[Passed] Repeal "Chemical Weapons Protocol"

[The Akashic Records]

That's generally true, but a few of the passed resolutions offer you certain specified benefits -- such as reciprocal treatment by members, or access to WA agencies' services -- if your government chooses voluntarily to comply with them anyway.

Yes, and your point would be?

Weren't you the one asking? If you already knew these things, why did you ask in the first place? For confirmation? If so, your tone didn't indicate such a thing.

[Krakadarek]

Yes, and your point would be?

Weren't you the one asking? If you already knew these things, why did you ask in the first place? For confirmation? If so, your tone didn't indicate such a thing.

I could not find it anywhere else.
I did NOT know, at least, not for sure.
And it sounds like he was trying to get me in the WA....
But maybe thats just me.

[The Akashic Records]

I could not find it anywhere else.
I did NOT know, at least, not for sure.
And it sounds like he was trying to get me in the WA....
But maybe thats just me.

What the delegate said was simply that, non-WA may choose to abide by the resolutions, provided that they voluntarily do so, and member nations are required to treat non-WAs with as much courtesy as afforded to them by international laws. That's it, really.

[Krakadarek]

I could not find it anywhere else.
I did NOT know, at least, not for sure.
And it sounds like he was trying to get me in the WA....
But maybe thats just me.

What the delegate said was simply that, non-WA may choose to abide by the resolutions, provided that they voluntarily do so, and member nations are required to treat non-WAs with as much courtesy as afforded to them by international laws. That's it, really.

And why would i abide by the resolutions voluntarily?

[Imperializt Russia]

What the delegate said was simply that, non-WA may choose to abide by the resolutions, provided that they voluntarily do so, and member nations are required to treat non-WAs with as much courtesy as afforded to them by international laws. That's it, really.

And why would i abide by the resolutions voluntarily?

By joining the WA.
That's where the voluntary aspect of the WA arises - it's opt-in.

[Krakadarek]

And why would i abide by the resolutions voluntarily?

By joining the WA.
That's where the voluntary aspect of the WA arises - it's opt-in.

Well, thats just it.
I dont see any reason to do that for ANY of my nations.
What are the benefits of being a WA member?

[Bears Armed]

And why would i abide by the resolutions voluntarily?

By joining the WA.
That's where the voluntary aspect of the WA arises - it's opt-in.[/quote]
It's also possible for nations to comply voluntarily with resolutions without joining the WA: Otherwise just about every resolution automatically would affect non-members, by forcing them to do the opposite of whatever it said...

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC:

I think you raise a reasonable point with regards to WA membership. We are always so quick to pass laws restricting our members' discretion and impinging on their sovereignty, yet rarely come up with those that actually provide an inducement to membership. There is a nebulous argument of 'international legitimacy', but it's difficult to say how much weight that really carries, and probably dependent on regional factors.

Some resolutions do have benefits. The World Health Authority and its various committees will work with member states to combat disease; you gain reciprocal trade rights; the Nautical Commission guarantees your national territorial waters and exclusive economic zone and helps mediate disputes.

But, in general, I do think the WA should do more that would ICly encourage membership.

[Krakadarek]

OOC:And i think its just strange i have not been condemned yet.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC:And i think its just strange i have not been condemned yet.

OOC: The GA doesn't have anything to do with that, you want the Security Council.

[Krakadarek]

OOC:And i think its just strange i have not been condemned yet.

OOC: The GA doesn't have anything to do with that, you want the Security Council.

I know.
I just think its strange.

[Kolkatta]

So we are going to be replacing this right?

[Belzia]

So we are going to be replacing this right?

yes, in case you have been living under a rock or are new.

[Separatist Peoples]

So we are going to be replacing this right?

yes, in case you have been living under a rock or are new.

They could be both. You never know.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: In which case, it might be helpful to actually link them to the draft thread on the replacement.

[The Federal Republic of Simonia]

I find it funny that people who voted for this to be implemented are now voting to repeal it

[Araraukar]

I find it funny that people who voted for this to be implemented are now voting to repeal it

Insta-repeals (or nearly instant anyway) often have that effect.

[Angels Landing]

The delegate from Angel's Landing wishes to point out deregulating Chemical Weapons before passing a Treaty re-regulating them is completely pointless, as the time in between allows nations with lesser morals in warfare to either instigate chemical weapons programs with no ill effects or simply to begin using them with no international condemnation. Surely passing a Chemical Weapons Act which states clearly it supersedes the old convention, getting procedures in place, and THEN voting to repeal makes more sense. Right?

If this is not the way things are done here, it really should change! Hypothetically, the new Convention could be blocked from coming into force by those who seek to stockpile chemical weapons for their own ends and destabilize regions, and thus we not only have chemical weapons proliferation at an unregulated and unmonitored pace, but the circumstances for a real crisis on our hands . Exercise caution, otherwise we'll end up with rampant Chemical Weapons use. Angel's Landing Abstains from this Motion until someone can clarify the situation.

If the new legislation is available before the passage of this frankly dangerous proposal, consider us standing against it.

[The Akashic Records]

Unfortunately, no. An old law must be repealed in order for it to be improved on, or risk being removed for duplication.

[Araraukar]

Hypothetically, the new Convention could be blocked from coming into force by those who seek to stockpile chemical weapons for their own ends

That's very likely to happen, actually, considering what a fight it was to get the Protocol to pass in the first place. We'll see.

[Angels Landing]

In which case, as a matter of principle & concern for international stability, I must stand opposed to this repeal.

[Separatist Peoples]

In which case, as a matter of principle & concern for international stability, I must stand opposed to this repeal.

Nothing is stopping member nations from launching nuclear warheads in every direction just for shits and giggles, and we're all still here. I think your concern for the risk to international stability is exaggerated.

[Imperializt Russia]

The delegate from Angel's Landing wishes to point out deregulating Chemical Weapons before passing a Treaty re-regulating them is completely pointless, as the time in between allows nations with lesser morals in warfare to either instigate chemical weapons programs with no ill effects or simply to begin using them with no international condemnation. Surely passing a Chemical Weapons Act which states clearly it supersedes the old convention, getting procedures in place, and THEN voting to repeal makes more sense. Right?

If this is not the way things are done here, it really should change! Hypothetically, the new Convention could be blocked from coming into force by those who seek to stockpile chemical weapons for their own ends and destabilize regions, and thus we not only have chemical weapons proliferation at an unregulated and unmonitored pace, but the circumstances for a real crisis on our hands . Exercise caution, otherwise we'll end up with rampant Chemical Weapons use. Angel's Landing Abstains from this Motion until someone can clarify the situation.

If the new legislation is available before the passage of this frankly dangerous proposal, consider us standing against it.

I don't seem to recall such things happening during the significant amount of time chemical weapons were previously unregulated.

I find it funny that people who voted for this to be implemented are now voting to repeal it

Well, Chester was listed as co-author. If the original author wants it pulled, that's a pretty decent reason to vote, especially since he still has one ready to instantly go to vote once this passes repeal.

[Wild LDS]

So, I've talked with Chester Pearson, and he's agreed to work with me on a repeal and replace of GA#266. He's currently working on his replacement, but I thought I'd get the ball rolling on the effort by posting this here. Input is both welcome and encouraged.

The World Assembly,

Believing that chemical weapons may cause loss of life and environmental damage that is unconscionable to the members of this august assembly,

Bemoaning, however, that the "Chemical Weapons Protocol"(GA#266) contains a number of flaws that preserve an environment in which chemical weapons may still easily fall into the hands of those who would use them recklessly,

Regretting that the resolution fails to make a case for the use of incapacitating agents, which are non-lachrymatory, non-lethal, and heavily restricted by GA#266,

Noting that nearly any chemical "is capable of causing death or severe harm... primarily through its toxic chemical properties" and therefore nearly any chemical is thus classified as a chemical agent for the purposes of GA#266,

Specifying that the World Assembly is committed to improving this legislation, to both reduce flaws, and ensure a more balanced resolution on Chemical Weapons,

Believing that under these circumstances a repeal of GA#266 is both reasonable and expected,

Hereby repeals the "Chemical Weapons Protocol"(GA#266),

Co-Authored by Chester Pearson

Chester's Replacement is here, if you'd like to discuss that. This thread is about the repeal.

FEED ME FEEDBACK.

The republic of the wild LD's is fully backing this decision

[Frisbeeteria]

Repeal "Chemical Weapons Protocol" was passed 10,731 votes to 2,036.