[SUBMITTED] World Assembly WMD Accord

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Here are a couple I've thought of off the top of my head: WA Peace Accords and The WA Non-Aggression Pact. I prefer the former as it has an acronym, WAPA, that really rolls off the tongue. On the other hand, WANAP does seem to fit with the Armed Republic of Cowardly Pacifists' current flag. I don't think a title that deals exclusively with WMDs would be appropriate either because the proposal does more than address WMDs.

I agree with your thinking. Personally, I'd prefer the WA Non-Aggression Pact out of the two. I don't think it's right to call it a Peace Accord when the first thing the resolution says is "CONFRONTED with the fact that while military conflict between nations should be avoided wherever possible, nations will go to war;"

I think I'm gonna take a few more suggestions then put the matter to the people via a poll.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Actually, the ambassador's statement makes perfect sense. We don't trust the WA to dictate morality, including which wars are "right" and which wars are "wrong." That responsibility should rest with Auralia alone.

Everything the WA does rests on a shared sense of morality. From the Restrictions on Child Labor to Food and Drug Standards to the Forced Marriages Ban Act (which Christian Democrats co-authored). There is also a category of WA resolutions called "Moral Decency." But beyond that, I'd argue that there's a moral dimension to literally every single resolution on the books.

So the question is not whether the WA should dictate morality - since clearly it should - but which areas of morality we think are so significant as to justify invoking international law. And, of course, conduct in war is certainly a moral issue of international concern.

I remind you that this body has time and again passed resolutions restricting conduct in wartime. I'll grant you that I'm taking a stab at going much further than this body has gone before. But I really cannot understand an argument that the WA should not be addressing wartime conduct. One would think that if this body is going to address Arts and Education, Gambling, and Recreational Drug Use, we had damn well better be addressing Warfare as well.

[Auralia]

Actually, the ambassador's statement makes perfect sense. We don't trust the WA to dictate morality, including which wars are "right" and which wars are "wrong." That responsibility should rest with Auralia alone.

Everything the WA does rests on a shared sense of morality. From the Restrictions on Child Labor to Food and Drug Standards to the Forced Marriages Ban Act (which Christian Democrats co-authored). There is also a category of WA resolutions called "Moral Decency." But beyond that, I'd argue that there's a moral dimension to literally every single resolution on the books.

So the question is not whether the WA should dictate morality - since clearly it should - but which areas of morality we think are so significant as to justify invoking international law. And, of course, conduct in war is certainly a moral issue of international concern.

I remind you that this body has time and again passed resolutions restricting conduct in wartime. I'll grant you that I'm taking a stab at going much further than this body has gone before. But I really cannot understand an argument that the WA should not be addressing wartime conduct. One would think that if this body is going to address Arts and Education, Gambling, and Recreational Drug Use, we had damn well better be addressing Warfare as well.

Fair enough. I admit there are certain areas where international law is necessary, but I don't think this is one of them.

Anyway, I said I wouldn't participate further in this discussion, so what am I doing here?

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Anyway, I said I wouldn't participate further in this discussion, so what am I doing here?

You'll be back. I know you can't resist.

[Ryouese Black Islands]

No ban on WMDs! No Ban on War! Long with total aggression!

[Cowardly Pacifists]

No ban on WMDs! No Ban on War! Long with total aggression!

Melvin flashes a smirk and a scolding glance at the Ryouese delegation

[Sionis Prioratus]

Everything the WA does rests on a shared sense of morality. [T]here's a moral dimension to literally every single resolution on the books. So the question is not whether the WA should dictate morality - since clearly it should - but which areas of morality we think are so significant as to justify invoking international law.

I just wanted to say for now that the above quote is made of pure epic win. I am even thinking about sigging it.

Yours,

[Cowardly Pacifists]

I just wanted to say for now that the above quote is made of pure epic win. I am even thinking about sigging it.

Thank you Ambassador, I appreciate the sentiment.

[Flibbleites]

What I'm about to say may come as a shock to some people, so those people might want to sit down.

I Bob Flibble, author of the NAPA, support this proposal. I have no problems with the WA banning it's members from using WMDs on other WA members.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Cowardly Pacifists]

What I'm about to say may come as a shock to some people, so those people might want to sit down.

I Bob Flibble, author of the NAPA, support this proposal. I have no problems with the WA banning it's members from using WMDs on other WA members.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Goobergunchia]

Lord Evif looks over at Bob Flibble, mutters something incoherent about NatSovs, and faints.

[The Republic of Lanos]

*the entire Lanosian delegation starts drinking a case of beer*

Well if Bob didn't give us a reason to drink on the job before...

[Globexanter]

No ban on WMDs! No Ban on War! Long with total aggression!

"Of course, if we did so, the Ryouese Black Islands wouldn't be able to go to war and actually finish it... Oh wait, they never do."

[Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Terratories]

It is the view of the Party that though Weapons of Mass Destruction should not be used under ordinary circumstance, there are some nations within the WA with less regard for legislation than most. In our view, it is incredibly damaging to have no legitimate deterrant program, and any restriction on their useage could well cause hostile states to 'call our bluff' as it were.

The Party does not desire to use WMD's, but if we are forced into dire circumstance, we would feel much more secure in the knowledge that if we are forced to utilize them, we will not have a WA condemnation on our hands in addition to having the moral weight of using such weapons, not to mention repairing the damage caused by enemy WMD's on our soil.

That said, we believe there ought to be heavy sanction for nations performing a 'first strike' WMD attack.

The Ambassador glances with ill-disguised contempt at the Ryouese delegation.

[Grand America]

It is the view of the Party that though Weapons of Mass Destruction should not be used under ordinary circumstance, there are many nations outside of the WA willing and able to use them. In our view, it is incredibly damaging to have no legitimate deterrant program, and any restriction on their useage could well cause hostile states to 'call our bluff' as it were.

The Party does not desire to use WMD's, but if we are forced into dire circumstance, we would feel much more secure in the knowledge that if we are forced to utilize them, we will not have a WA condemnation on our hands in addition to having the moral weight of using such weapons, not to mention repairing the damage caused by enemy WMD's on our soil.

That's the main excuse that most nations use. Understand that this only applies if one member-state is fighting another. If you're not fighting a member-state, then WMDs aren't restricted.

[Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Terratories]

That's the main excuse that most nations use. Understand that this only applies if one member-state is fighting another. If you're not fighting a member-state, then WMDs aren't restricted.

Our apologies, our argument has been restructured accordingly.

[Alqania]

Lord Raekevik seemed to be in a cheerful mood as he took the floor. "The Queendom finds this proposal most interesting. However, we cannot ignore that there are fellow member states, truly worthy of condemnation, that show an utter disregard and contempt for the letter of the law and violate both their own laws and international law whenever it suits them. We cannot say that these member states are worthy of the protection that this proposal would offer them. The Queendom would therefore prefer if the proposal were somehow edited to restrict these protections to member states that fulfil their obligations under international law."

[Auralia]

Lord Raekevik seemed to be in a cheerful mood as he took the floor. "The Queendom finds this proposal most interesting. However, we cannot ignore that there are fellow member states, truly worthy of condemnation, that show an utter disregard and contempt for the letter of the law and violate both their own laws and international law whenever it suits them. We cannot say that these member states are worthy of the protection that this proposal would offer them. The Queendom would therefore prefer if the proposal were somehow edited to restrict these protections to member states that fulfil their obligations under international law."

So does that mean that member states who violate international law can use WMDs?

[Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Terratories]

Lord Raekevik seemed to be in a cheerful mood as he took the floor. "The Queendom finds this proposal most interesting. However, we cannot ignore that there are fellow member states, truly worthy of condemnation, that show an utter disregard and contempt for the letter of the law and violate both their own laws and international law whenever it suits them. We cannot say that these member states are worthy of the protection that this proposal would offer them. The Queendom would therefore prefer if the proposal were somehow edited to restrict these protections to member states that fulfil their obligations under international law."

So does that mean that member states who violate international law can use WMDs?

I think that the Alqanian delegate means that violaters of international law would use WMDs, and still be offered the same protection from WMDs as other member states.
We do need a clause stating that any member nation who disregards this legeslation is no longer under its protection.

[Astro-Malsitari WA Seat]

So does that mean that member states who violate international law can use WMDs?

I think that the Alqanian delegate means that violaters of international law would use WMDs, and still be offered the same protection from WMDs as other member states.
We do need a clause stating that any member nation who disregards this legeslation is no longer under its protection.

As I've encountered when I tried to write a proposal bringing violators of international law to justice, I'm pretty sure we're not allowed to acknowledge that some nations refuse to comply with resolutions. At least not in our proposals. For all intents and purposes of our proposals, we must assume that member states will all comply all the time like good little nations.

[Sanctaria]

I think that the Alqanian delegate means that violaters of international law would use WMDs, and still be offered the same protection from WMDs as other member states.
We do need a clause stating that any member nation who disregards this legeslation is no longer under its protection.

As I've encountered when I tried to write a proposal bringing violators of international law to justice, I'm pretty sure we're not allowed to acknowledge that some nations refuse to comply with resolutions. At least not in our proposals. For all intents and purposes of our proposals, we must assume that member states will all comply all the time like good little nations.

Dunno. The ICC was created. One would assume that if we assume member states comply all the time, such a thing wouldn't be needed.

[Alqania]

So does that mean that member states who violate international law can use WMDs?

I think that the Alqanian delegate means that violaters of international law would use WMDs, and still be offered the same protection from WMDs as other member states.
We do need a clause stating that any member nation who disregards this legeslation is no longer under its protection.

"What I meant was that member states who violate any resolution should not be protected by this one. There are, to name a couple examples of abhorrent practices, member states who engage in slavery and genocide, even if such things are banned by this assembly and through the work of the compliance commission incorporated as national law in those very member states. The Queendom is of the position that such barbarians should receive the same treatment from us that non-member states engaging in such atrocities do.

To clarify, resolutions are incorporated into member states' national law. The law of any member state is therefore in compliance with every resolution. However, there are governments in member states that disregard the law and act illegally. The compliance gnomes are bureaucrats, they are not an army or police force."

[Astro-Malsitari WA Seat]

As I've encountered when I tried to write a proposal bringing violators of international law to justice, I'm pretty sure we're not allowed to acknowledge that some nations refuse to comply with resolutions. At least not in our proposals. For all intents and purposes of our proposals, we must assume that member states will all comply all the time like good little nations.

Dunno. The ICC was created. One would assume that if we assume member states comply all the time, such a thing wouldn't be needed.

That's not the vibe I got from the responses to this early draft of mine before I turned it into a joke to save face.

[Sanctaria]

Dunno. The ICC was created. One would assume that if we assume member states comply all the time, such a thing wouldn't be needed.

That's not the vibe I got from the responses to this early draft of mine before I turned it into a joke to save face.

Whether that's the case or not, the ICC does exist. I dunno, it's one of those fine lines I guess.

[Astro-Malsitari WA Seat]

That's not the vibe I got from the responses to this early draft of mine before I turned it into a joke to save face.

Whether that's the case or not, the ICC does exist. I dunno, it's one of those fine lines I guess.

I think the difference is that individual people can be wrong, but whole nations cannot.