Advertisement
by Workers Juche Liberation Front of Korea » Sun Feb 02, 2020 8:55 am
by The COT Corporation » Sun Feb 02, 2020 9:19 am
Verdant Haven wrote:Kenmoria wrote:“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!Morover wrote:"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.
by Verdant Haven » Sun Feb 02, 2020 12:16 pm
Araraukar wrote: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.
by The Yellow Monkey » Mon Feb 03, 2020 10:37 am
Verdant Haven wrote:*snip*
by Verdant Haven » Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:27 pm
The Yellow Monkey wrote: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...
The Yellow Monkey wrote: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 Yellow Monkey wrote: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.
The Yellow Monkey wrote: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.
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.
by Terttia » Mon Feb 03, 2020 8:20 pm
by Verdant Haven » Mon Feb 03, 2020 8:33 pm
Terttia wrote:OOC: I simply disagree with Verdant Haven’s points.
-snip-
by Excidium Planetis » Mon Feb 03, 2020 9:50 pm
Terttia wrote: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.
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.
by The Yellow Monkey » Wed Feb 05, 2020 9:38 am
Excidium Planetis wrote:CWA does not guarantee a right to manufacture, trade in, or fund chemical weapons. It merely allows their use.
by Imperium Anglorum » Wed Feb 05, 2020 9:54 am
by The Yellow Monkey » Wed Feb 05, 2020 10:20 am
Imperium Anglorum wrote: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.
by Imperium Anglorum » Wed Feb 05, 2020 11:16 am
by The Yellow Monkey » Wed Feb 05, 2020 11:40 am
Imperium Anglorum wrote: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.
by The COT Corporation » Wed Feb 05, 2020 12:18 pm
Workers Juche Liberation Front of Korea wrote:I would support this.
by Excidium Planetis » Thu Feb 06, 2020 8:44 am
The Yellow Monkey wrote:snip
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.
by Verdant Haven » Thu Feb 06, 2020 1:03 pm
Excidium Planetis wrote:The Yellow Monkey wrote: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.
Excidium Planetis wrote: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.
by The COT Corporation » Fri Feb 07, 2020 12:47 am
Verdant Haven wrote:Excidium Planetis wrote:
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.Excidium Planetis wrote: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.
by Araraukar » Fri Feb 07, 2020 11:38 am
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by WayNeacTia » Fri Feb 07, 2020 4:21 pm
Araraukar wrote:Does the author want the legality question solved before this goes to vote?
RiderSyl wrote:You'd really think that defenders would communicate with each other about this. I know they're not a hivemind, but at least some level of PR skill would keep Quebecshire and Quebecshire from publically contradicting eac
wait
by Verdant Haven » Fri Feb 07, 2020 5:08 pm
by WayNeacTia » Fri Feb 07, 2020 5:14 pm
Verdant Haven wrote: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).
RiderSyl wrote:You'd really think that defenders would communicate with each other about this. I know they're not a hivemind, but at least some level of PR skill would keep Quebecshire and Quebecshire from publically contradicting eac
wait
by Separatist Peoples » Fri Feb 07, 2020 8:08 pm
Wayneactia wrote:Verdant Haven wrote: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?
by WayNeacTia » Fri Feb 07, 2020 8:31 pm
RiderSyl wrote:You'd really think that defenders would communicate with each other about this. I know they're not a hivemind, but at least some level of PR skill would keep Quebecshire and Quebecshire from publically contradicting eac
wait
by Separatist Peoples » Fri Feb 07, 2020 8:40 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement