[Dropped] Repeal: “Responsibility in Transferring Arms”

[Maowi]

Repeal: “Responsibility in Transferring Arms”

Category: Repeal | Target: GA#399

The World Assembly,

Commending the target resolution’s aim of regulating the international trade of armaments to further the safety of national populations,

Convinced that the restrictions on World Assembly legislation concerning internal arms trading imposed in clause 5 of the target are counter beneficial, in that they:

1. Block future legislation preventing certain groups, such as the legally incompetent, from owning, using, or being sold firearms, where they would be at an increased risk of causing harm to themselves or others,
   
   
2. Prevent World Assembly restrictions on individuals convicted of certain types of crimes from owning firearms, particularly in cases where the danger that they commit an unlawful act is very high but not necessarily “imminent”,

Observing that in both these cases, the potential damage caused would be exponentially higher should those involved be in ownership of firearms, and as such, that prohibiting World Assembly legislation seeking to regulate this is harmful,

Noting that clause 8.a does not prohibit arms transfers in the case of future Civil Rights regulations,

Shocked that the target’s clause 8.c prevents member nations from transferring arms to lead or aid in the removal of unlawful or genocidal regimes, or those engaging in mass suppression of civil rights, due to the over-broad definition of “conquest” in clause 4,

Asserting that these are problems rendering the target unable to fully address the issues it seeks to solve, and that they introduce huge complications for member nations attempting to legitimately protect populations internationally,

Knowing that a better solution can be found,

Hereby repeals GA#399, “Responsibility in Transferring Arms”.

Co-authored by The Nation of the People of the Nation.

OOC: I've been working on drafting up a replacement, which I'll post soon. The target is a superbly written resolution, which is why it's a shame to repeal it, but I think some of these issues are too big to ignore.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Opposed unless the replacement has a substantially similar inclusion of Clause 5 of the target resolution. Without that assurance, I cannot lend anything but active opposition."

[Kenmoria]

“Dependent on the replacement being of a sufficiently high standard, I have nothing but support for this repeal.”

[Picairn]

"The Empire of Picairn will withhold its support until a proper replacement is made."

[Maowi]

"We have put up a first draft for a replacement should this repeal be successful - hopefully that helps to clarify positions on this proposal."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"Dr. Yurilevich, much as I sympathize with your apparent goal of protecting the lives of member states' inhabitants, I have to concur with Mr. Bell here. I don't believe the definition of 'conquest' is so deficient as you've written here, and I don't think the World Assembly is competent to legislate so completely on what is often a matter of basic governmental checks and balances. Some nations are democratically responsive to their people without their people being armed; others require an armed populace, either individually or - as in my nation - with workers' militia outfits always watching. The WA picking and choosing for member states how they should handle this thorny topic is not going to end well. In any case, current WA law on this topic is about as good and useful as can be expected."

OOC: I think the bit about Clause 8(a) is a mistake - "extant" can be taken to mean simply "not repealed" and so future WA laws can be protected by member states' military force. Similarly, one of the many, many challenges to various iterations of this target resulted in a GenSec ruling (formal? Informal?) that "conquest" meaning acquisition of territory means that a member state can go in and remove a genocidal regime, even if they have to occupy (parts of) the country for a time, without triggering any prohibition on arms transfer.

I will try to track that down for you a little later.

[Maowi]

"Dr. Yurilevich, much as I sympathize with your apparent goal of protecting the lives of member states' inhabitants, I have to concur with Mr. Bell here. I don't believe the definition of 'conquest' is so deficient as you've written here, and I don't think the World Assembly is competent to legislate so completely on what is often a matter of basic governmental checks and balances. Some nations are democratically responsive to their people without their people being armed; others require an armed populace, either individually or - as in my nation - with workers' militia outfits always watching. The WA picking and choosing for member states how they should handle this thorny topic is not going to end well. In any case, current WA law on this topic is about as good and useful as can be expected."

"I respectfully disagree with some of what you point out here, although we are do not hold fundamentally opposing convictions on this matter. I do believe there is scope for further WA legislation that protects the safety of member nations' inhabitants without compromising their collective power with respect to their own government, if handled sensitively."

OOC: I think the bit about Clause 8(a) is a mistake - "extant" can be taken to mean simply "not repealed" and so future WA laws can be protected by member states' military force. Similarly, one of the many, many challenges to various iterations of this target resulted in a GenSec ruling (formal? Informal?) that "conquest" meaning acquisition of territory means that a member state can go in and remove a genocidal regime, even if they have to occupy (parts of) the country for a time, without triggering any prohibition on arms transfer.

I will try to track that down for you a little later.

OOC: I mean, if "extant" can include future legislation, clause 5.a. of the target renders the whole of clause 5 pretty much null, much of this discussion is redundant, and this proposal - which was my initial reason for seeking a repeal of this - is legal :P

Thanks for letting me know about that GenSec ruling, I'll try dig it up. It'll be interesting to read.

[Morover]

"Dr. Yurilevich, much as I sympathize with your apparent goal of protecting the lives of member states' inhabitants, I have to concur with Mr. Bell here. I don't believe the definition of 'conquest' is so deficient as you've written here, and I don't think the World Assembly is competent to legislate so completely on what is often a matter of basic governmental checks and balances. Some nations are democratically responsive to their people without their people being armed; others require an armed populace, either individually or - as in my nation - with workers' militia outfits always watching. The WA picking and choosing for member states how they should handle this thorny topic is not going to end well. In any case, current WA law on this topic is about as good and useful as can be expected."

"I respectfully disagree with some of what you point out here, although we are do not hold fundamentally opposing convictions on this matter. I do believe there is scope for further WA legislation that protects the safety of member nations' inhabitants without compromising their collective power with respect to their own government, if handled sensitively."

OOC: I think the bit about Clause 8(a) is a mistake - "extant" can be taken to mean simply "not repealed" and so future WA laws can be protected by member states' military force. Similarly, one of the many, many challenges to various iterations of this target resulted in a GenSec ruling (formal? Informal?) that "conquest" meaning acquisition of territory means that a member state can go in and remove a genocidal regime, even if they have to occupy (parts of) the country for a time, without triggering any prohibition on arms transfer.

I will try to track that down for you a little later.

OOC: I mean, if "extant" can include future legislation, clause 5.a. of the target renders the whole of clause 5 pretty much null, much of this discussion is redundant, and this proposal - which was my initial reason for seeking a repeal of this - is legal

Thanks for letting me know about that GenSec ruling, I'll try dig it up. It'll be interesting to read.

OOC: For the record, you can find the ruling here.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Public thread: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=410699&hilit=Conquest
GenSec thread: viewtopic.php?f=40&t=411051&hilit=Conquest

[Maowi]

OOC: Thanks for the links - I guess in light of them it's not worth pursuing this repeal & replace effort, particularly if clause 5 of the target can also legally be read to allow future WA regulation on internal arms policy (?)

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Thanks for the links - I guess in light of them it's not worth pursuing this repeal & replace effort, particularly if clause 5 of the target can also legally be read to allow future WA regulation on internal arms policy (?)

OOC: Only under the specific limits of clause 5 regarding preventing access by individuals that pose a danger of performing imminent lawless action, or relaxing those regulations.

[Maowi]

OOC: Thanks for the links - I guess in light of them it's not worth pursuing this repeal & replace effort, particularly if clause 5 of the target can also legally be read to allow future WA regulation on internal arms policy (?)

OOC: Only under the specific limits of clause 5 regarding preventing access by individuals that pose a danger of performing imminent lawless action, or relaxing those regulations.

OOC: In that case, I'd like some clarity. Does "extant" include previously passed resolutions only, or does it allow future regulation on the issue?

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Only under the specific limits of clause 5 regarding preventing access by individuals that pose a danger of performing imminent lawless action, or relaxing those regulations.

OOC: In that case, I'd like some clarity. Does "extant" include previously passed resolutions only, or does it allow future regulation on the issue?

Ooc: short answer: passed ones only.

Long answer: a proposal has to be submitted before being a resolution. When its submitted, its not extant and is contradictory. It would be extant if it passed despite the contradiction, but gensec would get it first.

[Maowi]

OOC: In that case, I'd like some clarity. Does "extant" include previously passed resolutions only, or does it allow future regulation on the issue?

Ooc: short answer: passed ones only.

Long answer: a proposal has to be submitted before being a resolution. When its submitted, its not extant and is contradictory. It would be extant if it passed despite the contradiction, but gensec would get it first.

OOC: Really? Has that always been a thing? When it's submitted but not extant, surely it is not contradictory - it doesn't do anything yet. A proposal does not bear the force of law until its passage, at which point it becomes extant and therefore not contradictory. For your argument to be consistent, we'd all have to be following resolutions before they even pass/fail/don't make quorum.

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: short answer: passed ones only.

Long answer: a proposal has to be submitted before being a resolution. When its submitted, its not extant and is contradictory. It would be extant if it passed despite the contradiction, but gensec would get it first.

OOC: Really? Has that always been a thing? When it's submitted but not extant, surely it is not contradictory - it doesn't do anything yet. A proposal does not bear the force of law until its passage, at which point it becomes extant and therefore not contradictory. For your argument to be consistent, we'd all have to be following resolutions before they even pass/fail/don't make quorum.

OOC: Not the case. I don't think your argument makes sense. And this has been the case for some time.

A proposal cannot contradict extant resolutions. Ergo a proposal that contradicts RITA would be illegal. A resolution is only extant upon passage, the moment a proposal becomes a resolution. Similarly, upon repeal, a resolution stops being extant. Legally, it stops existing, and has no force. Extant law, therefore, is any resolution that currently exists on the books, and, by virtue of how the rules work, has not contradicted other resolutions.

So, if a proposal violates GAR#399, it gets removed and does not become extant law. Any proposal that becomes a resolution becomes extant law, and GAR#399's exemption applies. It is theoretically possible, therefore, for an illegal proposal to pass and affect GAR#399's exemption. Of course, this would require all enforcement ceasing for a week, but it is technically possible.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Or just tag in a clause of "if any previously passed resolution contradicts any of the clauses of this resolution, the previously passed resolution applies instead", á la IA.