[Draft 3] - Repeal GA272, "Chemical Weapons Accord"

[Simone Republic]

Target resolution (GA272): https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=1

The motivation is largely explained in the replacement but boils it comes down to: if we are going to allow chemical weapons, at least not use it against other WA states, please. This is argued on slightly different grounds than from Ostrovisky's earlier repeal proposal - they are credited in this repeal because I used wording from their earlier repeal. I have their permission as per Discord.

Replacement: Chemical Weapons Prohibition
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=552594

Draft 3

The World Assembly (WA),

Acknowledging the intent of GA 272, "Chemical Weapons Accord", in restricting the use of chemical weapons;

Dismayed that the target resolution suffers from several instances of very loose language that may allow rogue actors to get around the restrictions imposed by the target, for example:

1. the target (clauses (1) and (2)) permits the use of chemical weapons for broadly defined "defensive or delaying operations of aggressive offensive military forces", and only very weakly prohibits use of chemical weapons if they "have a reasonable probability of affecting civilian populations";
   
2. the target defines "chemical weapons" as those causing harm "solely through the toxic chemical properties of such agent(s)", which opens the way for malicious nations to develop weapons that cause harm through multiple means (rather than merely solely through toxicity of such agents);
   

Dismayed that clause 7(a) allows the WA Chemical Weapons Commission to "maintain a library of known chemical weapons, and to share this information with any nations that request it", regardless of the intent of such nations, or whether such nations are even World Assembly members in the first place;

Taking the opportunity to express the opinion that an outright prohibition, at least against first use and against use on other WA states, is the barest minimum necessary to prevent the atrocity of using chemical weapons;

Looking forward to an eventual replacement developed through the collective wisdom of this august organ;

Hereby repeals the target resolution, "Chemical Weapons Accord".

Co-author: Ostrovskiy

Char count: 1,708.

[Simone Republic]

*Bump*

[The Ice States]

"Since an accident which converted a portion of not only our population, but also surrounding nations, into the Orcana species, the Eternal Union has stood against the use of biological and chemical weapons in war. However, as a result of this we believe the target resolution serves as an essential 'backstop' in case the World Assembly takes a pro-chemical weapon stance in the future. We do not believe a resolution prohibiting chemical weapons is mutually exclusive with the target, and therefore encourage the Simonian mission to pursue such a ban as its own resolution, instead of repealing and replacing Resolution #272."

~Claudia Lindner,
Deputy World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

[Bisofeyr]

"My nation concurs with that of The Ice States in our opposition to chemical weapons. We feel a replace-then-repeal initiative would be more prudent than the inverse."

[Simone Republic]

"My nation concurs with that of The Ice States in our opposition to chemical weapons. We feel a replace-then-repeal initiative would be more prudent than the inverse."

(OOC)

"Depends on how you read the text to GA272, there's probably going to be a legality challenge that I suspect I'd lose if replace-then-repeal is imposed, as the target resolution is quite broadly worded."

[Simone Republic]

Bump for further feedback.

[Jedinsto]

Based on my reading of the target, it should not block a full ban on chemical weapons, and a replace first should be fine. Something being limited to certain conditions should not necessarily imply that it cannot be limited further or eliminated. If necessary you could let a challenge be filed before submitting just to make sure.

[Simone Republic]

Based on my reading of the target, it should not block a full ban on chemical weapons, and a replace first should be fine. Something being limited to certain conditions should not necessarily imply that it cannot be limited further or eliminated. If necessary you could let a challenge be filed before submitting just to make sure.

Having re-read it, clause 2 is a bit problematic:

"The use of chemical weapons that have a reasonable probability of affecting civilian populations shall be prohibited"

Does this mean if areas are under occupation, chemical weapons cannot be used at all? (With reference to the current situation in Ukraine). "Reasonable probability of affecting" is actually quite a low standard.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I will support repeal of a Ufoc resolution without much in terms of text. I, however, can't say I'm altogether a big fan of the replacement policy desired which would prohibit a (frankly probably useless in real life) tool member nations could use to defend themselves with.

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

OOC: Will support repeal of any resolution by Chester.

IC: We see no need for a replacement.

[Simone Republic]

I will support repeal of a Ufoc resolution without much in terms of text. I, however, can't say I'm altogether a big fan of the replacement policy desired which would prohibit a (frankly probably useless in real life) tool member nations could use to defend themselves with.

The supposed replacement is more restrictive but I think it still is useful to try to restrain the use of chemical weapons (Syria being a prime example, the fact that Obama didn't do anything is separate).

The replacement has been edited so that it's a replace-and-repeal. If that passes, then obviously this will be rewritten to repeal for redundancy reasons.

[Bisofeyr]

"My nation concurs with that of The Ice States in our opposition to chemical weapons. We feel a replace-then-repeal initiative would be more prudent than the inverse."

(OOC)

"Depends on how you read the text to GA272, there's probably going to be a legality challenge that I suspect I'd lose if replace-then-repeal is imposed, as the target resolution is quite broadly worded."

I do not see where the potential legality issue would lay, unless you want a potential replacement to do more than banning chemical weapons.

[Simone Republic]

(OOC)

"Depends on how you read the text to GA272, there's probably going to be a legality challenge that I suspect I'd lose if replace-then-repeal is imposed, as the target resolution is quite broadly worded."

I do not see where the potential legality issue would lay, unless you want a potential replacement to do more than banning chemical weapons.

Mainly it's the bit on "delaying operations"
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=552594

This has been reversed back out to a repeal-replace so I don't have to wreck whatever brain cells I have remaining to go around the previous resolution with a replacement.

[The Ice States]

"The Eternal Union will oppose this repeal if it is submitted prior to a replacement."

~Claudia Lindner,
Deputy World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

[Anduava]

EDIT: I've removed some of my comments in the forum to help prevent "poisoning" existing proposals in draft and reached out to the users who pointed out my utilization of AI in certain areas for more feedback.

[Simone Republic]

Draft 1

The World Assembly (WA),

Acknowledging the noble intent of GA 272, "Chemical Weapons Accord", in attempting to restrain the use of chemical weapons,

Horrified by the massive casualties and long-term damage to the environment (and to the health of sapient individuals) that chemicals weapons may cause;

Noting that the target resolution permits the use of chemical weapons to "defensive or delaying operations of aggressive offensive military forces", and only prohibits use of chemical weapons with a very loose definition of it "have a reasonable probability of affecting civilian populations", as well as suffering from several other instances of very loose language that makes interpretation difficult;

Believing that an outright prohibition, at least against first use and against use on other WA states, is the barest minimum necessary to prevent the atrocity of using chemical weapons;

Looking forward to an eventual replacement developed through the collective wisdom of this august organ;

Hereby repeals the target resolution, "Chemical Weapons Accord".

"The Eternal Union will oppose this repeal if it is submitted prior to a replacement."

~Claudia Lindner,
Deputy World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

Largely because I am not keen on the "civilian" bit in the original resolution, and that to word around to do a replace-repeal is leaving the draft replacement rather unsatisfactory.

[The Ice States]

Draft 1

The World Assembly (WA),

Acknowledging the noble intent of GA 272, "Chemical Weapons Accord", in attempting to restrain the use of chemical weapons,

Horrified by the massive casualties and long-term damage to the environment (and to the health of sapient individuals) that chemicals weapons may cause;

Noting that the target resolution permits the use of chemical weapons to "defensive or delaying operations of aggressive offensive military forces", and only prohibits use of chemical weapons with a very loose definition of it "have a reasonable probability of affecting civilian populations", as well as suffering from several other instances of very loose language that makes interpretation difficult;

Believing that an outright prohibition, at least against first use and against use on other WA states, is the barest minimum necessary to prevent the atrocity of using chemical weapons;

Looking forward to an eventual replacement developed through the collective wisdom of this august organ;

Hereby repeals the target resolution, "Chemical Weapons Accord".

"The Eternal Union will oppose this repeal if it is submitted prior to a replacement."

~Claudia Lindner,
Deputy World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

Largely because I am not keen on the "civilian" bit in the original resolution, and that to word around to do a replace-repeal is leaving the draft replacement rather unsatisfactory.

"We do not see how a prohibition of chemical weapons -- one not prevented by the target of repeal, as my own and several other missions have noted -- is unsatisfactory. We ask your mission to use this opportunity to apply restraint and ensure the objective of eliminating chemical weapons is achieved comprehensively, rather than hastily with a substantial risk of backfiring."

~Claudia Lindner,
Deputy World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

[Simone Republic]

Draft 2

Draft 3

The World Assembly (WA),

Acknowledging the noble intent of GA 272, "Chemical Weapons Accord", in attempting to restrain the use of chemical weapons;

Horrified by the massive casualties and long-term damage to the environment (and to the health of sapient individuals) that chemicals weapons may cause;

Noting that the target resolution permits the use of chemical weapons for "defensive or delaying operations of aggressive offensive military forces", and only prohibits use of chemical weapons with a very loose definition of it "have a reasonable probability of affecting civilian populations", as well as suffering from several other instances of very loose language that make interpretation difficult;

Believing that an outright prohibition, at least against first use and against use on other WA states, is the barest minimum necessary to prevent the atrocity of using chemical weapons, and that target resolution's continued existence precludes a cohesive replacement to fix issues with the target and of the sort that certain factions in the WA find desirable;

Looking forward to an eventual replacement developed through the collective wisdom of this august organ;

Hereby repeals the target resolution, "Chemical Weapons Accord".

Further re-drafted. This now incorporates text from Ostro's repeal as per their agreement on Discord as they are no longer pursuing that repeal.
https://discord.com/channels/2344730526 ... 2031659108

[Simone Republic]

*snip*

"We do not see how a prohibition of chemical weapons -- one not prevented by the target of repeal, as my own and several other missions have noted -- is unsatisfactory. We ask your mission to use this opportunity to apply restraint and ensure the objective of eliminating chemical weapons is achieved comprehensively, rather than hastily with a substantial risk of backfiring."

~Claudia Lindner,
Deputy World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

"We don't think there will be support for an outright prohibition of chemical weapons, so working around the compromise necessitates a repeal-replace, not a replace-repeal."

[The Ice States]

*snip*

"We do not see how a prohibition of chemical weapons -- one not prevented by the target of repeal, as my own and several other missions have noted -- is unsatisfactory. We ask your mission to use this opportunity to apply restraint and ensure the objective of eliminating chemical weapons is achieved comprehensively, rather than hastily with a substantial risk of backfiring."

~Claudia Lindner,
Deputy World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

"We don't think there will be support for an outright prohibition of chemical weapons, so working around the compromise necessitates a repeal-replace, not a replace-repeal."

"Ambassador, if I may interject -- that is precisely why we strongly believe that a replacement should be submitted before a repeal is. If a repeal is submitted first, and then the replacement fails, then this critical topic now becomes a blank area in the body of World Assembly law. Submitting the replacement first is, if anything, necessary to ensure that the endeavour does not create such a blank area which may last for only a few weeks in the best scenario and potentially years in the worst one. If the replacement passes, going ahead with the repeal will merely remove redundancy and not bring about any serious harm. If the replacement does not pass, then that is a sign to return to the drawing board; either redraft the replacement to bring it to such a state that it may pass, or leave the topic be for the time being until there is more support politically for a complete prohibition of chemical weapons."

"I would add, Ambassador, that what I am asking for here is not unreasonable. I am not asking your mission to travel personally to the Bay of Oldwitch and see for itself the harm caused by chemical weapons. I am asking your mission to listen rather than rationalise, to apply patience rather than pursuing an endeavour that is risky and counterproductive, and, critically, to take a principled stance rather than pursuing what appears to be an ill-defined aim on this crucial matter. The mere fact that a resolution is passed does not indicate progress towards a meaningful policy end; in this case, the passage of a repeal without the absolute guarantee of a replacement being in force -- achieved through passage of such a replacement beforehand -- is actively counterproductive. If your mission continues to pursue this repeal without first seeing the outcome of a replacement, ignoring the advice of the Bisofeyri, Jedin and Ice-Devonian missions, then we will have no choice but to exercise the full diplomatic weight of the Eternal Union to see this repeal fail."

~Robert Desak,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.