NationStates Jolt Archive

Greetings, everyone.

The last time WE submitted this proposal, on the final day for approval it was still somewhere on page 5 of the list. I think this may be one of the reasons why it got not nearly enough approvals. So in order to make it more known to the public before it is to late, I have not submitted the proposals yet, and post them here once more (slightly modified) for public discussion. Maybe in the end we may proceed to make the world safer. BTW, if anyone cares to hear it, I may explain the dangerous potential for any of the items defined in the proposal as "sensitive-matter".

Here they go:
___________________________________________
Proposal 1)

Repeal of #2

"Scientific Freedom" strives to eliminate all barriers, including moral and ethic ones, from the development and spread of science. In OUR opinion, there should be limitations to the forwarding of science, especially where sensitive matters such as nuclear technology, genetic manipulation, time travel and so on are concerned.

Furthermore, by establishing "Scientific Freedom" as law in all UN member states, the souvereignity of said member states, regarding intellectual property rights, are endangered.

Thus, WE propose to repeal UN resolution #2.
___________________________________________
Proposal 2)

Scientific Security Act

A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Category: International Security

Strength: Significant

Description:

CONSIDERING the vast potential of scientific development

OBSERVING that in the past, said potential was frequently invoked to promote developments ultimately leading to desastreous consequences

RECOGNIZING the immense pressure of responsibility for all parties involved in the development of science that could potentially lead to said consequences

RECALLING equivalent concerns already adressed in UN resolution #75 "The Nuclear Terrorism Act"

the United Nations RESOLVE to impose sensible limitations to the spread of sensitive-matter scientific development.

Definitions:

The United Nations ACKNOWLEDGE the following subjects of scientific development to fall into the category of "sensitive-matter" developments:

- means of mass destruction including but not limited to nuclear, biological, chemical or seismic weapons
- genetic manipulation, cloning and breeding of sencient species
- manipulation of and travelling in time

All member nations are encouraged to submit further subjects of scientific development they deem "sensitive-matter"

Actions:

The United Nations create a Specialized Commitee on Scientific Developments of Sensitive Matter (SoSoS)

The United Nations impose the following restrictions upon the spread of sensitive-matter scientific developments:

1. To ensure transparency in current sensitive-matter scientific developments, relevant information shall be exchanged between nations exclusively at officially called professional conferences, fairs, congresses etc. under the chairmanship of the SoSoS and with public access.

2. Nations involved in sensitive-matter scientific developments report to the SoSoS on a regular basis and under the warranty of non-disclosure to any third parties.

3. Exemptions from article 1 have to be sanctioned by the SoSoS.

4. Under no circumstances may sensitive-matter information or technology be transfered to a nation which by the UN has been defined as a "rogue nation"

I would still like to say that I oppose the repeal of the first resolution. The research of anythying can not, and should not, be limited by politics or by a political body.

Science should be free.

I would still like to say that I oppose the repeal of the first resolution. The research of anythying can not, and should not, be limited by politics or by a political body.

Science should be free.

Do you feel that "Scientific Security Act" could be passed without first repealing #2?

If so, it would be fine by me. But still I think that there exist those few items where scientific development should be somewhat tailored. Therefore, I would still submit "Scientific Security Act" even if #2 would not be repealed. You will note that our proposal does not restrict any kind of scientific development outside those defined as sensitive-matter.

Do you feel that "Scientific Security Act" could be passed without first repealing #2?


I believe so, considering it doesn't really do anything.

The people of Genius have long stood for Scientific freedom. By ensuring that peaceful and responsible scientists can research by their own accord, and in any nation they please, technology will move forward, and trade will increase.


Presented to the Assembly of the United Nations on twenty-second day of November in the year two thousand and two, Common Era. By the representative and leader of Genius:

Chris Meyers
The Aboolot
Protector of Genius
Defender of Freedom
Friend of the Free Realms

It just says that "By ensuring" scientists do their thing "technology will move forward, and trade will increase". It doesn't make UN member do this. If there is a resubmission for this proposal, I'd just add a clause saying something like this,
RECALLING the sentiments of "Scientific Freedom" implemented December 26, 2002
just so people will still know that this is the way the UN still feels (since this is just about all the resolution did anyway) , even though it's accepting limitations to this ideal.

Either way, it's your proposal, and I'm willing to help push it along. Is it in the list right now? If so, when does it expire?

Do you feel that "Scientific Security Act" could be passed without first repealing #2?

If so, it would be fine by me. But still I think that there exist those few items where scientific development should be somewhat tailored. Therefore, I would still submit "Scientific Security Act" even if #2 would not be repealed. You will note that our proposal does not restrict any kind of scientific development outside those defined as sensitive-matter.

See - therein lies my problem. Given my belief that science should not be subject to politics or political bodies, it would be unliekly (but I admit, not impossible) that I would support a move to do so.

This would put the scientific future of developing nations in the hands of an independent body. And consequently puts the developing nations in a severly disadvantagous situation in developing weapons and so forth. Which - by extention - puts them at the mercy of those countries that have the weapons already.

Also I am not that happy with the definition of "rogue nations" being in the purview of the UN, rather than the individual nation.

I believe so, considering it doesn't really do anything.

It just says that "By ensuring" scientists do their thing "technology will move forward, and trade will increase". It doesn't make UN member do this. If there is a resubmission for this proposal, I'd just add a clause saying something like this,

just so people will still know that this is the way the UN still feels (since this is just about all the resolution did anyway) , even though it's accepting limitations to this ideal.

Either way, it's your proposal, and I'm willing to help push it along. Is it in the list right now? If so, when does it expire?

Thank you Powerhungry Chipmunks, for your advice and the support. I will introduce the sentiment in the proposal and abstine from proposing the repeal of #2.

So far, the proposal has not yet been submitted. I wanted to make sure it got discussed somewhat before being submitted. You cannot change it anymore once it is in the queue, or can you?

For today, I must quit here, since living in europe, Ihave late evening, and it is time for me to go home. I will check this thread again tomorrow.

See - therein lies my problem. Given my belief that science should not be subject to politics or political bodies, it would be unliekly (but I admit, not impossible) that I would support a move to do so.

This would put the scientific future of developing nations in the hands of an independent body. And consequently puts the developing nations in a severly disadvantagous situation in developing weapons and so forth. Which - by extention - puts them at the mercy of those countries that have the weapons already.

Also I am not that happy with the definition of "rogue nations" being in the purview of the UN, rather than the individual nation.

There I was going to quit the day and there appears that posting. Ok, I have to answer that before retiring tonight.

First. I repeat, this proposal has absolutely no impact on any science out side sensitive matter.

Second. It has also absolutely no impact on the development of sensitive-matter science WITHIN any single nation, except they can no longer do so in secret, because they report regularly to the SoSoS. It only restricts the EXCHANGE of sensitive-matter scientific development. It does even not really RESTRICT it but rather CONTROL it, by placing that exchange under the eyes of the public under the SoSoS chairmanship.

Third, of course any nation is free to view any of it's neighbours as "rogue", but it is not free to view any nation defined by UN as "rogue" to view as non-rogue. Therefore, an officially acknowledged (by UN) "rogue" nation (and I believe those are exceedingly rare) may not receive sensitive-matter info and technology from many UN member nation.

There I was going to quit the day and there appears that posting. Ok, I have to answer that before retiring tonight.


Forgive me, and please feel free to leave any futher replies to me (at least) until tomorrow or the next week.


First. I repeat, this proposal has absolutely no impact on any science out side sensitive matter.


That much I accept. Excpe that you have left it open for nations to submit what else the consider sensitive, and what I consider sensitive might not be what another nation considers sensitive. And visa-versa.


Second. It has also absolutely no impact on the development of sensitive-matter science WITHIN any single nation, except they can no longer do so in secret, because they report regularly to the SoSoS. It only restricts the EXCHANGE of sensitive-matter scientific development. It does even not really RESTRICT it but rather CONTROL it, by placing that exchange under the eyes of the public under the SoSoS chairmanship.


But, and I admit this is more of a stretch, but GeminiLand is a small country. It is a member of the UN, but a lot of nations don't like it's government. LeoLand is one of them. So using this proposal LeoLand finds out that GeminiLand is developing a new nuclear weapon, to be able to stand on their own and stop relying on their allies. LeoLand doesn't like this, so bombs the weapon factory sites (there is nothing to stop them doing that, as far as I can tell). And so GeminiLand can not protect itself, and is forever at the mercy of the good grace of it's allies.

Will the SoSoS be confidential? So that if GeminiLand announces it's research it will not be sent out to all other UN nations? Cause that would be acceptable?


Third, of course any nation is free to view any of it's neighbours as "rogue", but it is not free to view any nation defined by UN as "rogue" to view as non-rogue. Therefore, an officially acknowledged (by UN) "rogue" nation (and I believe those are exceedingly rare) may not receive sensitive-matter info and technology from many UN member nation.

I am sorry, but I completely disagree. In the same way that I argued against the UN being able to define what a "terrorist group" was for all of it's members, I object to the UN being able to define a nation as "rogue" for all of it's members. If I believe a nation is dangerous, I will not supply it with information. But if they have been defined as rogue because they are committing terrorist acts against a nation that is slaughtering their people, or fighting back against an invading army by using methods that other nations disaprove of, then I think that that is unjust and unfair, and will try to support them anyway I can - including, if necessary - arming them in their conflict.

Just thought I would mention it :}

Forgive me, and please feel free to leave any futher replies to me (at least) until tomorrow or the next week.

OK, here they are


That much I accept. Excpe that you have left it open for nations to submit what else the consider sensitive, and what I consider sensitive might not be what another nation considers sensitive. And visa-versa.

I see. I left that open because it may very well be that I oversaw something that might be considered sensitive. Would it help if I replaced that invitation by a statement that nations are encouraged to submit proposals adding items to the list of sensitive matter? By making any addition to this list a proposal on it's own, I think there would be a good consens ensured about what is considered sensitive matter: first enough delegates have to approve, then it still has to get the majority of votes from the UN members.



But, and I admit this is more of a stretch, but GeminiLand is a small country. It is a member of the UN, but a lot of nations don't like it's government. LeoLand is one of them. So using this proposal LeoLand finds out that GeminiLand is developing a new nuclear weapon, to be able to stand on their own and stop relying on their allies. LeoLand doesn't like this, so bombs the weapon factory sites (there is nothing to stop them doing that, as far as I can tell). And so GeminiLand can not protect itself, and is forever at the mercy of the good grace of it's allies.

Will the SoSoS be confidential? So that if GeminiLand announces it's research it will not be sent out to all other UN nations? Cause that would be acceptable?

First: Though any exchange of info and technology between nation must be public, GeminiLand might refrain from participating in those public knowledge exchange events, or if it needs to exchange knowledge with someone, it might appeal to the SoSoS to be excempted from clause 1 as per clause 3.

Second: Of course the SoSoS is confidential. The warranty of Non-disclosure to any third parties is explicitely stated in clause 2.


I am sorry, but I completely disagree. In the same way that I argued against the UN being able to define what a "terrorist group" was for all of it's members, I object to the UN being able to define a nation as "rogue" for all of it's members. If I believe a nation is dangerous, I will not supply it with information. But if they have been defined as rogue because they are committing terrorist acts against a nation that is slaughtering their people, or fighting back against an invading army by using methods that other nations disaprove of, then I think that that is unjust and unfair, and will try to support them anyway I can - including, if necessary - arming them in their conflict.

Just thought I would mention it :}

Now I begin to see what you mean. I guess you would agree with me that it would be unfortunate if sensitive technology would be transfered to nations who might use them to terrorize other nations, just for their own benifit (and here I am not refering to self-defense).
I felt it necessary to ensure some kind of safeguard here. Of course you are right, that an UN definition of rogue status is somewhat - well... unfair. Do you have any idea how to phrase that in a better way, or maybe a "UN officially rogue nation" may be considered just that, since the UN represents with all it's decisions the majority of UN nations...

Please, any suggestions on that matter welcome.

I see. I left that open because it may very well be that I oversaw something that might be considered sensitive. Would it help if I replaced that invitation by a statement that nations are encouraged to submit proposals adding items to the list of sensitive matter? By making any addition to this list a proposal on it's own, I think there would be a good consens ensured about what is considered sensitive matter: first enough delegates have to approve, then it still has to get the majority of votes from the UN members.


That I would have no problem with as it prevents this proposal from being used for legalized industrial espionage etc.


First: Though any exchange of info and technology between nation must be public, GeminiLand might refrain from participating in those public knowledge exchange events, or if it needs to exchange knowledge with someone, it might appeal to the SoSoS to be excempted from clause 1 as per clause 3.


Okay.


Second: Of course the SoSoS is confidential. The warranty of Non-disclosure to any third parties is explicitely stated in clause 2.


Ok. That makes it less of a worry :}


Now I begin to see what you mean. I guess you would agree with me that it would be unfortunate if sensitive technology would be transfered to nations who might use them to terrorize other nations, just for their own benifit (and here I am not refering to self-defense).
I felt it necessary to ensure some kind of safeguard here. Of course you are right, that an UN definition of rogue status is somewhat - well... unfair. Do you have any idea how to phrase that in a better way, or maybe a "UN officially rogue nation" may be considered just that, since the UN represents with all it's decisions the majority of UN nations...


The only way I (and this is just my point of view) could see it working is that my nation gets to decide who the SoSoS can share information from nation with. I know - it's a lot more paperwork and legislation, but it does mean that each nation would keep control over whom their information goes to, and more importantly is not subject to other nations' ideas of good and bad.

Also - on another matter - there is one problem with all this.

From what I understand of UN rules, you would have to get the repeal passed, then this new proposal. And since there is no way to ensure that the second proposal would be passed, I am a little antsy about repealing the first one.

Also - on another matter - there is one problem with all this.

From what I understand of UN rules, you would have to get the repeal passed, then this new proposal. And since there is no way to ensure that the second proposal would be passed, I am a little antsy about repealing the first one.

I already agreed with Powerhungry Chipmunks, that repealing #2 is NOT a necessary prerequisite to throw the proposal on the floor. Better way is to begin this resolution by a phrase like " RECALLING the sentiments of UN resolution #2 "Scientific Freedom" implemented December 26, 2002", which will express that on the one hand, we are not entirely against freedom of science, and on the other hand express some concern about the limitlessness of said resolution.

So I will not submit the repeal. (NOTE: nothing was submitted yet)

I completely agree that some limitations, or at least some formof regulation, control, and transparency needs to be put in place to oversee scientific research in sensitive areas. For my part, I just have a couple of questions about how the council will function and perhaps some of these answers could be incorporated into the resolution as the definition of the mandate and scope of the committee.

My first question is, what control does the committee provide? Can they make recommendations to stop pursuing research in a particular area? Can they say that certain research is unethical? Are they able to supercede national soverignity to stop this research? If scientists don't comply will they be held accountable to the committee or will the nation be held accountable?

Also, will the committee be able to provide regular public reports on nations and scientists who refuse to comply to recommendations given by the committee? If the committee is secret how can nations pressure another nation to comply if the committee fails to do so?

Don't get me wrong, I am very much for the principle of this resolution. I believe there needs to be control, regulation, and especially transparency in dealing with the sensitive issues of stem-cell research, cloning, genetics, etc. These avenues of research shouldn't be banned, but since Resolution 2 restricts the ability of the government to heavily regulate the scientific community, a strong UN committee which can enforce its principles would be great.

Finally, in what way will the UN regulate the list of "sensitive" areas of research? What guidelines and restrictions will the committee impose upon scientists?

My first question is, what control does the committee provide? Can they make recommendations to stop pursuing research in a particular area? Can they say that certain research is unethical? Are they able to supercede national soverignity to stop this research? If scientists don't comply will they be held accountable to the committee or will the nation be held accountable?

They can certainly make reccomendations. They can certainly express their opinion about what they deem ethical or not. They certainly cannot stop a nation from pursuing their research. What they can do however, is to forbid any knowledge transfer concerning a sensitive matter from one nation to another (by not granting the nation in question an exemption as under clause 3; by not inviting them to the official knowledge exchange events). They may also, in a general way, alert the public that research of some kind or other in one or other sensitive area is going on, without being able to give any details, however, and without announcing which nation is undertaking that particular research (see clause 2, Non-disclosure warranty).

Also, will the committee be able to provide regular public reports on nations and scientists who refuse to comply to recommendations given by the committee? If the committee is secret how can nations pressure another nation to comply if the committee fails to do so?

No reports. No pressure. Just as mentioned above, transfer restrictions.

Don't get me wrong, I am very much for the principle of this resolution. I believe there needs to be control, regulation, and especially transparency in dealing with the sensitive issues of stem-cell research, cloning, genetics, etc. These avenues of research shouldn't be banned, but since Resolution 2 restricts the ability of the government to heavily regulate the scientific community, a strong UN committee which can enforce its principles would be great.

This resolution, in fact, is not about what any individual nation should be able to research or not. It is about the exchange of those research results between nations, since this is an area of international interaction that MAY concern the UN, whereas what goes on within a nation SHOULD NOT concern the UN.

Finally, in what way will the UN regulate the list of "sensitive" areas of research? What guidelines and restrictions will the committee impose upon scientists?

Just to clarify again: no restrictions whatsoever are put on the RESEARCH work of any scientists within any nation. What is regulated and put under control is the spread of knowledge of sensitive nature BETWEEN nations.

The means of regulation/control are described in clause 1, where it is stated that knowledge exchange made be official, public, and under UN control; close 3, where unofficial and unpublic exchange is allowed by excemption from clause 1, but in this case with even stricter UN control.

Clause 2 does not pose any restriction at all, it only ensures that the UN is current to actual developments. This may result in some or other recommandation, which in turn may encourage new proposals to set some or other restriction...

Finally clause 4 prohibits transfer of sensitive matter knowledge to rogue nations. But this point may need some rephrasing (see prior posting from TilEnca)

In case, however, that a UN member nation should be caught in secretly delivering sensitive matter Knowledge to another nation, this will be a violation of this resolution and therefore prosecutable by appliable UN regulations (whatever those might be in regard to a nation violating a resolution, I don't know and it is not subject of this reolution)

Have all a nice weekend. I will not be able to attend the forum for it's duration, so please discuss the proposal among yourselfs for a while, or post any questions with the knowledge you will not be answerded before Monday. Still nothing is submitted, still all is open to discussion.

CU