conflict with CWA. I believe fully, based on GA precedent, on real world example, on GA rules, and on the meaning of the English language in which we are required to write, that this will readily hold up to a legality challenge.

If I am wrong for whatever reason, better to find out before a vote than after.

[WayNeacTia]

I am under the impression that it is not permissible to request such an opinion before submission, though 1/6 GenSec was kind enough to already stop by and post their agreement with our interpretation that this does not conflict with CWA (as did the CWA's author themself).

Really? When did the CWA author state that this doesn't conflict with the CWA?

[Separatist Peoples]

I am under the impression that it is not permissible to request such an opinion before submission, though 1/6 GenSec was kind enough to already stop by and post their agreement with our interpretation that this does not conflict with CWA (as did the CWA's author themself).

Really? When did the CWA author state that this doesn't conflict with the CWA?

OOC: You know, I distinctly recall a TG conversation with Chester Pearson regarding CWA not conflicting with later limits on certain such weapons.

[WayNeacTia]

Really? When did the CWA author state that this doesn't conflict with the CWA?

OOC: You know, I distinctly recall a TG conversation with Chester Pearson regarding CWA not conflicting with later limits on certain such weapons.

You can keep barking up that tree all you want.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: You know, I distinctly recall a TG conversation with Chester Pearson regarding CWA not conflicting with later limits on certain such weapons.

You can keep barking up that tree all you want.

OOC: As far as I can tell, you can't prove I didn't. Not that it matters. Its legal by my read.