NationStates Jolt Archive

I was browsing through the UN proposal list and I came across the following proposal, which had not been discussed on this floor, that I could not let pass by without discussion. I ask that the Clerk report the United Nations Security Act.

United Nations Security Act

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

Category: International Security
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Texan Hotrodders

Description: The NationStates United Nations,

NOTING that warfare and violence are not acts which this body wishes to encourage.

NOTING WITH REGRET that there are certain unavoidable situations in which warfare and violence are necessary for the defense of sovereign persons and nations.

CONCERNED that many member nations are ill-equipped to conduct an effective defense of the sovereign persons and nations.

FURTHER CONCERNED that there are many nations that are not members of this body and are hostile to it and may attack the member states of this body.

ENCOURAGES all member states to ensure that they have the ability to effectively defend their sovereign nation from attack in the interest of protecting their citizens.

DECLARES that all member states have the right to construct and utilize any and all weapons that are necessary to defend their nation from attack, except where previous legislation by this body that is still in effect has placed restrictions on that right.

Approvals: 82 (Volumeamplify, Whipjangle, Plutonix, Flibbleites, Jiangland, Iznogoud, Funkdunk, Blessed Isles, Entcepatiolis, Teredona, Garnilorn, Yelda, Antrium, Jaghur, Stumpy Midgets, Strobania, Springsylvania, Roathin, Darth Mall, Timerlane, Microdell, Holy Land of Palestine, Arlona, Athalazan, Gaiah, NeoAsiaEuropa, America-Canada-Mexico, The Raven Islands, Datigua, The Iroqouis, Knorfladshgeff, Free World Trade, Hoo-Doo, DSM-IV, The Hunter Isles, Lv-3246, Hogs Head, The Inner Universe, Pturbu, Xaidan, Algorab, Myotismon, Coquetvia, Barfieldslande, The Three-Toed Sloth, Battle Island, Jugaria, Castle Cool People, Alpha Prime 0x00000000, Sel Appa, Theorb, The Necromangers, Furry chickens, Banjarmasin, Paddyshire, Adamith, Islamic Vatican City, Jacobins IV, Calabraxia, Cemendur, The Imperial Raven, Krankor, Wolfish, Cav, Raderia, The ThunderDragon, Starps, Flagellumpa, Melmond, Conservative Haters, Brians Room, The doomed world, Trans-Union States, Foofangia, Jebulon, Beerhood, The Bruce, Mayve, The Care Bears FOO, Janistania, Checkers McDog, Grays Harbor)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 65 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Thu Jun 30 2005
This is similar to the "Nuclear Armaments" proposal, but far broader-based. It would essentially restrict the United Nations from considering any proposals in the category of "Global Disarmament", unless such a proposal can demonstrate that a weapon restricted thereby is completely unnecessary for defensive purposes.

Obviously, as an opponent of efforts to restrict the power of the United Nations, I will be opposing this proposal more vigorously than I have acted in recent times. However, I do wish to bring it to the attention of the United Nations, because a proposal with such a sweeping effect should be fully discussed while still at the proposal level. I wish to commend the representative from Texan Hotrodders on his skills in obtaining approvals for his attempts to limit the power of the United Nations.

I hereby give notice of intent to raise a parliamentary inquiry tomorrow, when I have more time to properly phrase it, regarding the scope of limitations which this proposal seeks to require and a possible loophole which I have noticed. This inquiry may demand a binding ruling from the Chair.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador

I just noted it in the Bio-Weapons replacement thread....

I'm pretty sure he was trying to sneak it through before anyone caught it that was doing a bio-weapons replacement resolution - which could prove to be one annoying pain in the butt. (Though I'll admit, bloody good job at doing that - NO ONE caught it until today).

Hack - I have a question. Assuming that this one will pass, if we got a bio-weapons replacement resolution proposed before it passed (or further, even in quarum), would that still be permitted to go to the floor?

Apparently the Nat Sov'ers are following PC's lead and trying to pass what would have been illegal to even consider a few months ago. While I agree with the sentiment, the continuing collapse of the principles of the UN concerns deeply.

I just noted it in the Bio-Weapons replacement thread....

I'm pretty sure he was trying to sneak it through before anyone caught it that was doing a bio-weapons replacement resolution - which could prove to be one annoying pain in the butt. (Though I'll admit, bloody good job at doing that - NO ONE caught it until today).

Hack - I have a question. Assuming that this one will pass, if we got a bio-weapons replacement resolution proposed before it passed (or further, even in quarum), would that still be permitted to go to the floor?

Nope, it would be illegal.

I'll admit that even I was concerned about this proposal's legality for the reason Goober mentioned.

ooc: Damn, spotted this on Monday but completely forgot to raise the issue here - sorry.

Nope, it would be illegal.

It's not a resolution until it passes, and if the delegates show that they want it to be voted upon, I think that will make it difficult for the admins to ban it from going to the floor - but I don't want to count on that unless the admins clarify that....

It's not a resolution until it passes, and if the delegates show that they want it to be voted upon, I think that will make it difficult for the admins to ban it from going to the floor - but I don't want to count on that unless the admins clarify that....
The mods can remove any proposal at any time it is in the queue, provided they have sufficient grounds to do so. Hersfold's Olympics proposal reached quorum, but was deleted before it got to the vote.

Howver, once a proposal reaches the floor, the mods can't touch it, AFAIK. Only the admins can remove it then. Which is why the mods trawl the proposal list so often, so they don't have to bother [violet] or Sal.

The mods can remove any proposal at any time it is in the queue, provided they have sufficient grounds to do so. Hersfold's Olympics proposal reached quorum, but was deleted before it got to the vote.

Howver, once a proposal reaches the floor, the mods can't touch it, AFAIK. Only the admins can remove it then. Which is why the mods trawl the proposal list so often, so they don't have to bother [violet] or Sal.This is correct.

As for this thing, I'm not too sure what to do with it. It's a little broad, and it, combined with the nuclear arms one are setting a disturbing precident...

The part to maintain active proposals banning arms would not take them out of place but should they be repealed it would ban making any additional proposals to ban any weapons that might restrict a nations rights to defend itself. I feel the UN is to protect the borders of member nations not interfer with internal affairs.. If a nation knew that their borders were safe then certain internal actions could change.. as other means could be used to bring any nation in line with UN policies other than war with them..

Take away the beans and bacon and they can have all the bullets they want but in time they will not be able to use them... as long as we remember.... Beans and Bacon don't stop or even slow down Bullets.. so either one shots in defense and does it fast or they are dead. If members have their Bullets taken then who shoots for them when some rogue rebel nations attacks them... The UN has no weapons.. and if it bans all such then it will not be able to perform in the common defense of anyone.

The UN is focused on changing ideals of members when it should be concerned about the outside threats to it. Focus by the UN on outide threats would allow members to work inside their own borders to make changes for the good knowing that should trouble come the UN is their to defend them.

As long as there are nations outside the rules of the UN we can't disarm ourselves fully, just come to common terms on where and when we will use them for the common defense; not overtake member nations.. Once we get all nations into UN then we can start reducing weapons and moving toward beans and bacon for bullets. Until then we have to have all...

and I'm headed for my favorite B...ed.....GW

This is correct.

Definately know what I'm doing this weekend then.....DANGIT


As for this thing, I'm not too sure what to do with it. It's a little broad, and it, combined with the nuclear arms one are setting a disturbing precident...

The issue of the nuclear one is a bit different than this one. The nuclear one is specifically targetting nukes - something that NSers have protected twice from a ban. If this is the precedent, we can work through each weapon type - one at a time - and decide whether we wish to protect nation's rights to use them or ban them.

On the other hand - this one deals with all forms of weaponry not yet touched by the UN (so pretty much - chem and landmines - that latter also needing to be fixed), no matter how brutal, destructive or disturbing it may be. That is much more disturbing than an attempt to protect nations' rights on a specific weapon.

This is correct.

As for this thing, I'm not too sure what to do with it. It's a little broad, and it, combined with the nuclear arms one are setting a disturbing precident...

When even Vastiva and Flibbleites are expressing concerns about the legality of a resolution that attempts to protect the right to possess deadly weaponry it might be safe to assume it presents a problem.

The fact that it appears evident that the resolution was heavily campaigned for in secret without ever publicizing its existence in the forums would probably indicate even its author is aware of this.

There was a proposal to ban weapons of any type with a kill range of think 5 miles or KM.. on the proposal list earlier not sure if it still there that might effect all weapons with wide range kill areas which a nuke of any megton or Kton would fall under as well as some conventional weapons in place now or possibly later as tech gains in this area... Also certain multi war headed weapons could be considered effected if they cover a wide range over the limit of the proposal and are one weapons delievery system... Not sure who proposed it nor if it still in after house cleaning there..GW


Update just looked and it has been cleaned out so there is not one setting killing range on weapons in currunt proposal listing...GW..

Ok, now I'm going to go all legal...

Hack, assuming this proposal is not ruled illegal and deleted, and assuming it passes, one of the previous peices of legislation it refers to would seem to include the repeal of the bioweapons resolution which was just passed.

That repeal contains the statement:

IT IS PROPOSED: This resolution be repealed so that it may be replaced with a new, effective resolution.

Now, regardless of the motivations of those who voted for it (and I'm perfectly aware that some people voted for it only because it was the only repeal to reach quorum after many, MANY attempts to get rid of the "Elimination of Bioweapons" resolution) THIS is the text of the repeal that passed and is on the books of UN legislation. Having passed the vote it can now be argued that it is the official legal position of the UN that it has confirmed its intent to re-enact a biological weapons ban and just hasn't decided on the form of it yet. Thus, I believe this would make it perfectly legal to propose and pass a bioweapons ban even after the "United Nations Security Act" passed (if that should occur) as such a ban would be exempt by virtue of already having its intent legislated previous to the passage of that bill and thus falls under "previous legislation by this body that is still in effect".

Thoughts?

That reads more like a suggestion - it's not making it mandatory that a replacement is sought, otherwise the repeal itself would have been deleted.

That reads more like a suggestion - it's not making it mandatory that a replacement is sought, otherwise the repeal itself would have been deleted.

Oh it's certainly not making it mandatory, but the intent has still been expressed in a previous legislative document and that's what matters. Nobody is saying that intent can't be changed... but the security act makes specific provision for previously passed still active legislation and technically the text of the repeal qualifies.

Oh it's certainly not making it mandatory, but the intent has still been expressed in a previous legislative document and that's what matters. Nobody is saying that intent can't be changed... but the security act makes specific provision for previously passed still active legislation and technically the text of the repeal qualifies.
Umm...

...thinks...

...struggles...

...I'll defer to Hack!

Oh it's certainly not making it mandatory, but the intent has still been expressed in a previous legislative document and that's what matters. Nobody is saying that intent can't be changed... but the security act makes specific provision for previously passed still active legislation and technically the text of the repeal qualifies.

That's an interesting point, but the "still in effect" bit doesn't even apply to a repeal or the intention to replace the resolution it repealed. It only applies to:

DECLARES that all member states have the right to construct and utilize any and all weapons that are necessary to defend their nation from attack, except where previous legislation by this body that is still in effect has placed restrictions on that right.

Note the bolded phrases. This part of the clause applies only to things that have both of the two properties;

1. Previous legislation
2. Legislation that places restrictions on the right to make and use weapons.

Reformentia's repeal has only one of those two qualities. It is previous legislation.

Oh it's certainly not making it mandatory, but the intent has still been expressed in a previous legislative document and that's what matters. Nobody is saying that intent can't be changed... but the security act makes specific provision for previously passed still active legislation and technically the text of the repeal qualifies.

Here's my concern...



DECLARES that all member states have the right to construct and utilize any and all weapons that are necessary to defend their nation from attack, except where previous legislation by this body that is <b>still in effect</b> has placed restrictions on that right.




Repeals

Yes, you can Repeal, provided you use the Repeal function. If you make your own Proposal in some other category and calling it a Repeal, it's going to be deleted. Remember, Repeals can only repeal the existing resolution. You can provide reasons for repeal, but not <b>any new provisions or laws</b>


I don't think a note of intent is going to get around that fact - else there is a serious gaping flaw in the resolution. Let's just say that this your bio-weapons replacement fails on the UN floor. You've still set a precendent that bio-weapons resolutions (which are no longer in effect) can be put back 3 months, 6 months, 2 years from now. While I'd like to see those resolutions be put on the floor, it goes against the intent of that one stated line.

When even Vastiva and Flibbleites are expressing concerns about the legality of a resolution that attempts to protect the right to possess deadly weaponry it might be safe to assume it presents a problem.

The fact that it appears evident that the resolution was heavily campaigned for in secret without ever publicizing its existence in the forums would probably indicate even its author is aware of this.

Especially considering he is an active user on the forums.

That's an interesting point, but the "still in effect" bit doesn't even apply to a repeal or the intention to replace the resolution it repealed. It only applies to:



Note the bolded phrases. This part of the clause applies only to things that have both of the two properties;

1. Previous legislation
2. Legislation that places restrictions on the right to make and use weapons.

Reformentia's repeal has only one of those two qualities. It is previous legislation.

Consider it this way... the repeal itself specifically reserves the right within its text for the UN to effectively reverse it with the passage of a future replacement biological weapons ban... and even should your resolution pass, it was passed first.

We'll let the mods make the call on whether that constitutes any additional active clause beyond the appeal or if it is PART of the repeal clause.

This is similar to the "Nuclear Armaments" proposal, but far broader-based. It would essentially restrict the United Nations from considering any proposals in the category of "Global Disarmament", unless such a proposal can demonstrate that a weapon restricted thereby is completely unnecessary for defensive purposes.

Wrong on one point. People can still submit Global Disarmament proposals. If this resolution passes, there would be two options for doing so.

1. Because the proposal does not make any provisions for the possession of weapons, y'all still have a lot of room to maneuver.

2. As far a I can tell, you could still submit GD proposals that respect national sovereignty.

I hereby give notice of intent to raise a parliamentary inquiry tomorrow, when I have more time to properly phrase it, regarding the scope of limitations which this proposal seeks to require and a possible loophole which I have noticed. This inquiry may demand a binding ruling from the Chair.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador

I invite Lord Evif to do so. I considered the proposal's legality at length on several occassions and could not find that it broke any rules, but maybe I missed something.

Oh it's certainly not making it mandatory, but the intent has still been expressed in a previous legislative document and that's what matters. Nobody is saying that intent can't be changed... but the security act makes specific provision for previously passed still active legislation and technically the text of the repeal qualifies.

Yeah, but as a repeal, it can't require anything but the repeal of the resolution. Intent is a fickle thing in Nationstates.

Consider my repeal of "Legalize Prostitution". I wrote the repeal in the vein of "if we allow nations flexibility regarding this industry, they can better maintain health standards in their individual situations." However, "Sex Workers Rights Act" (I think that's the right name; I'm always forgetting it :() argued the opposite way: that all UN nations must conform to certain ideology regarding the containment of disease among prostitution. Both were passed, though they had opposite ideologies.

This is allowable because their differences were in their preambulatory clauses: ie. clauses that state a position, or premise, that becomes the basis for the action a resolution performs. Since repeals can have only one active clause (and that is to repeal the previous legislation), everything else is a preambulatory clause--arguments, not official or enforced in any way. If my proposal had been a resolution stating that nations should be allowed flexibility in managing prostitution then Sex Industry Workers Act would've been illegal until a repeal of my resolution had occurred.

So, what I'm saying is that the premises and arguments of your repeal are not codified into UN law (as we can see in the disagreement in resolution-repeal views on prostitution). And that's because they're preambulatory clauses, and that's because repeals can only have one active clause: to repeal.

Consider it this way... the repeal itself specifically reserves the right within its text for the UN to effectively reverse it with the passage of a future replacement biological weapons ban... and even should your resolution pass, it was passed first.

I don't recall the repeal reserving any rights at all. There's certainly nothing in the text that indicates you are reserving any rights.

IT IS PROPOSED: This resolution be repealed so that it may be replaced with a new, effective resolution.

1. Looks like you PROPOSED that it be repealed so that it could be replaced with an effective resolution.

2. And if you can prove that you did "reserve the right within its text for the UN to effectively reverse it with the passage of a future replacement biological weapons ban," then your repeal is illegal because it attempts new legislation, and my proposal is still not illegal.

In neither your interpretation of the text or mine does your repeal make UNSA illegal, but under your interpretation your repeal is illegal.

When even Vastiva and Flibbleites are expressing concerns about the legality of a resolution that attempts to protect the right to possess deadly weaponry it might be safe to assume it presents a problem.

Problem for some people, yes. That's hardly new. UN resolutions have been presenting a problem to some of its members since the beginning.

The question of legality is one I thought long and hard about and have attemted to clear up here, but ultimately requires a Mod or Admin ruling.

The fact that it appears evident that the resolution was heavily campaigned for in secret without ever publicizing its existence in the forums would probably indicate even its author is aware of this.

I was well aware that there would be bitching and moaning and claims that it is "illegal," yes. That's hardly incentive for me to post it on the forum.

1. Looks like you PROPOSED that it be repealed so that it could be replaced with an effective resolution.

And that proposal was accepted by an overwhelming vote of the general UN membership.

2. And if you can prove that you did "reserve the right within its text for the UN to effectively reverse it with the passage of a future replacement biological weapons ban," then your repeal is illegal because it attempts new legislation, and my proposal is still not illegal.

Like I said in edit before this was posted, we'll let the mods make the call on whether it constituted a statement that was an integral PART of the active repeal clause. A condition of the repeal so to speak. It would not be new legislation and thus not illegal, it would simply be saying the repeal itself was passed with the intent it be reversed in the future. Not an unalterable intent, but still an intent that is part of the legislative record.

Problem for some people, yes. That's hardly new.

Those aren't just "people", they're ardent supporters of the right to possess pretty much any weapon a nation wants and even they are expressing concerns about the legality of a proposal with exactly that sentiment.

The question of legality is one I thought long and hard about and have attemted to clear up here, but ultimately requires a Mod or Admin ruling.

I was well aware that there would be bitching and moaning and claims that it is "illegal," yes. That's hardly incentive for me to post it on the forum.

It might be incentive for you to clear it with the mods first, which apparently you didnt attempt to do. Or if you thought it wouldn't clear if it was brought to their attention it might be incentive to give the proposal as low a profile as possible until it reached the vote in the hopes nobody would pick up on the problem.

Before I begin my request, I wish to note my interpretation of the Nuclear Armaments ruling (which, for the record, I disagreed with) would find this proposal to be legal. I also wish to state for the record that the proposal now has 102 approvals, requiring 45 to attain quorum. I wish to speak to another loophole, however.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

Mr. Secretary-General, I rise to a parliamentary inquiry. If a proposal specifically declared in its text that a type of weapon was in all cases unnecessary for defense, would that proposal be permissible if the current regime passes?

A proposal to this effect would be similar to the one I will now read, but with more explanatory and descriptive clauses:

The United Nations,

DETERMINING that there is no situation in which $weapon is necessary for a nation's defense,

DECLARES that no UN member nation may possess or use $weapon.

[EDIT && ooc: A "parliamentary inquiry" is my IC way of requesting a formal moderator opinion on legality, which I don't think was quite clear. Of course, speculation from other forum users on what I've suggested here is quite welcome.]

Varia Yefremova says nothing, but her smile at Lord Evif's pronouncement speaks volumes.

I wish to speak to another loophole, however.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

Mr. Secretary-General, I rise to a parliamentary inquiry. If a proposal specifically declared in its text that a type of weapon was in all cases unnecessary for defense, would that proposal be permissible if the current regime passes?

A proposal to this effect would be similar to the one I will now read, but with more explanatory and descriptive clauses:

The United Nations,

DETERMINING that there is no situation in which $weapon is necessary for a nation's defense,

DECLARES that no UN member nation may possess or use $weapon.

I don't personally view that as a "loophole", per se. Yes, I agree that such a proposal would be legal, and, if it's reasonable and argued well, I might even welcome such a proposal.

The reason I don't think it's a "loophole" is because I don't interpret Texan Hotrodders's proposal as "outlawing weapons bans" in the first place. I interpret it as "outlawing weapons bans on weapons necessary for the defense of UN nations": whichever weapons those are. So, rather than legalizing all weapon types not already banned, this resolution establishes the UN's rubric upon which weapon types should be assessed for banning. I like this rubric, and I like the way Texan Hotrodders's proposal goes about it.

I don't personally view that as a "loophole", per se. Yes, I agree that such a proposal would be legal, and, if it's reasonable and argued well, I might even welcome such a proposal.

The reason I don't think it's a "loophole" is because I don't interpret Texan Hotrodders's proposal as "outlawing weapons bans" in the first place. I interpret it as "outlawing weapons bans on weapons necessary for the defense of UN nations": whichever weapons those are. So, rather than legalizing all weapon types not already banned, this resolution establishes the UN's rubric upon which weapon types should be assessed for banning. I like this rubric, and I like the way Texan Hotrodders's proposal goes about it.

Don't think that'll fly. By that logic, you can have people going "what do you mean that weapon is not necessary in the defense of my nation. My enemy has it so obviously I need to be able to match it!" That just adds waaaaaaay too many prongs of legality issues and what constitues a "necessary" weapon - meaning basically - either you have FULL room to maneuver (because you can argue that NO weapon is necessary because we can always fight with our fists) or NO room to maneuver (because different nations will find different weapons pivotal in their own defense and base their defense on that)

So, in effect, this resolution does nothing? Noted.

By saying it does nothing, I'll note that most weapons bans argue the weapon is unnecessary, part of why most don't reach quorum. Under this, those are still legal, using PC's interpretation. This just requires that added to others.

Before I begin my request, I wish to note my interpretation of the Nuclear Armaments ruling (which, for the record, I disagreed with) would find this proposal to be legal. I also wish to state for the record that the proposal now has 102 approvals, requiring 45 to attain quorum. I wish to speak to another loophole, however.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

Mr. Secretary-General, I rise to a parliamentary inquiry. If a proposal specifically declared in its text that a type of weapon was in all cases unnecessary for defense, would that proposal be permissible if the current regime passes?

A proposal to this effect would be similar to the one I will now read, but with more explanatory and descriptive clauses:

The United Nations,

DETERMINING that there is no situation in which $weapon is necessary for a nation's defense,

DECLARES that no UN member nation may possess or use $weapon.

For the record, I'm aware of that loophole too. Also for the record, I intentionally left that loophole in text, hoping that it would not be abused...but rather used to make sure that the UNSA could not be construed in any way as justifying random attacks with powerful weapons.

Those aren't just "people", they're ardent supporters of the right to possess pretty much any weapon a nation wants and even they are expressing concerns about the legality of a proposal with exactly that sentiment.



It might be incentive for you to clear it with the mods first, which apparently you didnt attempt to do. Or if you thought it wouldn't clear if it was brought to their attention it might be incentive to give the proposal as low a profile as possible until it reached the vote in the hopes nobody would pick up on the problem.

For the record, I did consider asking for a Mod ruling on the legality of it, but after a lengthy analysis of the proposal, couldn't find anything questionable enough to justify such a request. It's possible that I missed something, but it was not a bad-faith effort on my part.

UNSA FAQ

Q: What's the point of the UNSA?

A: The function of the UNSA is threefold. It establishes a "rubric" that provides a standard that weapons made and used by UN members should be defensive in their use. It attempts to help ameliorate future legislation that would harm the ability of members to defend themselves from attack. It's major practical function from a roleplaying standpoint is that it encourages nations to provide security for their citizens from possible attack by hostile nations.


Q: Why did you propose this?

A: Because I saw a need for it. That's why we all make proposals.


Q: Is it legal?

A: As far as I can tell, yes.


Q: Why is it legal, given what it does? Doesn't it limit future legislation, and affect passed legislation (which would be an amendment)?

A: First, limiting the power of the UN through a positive statement that implicitly makes future proposals illegal was ruled legal by three Mods.

(If anybody wants me to explain why it should be legal given the nature of the UN I can do that again.)

Second, it avoids being an amendment (and therefore illegal) by making an exception for "passed legislation still in effect", an example of which would be the Ban on Chemical Weapons. The ban on chemical weapons would still be in force were the UNSA to pass.


Q: Can I get around it?

A: Of course. There are several loopholes that you could exploit, just like in most legislation.

And that proposal was accepted by an overwhelming vote of the general UN membership.
You are making assumptions based on voting patterns. Many people voted for the repeal, but would never support any possible replacement resolution. I should know, I'm one of them.

Pretty much, all the sovereigntists and militarists you had supporting the repeal will abandon your cause, regardless of what you said in the repeal text.

Pretty much, all the sovereigntists and militarists you had supporting the repeal will abandon your cause, regardless of what you said in the repeal text.
It's like in the US (RL reference): the majority voted for a republican presidential candidate, yet the majority also still approve of abortion. Different issues yield different voting turnouts. The issue of repealing the past resolution, however worded, is different from (and thus producoing a different result from) the issue of replacing the weapons ban.

You are making assumptions based on voting patterns.

No, I'm not. I'm simply noting the vote.

Many people voted for the repeal, but would never support any possible replacement resolution. I should know, I'm one of them.

Irrelevent to my argument. You voted for the repeal you voted for.

Pretty much, all the sovereigntists and militarists you had supporting the repeal will abandon your cause, regardless of what you said in the repeal text.

I'm aware. Also irrelevent to the argument I presented.

No, I'm not. I'm simply noting the vote.



Irrelevent to my argument. You voted for the repeal you voted for.



I'm aware. Also irrelevent to the argument I presented.

You sound waaaaaaay too much like you're grasping for straws....

Before I begin my request, I wish to note my interpretation of the Nuclear Armaments ruling (which, for the record, I disagreed with) would find this proposal to be legal. I also wish to state for the record that the proposal now has 102 approvals, requiring 45 to attain quorum. I wish to speak to another loophole, however.


OOC: You still disagree with the arguments from the __three__ moderators about the legality of Nuclear Armaments? I don't. I've voted against the resolution, but I think that it is in fact well written and 100% consistent with the rules. *ALL* resolutions are recommendations. The idea that a true Federal structure exists and that I can rewrite your roleplay goes counter to one of the most basic ideas of NationStates. The changes incurred via the passage of a UN resolution in each of our countries can be attributed to many different mechanisms and things, and I certainly think that a resolution reaffirming a practice that currently exists *is* realistic (i.e. I can point to this in the RL UN) and actually in this particular case worth the UN's attention. Flib pointed out two prior failed attempts to restrict nukes and wanted something on the record.

Believe, I might not approve with the idea, but I don't see any reason to hide my attack on weapons of mass destruction behind a set of technicalities that don't exist.

I'm bringing this up, with the hopes of convincing you that the ruling that was made *was* the right ruling. :) If you're still not convinced, let's talk in another thread (perhaps even forum) about the mechanics some more, as I see this as being important to the two of us.

For further information...

My post on the ACA forum (http://invisionfree.com/forums/CACE/index.php?showtopic=3163) will be reprinted here. (Note: I'm Supercaria.)

The Mods decided explicitly that this type of limitation was legal in the case of Flibbleites's Nuclear Armaments Resolution.

As far as I can tell, the reason it's legal is that it doesn't mean a change to game mechanics or explicitly mandating Moderator action, which would be game mechanics and metagame violations respectively.

In the case of every proposal we see a positive statement that makes its opposite illegal. Take for example a resolution that says, "Gay marriage is now legal in all member nations." In the case of this resolution becoming law, all proposals that would make gay marriage illegal are now in violation of the rules because they contradict previous legislation, and as such they are removed from the queue by the Mods.

In the case of Nuclear Armaments and the UNSA, we see a similar thing. But this time instead of mandating a national policy that reserves rights to individuals, it mandates an international policy that reserves rights to member nations. The only critical difference between the two types of resolutions is the legal scope, which is not a violation of the rules.

In the case of Nuclear Armaments and the UNSA, we see a similar thing. But this time instead of mandating a national policy that reserves rights to individuals, it mandates an international policy that reserves rights to member nations. The only critical difference between the two types of resolutions is the legal scope, which is not a violation of the rules.

Actually I *personally* think this is a much more respectiful way to legislate opinions (which is all resolutions are). You certainly have my support in this approach. Now I just need to look at the subject matter and stop focusing on the mechanics of the proposal. ;)

Well worded. Will help UN Member nations a whole lot.





My Approval made this Proposal reach Quorum.

Well worded. Will help UN Member nations a whole lot.

My Approval made this Proposal reach Quorum.

My office thanks you. Much appreciated.

Deputy Minister of UN Affairs
-Thomas Smith

For purposes of debate, I yield all rights granted to me as the starter of this thread to the sponsor of the resolution. I will also make any requested edits to indicate the status of the resolution that its sponsor desires.

Needless to say, I will be voting against this resolution when it reaches the floor as a limitation of United Nations authority, just as I voted against Nuclear Armaments, the current resolution at vote.

I don't think that this thread is the best place to discuss the Nuclear Armaments precedent, but I would be happy to address the remarks of the representative from Mikitivity at another designated location.

I yield the floor.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador

For purposes of debate, I yield all rights granted to me as the starter of this thread to the sponsor of the resolution. I will also make any requested edits to indicate the status of the resolution that its sponsor desires.

Needless to say, I will be voting against this resolution when it reaches the floor as a limitation of United Nations authority, just as I voted against Nuclear Armaments, the current resolution at vote.

I don't think that this thread is the best place to discuss the Nuclear Armaments precedent, but I would be happy to address the remarks of the representative from Mikitivity at another designated location.

I yield the floor.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador

Thank you.

I'd like to raise of point of inquiry directed to the Goobergunchian Ambassador.

Aside from the issue of United Nations authority, which my government firmly believes is a very tenuous position to hold given that nations can enter and withdrawl from the UN on a moments notice -- thus suggesting that UN resolutions are only effective when they are viewed as statements of international will, my government would be interested in your government's appraisal as to the likely international impacts on international security that this resolution may have.

Would it be possible for you to summarize (perhaps again) your government's projection on the impacts of this resolution?

The Triumvirate of Enn cannot support this proposal. We believe it is taking the doctrine of national sovereignty too far, and is in danger of closing down an entire UN proposal type.

I'd like to offer Messrs Smith and Jones my sincere congratulations on their proposal achieving quorum. My country's vote on the matter is as yet undetermined, but this is immaterial, since we are the current elected delegate for the ACA and are thus constrained by the regional constitution to vote as our comrades instruct us.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

And here I thought it was Smith and Wesson... :p

Sorry for not using my Mod account, but I'm currently on a work computer. OPSEC and all that. However, I'm not handing down a proclimation, so we should be safe. Chancellor Birdstuff will just have to sit off to the side for this post.

At any rate, this seems to largely a semantics argument, and a question of where one draws the line. Is legalizing a single weapons style (ie: n00kz) a different animal than legalizing all weapons styles (which this act is attempting).

I don't feel especially comfortable with making a distinction between the two, because we run the risk of wondering just how much you can legalize. Is two systems allowed? What about three? Is four too many?

The other concern I have is the loophole and how one would adjudicate on such a thing. In theory, one could ban any weapon style simply by including a line such as: "REALISING that knives and guns are not necessary for the defence of a nation..." Potentially, one could argue that if no UN nations have any weapons of any sort, they won't be needed for defence (at least against other UN nations).

Granted, nobody has seriously attempted to outlaw "slug-throwers" via the UN, it seems to focus on NBCs, which brings us to questions regarding the legitimacy of MAD-as-defence.

If nothing else, this thing certainly makes my life more complicated.

However, once I get a chance, I will review this Proposal with Fris and see if we can't figure out an official stance. Since current voting doesn't end until Sunday, we still have a couple days. As I have demonstrated in the past (Olympics, Hippos...), being in quorum is not proof against removal.

My primary concern is where this Proposal could potentially take us. I'm worried that semantic back flips will be used more and more, and we'll quickly find a UN that is unable to do anything except Repeal.

My primary concern is where this Proposal could potentially take us. I'm worried that semantic back flips will be used more and more, and we'll quickly find a UN that is unable to do anything except Repeal.

Isn't this of the same nature as "National Systems of Taxation"? And what was the arguement for leaving that one in queue and legal - opening the door to things like the Security Act?

I'm rather curious why if one was decidedly legal, the next of the same sort has a question attached - purely as a discussion point.

At any rate, this seems to largely a semantics argument, and a question of where one draws the line. Is legalizing a single weapons style (ie: n00kz) a different animal than legalizing all weapons styles (which this act is attempting).

I don't feel especially comfortable with making a distinction between the two, because we run the risk of wondering just how much you can legalize. Is two systems allowed? What about three? Is four too many?

That's where I disagree. I don't think this proposal is trying to "legalize all weapons styles”. I believe it's trying to legalize all weapons styles necessary for a nation’s defense. It's a categorization that's different than ‘nuclear’, ‘chemical’, or ‘biological’ weapons classifications so often argued, but I still think it's just one weapon categorization rather than three or four. It is more variable than the weapon type legalized in Nuclear Armaments in that it's just determined by what the UN or member nations feel(s) is a legitimate definition of an “unnecessary” weapon type—but I still only count one weapon type legalized.

To me, this proposal affirms the UN's opinion that nations should have the right to defend themselves with the weapon types necessary to do so--however that necessity is defined by international or national legislatures. This reminds me a lot of Texan Hotrodders's first resolution (Right to Self-Protection), which assured individual citizens the right to defend themselves--it just didn't set down UN-wide rules for how that was done (ie. what was “reasonable force”). It also reminds me of many other resolutions, which have placed the ability to define terms or actions up to the member nations (this, to a certain degree, includes every resolution).

But anyway, Right to Self-Protection didn't specifically block any future proposal that says "citizens can't kill people for stealing their purses", it just defines the parameters through which this could be legislated (that such an action would have to be classified as "unreasonable force") and how such a resolution is justified in the presence of that confirmed right of individuals to defend themselves. I personally find this flexibility in legislation to be refreshingly responsible stewardship.

ASIDE: As far as this proposal "blocking future, possibly good, proposals", if anything, this proposal would block fewer resolutions than, say, Definition of Marriage, which blocks all proposals trying to define marriage a different way or allow nations to determine the definition of marriage themselves--regardless of these proposals' qualities or vices. Just about all resolutions block some proposals. This one, however, leaves legislators options to ban weapons still. I find it more allowing of future proposal ideas than resolutions which impose a universal UN policy on a certain issue.

My primary concern is where this Proposal could potentially take us. I'm worried that semantic back flips will be used more and more, and we'll quickly find a UN that is unable to do anything except Repeal.

Well, I think that if that day is approaching, it’s approaching with or without this proposal--or even this proposal type. More and more resolutions are in play; we’re going to be running out of obvious issues to address anyway. I think resolutions like this that direct discussion and state the UN’s opinion on an issue as something which is arguable (in that it doesn’t name weapon types that are ‘necessary’) to be less harbingers of such a Repeal-Only Period as other, more absolute, resolutions.

Consider the current United Nation Security Act’s evil twin, which adds to the end, “x, y, and z weapon types are ‘necessary’”: Which one restricts future proposals more?

My primary concern is where this Proposal could potentially take us. I'm worried that semantic back flips will be used more and more, and we'll quickly find a UN that is unable to do anything except Repeal.

That's one of my concerns as well. This new technique for reserving nation's rights could be abused in an effort to bring the UN to a screeching halt and destroying its ability to legislate even on true international issues, something I tried very hard to avoid by leaving nice loopholes. The bad thing is that there may be some people who would actually want to bring the UN to a standstill, but fortunately those people are relatively few and I don't see it as a real threat to the UN at this time. I think it's something we need to keep an eye on, just like micromanagement of domestic affairs, which if taken far enough could also lead to a point where the UN can only do repeals of human rights resolutions and not write more of them. Goobergunchia previously expressed a concern that the UN is slowly running out of things to do as it is, which is true. It would be quite a while before it happened, but it is a valid concern about the future of the UN's ability to legislate.

You and PC let the demon out of the bottle, and the mods let it go. "Concern" or "worry" now is hypocritical - you didn't have to do it, you did do it, your emotional state is now an invalid concern.

I mean really - the absolute point of the Nat Sov POV is to bring the UN to a screaching halt, unable to do anything as every piece of legislation will in some way affect a decision a nation could have made themselves.

Setting yourself on fire does not mean I have to pity you the burns.

You and PC let the demon out of the bottle, and the mods let it go. "Concern" or "worry" now is hypocritical - you didn't have to do it, you did do it, your emotional state is now an invalid concern.

I mean really - the absolute point of the Nat Sov POV is to bring the UN to a screaching halt, unable to do anything as every piece of legislation will in some way affect a decision a nation could have made themselves.

Setting yourself on fire does not mean I have to pity you the burns.

Different people define sovereignty in different ways.

Edit: To clarify this...

This disagreement is probably related to our disparate understandings of what constitutes sovereignty. I don't believe that anything can be the sovereign (aside from an omnipotent deity) because all other entities have limitations placed on their sovereignty by the presence of their environment and the presence of other entities. I do believe; however, that one can be sovereign over one's own affairs that are within your proper scope of authority. Thus a national government is sovereign over affairs that are national in nature, a municipality is sovereign over affairs that are municipal in nature, a person is sovereign over those affairs which are personal in nature. Admittedly, this is an ideal. In the real world the various entities are constantly eroding each other's sovereignty over their own affairs.

You and PC let the demon out of the bottle, and the mods let it go. "Concern" or "worry" now is hypocritical - you didn't have to do it, you did do it, your emotional state is now an invalid concern.

I mean really - the absolute point of the Nat Sov POV is to bring the UN to a screaching halt, unable to do anything as every piece of legislation will in some way affect a decision a nation could have made themselves.

Setting yourself on fire does not mean I have to pity you the burns.Not as an invitation to a p_ss_ng match, but it is not at all clear that this is the goal of the NSO.

For me, at least, the issue is one of centralised authority vs. decentralised authority, and - even more to the point - striking a balance between the two.

There are some issues that simply can not be addressed by individual nations; but there are some issues that should not be legislated by a global authority, especially in a universe where we have nations made up of dogs, cats, robots, turtles, and everything else under the sun.

Proponents of centralisation look at the world in universalist terms: these things we legislate are true for all people (two leggeds, four leggeds, winged people, swimming people, standing people, stone people, and creepy-crawlies, to speak in the words of a Ute roadman I once knew). I have a puppet nation made up of unisex aliens (inspired by 2300's Kafers). The issue of gay marriage is meaningless to them...

And so this is why we have these people popping in and saying, "but $resolution doesn't work for my people". There's a guy on the boards right now who wants to repeal the child labour statutes because some of his people only live a dozen years. You and I have argued with people who think that ideal waste treatment procedures for Third World countries should apply to space colonies. Treat everyone the same, and the United Nations will eventually become the "Organisation of Nearly Identical Nations with Unique Names and Flags".

Yet that doesn't mean that we have to refrain from doing anything - or should. I have files containing draft resolutions that aim to establish a Wilsonian collective security model to prevent aggression (Hack will probably fry me for that, but c'est la vie); I'm working on a framework for a Common Market; I'm trying to come up with a way for us to pass some of the authority for implementing U.N. resolutions to Regional Governments. There's a lot to do and still leave room for people to build the kinds of countries they want to build rather than clones of a universal archetype.

Anyway, that's probably more that I should say in a debate on parliamentary procedure. I do think, though, that the genie that's been let out of the bottle here doesn't mean that we're in for a paralysed United Nations. I just think that it will make the politics of the U.N. a whole lot more interesting.

And with that, I'll shut up and let the mods rule.

I disagree that "National Sovereignty" is anti-UN.

I've written five of the UN resolutions that have been adopted, and most of them passed by some of the larger margins of victory (meaning that liberals and conservatives --- sovereign rights and international federalists --- alike felt they were well written resolutions).

Let's look at those resolutions:

Ballast Water -- 13,485 vs. 3,505, Mar 14 2004

OK, though Jamalya was the author of record, I was new to the game in early 2004 and when I saw Jamalya's draft proposal on ballast water being blasted by people who honestly didn't know what invasive species were much less understood international shipping policies, I took it upon myself to give Jamalya a suggested rewrite of his idea. In real life I'm a registered civil engineer who works in the water quality field, meaning I attend 1-2 professional conferences where topics like this come up. I pulled upon this to build a better resolution ... Jamalya customized this a bit.

But look at why this environmental resolution passed with one of the larger support ratios?

The language of the resolution is "RECOMMENDS", "FURTHER RECOMMENDS", SUGGESTS", and "REQUESTS". The activating clauses are respectiful of nations.

Now look at what it *really* did: it comes up with a specific depth / location for cycling tanks. It explains why ships cycle ballast. It proposes that nations come up with their own unique language for an alternative procedure (nitrogen deoxification). Provides another general operational constraint. And then throws a bone to shipping industries.

The truth is this resolution stated a problem, and gave multiple recommendations. It did not mandate one single solution in a one-sized fits all approach. It is what sovereignty is all about ... working to find local solutions to global problems.

My second resolution was originally a set of amendements I wrote to the failed Space Defense Initiative. The Tracking Near Earth Objects had the highest number of UN Delegate endorses in NationStates history up through late 2004, breaking 300 endorsements.

That resolution had a strong show of support too: 12,351 to 3,273, especially for a resolution that stat-wankers complained increased their militaries. :/ I had a number of liberals vote against this and call me a Nazi in emails for this one (though oddly I had a number of Nazis claim that they loved this one).

Anyways, much of this resolution talks about what NEOs are and how there is a need for cooperation in tracking them. The text of the resolution is again weak. I didn't pass some drinking age or new law on nations, but tried to focus purely on international problems and then give recommendations on how to solve them.

My third resolution: Needle Sharing Prevention was a result of liberals asking me specifically to do something with HIV/AIDS. Though we had a resolution on the subject already, nobody had yet addressed drug addiction in NationStates. But look how I handled the "social justice" issue ... I spent most of my resolution explaining a new radical management approach, and then gave only recommendations. Again, I didn't come up with working for a domestic law, nor did I assume that nations had a Food and Drug Administration or any other rookie mistake. The resolution did have the support of many conservative regions, including many Gatesville nations, who said that they liked a liberal who didn't force his world view on their nations.

My fourth resolution was a tribute to the men and women who came to New York City after 9/11 to render medical aid and help rebuild the city. Not the fire fighters, but the doctors and engineers ... Good Samaritan Laws passed with my lowest majority: 10,303 to 3,990, largely because of stat wanking. The UN records will show many players complaining about "a resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency".

In 2002 there was a massive earthquake in Mexico. As a registered public sector engineer I asked my office if I could be sent to Mexico to access the structural stability of any earthen canals or water treatment facilities (something for which I'm legally qualified). The State of California refused to send me or any other engineers on account of the lack of an agreement between California and Mexico about the liability of California engineers in emergency situtations. New York and other US states have changed these laws to account for this, but given a real-life international concern, I felt strongly that this should be addressed via domestic immunity laws.

Again, I didn't spell out the exact language of the immunity laws, but only explained why they were necessary and that nations should design laws to encourage international humanitarian aid. I again took a LIBERAL position but respected sovereignty.

My last resolution was co-written with help from Groot Gouda and Grosseschnauzer and again returned to another area I'm comfortable with: __water__. :) It was obviously in response to the Boxing Day tsunami that took over 200,000 human lives. :( But instead of forcing a single language this resolution attempted to respect sovereignty and focus on an international organization (TEWC). Though this resolution represents the largest top down approach I've been involved in (we did ask nations to develop a standardized warning system, with travelers in mind), I think it is fair to say that given any topic, a UN resolution will always be able to take a LIBERAL position and yet respect sovereignty at the same time.

Sovereignty and the UN are not enemies. In fact, had resolutions that took a more "We will tell you how to run your country" approach toned down their own language, I think they would get more votes and that more nations would be in the UN today.

When nations have left the UN in a huff, I've rarely seen my resolutions being including in the list of reasons to leave. They are liberal ... giving needles to drug users? Funding early warning systems? Making emergency volunteer workers immune to civil law suits? These are not the types of things you'd see a real-life American Republican Supreme Court justice ever uphold. But by carefully designing resolutions to at the very least acknowledge local rule, I've painted a much smaller target on these ideas.

The reason I've joined the National Sovereignty Organization as an observer and feel that statements like "sovereignty is tearing apart the UN" are rather ignorant, is based on both NationStates and real life experience where by giving power back to locals (be in imaginary nations in NationStates or in real life where I give things to local farmers and water districts as part of my job), that you can STRENGTHEN the United Nations or whatever else you are doing.

I've got a problem with the phrasing of this one, and the precedent claim in "National Systems of Tax". I don't thnk it applies, and I'm pretty sure that my voice is one of the three that were considered as defining the National Tax ruling.

I don't beleive the claimed National Tax precedent has any bearing on the legality of this proposal, as the effect of Tax is internal, whereas Security is external. I fail to see where any form of economic warfare through tax policy can be equated with military warfare through weaponry. "Defensive" weapons are typically designed to be used on the enemy, rather than on your own territory. That creates an internationalist component that is missing in the National Tax resolution.

An internally set tax could conceivable cause some economic hardship on an external trading partner, but another nation's tax policy does not directly damage my nation. It may cause me to change to a more conducive set of trading partners, but the damage is indirect. Having an enemy drop "defensive weapons" on my sovereign soil is direct damage. Therein lies the difference.

Without the precedent, the argument for restricting future weapon bans by the UN falls apart. I would state the this proposal would be entirely legal with the removal of the two red words below, but in my opinion that would entirely gut the intent of the resolution.
DECLARES that all member states have the right to construct and utilize any and all weapons that are necessary to defend their nation from attack, except where previous legislation by this body that is still in effect has placed restrictions on that right.Based on this evaluation, I will recommend that the game mods remove this proposal before it reaches the floor.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Moderation Team



For reference purposes, the relevant section of National Systems of Tax:
4 DECLARES it the right of the individual member nation, ultimately, to determine its individual system of tax without interference by the United Nations,

That is to say, we RESERVE the right for individual nations to determine ‘who’, ‘what’, ‘how’, and ‘how much’ to tax--exclusively and independently (including, but not limited to, a nation’s tax model, tax exemptions, those who are taxed,tax rates, targeted taxation and all other choices regarding a nation's system of tax), excluding, of course, cases in which the United Nations has already resolved upon international standards for certain aspects of a member nation's system of taxation at the time of the passing of this resolution.

Without the precedent, the argument for restricting future weapon bans by the UN falls apart. I would state the this proposal would be entirely legal with the removal of the two red words below, but in my opinion that would entirely gut the intent of the resolution.
Based on this evaluation, I will recommend that the game mods remove this proposal before it reaches the floor.

First, I think your point about those two red words is well stated. My opinion. But given that it has taken many active UN members this long to really look at this, I'm requesting that no moderation warning for illegal proposals be taken on any NationStates player for whatever action the moderators take.

Furthermore, I'd like to suggest that since you'd said that this proposal would be entirely legal minus those two words, that the authors be allowed to resubmit an amended version and try again (hint, grab those endorsements now).

I'm requesting that no moderation warning for illegal proposals be taken on any NationStates player for whatever action the moderators take.
Not only that, but I'd welcome other perspectives on my ruling. If I've overlooked an aspect of the precedent, let me know. We've still got time for review while the current proposal is At Vote.

Not only that, but I'd welcome other perspectives on my ruling. If I've overlooked an aspect of the precedent, let me know. We've still got time for review while the current proposal is At Vote.

It will come as no surprise considering the discussions that have already occured on this topic that I am in agreement with the ruling. The proposal was clearly attempting to place a barrier in the path of any future proposals in the category of Global Disarmnament, and the fact that (as argued by its proponents) there were loopholes by which that barrier could be bypassed does not alter that the main thrust of the proposal was placing a restriction on an entire category of future legislation.

Different people define sovereignty in different ways.


TH, it doesn't matter how you define it, that's as meaningless as saying if you legalize drugs you didn't mean alcohol as well. A drug is a drug.

And you opened a door - it doesn't matter who you wanted to come through and didn't, the door is now open. Having put a puncture in the dam, the water will now come through - it will pay absolutely no attention to your desires in the matter.

The problem with the Nat Sov crowd and these recent bits of legislation is the entire lack of forethought - you are doing, then going "Hey, wait a minute, this might not be an entirely good precedent to set". By then, it's like hearing your toilet flush and the child go "Uh 0h..." - it's already too late.

By the way, a standard waterbed will fill a 2000 sq ft house to a uniform depth of about four inches.

Not as an invitation to a p_ss_ng match, but it is not at all clear that this is the goal of the NSO.

For me, at least, the issue is one of centralised authority vs. decentralised authority, and - even more to the point - striking a balance between the two.


Again, irrelevant, and I cut all the other bits. It no longer matters what you want to have happen, the precedent has been set that "legislation can leash the UN's ability to do anything". This contravenes the rules, has been stated as legal, and will immobilize the UN as a whole because the precedent has been set. It will keep getting used until all categories are rendered irrelevant because of some legislative bit or other - in essence, you've discovered nuclear war in the legislature, and created a climate where nothing is going to be able to happen but repeals.

You as a group did not think of the long term ramifications. That is the tragic flaw in your actions, accept it or not.

Not only that, but I'd welcome other perspectives on my ruling. If I've overlooked an aspect of the precedent, let me know. We've still got time for review while the current proposal is At Vote.


4 DECLARES it the right of the individual member nation, ultimately, to determine its individual system of tax without interference by the United Nations,

That is to say, we RESERVE the right for individual nations to determine ‘who’, ‘what’, ‘how’, and ‘how much’ to tax--exclusively and independently (including, but not limited to, a nation’s tax model, tax exemptions, those who are taxed,tax rates, targeted taxation and all other choices regarding a nation's system of tax), excluding, of course, cases in which the United Nations has already resolved upon international standards for certain aspects of a member nation's system of taxation at the time of the passing of this resolution.

Sorry, Fris, but its exactly the same - both prohibit any later action directly.
NST does it by stating "we prohibit all taxes not already in place", which immoblizes the UN ability to raise taxes via proposal any longer.

UNSA does exactly the same thing only to the military portion instead of economic. The arguement of "internal vs external" you placed is irrelevant - NST destroyed the ability of the UN to levy taxes on the UN as a whole, which is a global event. The equivalence is there - both banned a form of legislation completely: NST, all taxes, UNSA, all weapons bans. Both are equally undermining - and no amount of semantic backflippery will show it as any different.

I've got a problem with the phrasing of this one, and the precedent claim in "National Systems of Tax". I don't thnk it applies, and I'm pretty sure that my voice is one of the three that were considered as defining the National Tax ruling.

In which case, I must openly disagree. Both NSoT and UNSA limit UN powers based on the idea of giving it to the nations. The only difference is the subject matter they affect. They both utilize the same mechanisms to affect something, while at the same time they both restrict the UN's ability to influence the internal decisions a state makes, whether it be what kind of weapons to give they military or what taxes to leavy on their citizens.

I don't beleive the claimed National Tax precedent has any bearing on the legality of this proposal, as the effect of Tax is internal, whereas Security is external. I fail to see where any form of economic warfare through tax policy can be equated with military warfare through weaponry. "Defensive" weapons are typically designed to be used on the enemy, rather than on your own territory. That creates an internationalist component that is missing in the National Tax resolution.

It creates no more of an internationalist component than the NSoT does. the NSoT prevents the UN from making laws about tariffs, a form of tax with an international scope, while this potentially prevents the UN from making decisions about what weapons can be given to militaries, which is only an international event in the case where a war breaks out. In both cases, international relations are directly affected.

An internally set tax could conceivable cause some economic hardship on an external trading partner, but another nation's tax policy does not directly damage my nation. It may cause me to change to a more conducive set of trading partners, but the damage is indirect. Having an enemy drop "defensive weapons" on my sovereign soil is direct damage. Therein lies the difference.

Having an enemy place, and enforce, a tax on all shipments of yours that passes through their territory right before expanding to where your goods must go through their territory to reach a certain ally is another case where you are directly affected and hurt. Considering the issues of space and how easy it is for nations to combine and split apart, I must say I see no merit in your arguement that doesn't amount to secretly hoping an enemy doesn't cut off one of your trade routes through perfectly-legal expansion.

Worse, is the enemy is an economic powerhouse and sets up a tax system for imports that causes other nations to abandon trade with yours in favor of them, seriously damaging your economy. Other exploits allow for your allies to be damaged, your military partners to be effectively annexed due to economic practices, etc. In effect, I can economically destroy your nation using just my tax code and a couple of land grabs and never have to fire a shot at you.

Without the precedent, the argument for restricting future weapon bans by the UN falls apart. I would state the this proposal would be entirely legal with the removal of the two red words below, but in my opinion that would entirely gut the intent of the resolution.
Based on this evaluation, I will recommend that the game mods remove this proposal before it reaches the floor.

And I must recommend, and hope they accept, that your recommendation is ignored for not bothering to consider every aspect of how an enemy can use taxes to affect your nation. As it stands, I see no part of your post that actually refutes the precedent being applied and many cases where myself or someone else could easily exploit your statements to cause severe economic damage to your nation and then claim you said it was perfectly alright for us to do so because "another nation's tax policy does not directly damage my nation."

And, yes, I would destroy an entire nation like that just to prove a point.

I don't beleive the claimed National Tax precedent has any bearing on the legality of this proposal, as the effect of Tax is internal, whereas Security is external. I fail to see where any form of economic warfare through tax policy can be equated with military warfare through weaponry. "Defensive" weapons are typically designed to be used on the enemy, rather than on your own territory. That creates an internationalist component that is missing in the National Tax resolution.

An internally set tax could conceivable cause some economic hardship on an external trading partner, but another nation's tax policy does not directly damage my nation. It may cause me to change to a more conducive set of trading partners, but the damage is indirect. Having an enemy drop "defensive weapons" on my sovereign soil is direct damage. Therein lies the difference.

With all due respect, how is that difference relevant? In effect what I'm asking here is what basis do you have, given the current binding rules, for suggesting that the UNSA is illegal? Show me the part of the rules that make UNSA illegal, and I will be properly chastened because I missed a rather important factor in my own lengthy analysis of its legality.

Or do you intend to write a new rule? One that restricts us from making pro-sovereignty proposals of international scope just because they are of international scope (with the scope being determined based on this standard of "direct damage")?

I'm just totally lost here. :confused: It's as if someone changed the laws of physics without telling me. Very disconcerting.

Without the precedent, the argument for restricting future weapon bans by the UN falls apart. I would state the this proposal would be entirely legal with the removal of the two red words below, but in my opinion that would entirely gut the intent of the resolution.
Based on this evaluation, I will recommend that the game mods remove this proposal before it reaches the floor.

You're right. Upon review of the altered text shown below, it would indeed gut the proposal and make it entirely useless in terms of practical effect. It would make a very nice statement of principle, but not much else.

DECLARES that all member states have the right to construct and utilize any and all weapons that are necessary to defend their nation from attack, except where legislation by this body that is in effect has placed restrictions on that right.

TH, it doesn't matter how you define it, that's as meaningless as saying if you legalize drugs you didn't mean alcohol as well. A drug is a drug.

*sigh* The traditional doctrine of national sovereignty was a political philosophy that some guy with too much time on his hands made up. I'm a guy with too much time on my hands and I'm making up one too. Quite frankly, I'll define it as The Fluffy Bunny Theory or whatever the hell I want since I made it up, but national sovereignty makes more sense than the others in this context. Perhaps you would like to suggest a more accurate and distinctive name to eliminate any possible confusion? Besides, the perspective would still put me under the national sovereignty umbrella with regards to the UN no matter what name I chose for it.

And you opened a door - it doesn't matter who you wanted to come through and didn't, the door is now open. Having put a puncture in the dam, the water will now come through - it will pay absolutely no attention to your desires in the matter.

The problem with the Nat Sov crowd and these recent bits of legislation is the entire lack of forethought - you are doing, then going "Hey, wait a minute, this might not be an entirely good precedent to set". By then, it's like hearing your toilet flush and the child go "Uh 0h..." - it's already too late.


Lack of forethought? I knew this problem was coming months ago when I was paying careful attention to how the rules were written. It (the possibility that the UN could be brought to a standstill) doesn't worry me any more than the possibility of getting hit by lightning. It (the UN getting brought to a standstill) might happen by some unlikely chance, but there are things I can do to avoid it and if it happens I'm screwed anyway and there's nothing I can really do to stop it then.

I don't beleive the claimed National Tax precedent has any bearing on the legality of this proposal, as the effect of Tax is internal, whereas Security is external. I fail to see where any form of economic warfare through tax policy can be equated with military warfare through weaponry. "Defensive" weapons are typically designed to be used on the enemy, rather than on your own territory. That creates an internationalist component that is missing in the National Tax resolution.

An internally set tax could conceivable cause some economic hardship on an external trading partner, but another nation's tax policy does not directly damage my nation. It may cause me to change to a more conducive set of trading partners, but the damage is indirect. Having an enemy drop "defensive weapons" on my sovereign soil is direct damage. Therein lies the difference.
I'm not sure why internationality or nationality of a proposal--except in extreme cases--affects that proposal’s legality. I mean, if you look at the resolution "No Marriage Under 15", it was clearly an national issue, not something the UN as a whole should decide; however, it was left up to the voters to decide that resolution. I think only in extreme cases ("all old bald men should be banned from picking their ears in public"), when a proposal can be considered not worthy of the UN's consideration or way too national, is moderator action needed to prevent international issues from being shooed to a national level and national issues from being taken over by international governance. Keeping “national” and “international” issues apart seems the UN voters' prerogative.


Without the precedent, the argument for restricting future weapon bans by the UN falls apart. I would state the this proposal would be entirely legal with the removal of the two red words below, but in my opinion that would entirely gut the intent of the resolution.

I don't quite understand this. Is it being interpreted that these two words prevent future legislation because only previous proposals (still in effect) are allowed to be exceptions of this proposals?

If that's the case I'd like to point out that there's more than one way to skin a cat. That is to say, in my interpretation of the proposal, it lays out two ways which UN proposals/resolutions can restrict weapons:One, as these words express, if the weapon type has been decided by a previous resolution, how necessary it is to a nation's defense is not considered by the UN (ie. this is not a proposal that amends past decisions)

Two, if a weapon is "unnecessary" to nations defending themselves (which is up to the UN voters and proposal authors), that weapon type is completely unprotected by this proposal.

I don't think those two are the same (that the 'red words' can be interpreted as the only way exceptions to the resolution are made). But, that might not have been what you meant, Fris, so I'll just wait until someone explains the significance of these two words a little more.
I mean really - the absolute point of the Nat Sov POV is to bring the UN to a screaching halt, unable to do anything as every piece of legislation will in some way affect a decision a nation could have made themselves.That's an awfully misspent oversimplification. I think you need to do more research into what exactly Sovereigntists are saying. Neither Texan Hotrodders, nor me (nor Flibbleites, nor Mikitivity, nor anyone who says that they legitimately consider the Nat Sov POV) has expressed an interest in “bring the UN to a screeching halt”. Maybe your statement would work against newbies, or those who don’t have well-developed ideas about what issues they feel should be kept on a national level, but I really don’t see how it has any bearing--or truth--here.



EDIT: I guess I should take heart that Vastiva is reduced to a slippery-slope argument. I mean, when opponents of your point-of-view are restricted to patently false arguments how wrong can you be? :D

This reminds me a lot of how many people said "the sky is falling! the sky is falling! All UN resolutions are gone!" When repeals were first introduced. Were [i]their doomsday predictions right? About as right as the doomsday predictions in the checkout lane of the supermarket.

Wow. I must say I am amazed. We have bitter enemies and people outright opposed to this piece of legislation to the point they would actively campaign against it comming together to argue in favor of the legality of it. I'm sorry, but I have to take a screenshot of this. It may be the only time all four of us are in agreement like this.

It may be the only time all four of us are in agreement like this.
Greetings.

Does this mean all four of you, or you and three others? When trying to understand what you say, it is best never to make assumptions.

I'll formally withdraw the "internal" versus "external" argument as a moderation / legality argument. As a player, I think that it's entirely relevant, but it should have no bearing on the legality of the proposal.
I don't quite understand this. Is it being interpreted that these two words prevent future legislation because only previous proposals (still in effect) are allowed to be exceptions of this proposals?
What this proposal is saying, in essence, is "If you haven't gotten your Global Disarmanent proposal passed by now, too damn bad. We'll grandfather in the old stuff, but no more. This proposal category is closed until this resolution is repealed."

The problem lies with interpreting this line in the Game Mechanics section of the UN proposal rules:Another example of this is forbidding UN action at a future point in time -- you can't make your Resolution "Repeal-proof" or prohibit types of legislation.I'm reading this resolution as a prohibition of future Global Disarmaments proposals. I saw no such restriction with National Systems of Tax, primarily because we don't have a Tax Policy category.

To throw in a Devil's advocate position, if anyone ever gathered enough support for an omnibus Gun Control, Gambling, or Recreational Drug Use resolution, we'd be closing the door on that category as well. Nobody has ever tackled Global Disarmament in an all-or-nothing form before, and frankly it never occured to me that anyone would.

This is a tough case, which is why we're still discussing it. We've been discussing it in Modspace too, and haven't arrived at a definitive conclusion yet either. Be assured that all the arguments in this thread are being given equal consideration with our own judgements.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator

First off, this has become one of the more interesting discussions on several "What can the NS UN do" issues that I've participated in, in some time. :)

As a player, I think that it's entirely relevant, but it should have no bearing on the legality of the proposal.

And that is a perfectly good way to discuss the proposal and also bring up arguments like national sovereignty and the role of an international organization.


To throw in a Devil's advocate position, if anyone ever gathered enough support for an omnibus Gun Control, Gambling, or Recreational Drug Use resolution, we'd be closing the door on that category as well. Nobody has ever tackled Global Disarmament in an all-or-nothing form before, and frankly it never occured to me that anyone would.


I too never thought anybody would cast so large a net, but not for a lack of desire to. It seems to me that a good resolution should be about one full page, perhaps a line or two beyond that. It should be complete enough to explain why the problem is international and convincing enough that nations feel that UN action is better than simple local action.

Gun Control, Gambling, and Recreational Drug Use *might* one day get enough support if the proposal were to be like some of the Global Disarmament resolutions we've already seen: focused. For example, medical marrijauna might be legalized, while a year later somebody might manage to put forth a convincing argument that E should be made illegal on international flights. Two directions, two drugs ... maybe even two different situations.

I've certainly considered that controlling guns in airports of all places might be worth of international action, but the passage of something along those lines would not shut out future gun control resolutions.

This will be an OOC post.

For what it's worth, I would have ruled earlier that "National Systems of Tax", "Nuclear Armaments", and "United Nations Security Act" are all illegal as a limitation of future resolutions. My policy would have looked like this:

The United Nations may not consider any resolution whose sole operative effect is to alter the parameters of how future resolutions would have been considered by altering the scope of United Nations authority.

However, this ruling was not the one made, and I do not see any way of considering this resolution illegal without outlawing the other resolutions on this subject, which it's too late to do. (And I'm not going to even discuss the relevance of "UN taxation ban", resolution #4).

I'm generally a supporter of limited moderation in the case of UN resolutions, as NationStates is a game and we shouldn't be overpenalizing people for trying to play it in the manner of their choosing. (Incidentally, that also means when Lord Evif is saying that the UN will be destroyed if "Nuclear Armaments" is passing, that's In-Character and I don't really believe it. But that's another story.)

I'm reading this resolution as a prohibition of future Global Disarmaments proposals. I saw no such restriction with National Systems of Tax, primarily because we don't have a Tax Policy category.
I disagree for the reason I stated earlier in this thread. There's a rather nice loophole that would allow future "Global Disarmament" resolutions.
To throw in a Devil's advocate position, if anyone ever gathered enough support for an omnibus Gun Control, Gambling, or Recreational Drug Use resolution, we'd be closing the door on that category as well. Nobody has ever tackled Global Disarmament in an all-or-nothing form before, and frankly it never occured to me that anyone would.
I believe that it supports a position of legality on this resolution. Let's say you had something like this:
Outlaw Gambling
A resolution to legalize or outlaw gambling.

Category: Gambling
Legalize/Outlaw: Outlaw
Proposed By: $NATION

Description: All gambling is hereby prohibited in UN member nations.

For the purposes of this resolution, gambling is defined as $EXTREMELY_RIGOROUS_DEFINITION.
Indeed, that would effectively eliminate the "Gambling" category due to the contradiction policy. However, I do not believe this resolution to violate any rule (I'd vote against it on policy grounds). As such, it would appear to be legal to close off a category by forcing all future proposal in a category to contradict the resolution. The repeal function, if anything, strengthens this argument by legitimizing repeals of such resolutions.

Indeed, that would effectively eliminate the "Gambling" category due to the contradiction policy. However, I do not believe this resolution to violate any rule (I'd vote against it on policy grounds). As such, it would appear to be legal to close off a category by forcing all future proposal in a category to contradict the resolution. The repeal function, if anything, strengthens this argument by legitimizing repeals of such resolutions.

Alright, so you're for legislation which entirely removes entire categories of possible later legislation.

Look at what is being proposed. Each step entirely wipes out an entire category. Nuclear Armaments only affects nuclear weapons. Period. One section of weapons. However, UNSA prevents any global disarmament, period. Just as NST prevents any form of tax being presented by the UN - which means no future resolution may in any way raise (or lower) the taxes of the member nations - unless they want it to, which would make it a voluntary consideration, which would have deleted it through "game mechanics" if it had been caught and decided "wait, if no future proposal can affect taxes, that affects the way the game works". But that didn't happen.

I'm much more for the "leaves a loophole to allow a nation to do something" then the "Prevents the UN from ever doing something" legislation, on the grounds of:

Another example of this is forbidding UN action at a future point in time -- you can't make your Resolution "Repeal-proof" or prohibit types of legislation.

NST is preventing all forms of taxational legislation. UNSA prohibits all types of global disarmament legislation. Both therefore violate this rule.

Nuclear Armaments only affects nuclear weapons. Period. One section of weapons.Actually it's even more specific than that, my proposal only affects the possession on nuclear weapons. Even after my proposal passes (if it does) the UN could still ban the use of nuclear weapons

Actually it's even more specific than that, my proposal only affects the possession on nuclear weapons. Even after my proposal passes (if it does) the UN could still ban the use of nuclear weapons

Ok, I'll ceede that point.

Actually it's even more specific than that, my proposal only affects the possession on nuclear weapons. Even after my proposal passes (if it does) the UN could still ban the use of nuclear weaponsThere is no logic in doing that. Since the aggressors will be able to call our bluff every single time. To have nukes and be banned from using them would an irational thing to do.
It is peferable to not have nuclear weapons alltogether and focus resources elsewhere. Which is essentially what I defend.

There is no logic in doing that. Since the aggressors will be able to call our bluff every single time. To have nukes and be banned from using them would an irational thing to do.
It is peferable to not have nuclear weapons alltogether and focus resources elsewhere. Which is essentially what I defend.
Greetings.

There are applications of nuclear devices which are not directly weapons-related. In ages past, the breaching of the dimensional interstices by force required the necromantic translation of the psychic energy released by sacrificing a thousand sanctified souls {ref Powers (1979) The Drawing of the Dark}. We have found that detonation of the equivalent of a one-kiloton sanctified nuclear warhead (1) is equivalent to this, except that theurgic manifestation is replaced by elemental manifestation. Thus were the fermion warriors (2) summoned.

Notes:
1. It is highly difficult and dangerous to sanctify a nuclear weapon. The holy water used has to be heavy holy water, which requires a greater mass to be conducted.
2. One fermion warrior per warhead, generally, although some indeterminacy occurs. Boson warriors generally take even more heroic measures, unless they are warriors of light.

What this proposal is saying, in essence, is "If you haven't gotten your Global Disarmanent proposal passed by now, too damn bad. We'll grandfather in the old stuff, but no more. This proposal category is closed until this resolution is repealed."
I don't see it that way at all. First, Global Disarmament proposals that aren't weapons bans, such as UN Peace Prize, are pretty much unaffected. So, not all Global Disarmament resolutions are even addressed by this: only weapons bans. Second, weapons bans which deal with weapons which are "unnecessary" for a nation to defend itself are also uninhibited (provided they adequately explain that the weapon type is "unnecessary" and why). I don't see it as closing down an entire category—or even a type of proposal within that category.

The problem lies with interpreting this line in the Game Mechanics section of the UN proposal rules:I'm reading this resolution as a prohibition of future Global Disarmaments proposals. I saw no such restriction with National Systems of Tax, primarily because we don't have a Tax Policy category.
I see UNSA as a prohibition of future proposals only in the way every resolution would be a prohibition of future proposals: through the contradictory and duplication clauses already in the Hackian rules. So long as a proposal does not seek to change the meter by which proposals are read (or, change the Hackian rules on what is and isn't allowed as a proposal), I don't see how it is a game mechanics violation.

I feel this proposal only outlaws proposals that contradict or duplicate it. I find this most evidenced by the fact that proposals which ban weapons--arguing that they’re unnecessary--are allowed by this proposal. UNSA isn’t ‘against’ weapons bans. It’s ‘against’ proposals that are contradictory to it. If it were against weapons bans and trying to keep them from being considered, I think it would be more aggressive in stopping weapons bans. Since UNSA still allows weapons bans--if such proposals don't interfere with the rights of member nations protected in UNSA--I don't see how it changes game rules to disallow a certain type of weapon type (it may utilize game rules to stop weapons bans on weapons necessary for nations' use, but this is legal so long as the proposal isn't trying to change the game rules--and its been used multiple times in the past by UN resolutions).

I don't see it as either stopping all weapons bans or attempting unduly affect what proposals the UN can consider in the future. That is to say, it doesn't affect future UN proposals beyond what all resolutions affect future UN proposals: via the contradiction and duplication clauses of the Hackian Rules. It uses the rules; it doesn’t change them.


ASIDE: The use of a UN decision to block future proposals in this method (by virtue of the entrenched game mechanics on contradiction) actually has a positive history in the UN. “Gay Rights”, for one, was written to combat growing anti-gay sentiment in the UN (and block any anti-gay proposals). Also, some members who backed “Sex Industry Worker Act” feared a UN-wide outlawing of prostitution or a national-rights proposal regarding it would replace “Legalize Prostitution”, and wanted the former to block the latter.

I don't mind beefing up on arms but not with Nuclear weapons.


If this new resolution passes (and within repeal limits). I will not support anymore "security" measures.

Some general points, mostly OOC. And make sure to read it all. It's actually a lot of very important stuff, and I think it makes things a bit clearer. Here's hoping. :)

1. UNSA does not eliminate an entire category, and I took pains to make sure that was the case. If you think it eliminates an entire category, you're reading it wrong. It simply provides certain restrictions on the category through the inclusion of concepts such as "defense" and "necessary" that cannot be contradicted in future IS proposals per the current binding rules. More on this in later portions of the post.

2. Point of Order: Regarding the Future of Legislation in the NSUN

Making UNSA illegal won't resolve the long-term problem of restricting future legislation. There are multiple methods for restricting future legislation, and eventually the UN is going to run out of major things to do in the natural course of events. Either way, we will probably end up seeing a UN that can only do repeals at some point. Thanks be to Max, [violet], and Sal for repeals! We would be truly screwed if we didn't have them because one the UN got done legislating on every topic (which is easier than you might think) then the UN would have nothing left to do except debate its own existence.

One possible method for greatly damaging the UN's ability to legislate (though not eliminating it entirely due to the handy repeal function) lies in the relatively traditional functioning of the UN. One could introduce and pass good legislation that addressed in broad strokes all the issues of an entire category. This might take two or three resolutions to accomplish for some categories due to the character limit and the nature of the category, but it would still fairly quickly ensure that only repeals in a certain category would be available. Let's take as an example of this the Free Trade category.


DECLARES that all persons (whether operating individually, in groups, as an organization, or in any other capacity of similar kind to those three) is free to engage in the exchange of goods and services and is also free to make or not make agreements as to how said exchange will operate.


If a Free Trade resolution containing this clause were to pass...well...that's pretty much the end of the Free Trade category until it's repealed, as far as I can tell.

Query: Would it be ruled illegal on the basis of "prohibiting a type of legislation"? I doubt it, but I'd like to have an official response to this and the reasoning behind it.


(There are more methods of restricting the UN's ability lo legislate using it's own legislation, but I don't have the time or higher brain functioning to detail all of them right now. Sorry. I have a paper to write, ya know. :)

Note that this was written after subsequent portions had already been completed. I tried to edit more in, but my brain told me in no uncertain terms that it was going to quit if I didn't move on to something else.)

Fortunately, there doesn't seem to be anyone that has the balls, the brains, and the resources to make sure the UN undermines its ability to legislate through its own legislation who actually wants to do so. The bad news is that such a person could arise in the future (though this is unlikely).

3. Now let's take a look at Goob's suggested rule. Pretty good shot, but still problematic.

The United Nations may not consider any resolution whose sole operative effect is to alter the parameters of how future resolutions would have been considered by altering the scope of United Nations authority.

The problem here is that NST and UNSA both have multiple operative effects. You could try to revise it to replace "operative" with "intended," but then we face another problem, which is that intent is shall we say...very difficult...to enforce, and there are usually multiple intended actions in proposals anyway, which would make the rule moot.


4. Response to actual legality argument:

What this proposal is saying, in essence, is "If you haven't gotten your Global Disarmanent proposal passed by now, too damn bad. We'll grandfather in the old stuff, but no more. This proposal category is closed until this resolution is repealed."

It's not saying that. You're still operating under a false assumption, namely that UNSA would eliminate future proposals in the GD category if it were passed. Unless you can demonstrate that the massive loopholes I intentionally left in UNSA don't actually exist, you have no basis for making the assumption.

Your argument would make perfect sense if UNSA were changed to read:

The NationStates United Nations,

NOTING that weapons are effective in certain unfortunate circumstances.

ENCOURAGES all member states to ensure that they have the ability to effectively use weapons.

DECLARES that all member states have the right to construct, possess, and utilize any and all weapons, except where previous legislation by this body that is still in effect has placed restrictions on that right.

The interesting thing is that I had to make sweeping and significant changes to the text to make it illegal by your argument. ;) Specifically I had to remove a great deal and add one very important word.

The relevant rule:

Another example of this is forbidding UN action at a future point in time -- you can't make your Resolution "Repeal-proof" or prohibit types of legislation.

The basic problem here is that "prohibit" is not the same as "placing restrictions on."

By the way Fris, kudos on your Devil's Advocate argument. Very good. I should have thought of it myself. :)

5. Point of Order

Since the below part of the last clause seems to the most troubling, let's take a look at it.

except where previous legislation by this body that is still in effect has placed restrictions on that right.

What does this do? Well, it prevents the resolution from being an attempted repeal/amendment of previous GD legislation such as the recent ban on chemical weapons. It would also "fill in the gap" (so to speak), were legislation such as the recent ban on chemical weapons to be repealed (which means that chemical weapons would then be protected by this resolution).

The question is:

Does this violate the rules and if so which part? Let’s take a look. After removing the rules that don’t seem to be even close to relevant…

Game Mechanics

Game Mechanics violations are attempts to change how the UN works. Generally, these are Proposals that should be threads in Technical. Anything that requires and adjustment to how the game does things, or requires a change of code falls into this category. Requiring "proper" spelling, adjusting the number of votes needed for queue, creating a universal UN currency, and forming a "secondary UN" are all examples of this. Another example of this is forbidding UN action at a future point in time -- you can't make your Resolution "Repeal-proof" or prohibit types of legislation.

Hmmmm. It doesn't attempt to change how the UN works, and it doesn't prohibit types of legislation. It certainly doesn't attempt to make itself repeal proof.

MetaGaming

MetaGaming is a difficult to understand category at times, especially since it often shares jurisdiction with Game Mechanics violations. Essentially, a MetaGaming violation is one that breaks "the fourth wall", or attempts to force events outside of the UN itself. Proposals dealing with Regions, with other nations, Moderators, and requiring activities on the Forums are examples. This also includes Proposals that try to affect non-UN nations.

Nope. No MetaGame violations either.

Repeals

Yes, you can Repeal, provided you use the Repeal function. If you make your own Proposal in some other category and calling it a Repeal, it's going to be deleted. Remember, Repeals can only repeal the existing resolution. You can provide reasons for repeal, but not any new provisions or laws.

Nothing here either. The clause in question actually assures that it does not violate this rule.

Amendments

You can't amend proposals. Period. You can't add on, you can't adjust, you can't edit. If you want to change an existing Proposal, you have to Repeal it first.

The clause does not violate this rule. It actually was intended specifically to avoid it and other violations.

Contradiction

Diametric opposite to Duplication. The UN has already mandated Gay Marriage. You can't ban it without at least one Repeal.

The clause does not violate this rule either. It actually was intended specifically to avoid it, which it does admirably, if I do say so myself. ;)

So what possible legitimate justification is there for ruling the UNSA illegal? I don't see any rules violation. In fact, I see a very apt means of avoiding a rules violation while still retaining the positive effects of the legislation to the fullest extent possible.

Hmmmm. It doesn't attempt to change how the UN works, and it doesn't prohibit types of legislation. It certainly doesn't attempt to make itself repeal proof.

We would argue the only active effect it has is prohibiting types of legislation, namely disarmament proposals in the form of any kind of weapons ban. The existence of loopholes which permit you to get around such a prohibition does not change that it exists. The fact that you specified weapons that are "necessary" to defense in the proposal doesn't mean anything since the proposal neglected to provide means of determining what is and is not a "necessary" weapon which leaves this proposal referring to any possible type of weapon pending the establishment of such criteria.

On a related note we would like to renew our argument that should this proposal still be allowed to move forward despite this the only reasonable manner in which we could judge whether the UN considered a weapon "necessary" which would be keeping this proposal in line with the rules proscribing it from prohibiting types of legislation would be to put the "necessity" of any given weapon system to a vote of the UN membership in the form of either a weapons ban proposal in the negative sense or some alternate version of the current Nuclear Armaments proposal in the positive sense. You cannot have a positive vote to ban a weapon system that is simultaneously considered "necessary" by those voters... the two concepts are mutually exclusive... so a vote in favor of a ban proposal would itself establish that the weapon was considered to be unnecessary and thus not subject to the UNSA. A vote for something similar to the Armaments proposal specifically reserving the right for nations to keep a given weapon system would alternately establish the necessity of that system in the eyes of the UN. Given this approach the UN Security Act could still be said to be establishing its "rubric" mentioned by the author earlier and also would not be illegally prohibiting an entire category of legislation.

Without the adoption of this approach we maintain our position on the illegality of the proposal. If a proposal to ban a given weapon system had the support of the UN voting membership thus clearly establishing that that membership considered that weapon system to be unnecessary and yet the UNSA would STILL make that proposal illegal that would in our opinion be clear demonstration that it does function as a blanket prohibition on weapons ban proposals and is illegal itself.

We would argue the only active effect it has is prohibiting types of legislation, namely disarmament proposals in the form of any kind of weapons ban. The existence of loopholes which permit you to get around such a prohibition does not change that it exists. The fact that you specified weapons that are "necessary" to defense in the proposal doesn't mean anything since the proposal neglected to provide means of determining what is and is not a "necessary" weapon which leaves this proposal referring to any possible type of weapon pending the establishment of such criteria.
<snipped for brevity>


OOC: Ummm...you do realize that even if you can convince the Mods that the "necessary for defense" business isn't a legitimate loophole, you still need to convince them that the other loophole isn't legitimate; specifically you would need to convince them that UNSA reserves the right of nations to possess weapons. Do you know how hard it is to prove that a proposal says something that's not in the text or even implied by it?

If the "loophole" that allows proposals in the GD category to ban weapons by declaring the UN members cannot possess them is a legitimate loophole, then your claim to illegality based on "prohibiting a type of legislation" remains unproven.

Greetings.

There are applications of nuclear devices which are not directly weapons-related. In ages past, the breaching of the dimensional interstices by force required the necromantic translation of the psychic energy released by sacrificing a thousand sanctified souls {ref Powers (1979) The Drawing of the Dark}. We have found that detonation of the equivalent of a one-kiloton sanctified nuclear warhead (1) is equivalent to this, except that theurgic manifestation is replaced by elemental manifestation. Thus were the fermion warriors (2) summoned.

Notes:
1. It is highly difficult and dangerous to sanctify a nuclear weapon. The holy water used has to be heavy holy water, which requires a greater mass to be conducted.
2. One fermion warrior per warhead, generally, although some indeterminacy occurs. Boson warriors generally take even more heroic measures, unless they are warriors of light.BAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA

ok... even if I do take your post serious... in the hipothesis of the use of nukes being banned, your necromantic translation theory goes down the drain. Since nuclear devices can be possessed but not used in the hypothetical situation in question. I understand by the non use of nukes as non detonation, and detonation is included in your theory.

I believe that it supports a position of legality on this resolution. Let's say you had something like this:

Outlaw Gambling
A resolution to legalize or outlaw gambling.

Category: Gambling
Legalize/Outlaw: Outlaw
Proposed By: $NATION

Description: All gambling is hereby prohibited in UN member nations.

For the purposes of this resolution, gambling is defined as $EXTREMELY_RIGOROUS_DEFINITION.Indeed, that would effectively eliminate the "Gambling" category due to the contradiction policy. However, I do not believe this resolution to violate any rule (I'd vote against it on policy grounds). As such, it would appear to be legal to close off a category by forcing all future proposal in a category to contradict the resolution. The repeal function, if anything, strengthens this argument by legitimizing repeals of such resolutions.Alright, so you're for legislation which entirely removes entire categories of possible later legislation.

Look at what is being proposed. Each step entirely wipes out an entire category. Nuclear Armaments only affects nuclear weapons. Period. One section of weapons. However, UNSA prevents any global disarmament, period. Just as NST prevents any form of tax being presented by the UN - which means no future resolution may in any way raise (or lower) the taxes of the member nations - unless they want it to, which would make it a voluntary consideration, which would have deleted it through "game mechanics" if it had been caught and decided "wait, if no future proposal can affect taxes, that affects the way the game works". But that didn't happen.

I'm much more for the "leaves a loophole to allow a nation to do something" then the "Prevents the UN from ever doing something" legislation, on the grounds of:OOC: Is it Vastiva's position, then, that Goobergunchia's hypothetical resolution banning gambling (or drugs, it wouldn't matter) is illegal? Are we limited to resolutions like "Outlaw Poker", "Outlaw Blackjack", "Outlaw Slots", "Outlaw Gaming with Dice" (or "Outlaw Marijuana", "Outlaw Heroin", "Outlaw Psychedelic Drugs" and so forth)?

I'm not being snide - I'm asking a serious question. What's the difference between a blanket ban on gambling (or a blanket right to gamble, to take drugs, whatever) and the resolutions at hand?

Besides which, we've ignored the fact that, with repeal, the U.N. can now undo anything it does. Can we argue that these resolutions really ban all future action, or simply that they make it a little more difficult?

(On banning use but not ownership:) There is no logic in doing that. Since the aggressors will be able to call our bluff every single time. To have nukes and be banned from using them would an irational thing to do.
It is peferable to not have nuclear weapons alltogether and focus resources elsewhere. Which is essentially what I defend.Actually, I disagree completely. There is logic in permitting ownership whilst banning use.

If ownership is permitted whilst use is banned - and if we were to subsequently decide to build a nuclear deterrent - then every nation who might threaten us would be told in no uncertain terms that the Big Red Button on the President's desk does two things: It sends a fax of our letter of resignation from the U.N. to the Secretary General, and


Upon successful transmission of the fax, it launches our counterstrike.Bluff? What bluff?

In contrast, if we ban ownership, fifteen minutes is not nearly long enough to begin a program to build the warheads, missiles, and silos needed to retaliate against an incoming nuclear volley...

Actually, I disagree completely. There is logic in permitting ownership whilst banning use.

If ownership is permitted whilst use is banned - and if we were to subsequently decide to build a nuclear deterrent - then every nation who might threaten us would be told in no uncertain terms that the Big Red Button on the President's desk does two things: It sends a fax of our letter of resignation from the U.N. to the Secretary General, and


Upon successful transmission of the fax, it launches our counterstrike.Bluff? What bluff?

In contrast, if we ban ownership, fifteen minutes is not nearly long enough to begin a program to build the warheads, missiles, and silos needed to retaliate against an incoming nuclear volley...Not to mention testing the nukes also.

in the hipothesis of the use of nukes being banned, your necromantic translation theory goes down the drain. Since nuclear devices can be possessed but not used in the hypothetical situation in question. I understand by the non use of nukes as non detonation, and detonation is included in your theory.
Greetings.

We understood your idea of non-use of nuclear weapons as non-use of the nuclear weapons in your possession on other states. We believe that the NSUN nuclear test-ban treaty has not yet been ratified. Hence we conduct internal nuclear detonations.

Single-kiloton loads have proven most economical, as each such payload is a substitute for a thousand consecrated souls. Our people grow restive when their relatives disappear in the night and are replaced by defenders of the state. We hear that happens in democracies as well. We further refer yout to the writings of the great shaman, Flying Buffalo (http://www.flyingbuffalo.com/nucwar.htm).

Not to mention testing the nukes also.Well, now, that depends on how you define "use". I've got a draft proposal on that, one that I'm considering offering in a few days. If you'll recall, the United States of Allemande employ nuclear explosives for non-military purposes. You didn't think I would sit by and let the United Nations ban the detonation of nuclear devices without putting up a counter-proposal that would still allow us peaceful commercial and scientific uses for such devices, now did you?

"Use" means "use against an enemy".

Alright, so you're for legislation which entirely removes entire categories of possible later legislation.

I'm for allowing such legislation to be introduced and voted upon. I'd probably vigorously oppose such legislation on the floor. Just because I think a resolution is legal doesn't mean I support it; UNSA is a good example of that.

ASIDE: The use of a UN decision to block future proposals in this method (by virtue of the entrenched game mechanics on contradiction) actually has a positive history in the UN. “Gay Rights”, for one, was written to combat growing anti-gay sentiment in the UN (and block any anti-gay proposals). Also, some members who backed “Sex Industry Worker Act” feared a UN-wide outlawing of prostitution or a national-rights proposal regarding it would replace “Legalize Prostitution”, and wanted the former to block the latter.

Incidentally, "Outlaw Pedophilia" was written to block a proposal by Fantasan that would have enforced what I felt to be excessively stringent penalties on child molesters. Of course, I was seeking to block it by a higher position on the Proposal List and not by making it illegal, but the UN has gotten a bit more sophisticated in the last two years.

This has been an OOC post.

In a final appeal for delegates and nations to vote against this resolution I bring forth article 5 and 7 of the passed resolution Rights and Duties of UN States (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030090&postcount=50)

Article 5 § War in the World of NationStates is defined as a consensual act between two or more NationStates. Any and all NationStates may, at their discretion, respond to declarations of war on NationStates who wish to avoid war. The recommended method is a barrage of I.G.N.O.R.E. Cannons.

Article 7 § Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from giving assistance to any NationState which is acting in violation of Article 5, or against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

In other words. There are more effective and less costly ways of fighting wars than just juicing up your armies with expensive and dangerous nukes.



Should this resolution pass by today's end then I ask that the principles within The Nuclear Terrorism Act (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7161716&postcount=76) be faithfully upheld.


RECOGNIZING the danger of terrorists (or other malignant, independent organizations) acquiring nuclear weapons and technologies,

NOTING the responsibility of nations to monitor and manage their nuclear weapons and technologies,

AFFIRMING the UN's role as example to the world,

1. PROHIBITS the sale or transfer of nuclear arms, devices, or technologies to known or suspected terrorist organizations;

2. DISCOURAGES STRONGLY the sale or transfer of nuclear arms or technology to any extra-national organization;

3. CAUTIONS AGAINST the proliferation of arms or technologies to irresponsible nations;

4. CALLS UPON UN member nations to maintain adequate security over and records of nuclear arms and technology;

5. IDENTIFIES WITH and ENDORSES positive and responsible nuclear weapons practices everywhere.

OOC: Ummm...you do realize that even if you can convince the Mods that the "necessary for defense" business isn't a legitimate loophole, you still need to convince them that the other loophole isn't legitimate;

To summarize the arguments again:

First: The proposal has no active purpose except to prohibit future weapons bans regardless of whether or not it contains loopholes in that prohibition. That in itself should make it illegal.

Second: The "loophole" relies mainly on the inclusion of the "necessary" qualifier when describing the weapons, but what constitutes a "necessary" weapon is never touched on in the proposal. Some means of determining this must therefore be settled on and what that means is will be a major factor in determining whether this actually represents a loophole or not. You yourself argued that the only thing that mattered was the belief a weapon was necessary or unnecessary. The manner in which to guage that belief within the UN concerning any given weapon which is both the most straightforward and which most keeps the UNSA in line with the proposal rules regarding prohibiting legislation is to put that belief to a vote. You can do that either through a proposal similar to the currently at vote nuclear armaments proposal which, givan a passing vote, would establish that UN members consider a weapon necessary and thus reserves the right for it's members to arm themselves with them... or you can do that through a weapons ban proposal which, given a passing vote, would establish that UN members considered the weapon not only unnecessary but worthy of proscription. There is no reasonable manner in which to argue that a vote in favor of banning a weapon is consistent with a belief that that weapon is necessary as those two concepts are mutually exclusive to each other. ONLY with this criteria for determining the UN's stance on necessity of weapons systems adopted could the UNSA go through without objection from us that it illegally prohibitted a category of legislation since it could then not be considered to be prohibitting the proposal of future weapons bans.

In other words, the loophole needs to be verified as preventing the legislation from prohibiting future weapons ban proposals.

DECLARES that all member states have the right to construct and utilize any and all weapons that are necessary to defend their nation from attack, except where previous legislation by this body that is still in effect has placed restrictions on that right.In conclusion, I would just like to reiterate that I feel this clause of the proposal does not unduly restrict UN proposals that can be considered (ie. change the game mechanics). It says just two things: UN nations have the right to develop weapons as necessary to defend themselves. Previous resolutions are not hold to this standard (of necessity), they are all acceptable restrictions.
I feel it is a legal use of the UN's power, and would also again point out that the proposal, as a resolution, could be repealed and only prevents future UN action in the context of contradiction.

I would like to thank the moderators for handling this situation with fairness, and in allowing us to have our say. As I would say if on an AM radio show:

"I'll take my answer off the air"

I would like to take issue with the Devil's Advocate position presented:

The way Gambling, Recreational Drug Use, and (to a lesser extent) Gun Control categories are set up, they are set in such a way as being able to eliminate themselves - because of their "legalize or outlaw" stance. For that reason, I think that argument was irrelevant.

Regardless, this proposal does not outlaw an entire category and I see no rules it violates. Short of creating a new rule (which is....despite the outcry that will result from it....legitamite), I see no real reason why the mods could delete this proposal.

BTW - Bacidov is proving that the GD category isn't being blocked - he's thrown a lot of proposals through with various lowerings of stockpiles and such through the proposal list in the past day or so.

In other words, the loophole needs to be verified as preventing the legislation from prohibiting future weapons ban proposals.

I requested a ruling on 29 June on this very point, found at Forum 9159705 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9159705&postcount=28). This ruling has not yet been delivered.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador

I requested a ruling on 29 June on this very point, found at Forum 9159705 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9159705&postcount=28). This ruling has not yet been delivered.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador

There's a slight difference between your point and mine. I am arguing that any weapons ban proposal automatically incorporates the judgement that the weapon under consideration is unnecessary whether it is spelled out or not. Voting in favor of prohibiting a weapon and considering the weapon to be necessary are mutually exclusive positions. Therefore any weapons ban proposal voted in favor of has automatically established the belief of the voting members that the weapon is unnecessary.

You can consider a weapon unnecessary and still NOT consider it to be warranting a ban... but you cannot consider it necessary and simultaneously warranting of a ban.

Which would mean the UNSA would not make a weapons ban proposal illegal whether it explicitly incorporated the "unnecessary" language within it or not.

There is no logic in doing that. Since the aggressors will be able to call our bluff every single time. To have nukes and be banned from using them would an irational thing to do.

I agree that being banned from using nuclear weapons is illogical, but I worded my resolution the way I did to try to throw a bone to the anti-nuke crowd.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

The contention with UNSA that seems to be at the heart of arguments against its legality seems to be that it blocks - potentially all - future Global Disarmament resolutions from being drafted with out UNSA first being repealed.

For one, I don't think 'all' potential GD resolutions are blocked by UNSA. One only needs to be careful and creative to draft something acceptable. Now, if you accept my take on this aspect, then there are no rounds for ruling UNSA illegal. So it limits the scope of future resolutions and these can only be effected with recourse to repeal: isn't this normal?

If you want to pass a resolution designed to assist employers in dealing aggressively with employees, chances are that you have to repeal '40 Hr Work Week' and possibly the labor unions resolution (sorry, don't recall the name) too. More to the point, were the UN to ban nuclear weapons, then repeal would be necessary in order to get any resolution aiming to increase nuclear proliferation. What's the difference, except in scale? Why is scale important when, as I've proposed above, UNSA doesn't prohibit all future legislation in this field?

I think we're looking too hard for technically flawless legislation, which is absurd considering what has gone before and is likely to come regardless of the outcome of this debate.

This was a difficult decision, all things considered.

Fris and I swung back and forth quite a bit on how to deal with this Proposal (GMC, of course, wanted us to "REMOVE IT. HATE KILL CRUSH DESTROY MAIM BURN KNOCK STUFF OUT OF CUPBOARDS!", but I digress).

This is a trend that started with National Systems of Tax, continued through with Nuclear Armaments, and has led us here. Personally, Fris and I would just assume remove all three of these. However, we have to go with our rules, not our personal feelings.

Now, sure, I could change the rules by fiat, but that's not very fair, and not the kind of thing we like to do around here. So, we're going to leave it be, and let it hit the floor (barring something extraordinary).

It was pretty darn close indeed. Just out of curiosity... does anyone remember what the margin was when the proposal for banning nukes was rejected twice?

does anyone remember what the margin was when the proposal for banning nukes was rejected twice?
Ban nuclear weapons (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Ban_nuclear_weapons_%28failed%29), Voting Ended: 09 November 2004
I don't remember the second one.

It was pretty darn close indeed. Just out of curiosity... does anyone remember what the margin was when the proposal for banning nukes was rejected twice?
According to the NSWiki (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Main_Page) the first attempt was End Nuclear Proliferation Act (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/End_Nuclear_Proliferation_Act_%28failed%29) which failed 7787 votes for to 9955 votes against. And the second attempt was the one Fris mentioned.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Now, sure, I could change the rules by fiat, but that's not very fair, and not the kind of thing we like to do around here. So, we're going to leave it be, and let it hit the floor (barring something extraordinary).

Could we then get a ruling on this argument just in case the UNSA ends up passing?

The UNSA says that it is reserving the rights of UN members to construct and utilize weapons which are "necessary" to their defense while not providing any criteria for how we are to determine what constitutes a necessary weapon.

The author of the proposal himself has argued that the important thing is the belief of the UN that a weapon is necessary.

I submit that the only mechanism which is available within the framework of how the UN operates which enables the belief of the UN members as to the necessity of a weapon system to be determined, is to put the issue to a vote in the form of a proposal. There are only two apparent ways in which to accomplish this.

1. A vote on a proposal similar to the nuclear armaments proposal which just passed. A vote in favor of a proposal such as this which reserves the right to use a specific weapon system would establish that the UN feels the right of possession of such a weapon system is a necessary thing to be preserved. A vote against however would not necessarily establish that the UN membership felt the weapon system in question to be unnecessary.

2. A vote on a weapons ban proposal. A vote in favor of such a proposal would necessarily establish that the UN feels the weapon in question to be unnecessary since a vote to ban a weapon and a belief that that weapon is necessarry are mutually exclusive propositions. A vote against however would not establish that the UN felt the weapons system to be necessary.

Therefore the UNSA would preserve the right for UN nations to possess weapons deemed to be necessary but would not make illegal ANY weapons ban proposal regarding a weapon system for which the necessity of that system had not already been established, as such proposals represent the means by which it can be determined whether the UN considers a weapon system to be unnecessary in the first place since those means are not provided by the UNSA proposal itself.

EDIT: I can probably simplify that position by using my current bioweapons proposal as an example.

Assuming the UNSA passes it reserves the right for UN nations to construct and use weapons necessary to their defense.

The proposal does not establish that bioweapons are weapons that fall in this category.

No other passed resolution establishes that bioweapons fall in this category.

Therefore even with the passage of this proposal nothing prevents the introduction of ANY proposal to ban bioweapons. The only thing which would do that would be legislation establishing that bioweapons are considered necessary to a nations defense.

In short, if UNSA passes, your bioweapons ban - without the necessary phrasing - is illegal.

In short, if UNSA passes, your bioweapons ban - without the necessary phrasing - is illegal.

I wasn't aware you were in the position to make such a ruling, but as you're weighing in would you mind explaining on what grounds it is illegal?

The UNSA reserves the right of UN member nations to construct and utilize those weapons which are necessary to the defense of their nations. Where exactly has it been established anywhere in the body of UN legislation that biological weapons in particular are necessary to a nations defense and thus fall into this reserved category?

If you cannot tell me this, then I would be interested to hear on what other grounds you were declaring that they are? Your own personal pronouncement?

If so, I disagree, and it would look like we'd need some way of settling the matter. Fortunately I just happen to have a proposal submitted which can accomplish exactly that.

Greetings.

We must have a formal committee of some sort to decide what is necessary for defence. The reason for this is simple: if we were to leave it to idealistic logic, no nation not under attack (or threat of attack) needs a defence; if we were to leave it to the more militaristic, pragmatic or paranoid, every nation could be armed to the teeth because of the possibility of attack making a defence necessary.

The other option is indeed to painstakingly pass resolution after resolution stating which classes of weapons are 'necessary for defence'.

Greetings.

We must have a formal committee of some sort to decide what is necessary for defence. The reason for this is simple: if we were to leave it to idealistic logic, no nation not under attack (or threat of attack) needs a defence; if we were to leave it to the more militaristic, pragmatic or paranoid, every nation could be armed to the teeth because of the possibility of attack making a defence necessary.

The other option is indeed to painstakingly pass resolution after resolution stating which classes of weapons are 'necessary for defence'.

I disagree. Lacking a ban proposal or specific "reserving the rights to have" type proposal for any given weapon system UN nations are already allowed to use them anyway. If there is any actual reason to need to settle the question of the necessity of a specific weapon system I can only see that need presenting itself when a proposal regarding that weapon system was brought up anyway... in which case the voting on that proposal itself presents an immediate means of guaging that issue.

I wasn't aware you were in the position to make such a ruling, but as you're weighing in would you mind explaining on what grounds it is illegal?Vastiva may not be in such a position, but he is indeed right. Assuming that the Security Act passes, any attempt to ban any non-Nuclear weapons system will need to (at the very least) pay lip service to the Act. This is accomplished by inserting language to the effect of "REALISING that $weapon is not necessary for the defence of a nation," or "PROCLAIMING that $weapon is only useful as an offensive weapon."

Trying to say that the votes of the UN as a whole will show if such weapons are truly necessary for defence is an ex post facto appeal to authority. At the moment of proposing, the merits of a weapon as a defensive affair are not evident, thus the Proposal would be contradicting an existing Resolution and would be deleted*. Yes, this is a semantic side-step, but it is a necessary one. If you are going to exploit a loophole, you have to do so correctly.

*: Should a Proposal be in the list (or even in Queue) when/if the Security Act passes, they will be deleted; the authors will not be warned, as the Proposal would have been legal when proposed.

Trying to say that the votes of the UN as a whole will show if such weapons are truly necessary for defence is an ex post facto appeal to authority. At the moment of proposing, the merits of a weapon as a defensive affair are not evident,

Which of course is exactly the detail upon which my argument rested.

thus the Proposal would be contradicting an existing Resolution and would be deleted*. Yes, this is a semantic side-step, but it is a necessary one. If you are going to exploit a loophole, you have to do so correctly.

I suppose my point was that there was no need for exploiting that particular "loophole" in that way since the act only reserves the right to construct and use "necessary" weapons in a nation's defense and as you yourself said, that status is not evident in the case of biological weapons at this time even assuming the passage of the UNSA. Therefore the only POSSIBLE means of assessing that status is an ex post facto appeal to authority after a vote has been taken on the matter.

The UNSA does not include anything establishing biological weapons are necessary to a nations defense, nor does it include any criteria by which biological weapons could be judged to be necessary to a nations defense. Nor does anything else in UN legislation.

Therefore to say that biological weapons must be first defined as unnecessary before they would be bannable under this act would seem to be ruling that the default state of ALL weapon systems barring legislation to the contrary is "necessary", which I believe is unjustified and also would seem to contradict your earlier statement that the status of the weapon in this regard was not already evident. Previously to this, to the best of my understanding, this status was simply not enjoyed by any weapon system (barring legislation that specifically established it, such as the Nuclear Armaments resolution) and there is nothing I can see in the UNSA that would change that. Weapons which were not banned were permitted to be either used or not as preference dictated but they certainly didn't seem to be automatically accorded the status of being legally defined as necessary.

However, if this remains the ruling I will revise accordingly and resubmit in the case of deletion, although I believe that setting such a precedent of according a default "necessary" classification to any and all weapons not currently under a ban which states otherwise is an undesirable thing to do and certainly not required by anything in the text of the UNSA.

I agree with the general idea of this resolution.
Nevertheless this resolution has a serious flaw.

I find the following statement:
"all member states have the right to construct and utilize any and all weapons that are necessary to defend their nation from attack" to be quite radical. The production and utilization of any and all weapons leaves to much of an open gap that is poorly closed up by the following statement:
", except where previous legislation by this body that is still in effect has placed restrictions on that right."There is no previous legislation banning the use of certain weapons that I believe should be banned e.g. Biological Weapons, etc.
Until the UN has banned such weapons,

I am obliged to vote against this proposal.

There are other flaws in this proposal that I could also dissagree about, however the reason I have previously stated gives me enough reason to vote against this proposal.

Here we see stage three of a conspiracy to undermine the UN and steer it towards a goal where it actively promotes war to the benefit of those nations more advanced in arms technology.

First we saw the repeal of the ban on Biological Weapons – although I will admit that the original resolution was poorly worded. Second came the resolution to protect the ownership and promote the spread of nuclear weapons. This third step is one which places another barrier to any sensible moves to control the spread of weapons.

On reading this proposal, the UN would be unable to place ANY limits on ANY weapon without first repealing this legislation. We all know how fast this organisation works when it is actually moving even vaguely moving in a direction which promotes a more peaceful world.

Some might argue that history proves to us of the importance of a strong military as a deterrent to war. At best this is a misleading and at worst it is calculated deceit. If anything, a strong build-up in military power probably increases the chance of war since if you have an army, they are going to want something to do. What people are failing to recognise is that the likelihood of war is correlated more with imbalances in military power rather than the absolute level of military spending for a nation and its neighbours.

This is NOT a question of the right of a nation to defend itself. They already have this right and I don’t see anyone proposing resolutions to deny them these rights.
It is not a question of the UN nations protecting themselves from any threat from non-UN nations – if the UN were a hindrance, it cannot prevent them from leaving the UN where they would not be subject to UN laws.

The speed with which the recent resolutions have been passed and the tendency of the UN to plummet rapidly into the pro-war camp fuels my suspicion that we are the becoming the victim of a major conspiracy.

It is no surprise therefore that we are greeted with the opening line of the proposal that clearly states that nations are hostile to the UN and seek to destroy UN nations: that we are outnumbered by 3 to 1. UN rules do not allow me to use real-life examples so I will simply state that it is a well-practised tactic of tyrants to promote support for themselves and their policies by proclaiming imaginary or exaggerates threats posed to people from “those outside”

If there is a threat to the UN and its nations, this comes from within the UN itself by nations and regions who actively seek to undermine the institution by promoting war.

I will at least put my voice behind those seeking to reject this ugly piece of legislation.

I and my region will support this proposal.

Too often the UN has turned towards draconian legislation that prohibits actions for purely political reasons without taking into account the delicate balance that exists in NS.

W.

UN rules do not allow me to use real-life examples
To clarify: UN rules do not permit real-life examples in proposals. You're more than welcome to use them to make your point in arguments, as long as you stick to the pros and cons of NSUN business. Just don't let it turn into a General discussion of China or abortion or whatever, and you'll be fine.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator

The Principality of Ausserland has cast its vote against this proposed resolution.

The substantive provision of the resolution reads: "...member states have the right to construct and utilize any and all weapons that are necessary to defend their nation from attack...." What meaningful effect does this have? Absolutely none. It simply restates the status quo.

Member states now have the right to construct and utilise such weapons. If this resolution passes, they will still have exactly the same right. Member states are not now prohibited from constructing and utilising weapons beyond and in excess of those required for national defense. If the resolution passes, they will still have that identical right. The resolution changes absolutely nothing. We cannot vote affirmatively on a resolution that -- with all respect to its proposer -- does nothing but expand the list of United Nations resolutions.

Turning to the question of parliamentary effect.... If the intent is to prevent further proposals for weapon-specific disarmament, we believe it will not have that effect. Disarmament proponents will simply turn their attentions to repeal of this resolution before introducing their substantive ones.

We also note that there has been some discussion about mechanisms for enforcement of this resolution. We respectfully suggest that this discussion is misdirected. There is nothing to enforce, as the resolution prohibits nothing and requires nothing.

OFFICIAL:
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Principality of Ausserland

Taken on its own, I do not feel that this piece of legislation is particularly, plus I have faith in the Texan Hotrodders representatives' good faith. However, Barnarbus Butterbur makes a valid and unsettling point when linking UNSA to recent developments in UN legislation on security, plus their criticism of the connotations of the resolution's opening statement gives much food for thought.

I am extremely uneasy, not only at the implications of the recent round of legislation but also at the rise of the 'sovereigntists'. Many members of this organisation, including this resolution's sponsor, are great assets to the UN and global politics in general, but I fear that the group may prove a front for states with less desirable motives, not least the Gatesville crowd.

Where is this truly leading?

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

Here we see stage three of a conspiracy...Oh, please...

The authors of these three resolutions do not agree on much of anything, let alone share the insidious urges you attribute to them. Try again.

On reading this proposal, the UN would be unable to place ANY limits on ANY weapon without first repealing this legislation.Yeah, right:
"BELIEVING that $Weapon is under all circumstances unnecessary for the national defense of any nation state, AND

"ALSO BELIEVING $More_Rhetoric,

"THE UNITED NATIONS hereby bans $Weapon."It's all in the wording.

If anything, a strong build-up in military power probably increases the chance of war since if you have an army, they are going to want something to do.OOC: As the son of a miltary man, I find this deeply offensive. Almost every military serviceman and servicewoman I have ever met would rather never be called upon to face death in battle. It is corrupt civilian interests and armchair generals who want war. Curb them, and you will find your nation, however well armed, will never seek to start a war with anyone.

Oh, please...

The authors of these three resolutions do not agree on much of anything, let alone share the insidious urges you attribute to them. Try again.

Well, I understand the thought that there is some sort of conspiracy. Flibbleites and Tex and I are all from the NSO (the authors of the three nat'l sov. resolutions of late), and thus we all agree on some things. So, I could definitely see some interpretting that as an NSO conspiracy towards...well I'm not sure what the conspiracy would be seen as doing. Something mischevious.

But you're right in the sense of Reformentia. His repeal of the bio weapons ban was entirely unrelated to the nat'l sov legislation of Flibbleites and Texan Hotrodders.

It is no surprise therefore that we are greeted with the opening line of the proposal that clearly states that nations are hostile to the UN and seek to destroy UN nations: that we are outnumbered by 3 to 1. UN rules do not allow me to use real-life examples so I will simply state that it is a well-practised tactic of tyrants to promote support for themselves and their policies by proclaiming imaginary or exaggerates threats posed to people from “those outside”

If there is a threat to the UN and its nations, this comes from within the UN itself by nations and regions who actively seek to undermine the institution by promoting war.

I will at least put my voice behind those seeking to reject this ugly piece of legislation.

Perfectly seen point! My nation is behind you my friend...

And someone else also have seen that this resolution brings nothing news to the rights and posibilitys of UN. We are already allowed to to research and utilize all kinds of weapons. Becouse there were no resolutions that put stop on it.
So in practice this whole resolution is an crap...Useless crap that not even worth it to be voted about.

My nation votes AGAINST!

Here we see stage three of a conspiracy to undermine the UN and steer it towards a goal where it actively promotes war to the benefit of those nations more advanced in arms technology.
Thats hilarious. Perhaps Jolt needs to add and to the vB code options.

OOC: As the son of a miltary man, I find this deeply offensive. Almost every military serviceman and servicewoman I have ever met would rather never be called upon to face death in battle. It is corrupt civilian interests and armchair generals who want war. Curb them, and you will find your nation, however well armed, will never seek to start a war with anyone.

Well I am sorry if I have offended. It was not intentional. I simply am making a claim that a build up of military power is more, rather than less likely to create a war. Those in power will feel more inclined to see it used to defend vested interests or national interests.

The military build up as a prelude to war does not have to be inbalanced either (ie one nations military build-up puts it in a position that it can dictate terms within a region). It might also provoke war from more powerful nations who prefer to retain an existing status quo.

The only example I can think of where a large military build-up did not precipitate a major war was the Cold War. The reasons for this were not that one or other nation could not win the war but rather that the cost of winning outweighed all benefits that could be gained from a war. Even in this case, the Cold War simply spilled over into less sensitive regions of the world where the major powers used Africa and Asia as theatres in which to test their weapons.

The only example I can think of where a large military build-up did not precipitate a major war was the Cold War. The reasons for this were not that one or other nation could not win the war but rather that the cost of winning outweighed all benefits that could be gained from a war. Even in this case, the Cold War simply spilled over into less sensitive regions of the world where the major powers used Africa and Asia as theatres in which to test their weapons.You are committing a fundamental error of logic.

You are seeing that arms buildups precede wars, and are concluding that arms buildups therefore cause war. Thus (or so the logic goes), banning arms will prevent war.

But in fact, arms buildups are almost always a response to a stimulus (eg., the perception of an external threat). Thus to say that they presage war is like saying that first gust precedes a thunderstorm. That does not mean that first gusts cause thunderstorms.

If there is in fact some other force impelling nations to war and you try to prevent war via disarmament, you will (at best) merely waste energy trying to stop war through useless measures: impelled by forces you have not addressed, the combatants will come to blows anyway, whether armed with swords, muskets, artillery, or missiles. Nor will such a war be any less violent because you banned so-called "weapons of mass destruction"; they will simply take longer to run their course. The third bloodiest war in European history was waged with musket, pike, sword, and torch, and was not surpassed in violence for another 300 years afterwards, in spite of advances in all of the weaponry used.

At worst, though, you will merely induce the less ruthless side to slow its rate of armament, while more ruthless parties arm. Then, by virtue of natural selection, you merely will succeed in wiping out more liberal states all across the world and replacing them with nastier, more brutal regimes. The butcher's answer to pacifism, after all, is just to run the pacifist through and go on raping and pillaging, as though nothing whatsoever had happened.

Good point again, increasing military force will force other nations to do the same. And every mistake can lead to war.
And Allemande, No one says that military force nations to war.
Thats corrupt leadership who sees good use for welorganised military force that sends your dad and thousands others into often useless and even illegal wars.
Example: vietnam, saddam...
Having an army is not an right to put your vinger in other ppl their buisness.
So stop cruing that you are outnumbered 3 by 1. Maybe if UN wasnt so busy with making nuclear boms and deFending right to have them. Maybe if UN was more busy with resolutions that would put stop on worldwide deforestation, and sickness problem. Maybe then other countrys would be less offensive to UN? Hint hint hint!

Fact is, there will be always one or two absolute psychos who will try to opress free world. We absolutely will need military force to stop them. I agree on that. Just...stop using wrong/useless ways to gain the safety goal.
Nukes are useles since my NMD system protecting my airspace, and resolution thats at vote now is useless sindse its statement is air...
I already running all possible researches and use all modern weapons.

This resolution is not about massive build-ups of arms. It is simply saying that a nation, like a person should be able to defend themself.

Maybe if UN wasnt so busy with making nuclear boms and deFending right to have them. Maybe if UN was more busy with resolutions that would put stop on worldwide deforestation, and sickness problem. Maybe then other countrys would be less offensive to UN? Hint hint hint!Actually, it is the liberalism of the U.N. that has produced much of the antipathy towards it. There are a lot of angry conservatives out there who saw the U.N.'s efforts in the areas you allude to as an attempt to impose our ideals upon them.

The recent resolutions affirming the right of Members to arm themselves are a reaction to an attitude of hostility that already existed at the time of their passage.

Maybe if UN wasnt so busy with making nuclear boms and deFending right to have them. Maybe if UN was more busy with resolutions that would put stop on worldwide deforestation, and sickness problem. Maybe then other countrys would be less offensive to UN? Hint hint hint!

That's an interesting point, perhaps you should make a proposal to do so. But back to the matter at hand. The Mages Republic don't support wars, but we do support being prepared. The sad fact of the matter is that dictators prey on the innocent. If everyone in the UN disarmed, then the bloodthirsty and power hungry dictators outside the UN would not hesitate to strike. While undesirable, having a military is necessary if a nation wishes to maintain it's borders and freedoms.

The Mages Republic
Ministry of Foreign Affairs

So if we recognise the right of nations to defend themselves with whatever means they feel they need, do we not apply the same local to individuals, special interest groups, regional independence movements.

Where do you draw the line?


I will agree that many nations will arm themselves to react to a real or perceived threat. The natural response to this is for other nations to do the same and so the cycle continues until eventually someone stops paying the bills or there is a war.

From a purely economic standpoint, the cost of defending a nation has to be balanced with the likelihood that it will be attacked. If the view is that the likelihood has increased there will be a tendency for react by increasing expenditure on arms. On the other hand, building military power may also be a prelude to an expansionist policy which aims to cover the cost of the build-up with economic gains.

Do not get me wrong, I am not in favour of disarming. But I am also not in favour of whole-sale proliferation of any kind, particularly in weapons designed to create widespread devastation. I believe that this resolution and the previous one promote this.

Actually, it is the liberalism of the U.N. that has produced much of the antipathy towards it. There are a lot of angry conservatives out there who saw the U.N.'s efforts in the areas you allude to as an attempt to impose our ideals upon them.

The recent resolutions affirming the right of Members to arm themselves are a reaction to an attitude of hostility that already existed at the time of their passage.

Correct. One of the many goals of this resolution is to decrease the hostility that conservatives and capitalists often feel towards the UN. The ironic thing about the UN's past legislation is that much of it has created division rather than unity by alienating those with different political, social, and economic beliefs. The UN has created the hostility that makes this resolution necessary. It seems only appropriate that the UN would be the organization to ameliorate this division and hostility.

So if we recognise the right of nations to defend themselves with whatever means they feel they need, do we not apply the same local to individuals, special interest groups, regional independence movements.

Where do you draw the line?Slippery slopism is a poor argument, especially when lines are so easy to draw in matters like armament and gun control.
I will agree that many nations will arm themselves to react to a real or perceived threat. The natural response to this is for other nations to do the same and so the cycle continues until eventually someone stops paying the bills or there is a war.True, but irrelevant. In practise, this means that we need to find other solutions to the problem of international tension than disarmament.
From a purely economic standpoint, the cost of defending a nation has to be balanced with the likelihood that it will be attacked. If the view is that the likelihood has increased there will be a tendency for react by increasing expenditure on arms. On the other hand, building military power may also be a prelude to an expansionist policy which aims to cover the cost of the build-up with economic gains.True, but again irrelevant, especially to the matter at hand. How does any of this relate to a national right to arm as needed for self-defence?
Do not get me wrong, I am not in favour of disarming. But I am also not in favour of whole-sale proliferation of any kind, particularly in weapons designed to create widespread devastation. I believe that this resolution and the previous one promote this.Does it? Or does it simply impose on those who would mandate disarmament throughpout the U.N. the burden of explaining how we can afford to do so without abandoning our security?

Absent this test, the proponents of disarmament can base their arguments solely on emotion and idealism, without ever having to address the practical matter of survival.

How could any bill like this come to vote! This will mean that people can just keep building bigger and bigger weapons. This resolution underimines the entire UN perpose - to preserve the peace. If nations build huge weapons then there could be things like arms races and they are bad.

Correct. One of the many goals of this resolution is to decrease the hostility that conservatives and capitalists often feel towards the UN. The ironic thing about the UN's past legislation is that much of it has created division rather than unity by alienating those with different political, social, and economic beliefs. The UN has created the hostility that makes this resolution necessary. It seems only appropriate that the UN would be the organization to ameliorate this division and hostility.
And I think its safe to say that you would define Yelda as a "Liberal" nation, at least in the areas of human rights, social justice and economics. And yet, we find ourselves on the side of the National Soverignty Organisation on matters of defence. We view the right of an individual or a nation to defend itself as a very basic and fundamental right. Thus we support this resolution.

And I think its safe to say that you would define Yelda as a "Liberal" nation, at least in the areas of human rights, social justice and economics. And yet, we find ourselves on the side of the National Soverignty Organisation on matters of defence. We view the right of an individual or a nation to defend itself as a very basic and fundamental right. Thus we support this resolution.

We appreciate your positive response, and would like to state officially that the The Fuel-Injected Federation would likely also be considered a "liberal" nation as it is an anarcho-socialist federation.

Deputy Minister of UN Affairs
-Thomas Smith

Correct. One of the many goals of this resolution is to decrease the hostility that conservatives and capitalists often feel towards the UN. The ironic thing about the UN's past legislation is that much of it has created division rather than unity by alienating those with different political, social, and economic beliefs. The UN has created the hostility that makes this resolution necessary. It seems only appropriate that the UN would be the organization to ameliorate this division and hostility.Without hijacking this thread, we would like to agree with this position.

Now, we Allemanders are not an especially conservative people; we're actually centrists with a slight liberal leaning. But we have watched as a powerful bloc within the U.N. has legislated with little regard for national ideological preferences, taking the position that nations who don't want to be socialist democracies should quit the U.N. Can anyone be too surprised that this has led to discontent among a great many people?

We would be far wiser to willingly restrict ourselves to legislation of the sort that would be acceptable to as many nations as possible - the politics of inclusion, rather than the politics of division. But because we have turned Von Clausewitz's famous dictum around, waging politics as a substitute for war, "war by other means", if you will, we have sown the seeds of an anti-coalition.

Going forward, we can best make peace by asking ourselves, in advance of any resolution, whether what we are doing is of a nature that people of all ideological stripes can accept it, or whether we are trying to jam our views down everybody else's throats.

Legalisation of this sort, seeking as it does to make these United Nations consider other points of view than its own passionate idealism, would be unnecessary if we had inculcated in ourselves the proper measure of self-control. There will be more such resolutions unless we find in ourselves the wisdom to embrace points of view distinct from our own, rather than seeking to bowl our "adversaries" over.

This resolution underimines the entire UN perpose - to preserve the peace.Where did you ever get the idea that preserving the peace was the "perpose" of the U.N.?!?

I oppose this resolution on the grounds that it does not accomplish much beyond a statement of UN principles which I do not necessarily agree with. I also fear that it will make it more difficult for new members of the United Nations to submit legal proposals, and to that end I will be compiling a condensed "United Nations Code" to aid the authoring of new resolutions that are in compliance with previous resolutions.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador

Right, so we have a UN-declaration that we now are able to defend ourselves..

How stupid?! I could defend my state without this new resolution. In my eyes it's all another proove of bureaucracy.

Furthermore; how should we 'encourage' our member-states to build up a nice defendsystem themselves? Should we diplomatically force them to buy new guns etc? Or maybe we could give some free SAM-missiles with every 100 F16-airplanes we sell them?

*raises eyebrow*

can i have sams, or nukes

This resolution is not about massive build-ups of arms. It is simply saying that a nation, like a person should be able to defend themself.
But it does not establish limits as to exactly what a nation can defend themselves with. It leaves that restriction open to be established in other proposals which haven't yet been passed.
That is a fundamental flaw that can be exploited.

However I honestly doubt that voters will be able to understand this before they vote favourably. Either that or they really don't want to establish limits as to what weapons they can use.

but does that mean a country surrounded by dictatorships could get nukes for free

but does that mean a country surrounded by dictatorships could get nukes for free

Not necessarily, but possibly. This will not be affected by the resolution currently at vote.

OK...this is getting a bit rediculous. Another lame proposal. Come on now. I am not even taking this seriously. We have nothing better to try and solve in this world then worryiong about if everyone else is properly defending themselves? Let the nations worry about their own damn defense problems. We have other things we should be deciding on.

Even if this proposal is taken seriously, it has to be the most vaguely written one. What constitutes being able to defend one's country? What would each country need to have. There is no way to enforce this measure. It is a joke.

OK...this is getting a bit rediculous. Another lame proposal. Come on now. I am not even taking this seriously. We have nothing better to try and solve in this world then worryiong about if everyone else is properly defending themselves? Let the nations worry about their own damn defense problems. We have other things we should be deciding on.

Even if this proposal is taken seriously, it has to be the most vaguely written one. What constitutes being able to defend one's country? What would each country need to have. There is no way to enforce this measure. It is a joke.I would recommend reading the history of this resolution and the debate leading up to it.

Essentially, the purpose of this resolution is neither to provide arms to Member nations, nor to make nations arm themselves. It is to require that those who wish to mandate disarmament address the issue of whether or not their proposed resolutions would harm our ability to defend ourselves.

Up until now, disarmament debates have focused mostly on emotion and idealism; in the name of humanity we have been more than willing to sacrifice our security. Now, at least, the issue must be addressed.

Just a Thought:

"DECLARES that all member states have the right to construct and utilize any and all weapons that are necessary to defend their nation from attack, except where previous legislation by this body that is still in effect has placed restrictions on that right."

This clause effectively permits the construction of any weapon not explicitly banned by the UN. Note the lack of an adjoining statement allowing for further weapons bans. While it is true that there have been scores of weapons bans passed by this body, not all current controversial weapons systems have been addressed by legislation. Also, this clause places a technology cap on ban-able weapons systems - future weapons with unforseen consequences, heralded in by the trumpets of technocratic hubris, will be permitted to run rampant.

While I agree with the need for member naitons to defend themselves, I attack this piece of legislation not from a political stance, but from it's sheer lack of articulation on the subject.

A more effective law with the same goals would be such:

Noting the increasing threat to the security of UN member nations by both member and non member nations ...

Noting the increasing potency of mass weapons systems such as nuclear, chemical, and biological agents ...

Noting the specious effectiveness beyond the psychological and collaterial of chemical and biological weapons.

Underscoring the need in some cases for weapons stalemate situations such as detente, but also underscoring the inherent danger of weapons escalation to all nations by means of regime changes, weapons and technology proliferation, and Intellectual property proliferation ...

Declairs that all member nations are free to build necessary weapons systems in the interest of defense, but are still subject to weapons regulations passed prior to and for the remainng term of this legislation, Unless in dire circumstances deemed by a majority vote of the UN. The UN reserves the right to disarm any violators of this act or any nation threating the security of the aforementioned body by way of distortion of this act.

Please send all comments as a telegram

The Isles of Langerham

Although the spirit of this resolution is well founded, I vote against it. By game mechanics, it punishes any nation that defends itself by any means other then military buildup. My own country, the Serene Republic of the Shadow-Kai, is part of a much larger regional military and trade allience that makes its own defenses moot. Defense of a country is a complex issue, and thus there should be no bill that says "all countries must defend themselves at least partially x way", and yet, that is exactly what this resolution says. There is far more to defense than throwing money at the Defense Department.

Keep this issue at the national level.

The UN reserves the right to disarm any violators of this act or any nation threating the security of the aforementioned body by way of distortion of this act.That last clause is probably illegal, as it suggests both that the resolution would apply to non-members and that a U.N. military would be called upon to do the disarming.

But more generally...

While it is true that there have been scores of weapons bans passed by this body, not all current controversial weapons systems have been addressed by legislation. Also, this clause places a technology cap on ban-able weapons systems - future weapons with unforseen consequences, heralded in by the trumpets of technocratic hubris, will be permitted to run rampant.All you have to do is begin your ban proposal with the statement:

"BELIEVING that $Weapon is unnecessary for the defense of any Member nation..."

And then proceed with your ban. It's easy.

Keep this issue at the national level.That is precisely what the resolution does. You can arm yourself with any weapon necessarily for your defense, or none at all. Your choice.

In contrast, without this proposal, we could ban weapons or defensive tactics without regard for whether or not they were needed. Thus, I could author a proposal saying:

"BELIEVING that warfare should not be waged in the shadows by stealth or assassination, these United Nations hereby ban the levying, training, maintainance, and use of snipers, assassins, ninjas, or any other kind of covert military force."

And (if it passed) you would be oh, so scr_w_d.

I wasn't aware you were in the position to make such a ruling, but as you're weighing in would you mind explaining on what grounds it is illegal?


You're going to have to stop believing everyone on here is completely against you if they're not completely for you. Some of us actually have experience in the process, and it would behoove you to be somewhat aware that statements are often in the "here's some advice" category.

I voted for this resolution despite my reservations.

I do believe a strong environmental resolution would be a good cocktail with the pass two resolutions.

I do believe a strong environmental resolution would be a good cocktail with the pass two resolutions.

Funny you should say that....we sorta have one of those coming (not really....)

Next resolution deals with water quality for third-world countries.

I just switched my vote to Against.



I have to vote my conscience. We do not need this if we have Nuclear weapons...


I would vote for this one IF the last didn't pass. But alas...

Funny you should say that....we sorta have one of those coming (not really....)

Next resolution deals with water quality for third-world countries.


Much better all the same, but we should do better...



Can't we find a bright Environmentalist to whip up a strong Car emission standard...

One that can be both bold and economically feasible.

Come on...it can't be THAT hard....(ok I snickered a bit myself...but still that shouldn't stop us).

Funny you should say that....we sorta have one of those coming (not really....)

Next resolution deals with water quality for third-world countries.


And I completely agree with you, a vote for this Resolution is a vote for Bio-Weapons.



I feel a dark Sith Lord a brewing....

It's not that that I'm most worried about. A vote for this resolution is a vote for antimatter weaponry. Vote against.

It's not that that I'm most worried about. A vote for this resolution is a vote for antimatter weaponry. Vote against.
Too late http://palara.sularan.net/gallery/view_photo.php?full=1&set_albumName=album10&id=Thebignsstarshipchartv4

Unsurprisingly, we're all for this proposal as we're also for weaponry - we see nothing wrong with putting weapons in the hands of those who know how to properly use them. Witness our recent demonstration of how well diplomacy works on incoming weaponry, and you'll see the need not for words, but deeds.

The people of Thermidore are outraged.

"typical from a nation that names itself after such a paranoid state" the newspapers write.

An apoplectic spokeswoman sums up Thermidore's views

"So first they get rid of a ban on biological weaponry, then they propose a resolution that bans the effect of any future bans! And how do you define "defending your nation from attack"? This resolution is giving not a green light, but a snivelling UN approval to paranoid nations seeking to stockpile nuclear and biological weaponry! It seems the UN is only ever able to think along the lines of "the best defense is offense"!

We should nip this proposal in the bud, and then salt the bloody earth from which it sprang! How many more of these paranoid resolutions must we hear? The UN was set up as an international body to promote peace between nations, not weapons stockpiling!"

NAY

The UN was set up as an international body to promote peace between nations, not weapons stockpiling!"
Now where the hell did you hear that? The NSUN was set up for imposing your views upon the rest of the world, or as the FAQ puts it.
The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest.

Now would you care to explain where that says any bloody thing about "promoting peace."

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Proposed amendment:

All weaponry contructed and personell trained will at all times be at the disposal and ultimate command of the UN military Command, a non political body which only becomes active if any of the member states is attacked.

Unsurprisingly, we're all for this proposal as we're also for weaponry - we see nothing wrong with putting weapons in the hands of those who know how to properly use them.

That qualifier on the end there is certainly interesting... I find it remarkable that you're willing to bet the security of your nation on the assumption that EVERY OTHER nation in the UN knows how to "properly" use things like (my obvious favorite example) biological weaponry. I didn't see any requirement for some kind of proficiency test in this proposal so one would assume that was the assumption you're making to support this proposal on those grounds.

Proposed amendment:

All weaponry contructed and personell trained will at all times be at the disposal and ultimate command of the UN military Command, a non political body which only becomes active if any of the member states is attacked.
]Army, Police, SWAT, etc

The UN doesn't get an army. Nor does it get to form The World Police. This is pretty clear: don't do it.
Thus spake The Most Glorious Hack.

That qualifier on the end there is certainly interesting... I find it remarkable that you're willing to bet the security of your nation on the assumption that EVERY OTHER nation in the UN knows how to "properly" use things like (my obvious favorite example) biological weaponry. I didn't see any requirement for some kind of proficiency test in this proposal so one would assume that was the assumption you're making to support this proposal on those grounds.
One thing is for certain, there are nations which are not in the UN who do know how to "properly" use them and would be happy to demonstrate their "proficiency".

I absolutely agree with Yelda

This amendment is crucial to this resolution.
without it it pompously declares that every un nation:
- has the right to have a military(WOOOWWW!!!!)
- in case of an attack must restrain itself to the use of UN-approved weaponry. i have serious doubts that non-UN nations have any intention of respecting this amendment and using only UN-approved equipment. if they're not in the UN, there is a reason!!!
- it doesnt state that an automatic support will be offered to the attacked nation. if they're in trouble - they must rely only on their local diplomacy and strength of arms.

The Bingybongyland of Gadloch have elected to vote AGAINST this resolution. It is the position of the Binglybonglyland that it is not within the rights of the United Nations to dictate the fiscal policies of its member nations; the Binglybonglyland wishes to reserve the exclusive right to determine the allocation of military/police funding vis-a-vis education, health, and other concerns within the budget, to be held by the nation itself.

Well, with my nation's healthy ammounts of Nuclear, Orbital, Antimatter, Ion, Plasma, FAE and other weapons, as well as our starfleet, we are all in favour of this resolution, as well as extending our offer to assist ANY other nation that requires aid....

I really don't understand the point of this resolution. It brings up no points that are at issue with UN nations. It basically says :

We want to vote to take up time.


The UN states can already use whatever weapons that haven't been banned in a defensive capability.

I question motive for the resolution. Is a papertrail for precedence being started? Something's not right.

UN nations already hold (or can hold) nuclear weaponry. What is the point in securing other WMD's? An independent nation may hold such weapons, but with the inevitable retaliatory strike, and possible alliance between regional UN states againts the agressor, there is more than enough of a deterrent to war.

I really don't understand the point of this resolution. It brings up no points that are at issue with UN nations. It basically says :

We want to vote to take up time.


The UN states can already use whatever weapons that haven't been banned in a defensive capability.

I question motive for the resolution. Is a papertrail for precedence being started? Something's not right.

UN nations already hold (or can hold) nuclear weaponry. What is the point in securing other WMD's? An independent nation may hold such weapons, but with the inevitable retaliatory strike, and possible alliance between regional UN states againts the agressor, there is more than enough of a deterrent to war.

Keep working it through and you get the motive:
It "protects our nations" by making it so that we can't (well, have a much more difficult time trying to) ban any weapons of any form.

dudes i personally feel the resolution is very important for defending the several nations in the un as we see that we are greatly outnumbered by the the non un members who will definately use their weapons to attack us with all their force :mp5: because of their hostility towards the un countries so we should be permitted to use the weopons for defence and defence only not to take advantage of them and destroy non un nations this could increase the hostile environment which would not help u or me

I would recommend reading the history of this resolution and the debate leading up to it.

Essentially, the purpose of this resolution is neither to provide arms to Member nations, nor to make nations arm themselves. It is to require that those who wish to mandate disarmament address the issue of whether or not their proposed resolutions would harm our ability to defend ourselves.

Up until now, disarmament debates have focused mostly on emotion and idealism; in the name of humanity we have been more than willing to sacrifice our security. Now, at least, the issue must be addressed.

I don't agree. This is still a waste of time. Everything is always about defense instead of getting to the root of problems. Funny how much this damn game masks the real world.

I absolutely agree with Yelda

This amendment is crucial to this resolution.
without it it pompously declares that every un nation:
- has the right to have a military(WOOOWWW!!!!)
- in case of an attack must restrain itself to the use of UN-approved weaponry. i have serious doubts that non-UN nations have any intention of respecting this amendment and using only UN-approved equipment. if they're not in the UN, there is a reason!!!
- it doesnt state that an automatic support will be offered to the attacked nation. if they're in trouble - they must rely only on their local diplomacy and strength of arms.
Not sure what you're saying here, or which post of mine you were referring to. I was pointing out that the amendment is illegal. The UN is not allowed to have an army. For that matter, amendments are illegal so the point is moot. I was in an altered state of conciousness when I made posts 162 and 163, so perhaps I failed to properly convey my meaning. Or something.

The key words, in this proposal, that I take issue with are the following

“DECLARES that all member states have the right to construct and utilize any and all weapons that are necessary to defend their nation from attack, except where previous legislation by this body that is still in effect has placed restrictions on that right. “

This would seem to leave open to interpretation what is considered “necessary” to defend a nation. A paranoid nation might believe that the only way to defend itself was to destroy all other nations. An aggressive or expansionist one might consider that adequate defence would imply that it must have a stronger military than its neighbours and that this force would probably also be more “offensive” than “defensive”. The term necessary is too vague.

Some have argued here that future UN resolutions might be worded such at “$Weapon$ is not considered necessary to defend a nation” and by using such wording have suggested that there is scope for the UN to interpret this law and to apply restrictions to weapons on the grounds that some might be judged as “unnecessary”. In order to do this is must argue clearly the case against the necessity of such weapons. By doing so it is open to disagreement on two fronts

a) those who do not consider it the right of the UN to determine what is necessary
b) those who disagree with the arguments raised to deem such weapons unnecessary.

As such the resolution places unnecessary limitations and restrictions on what the UN can do. Nations who vote for this are weakening the collective decision-making ability of the UN. This only makes me wonder why people are actually in the UN unless it be to undermine the whole system.

Fellow UN Members: I encourage you to vote against the current UN resolution. Firstly, it doesn't do anything. The resolution "DECLARES that all member states have the right to construct and utilize any and all weapons that are necessary to defend their nation from attack...." All member states already have that right, and the idea that it takes a resolution to secure it is an arrogant act suggesting that, rather than being unable to do what the UN prohibits, we are unable to do what the UN does not permit.

Secondly, the resolution assumes a siege mentality to the relations among nations. It is effectively saying that we need to build up now, because "they" are out to get us.

Thirdly, the paternalistic tone of the resolution is an insult to all sovereign nations. Regardless of how "CONCERNED that many member nations are ill-equipped to conduct an effective defense of the sovereign persons and nations" that particular member may be, independent nations know best how to handle themselves. Please vote against this resolution.

I would have given my support for this proposal, except for the right to build any and all weapons. While nations must have a means of defenhding themselves, the prospect of being allowed to build nuclear weapons is far too dangerous.

Azrael Darkha: Nowhere in this proposed resolution does it assume a siege mentality, and you do NOT have the right to build any weapon you want. I believe that there is currently a ban on chemical weapons.
This proposed resolution seeks to protect the right of member nations to arm themselves with weapons that may be necessary for their defense.
Also, I simply do not understand where you are coming from with your comment that this resolution is paternalistic. Would you call it paternalistic if somebody pointed out that some nations do not have the sort of military forces to protect themselves from determined attack?

Reformentia and Bordula: The comments along the lines of 'A vote for this resolution is a vote for $weapon', I am inclined to disagree. A vote for this resolution is a vote for the right to protect your state using whatever weapons you wish, excepting those that are already banned by the UN. Does that make sense?

Gadloch: This proposed resolution does not dictate your spending policies or anything of the sort. It basically affirms current UN policy, and makes it harder to pass any weapons bans.

Thermidore: The repeal of the ban on biological weaponry and the submission of this proposed resolution were two seperate events. The repeal was orgnaized by Reformentia, who was planning to replace it with a more effective piece of legislation on the same subject, which he will now find considerably more difficult to get through.
This proposed resolution is the logical extension of the recently passed Nuclear Armaments resolution, as it protects the rights of UN members to any and all weapons deemed necessary to their defense, and makes it harder to take this right away.

Thank you

For the record, I have voted for this resolution.

Daniel Willis, Ambassador to the UN, UNIverseVERSE.

I would have given my support for this proposal, except for the right to build any and all weapons. While nations must have a means of defenhding themselves, the prospect of being allowed to build nuclear weapons is far too dangerous.

May I point out that the right of nations to build nuclear weaponry is now protected under the recently passed Nuclear Armaments Proposal, and therefore this proposal has no effect on that.

I would have given my support for this proposal, except for the right to build any and all weapons. While nations must have a means of defenhding themselves, the prospect of being allowed to build nuclear weapons is far too dangerous.
We already CAN build nuclear weapons. This doesn't change that.

This only makes me wonder why people are actually in the UN unless it be to undermine the whole system.

I suspect what we are currently witnessing in the NSUN is a backlash to the far too prescriptive resolutions of the past. There is a need to explicitly protect rights when those rights are so often removed by acts of this body.

Wolfish.

I suspect what we are currently witnessing in the NSUN is a backlash to the far too prescriptive resolutions of the past. There is a need to explicitly protect rights when those rights are so often removed by acts of this body.

Wolfish.

So the irony is that UN members seem to be weakening the power of the UN collective in order to devolve powers to their own nations.

All well and good but might I suggest the simplest way to do this would be to leave the UN.

I believe this is no better than any of the other failed resolutions that it has been designed to protect against. All of these resolutions do is pander to the fears of UN nations to protect their own sovereignty and ignores the fact that those nations have ceded part of their sovereignty by the simple act of joining the UN.

Here we are reminded of threats from non-UN nations. In the "Diplomatic Immunity Bill" the "rogue" nations were within the UN. Talk about inconsistency!!

Here's another thought to those nations who want to play war games in NationStates and don't want to have all their high-tech weapons taken. Go and get yourself a puppet nation like everybody else!!

I don't agree. This is still a waste of time. Everything is always about defense instead of getting to the root of problems. Funny how much this damn game masks the real world.It surprises you that this game mirrors the real world?

People play it, right?

So the irony is that UN members seem to be weakening the power of the UN collective in order to devolve powers to their own nations.

All well and good but might I suggest the simplest way to do this would be to leave the UN.

Ah - but there are other advantages to being in the UN aside from it telling you how to run your nation...for one, the joy of these debates.

The UN isn't weakened if it fails to pass - or if it's scope is limited by a resolution. I would argue that it is a sign of a maturing world body.

I support this proposal and the future of the UN.

I will again note at this point that any resolution adopted by this body is subject to repeal. I will further note that the adoption of an "unnecessary weapon" clause is sufficient to consider any United Nations proposal that would appear to be prevented by this resolution. Therefore, this resolution is effectively meaningless.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador

The key words, in this proposal, that I take issue with are the following
“DECLARES that all member states have the right to construct and utilize any and all weapons that are necessary to defend their nation from attack, except where previous legislation by this body that is still in effect has placed restrictions on that right. “
This would seem to leave open to interpretation what is considered “necessary” to defend a nation.Correct. But whose interpretation, may we ask?
A paranoid nation might believe that the only way to defend itself was to destroy all other nations.True, but irrelevant. It's not their opinion that counts.
An aggressive or expansionist one might consider that adequate defence would imply that it must have a stronger military than its neighbours and that this force would probably also be more “offensive” than “defensive”.Also true, and also irrelevant. It's not their opinion that counts either.
The term necessary is too vague.If you rearrange that sentence just a little, you'll arrive at the truth:
The term “necessary” is necessarily vague.The only body competent to judge the matter is this body, the General Assembly. We will be the judge of what is necessary and unnecessary - and nobody else.
Some have argued here that future UN resolutions might be worded such at “$Weapon$ is not considered necessary to defend a nation” and by using such wording have suggested that there is scope for the UN to interpret this law and to apply restrictions to weapons on the grounds that some might be judged as “unnecessary”. In order to do this is must argue clearly the case against the necessity of such weapons. By doing so it is open to disagreement on two fronts

a) those who do not consider it the right of the UN to determine what is necessary
b) those who disagree with the arguments raised to deem such weapons unnecessary.And they will get a vote right along with everybody else. But at the end of the day, like it or not, it will be majority rule that decides the matter. Period.
As such the resolution places unnecessary limitations and restrictions on what the UN can do. Nations who vote for this are weakening the collective decision-making ability of the UN. This only makes me wonder why people are actually in the UN unless it be to undermine the whole system.Limitations and restrictions, yes - but not unnecessary ones. This merely asserts that the U.N. must take up the issue of whether they are banning a weapon that some of us need, as opposed to simply banning a weapon because - as we have derisively put it in other debates - of a "fluffy-bunny pacifist" attitude that says that all weapons are bad, and therefore they should all be banned.

Fellow UN Members: I encourage you to vote against the current UN resolution. Firstly, it doesn't do anything. The resolution "DECLARES that all member states have the right to construct and utilize any and all weapons that are necessary to defend their nation from attack...." All member states already have that right, and the idea that it takes a resolution to secure it is an arrogant act suggesting that, rather than being unable to do what the UN prohibits, we are unable to do what the UN does not permit.

Secondly, the resolution assumes a siege mentality to the relations among nations. It is effectively saying that we need to build up now, because "they" are out to get us.

Thirdly, the paternalistic tone of the resolution is an insult to all sovereign nations. Regardless of how "CONCERNED that many member nations are ill-equipped to conduct an effective defense of the sovereign persons and nations" that particular member may be, independent nations know best how to handle themselves. Please vote against this resolution.<Allemande whistles and waves to Texan Hotrodders>

"Hey, Tex, get a load of this: a NatSov argument against a NatSov resolution!"

:D

Here's another thought to those nations who want to play war games in NationStates and don't want to have all their high-tech weapons taken. Go and get yourself a puppet nation like everybody else!!Translation: U.N. Member = eunuch. If you don't want to be a eunuch, leave the U.N.

Sorry, but we're not buying that notion.

I will again note at this point that any resolution adopted by this body is subject to repeal. I will further note that the adoption of an "unnecessary weapon" clause is sufficient to consider any United Nations proposal that would appear to be prevented by this resolution. Therefore, this resolution is effectively meaningless.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador

T'isk t'isk Goob...you've always been the voice of reason - advocating for the spirit of the legislation while pointing out that every resolution has loopholes and can be "gotten around"...this just sounds like sour grapes coming from you.

<Allemande whistles and waves to Texan Hotrodders>

"Hey, Tex, get a load of this: a NatSov argument against a NatSov resolution!"

:D

OOC: It's been done before. I remember with my first resolution "Right to Self-Protection" that there were numerous occassions of people being pissed because it violated their sovereignty, which I specifically wrote so that it did not violate sovereignty.

I remember with "National Systems of Tax" that there were numerous people who were opposed to it because they felt that giving the UN the precedent to legislate on issues of taxation was a bad one. Of course, they didn't realize that the UN already has plenty of precedent for mucking around in our economic system as long as it does so without banning an economic system or specifying a tax change.

It's a similar case here. Somehow some people seem to fear that by protecting their rights via the UN we are causing a danger to their rights that wasn't already there. The truth is that the rights of UN member states have been in danger since the first ten resolutions, and it's about time we started doing something to combat it rather than hiding and hoping it will go away while making largely useless protests about the violation of sovereignty.

Thirdly, the paternalistic tone of the resolution is an insult to all sovereign nations. Regardless of how "CONCERNED that many member nations are ill-equipped to conduct an effective defense of the sovereign persons and nations" that particular member may be, independent nations know best how to handle themselves. Please vote against this resolution.


Exactly...this is the most important thing to realize.

Again the game mirrors the real world. What we have on this forum are a few bullying big hitters who feel that by quoting others at an unprecedented rate, using a lot of government lingo, and making their replies the longest on the forum, that they are indeed the only knowledgable people commenting on the issue. I believe it is not hard to figure out who I speak of. All that needs to be realized is that none of the topics in these forums is as cut and dry as any arguments makes them out to be. A good tactic that would allow some less knowledgable people to partake may be to stop being so condescending and act a little more respectively towards others on the thread. Furthermore you don't need to quote to the extent of dismantling others opinions for the sake of getting yours across. Let us see some diplomacy in these debates.

Signed Boxemia and all those other states who are completely sick of the vileness of human nature.

Again the game mirrors the real world. What we have on this forum are a few bullying big hitters who feel that by quoting others at an unprecedented rate, using a lot of government lingo, and making their replies the longest on the forum, that they are indeed the only knowledgable people commenting on the issue. I believe it is not hard to figure out who I speak of. All that needs to be realized is that none of the topics in these forums is as cut and dry as any arguments makes them out to be. A good tactic that would allow some less knowledgable people to partake may be to stop being so condescending and act a little more respectively towards others on the thread. Furthermore you don't need to quote to the extent of dismantling others opinions for the sake of getting yours across. Let us see some diplomacy in these debates.

Signed Boxemia and all those other states who are completely sick of the vileness of human nature.

OOC: You do realize that this could be considered flamebaiting? As a player, my friendly advice would be that you exercise caution when commenting on other people. Criticizing their actions is fine and your criticisms may be legitimate in certain cases, but using labels like "bullying big hitters" could get you in trouble with the Mods if you keep it up. Just be careful, okay? No need to get yourself warned over a forum debate. :)

Unsurprisingly, we're all for this proposal as we're also for weaponry - we see nothing wrong with putting weapons in the hands of those who know how to properly use them. Witness our recent demonstration of how well diplomacy works on incoming weaponry, and you'll see the need not for words, but deeds.we who?

Again the game mirrors the real world. What we have on this forum are a few bullying big hitters who feel that by quoting others at an unprecedented rate, using a lot of government lingo, and making their replies the longest on the forum, that they are indeed the only knowledgable people commenting on the issue. I believe it is not hard to figure out who I speak of. All that needs to be realized is that none of the topics in these forums is as cut and dry as any arguments makes them out to be. A good tactic that would allow some less knowledgable people to partake may be to stop being so condescending and act a little more respectively towards others on the thread. Furthermore you don't need to quote to the extent of dismantling others opinions for the sake of getting yours across. Let us see some diplomacy in these debates.

Signed Boxemia and all those other states who are completely sick of the vileness of human nature.

But the UN is about debate and different ideas - I find it reprehensible that you would want to muzzel some (or one) because he's better at debate that some others.

Because you (and I mean the big collective you) have a vision of what the UN is - doesn't mean that it ceases to be a democratic body. It is, and will be, what the majority make it.

we who?Why, Vastiva ... who else? :)

It's not unusual to speak in the plural when your ambassador represents a nation. We here in the United States of Allemande do it all the time. In fact, when we use the singular, it's because we're slipping... ;)

LOL ok I got it... after all I'm still getting the hang of this.

Let us see some diplomacy in these debates.If you believe that we have been disrespectful, then we do apologize.

But do not object to our dissection of illogical or faulty arguments. By allowing poor arguments to stand unmolested, we let this debate become less a matter of deliberation and more a matter of emotion.

It is deliberation - based on analytical analysis, including critique - that forms the basis form democracy. Emotion, and appeals to emotion, on the other hand, are the tools of demagoguery, which leads to mob rule.

Sadly, too many arguments here are decided by slogans and feelings, and too few by clear-headed analysis.

(BTW, if you think I'm ruthless, wait until DLE gets here...)

LOL ok I got it... after all I'm still getting the hang of this.You're not doing badly, all in all.

[ooc: DLE is forumbanned for the duration of the debate on this resolution. I'll respond to Wolfish's point when I'm not running out the door en route to an eye-doctor appointment.]

[ooc: DLE is forumbanned for the duration of the debate on this resolution. I'll respond to Wolfish's point when I'm not running out the door en route to an eye-doctor appointment.]Oh, my. Then we apparently are needed.

<rising to address the General Assembly>

Rest assured, my fellow ambassadors, that we have only threatened invasion once or twice in debates such as this - and never carried out those threats (although we did bring it to a vote on one occasion). And I personally - as ambassador - do not carry weapons and have never folded, spindled, mutilated, nor set ablaze one of my fellow ambassadors (other than verbally, of course).

It will be left to Vastiva to employ nuclear weapons as part of this debate... ;)

<sits back down>

V-A-S-T-I-V-A
V-A-S-T-I-V-A
V-A-S-T-I-V-A
V-A-S-T-I-V-A
V-A-S-T-I-V-A
V-A-S-T-I-V-A
V-A-S-T-I-V-A
...

<worries at the few remaining staples with teeth>

The Duke appreciates the intent of the proposed resolution, but feels that its sole effect would be to unnecessarily complicate and obscure the process by which the UN bans weaponry.

USNA makes no effort to establish a criterion for determining whether weaponry is or is not "necessary for national defense", beyond that of majority vote. As such, UNSA is an unnecessary resolution to preserve the status quo, and gives no member nation of the UN any rights not already possessed by that nation.

As the regional Delegate of Songfightland, the Duke feels it is his duty to vote as best represents his constituency. Of the eleven UN member nations currently residing in Songfightland, eight nations have yet to weigh in, and at the time of this statement the vote is 2-1 Against. As such the Duke has cast a tentative vote Against the resolution.

The Duke appreciates the intent of the proposed resolution, but feels that its sole effect would be to unnecessarily complicate and obscure the process by which the UN bans weaponry.I have also voted against this proposal and my region's poll so far indicates that our delegate and prime minister Checkers McDog will also vote against. I've said it before but I think it bares repeating. I don't believe that UNSA complicates or obscures the process of banning weaponry in the future. The UNSA states very cleary that all weapons are allowed unless they are banned in other passed resolutions. My only beef with that particular section, is the fact that there are no current restrictions or bans on weapons.

Allthough I am confident that at least an existant biological weapons ban will be passed in the near future.

Ok, now I'm going to go all legal...

Hack, assuming this proposal is not ruled illegal and deleted, and assuming it passes, one of the previous peices of legislation it refers to would seem to include the repeal of the bioweapons resolution which was just passed.

That repeal contains the statement:



Now, regardless of the motivations of those who voted for it (and I'm perfectly aware that some people voted for it only because it was the only repeal to reach quorum after many, MANY attempts to get rid of the "Elimination of Bioweapons" resolution) THIS is the text of the repeal that passed and is on the books of UN legislation. Having passed the vote it can now be argued that it is the official legal position of the UN that it has confirmed its intent to re-enact a biological weapons ban and just hasn't decided on the form of it yet. Thus, I believe this would make it perfectly legal to propose and pass a bioweapons ban even after the "United Nations Security Act" passed (if that should occur) as such a ban would be exempt by virtue of already having its intent legislated previous to the passage of that bill and thus falls under "previous legislation by this body that is still in effect".

Thoughts?


I agree.

This proposal is much better than the armament proposal that was, well, not passed. It does not disregard past disarmament proposals, and says right on the top that it does not use it in situations of creating a war.

I'm all for it.

One thing is for certain, there are nations which are not in the UN who do know how to "properly" use them and would be happy to demonstrate their "proficiency".

Fear isn't an ally of good policy.




Yes it is true that it takes a million bullets to kill a million people but only one Siran gas missile to do the same....


But make no mistake, just because the bullet is a far less efficient means to kill large groups of people...it's still gets the job down.

Something this vague is, frankly speaking, bad policy considering the type of topic it is.

This proposal is much better than the armament proposal that was, well, not passed.
I'm curious as to what proposal you're referring to, because if it was my "Nuclear Armaments" resolution then, I've got news for you, it did pass.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Originally Posted by Reformentia
Ok, now I'm going to go all legal...

Hack, assuming this proposal is not ruled illegal and deleted, and assuming it passes, one of the previous peices of legislation it refers to would seem to include the repeal of the bioweapons resolution which was just passed.

That repeal contains the statement:



Now, regardless of the motivations of those who voted for it (and I'm perfectly aware that some people voted for it only because it was the only repeal to reach quorum after many, MANY attempts to get rid of the "Elimination of Bioweapons" resolution) THIS is the text of the repeal that passed and is on the books of UN legislation. Having passed the vote it can now be argued that it is the official legal position of the UN that it has confirmed its intent to re-enact a biological weapons ban and just hasn't decided on the form of it yet. Thus, I believe this would make it perfectly legal to propose and pass a bioweapons ban even after the "United Nations Security Act" passed (if that should occur) as such a ban would be exempt by virtue of already having its intent legislated previous to the passage of that bill and thus falls under "previous legislation by this body that is still in effect".

Thoughts?

I agree.C'mon folks, how hard is this?

"BELIEVING that no nation needs biological nations to adequately and effectively defend itself from attack, AND..."Reformentia, I appreciate your belief that this resolution does absolute nothing and should have been tossed as an illegal waste of the U.N.'s time, but the mods heard all the arguments and ruled that it was legal. Therefore, what is the problem with accepting that ruling and simply working with it.

Is prefacing a bio-weapons ban with the sentence provided above really that horrible an imposition?!?

For the record I will be perfectly happy with this current resolution as soon as a Biological weapons ban proposal is passed. For that reason I think we should've passed the bio-ban first but you can't exactly control these sort of things.

Reformentia, I appreciate your belief that this resolution does absolute nothing
Look again. Reformentia didn't bring this back up, Shrimpy quoted something from the first page before this even made quorum.

Pick on the argument all you want, but pick on the right guy.

<Rises to address assembly, while smashing shoe on desk Khrushchev style>

We, the great nation of Latouria, vote no. After the repeal of the biological weapons one, and the latest nuclear one, we have this:

"DECLARES that all member states have the right to construct and utilize any and all weapons that are necessary to defend their nation from attack, except where previous legislation by this body that is still in effect has placed restrictions on that right."

"Any and all weapons that are necessary to defend the nation from attack" Who decides what is "necessary"? This can include nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, biological weapons, or weapons in space, all great evils that some nations are building up to "defend" themselves and oppress other nations. This also effectively blocks any attempt to restore the biological weapons resolution, as it preserves the right of nations to build biological weapons, as there is currently no "prevoious legislation by this body that is still in effect" to ban biological weapons. Also, all it does is cut off any debate on future resolutions to ban any other form of weapon, as nations already have the right to have standing armies and other forms of national defence, and there is no danger of that right being taken away. We urge you to vote no to this resolution, as it will arm many nations worldwide with weapons that have the potential to destroy the whole world and preserve their right to threaten the very existence of humanity.

Thank you, that is all.

<sits back down>

<Rises to address assembly, while smashing shoe on desk Khrushchev style>Krushchev actually did that? What an ass that guy must've been. :D

Krushchev actually did that? What an ass that guy must've been. :D

He was known to interrupt speeches at the UN by banging on his desk and shouting in Russian. In this instance, the Filipino delegate accused him of hypocrisy by protesting Western imperialism while engaging in imperialism himself, so he called him a "kholuj i stavlennik imperializma," which translates into "a jerk, a stooge and a lackey of imperialism." And he was known for his temper, but I would say that despite some bad decisions, him and Gorbachev were probably the best Soviet...whatever their title is as far as intentions go.

I suggest that this resolution should be voted down. The concept behind the resolution is an honorable one, but it does not demand anything from UN member nations, nor does it over-turn any previous legislation. While it's weakness is not a reason to vote the measure down, it is certainly a reason not to approve of it. Aside from the fact that this is a bureaucratic waste of time, it's passage would encourage other member nations to submit proposals of a similar weak nature, thus clogging up the flow of proposal submission and deliberation.

Krushchev actually did that? What an ass that guy must've been. :D

RL is allowed in discussion in the forum - just don't post it in your proposals

Who decides what is "necessary"?We do.
This also effectively blocks any attempt to restore the biological weapons resolution, as it preserves the right of nations to build biological weapons, as there is currently no "prevoious legislation by this body that is still in effect" to ban biological weapons.No, it does not. All we have to do is assert - in the preamble of said bioweapons ban - that such weapons are "unnecessary" for any nation's defense.
Also, all it does is cut off any debate on future resolutions to ban any other form of weapon...See above.
...nations already have the right to have standing armies and other forms of national defence, and there is no danger of that right being taken away.Actually, there have been proposals to completely disarm all U.N. nations. While it is theoretically possible for someone to argue that no weapons are necessary, that seems highly unlikely. And - ultimately - it was this very possibility - that prompted the resolution.

Now put your shoe back on...

Allemande, that was cruel... I'll bet not more then ten nations can name where that came from. :D

That qualifier on the end there is certainly interesting... I find it remarkable that you're willing to bet the security of your nation on the assumption that EVERY OTHER nation in the UN knows how to "properly" use things like (my obvious favorite example) biological weaponry. I didn't see any requirement for some kind of proficiency test in this proposal so one would assume that was the assumption you're making to support this proposal on those grounds.

*yawn* Our people go through conscript military service for six years and can handle most problems efficiently. If other nations choose to be stupid - so be it.

If you added a bit in your proposal about biological weapons about those able to handle them with long proof having no limits, we'd support. As that is lacking, we won't. We don't care if the stupid wipe themselves out.

I suggest that this resolution should be voted down. The concept behind the resolution is an honorable one, but it does not demand anything from UN member nations, nor does it over-turn any previous legislation. While it's weakness is not a reason to vote the measure down, it is certainly a reason not to approve of it. Aside from the fact that this is a bureaucratic waste of time, it's passage would encourage other member nations to submit proposals of a similar weak nature, thus clogging up the flow of proposal submission and deliberation.

I agree with this statement so wholly it needs no additional text from yours truely.

Why, Vastiva ... who else? :)

It's not unusual to speak in the plural when your ambassador represents a nation. We here in the United States of Allemande do it all the time. In fact, when we use the singular, it's because we're slipping... ;)

We would also note, we're a Caliph, and as such are perfectly within propriety to use the "Royal We".

The U.N. isn't supposed to be a governing body infringing on the rights of member nations, but rather a diplomatic body aiding in the use of said rights. Essentially this resolution is saying that if you are attacked by a rogue state you may defend yourself using conventional weapons regardless of what weapons they choose to use against you. Despite good intentions all this resoltuion is diong is hampering the defence process as well as doling out a right that all member nations have as per the constitution of the U.N. in small amounts. Therefore, it is safe to say, that by accepting this resolution, and thus accepting the right to defend yourself (decades after the formation of the U.N.) that everytime a member state has defended themselves prior to this resolution it has been contrary to the United Nations.
In essence this waste of time that was unfortunately dubbed a resolution is moot and should be voted against.

The U.N. isn't supposed to be a governing body infringing on the rights of member nations, but rather a diplomatic body aiding in the use of said rights. Essentially this resolution is saying that if you are attacked by a rogue state you may defend yourself using conventional weapons regardless of what weapons they choose to use against you. Despite good intentions all this resoltuion is diong is hampering the defence process as well as doling out a right that all member nations have as per the constitution of the U.N. in small amounts. Therefore, it is safe to say, that by accepting this resolution, and thus accepting the right to defend yourself (decades after the formation of the U.N.) that everytime a member state has defended themselves prior to this resolution it has been contrary to the United Nations.
In essence this waste of time that was unfortunately dubbed a resolution is moot and should be voted against.

Your card, sir? (http://img112.echo.cx/img112/2601/readthefaq5yd.jpg)

*yawn* Our people go through conscript military service for six years and can handle most problems efficiently. If other nations choose to be stupid - so be it.

If you added a bit in your proposal about biological weapons about those able to handle them with long proof having no limits, we'd support. As that is lacking, we won't. We don't care if the stupid wipe themselves out.


I'm more worried about your politicians and scientists. I don't believe they can make a bio-weapon that is safe. Once it's made, the grunts have very little chance of infecting themselves while handling it - no matter how it's designed - they just might be infected because some moron politician/scientist screwed up and it infected your nation in the process (and DON'T get started on Antartica)

The U.N. isn't supposed to be a governing body infringing on the rights of member nations, but rather a diplomatic body aiding in the use of said rights. Essentially this resolution is saying that if you are attacked by a rogue state you may defend yourself using conventional weapons regardless of what weapons they choose to use against you. Despite good intentions all this resoltuion is diong is hampering the defence process as well as doling out a right that all member nations have as per the constitution of the U.N. in small amounts. Therefore, it is safe to say, that by accepting this resolution, and thus accepting the right to defend yourself (decades after the formation of the U.N.) that everytime a member state has defended themselves prior to this resolution it has been contrary to the United Nations.
In essence this waste of time that was unfortunately dubbed a resolution is moot and should be voted against.Your card, sir? (http://img112.echo.cx/img112/2601/readthefaq5yd.jpg)I prefer this one (http://img137.echo.cx/img137/408/thenotthesamecard5gk.jpg), although maybe we need it to be in a different suit (NSUN != RLUN)

(In all fairness, sometimes I wish it were in fact true that the NationStates United Nations was not a World Government, but rather a defensive alliance. Perhaps this desire is at the very heart of the NatSov movement: while we can't turn the NSUN into the RLUN, we might be able to make it a less intrusive kind of "federal" government, rather than letting it be the highly intrusive "central" government is today.

(Come to think of it, maybe we should rename the NatSov movement ... we could be the "Federalist Party", perhaps?!? ;) )

I'm more worried about your politicians and scientists. I don't believe they can make a bio-weapon that is safe. Once it's made, the grunts have very little chance of infecting themselves while handling it - no matter how it's designed - they just might be infected because some moron politician/scientist screwed up and it infected your nation in the process (and DON'T get started on Antartica)

Ahhhh - the trust arguement. Have you been to International Incidents? There are nations there that shouldn't be trusted with sharp sticks. Remember - this ban would only apply to UN nations - this will do nothing eliminate biological weapons from NS. We'd be better to pass a resolution stating that all UN nations must apply the highest standards of bio security to their weapons programs. With the "must comply" rule - we'd all be much safer (and armed).

Ahhhh - the trust arguement. Have you been to International Incidents? There are nations there that shouldn't be trusted with sharp sticks. Remember - this ban would only apply to UN nations - this will do nothing eliminate biological weapons from NS. We'd be better to pass a resolution stating that all UN nations must apply the highest standards of bio security to their weapons programs. With the "must comply" rule - we'd all be much safer (and armed).

The people outside the UN (ignoring the fact that some are fairly hostile) are no less intelligent or capable than those within the body. Therefore, I don't agree with that argument. Reason: I'm a believer of "the fewer idiots running around with guns, the safer we'll all be." That's not to say I want to ban conventional weaponry (please don't try that argument), but I don't believe that we are safer because the UN has bio-weapons.

You say deterrence, I say we're screwed both ways (not to mention, I believe deterrence to be ineffective for the "minor" WMDs as I so call them - Chem and Bio weaps).

Ahhhh - the trust arguement. Have you been to International Incidents? There are nations there that shouldn't be trusted with sharp sticks. Remember - this ban would only apply to UN nations - this will do nothing eliminate biological weapons from NS. We'd be better to pass a resolution stating that all UN nations must apply the highest standards of bio security to their weapons programs. With the "must comply" rule - we'd all be much safer (and armed).
We agree wholeheartedly with the Wolfish delegate. And at some point in the future the issue of standards for safe handling and storage should be addressed.

Why the U.N. feels that it is nessisary to pass such legislation is beyond me. All that this says is that since we are in the U.N. and obviously supierior to those nations that aren't...we can do whatever we want and have the most cruel and inhumane weapons possible to "protect" the U.N. and in turn, letting every man and his dog who are in the U.N. do whatever they want militarily even with weapons that can cause no good. War is nessisary in many situations but to take it to the level of destroying the entire nation and it's people that you are fighting makes no sence and solves nothing. :gundge:

Why the U.N. feels that it is nessisary to pass such legislation is beyond me. All that this says is that since we are in the U.N. and obviously supierior to those nations that aren't...we can do whatever we want and have the most cruel and inhumane weapons possible to "protect" the U.N. and in turn, letting every man and his dog who are in the U.N. do whatever they want militarily even with weapons that can cause no good. War is nessisary in many situations but to take it to the level of destroying the entire nation and it's people that you are fighting makes no sence and solves nothing. :gundge:

Excuse me. Could the delegate from Nakamaru please send us a copy of the legislation they are referring to. We have seen no legislation that implies that UN nations are superior to others, that says that you can do whatever you want, or that you should destroy an entire nation and its people. We would vehemently oppose legislation that said any of those things.

Deputy Minister of UN Affairs
-Thomas Smith

I don't think this resolution will make the ban bio weapons resolution illegal! Reason:

"NOTING bioweapons are an unpredictable and dangerous weapon to ALL parties in a conflict, combatant and non-combatant alike."

That basically says that the bio weapons are a threat to the nation using them aswell, so clearly they aren't needed for defence. Also:

"CONVINCED the possession or use of such bioweapons by any UN or NON UN member nation presents an unacceptable risk to the safety of all nations. "

Basically does the same thing. I don't think this resolution will make the ban bio weapons resolution illegal because of those two clauses. If it dosen't make the resolution illegal, I might change my stance on it. I just need confirmation.

I don't think this resolution will make the ban bio weapons resolution illegal! Reason:

"NOTING bioweapons are an unpredictable and dangerous weapon to ALL parties in a conflict, combatant and non-combatant alike."

That basically says that the bio weapons are a threat to the nation using them aswell, so clearly they aren't needed for defence. Also:

"CONVINCED the possession or use of such bioweapons by any UN or NON UN member nation presents an unacceptable risk to the safety of all nations. "

Basically does the same thing. I don't think this resolution will make the ban bio weapons resolution illegal because of those two clauses. If it dosen't make the resolution illegal, I might change my stance on it. I just need confirmation.Either way, we expect to see the proposed ban reach queue and Allemande will vote for it when it arrives on the floor (the Assembly should note our concerns over the use of variola as a bioweapon during the debate on the Resolution to eradicate smallpox.

Consequently, we do not advise conditioning support for this proposal on the fate of the Bioweapons Ban.

We think you may have a point, though, and would like to see a mod ruling as to whether these words represent a statement to the effect that such weapons are unnecessary for anybody's national defense.

OOC: Good eye!

I don't think this resolution will make the ban bio weapons resolution illegal! Reason:

"NOTING bioweapons are an unpredictable and dangerous weapon to ALL parties in a conflict, combatant and non-combatant alike."

That basically says that the bio weapons are a threat to the nation using them aswell, so clearly they aren't needed for defence. Also:

"CONVINCED the possession or use of such bioweapons by any UN or NON UN member nation presents an unacceptable risk to the safety of all nations. "

Basically does the same thing. I don't think this resolution will make the ban bio weapons resolution illegal because of those two clauses. If it dosen't make the resolution illegal, I might change my stance on it. I just need confirmation.

Ah - but here's the rub.

The Bio-weapons ban names these items as weapons - not biological agents.

The current resolution at vote states "...any and all weapons", and only then provide the qualifier of "deemed necessary."

I would understand your position only if the bio-weapons ban was a "biological agent ban" instead.

Ah - but here's the rub.

The Bio-weapons ban names these items as weapons - not biological agents.

The current resolution at vote states "...any and all weapons", and only then provide the qualifier of "deemed necessary."

I would understand your position only if the bio-weapons ban was a "biological agent ban" instead.

OOC: Good point, and I'm glad to see you becoming active with the UN again. It's been a long time. :)

OOC: Good point, and I'm glad to see you becoming active with the UN again. It's been a long time. :)

It really has - but we're coming up on the two year anniversary of the Wolfish Convention...and so I thought I better show my face before the party.

;)

I think any nation has the right to defend its self. If a opposeing nation is sitting their beating the tar out of you that nation has a right to retaleate, even if it means useing Nukular weapons.

I don't think this resolution will make the ban bio weapons resolution illegal! Reason:

"NOTING bioweapons are an unpredictable and dangerous weapon to ALL parties in a conflict, combatant and non-combatant alike."

That basically says that the bio weapons are a threat to the nation using them aswell, so clearly they aren't needed for defence. Also:

"CONVINCED the possession or use of such bioweapons by any UN or NON UN member nation presents an unacceptable risk to the safety of all nations. "

Basically does the same thing. I don't think this resolution will make the ban bio weapons resolution illegal because of those two clauses. If it dosen't make the resolution illegal, I might change my stance on it. I just need confirmation.

Mod ruling is it will be deleted - though you can point that out to them to find out

T'isk t'isk Goob...you've always been the voice of reason - advocating for the spirit of the legislation while pointing out that every resolution has loopholes and can be "gotten around"...this just sounds like sour grapes coming from you.

Lord Evif paces, trying to find a good rebuttal to the remarks of the delegate from Wolfish. However, he realizes that he has been resorting to the sorts of attacks that he usually will not make on a resolution, preferring to argue on the merits of the cases.

Lord Evif sighs and wishes that the UN would return to considering resolutions that responded to the real needs of member nations, and not those which have the sole effect of barring the United Nations from considering future proposals. Even if he'd probably vote against said proposals anyway.

Ah - but here's the rub.

The Bio-weapons ban names these items as weapons - not biological agents.

The current resolution at vote states "...any and all weapons", and only then provide the qualifier of "deemed necessary."

Actually it says that ARE necessary.

I don't see any legislation anywhere, including in the UNSA, that estabishes bioweapons ARE necessary... or establishes any criteria to judge that they are such.

In short, it incorporates absolutely no language whatsoever that would make it apply to a biological weapons ban.

I'm currently working on my one last attempt to present a case for the legality of the current version of the proposal regardless of the passage of the UNSA, and I think it's shaping up as extremely solid.

Lord Evif paces, trying to find a good rebuttal to the remarks of the delegate from Wolfish. However, he realizes that he has been resorting to the sorts of attacks that he usually will not make on a resolution, preferring to argue on the merits of the cases.

Lord Evif sighs and wishes that the UN would return to considering resolutions that responded to the real needs of member nations, and not those which have the sole effect of barring the United Nations from considering future proposals. Even if he'd probably vote against said proposals anyway.

The Emissary from Wolfish watches as the troubled Lord Evif, long a friend of the Wolfish people, paces about the room.

Sensing a need to renew that friendship...she summons a page...reaches into her briefcase and withdraws a bottle of fine Wolfish Brandy. "Please take this to the Lord Evif."

She watched as the page scurried away....

Lord Evif walked down the center aisle of the great United Nations assembly hall towards his seat. Lost in thought, he barely noticed the page approaching him.

"Is this Wolfish Brandy? Quite nice. Tell the Wolfish Emissary that I'm grateful for her gift and that it is a pleasure to see her here again. Although I don't always agree with the Wolfish positions on issues, the people of that nation have long excelled at making me rethink my positions on various questions."

As the page walked off, Evif started thinking about a Goobergunchian gift for the delegate from Wolfish. He owed her one.

what if we pass this and nations start to resign and then attack the un members with the weapons that they made. what happens then. i think to shudder. how could we pass this. this is ubsurd.

what if we pass this and nations start to resign and then attack the un members with the weapons that they made. what happens then. i think to shudder. how could we pass this. this is ubsurd.

OOC: This reminds me of something. Thanks for the reminder.

IC:

I suggest that you read the resolution again carefully. The resolution does not ban weapons and make things more dangerous for us. It allows you to have weapons to defend yourself with.

Deputy Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

what if we pass this and nations start to resign and then attack the un members with the weapons that they made. what happens then. i think to shudder. how could we pass this. this is ubsurd.What if we don't, and nations that never were U.N. members do the same thing?

The real issue is is whether or not we think that the United Nations should have to apply any particular criteria to weapons bans, or whether we should just be able to ban any weapon we please, for any reason we please, as we please.

Texan Hotrodders has proposed that we should limit ourselves to banning arms that we as a body believe to be useless in defending ourselves from attack, on a basis of the theory that we should never ask any nation to forswear the use of a weapon that it needs to survive.

What the Members must ask themselves is:
Is this enough, or should there be other requirements before we ban a weapon (eg., said weapon being barbarous or inhumane, having uncontrollable collateral effects, etc.)?


Does defencive necessity outweigh other reasons for banning weapons (some of which have been listed above), or should some of these reasons be given greater weight. If the latter, are we asking some nations to potentially sacrifice themselves for the sake of principle, and is that something we ought to do?


By passing this kind of resolution, we are continuing a recent trend toward limiting our own authority. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Should we instead seek to maximise our authority? Or should we seek someplace in between? Are nations to be nothing more than municipalities in a global government, or should we respect and perhaps even cultivate national differences by forsaking unlimited power in favour of delegated authority?


Are we, by implicitly asserting the right of Members to self-defence, threatening the rest of the world? If so, how could we better guarantee our survival in a dangerous world without being provocative? Or is the threat of force, the mother's milk of realpolitik, the only currency with which we can ensure our survival?
These are not the only arguments to be made, but the United States of Allemande is disappointed by the sheer number of nations that either have not read or do not understand the question before the General Assembly.

This is not a weapons ban, or a ban on weapons bans.

This is not a call to arms, or a call to surrender.

This is not an empty resolution, devoid of meaning, a waste of this body's time.

This is a resolution whose purpose is to impose on this body a set of criteria that we will need to observe in legislating on a topic of great interest to many. That is what it is, and all it is.

We pray the Members consider it on that basis, and not on a basis of emotion or misunderstanding.

The real issue is is whether or not we think that the United Nations should have to apply any particular criteria to weapons bans, or whether we should just be able to ban any weapon we please, for any reason we please, as we please.

Quite frankly, no, that is not the issue. That would have been the issue of the UNSA contained any criteria for judging whether or not any given weapon system was necessary for national defense, but it did not.

Texan Hotrodders has proposed that we should limit ourselves to banning arms that we as a body believe to be useless in defending ourselves from attack,

No, that has not been proposed. What has been proposed is that the UN not be permitted to ban weapons which are necessary to defend from attack. Necessary does not equal "not useless".

This is not a weapons ban, or a ban on weapons bans.

This is not a call to arms, or a call to surrender.

Agreed.

This is not an empty resolution, devoid of meaning, a waste of this body's time.

Debatable.

This is a resolution whose purpose is to impose on this body a set of criteria that we will need to observe in legislating on a topic of great interest to many.

False. No such criteria are ever presented by the proposal as no means of determining "necessity" for defense are ever provided.

While I like the idea that I would be protected against harassment from countries who don't approve of my arming my troops with swords, axes, serrated bayonets, and other "barbaric" weapons in addition to guns, this proposal would also protect those who would invent new cataclismic weapons. If someone invented a "Death Star" or "Orbital Earthquake Ray," this proposal would prevent us from doing anything about it. I must, therefore, vote against this proposal.

Actually it says that ARE necessary.

I don't see any legislation anywhere, including in the UNSA, that estabishes bioweapons ARE necessary... or establishes any criteria to judge that they are such.

In short, it incorporates absolutely no language whatsoever that would make it apply to a biological weapons ban.

I'm currently working on my one last attempt to present a case for the legality of the current version of the proposal regardless of the passage of the UNSA, and I think it's shaping up as extremely solid.

Wait - would that work as the last nail in the coffin for UNSA? If it's not declared as necessary somewhere, it can be banned without the concern of the UNSA? If that works as a loophole......I'm betting the owners of 7000 votes are feeling mighty stupid right now.....

Wait - would that work as the last nail in the coffin for UNSA? If it's not declared as necessary somewhere, it can be banned without the concern of the UNSA? If that works as a loophole......I'm betting the owners of 7000 votes are feeling mighty stupid right now.....I doubt it. Those who build such weapons will likely claim them to be necessary. Those who would ban them - as Reformentia has said - will claim otherwise. The only way to know for sure is to write it down in a resolution and put it to a vote.

I'm betting the owners of 7000 votes are feeling mighty stupid right now.....I'm guessing that the majority of voters don't even bother to read the entirety of any proposal if it exceeds a certain text size but will vote for or against it based on their gut feeling.

Wait - would that work as the last nail in the coffin for UNSA? If it's not declared as necessary somewhere, it can be banned without the concern of the UNSA? If that works as a loophole......I'm betting the owners of 7000 votes are feeling mighty stupid right now.....

That particular aspect of my argument (I'm got a couple different ways I'm coming at it) goes like:

--The UNSA only reserves the right for nations to construct and utilize weapons which are "necessary" to the defense of a nation. Therefore it should only make illegal those weapons ban proposals which focus on a weapon classified as "necessary" for defense.

--Nothing in the UNSA establishes either a list of what weapons are "necessary", or criteria for judging the "necessity" of any weapon. Additionally, to my knowledge, there is no precedent in the UN for according any weapon system not currently under a ban the default status of "necessary until legislated otherwise". Permitted until legislated otherwise, certainly... but not necessary. Nor does the UNSA incorporate anything which would establish such precedent. Lacking such precedent there is no reason to require that a future weapons ban which is focusing on a weapons system the necessity of which has never been established in any way to incorporate language to get around a previous resolution which only effects bans on weapons which ARE considered necessary.

Not which might possibly be necessary. Not which could be argued to be necessary. Which ARE necessary. Those are the only weapons this proposal deals with.

Emphasis added:

DECLARES that all member states have the right to construct and utilize any and all weapons that ARE necessary to defend their nation from attack, except where previous legislation by this body that is still in effect has placed restrictions on that right.


That's what the resolution says so that's what we have to work with. And unless the moderators for some reason decide to declare that ALL weapons are officially considered to be necessary until otherwise legislated it doesn't touch biological weapons or any other weapon not clearly legislatively established as necessary.

--Therefore barring any other legislation establishing that a particular weapon is either necessary or unnecessary the state of any given weapon system in this regard would not be evident, a position backed up by Hack's own statement in an earlier post on this subject. If it is not evident that a given weapons system is necessary for national defense then it must also be not evident that the UNSA (which applies only to weapons which ARE necessary to national defense) applies to bans of that weapons system. If it is not evident that the UNSA applies to a ban of a given weapons system then it would seem clear there are no grounds upon which that same ban can be declared illegal under the terms of the UNSA.

As far as I can see the only weapon the UNSA would make it illegal to ban at this time would be nukes... and that's only because the nuclear armaments proposal already did it itself by extablishing their necessity when it reserved the rights of UN nations to possess them.

And that's without any need to stick in some "this weapon is considered unnecessary for defense" clause in any proposed ban.

Then of course there's the fact that the current biological weapons ban already has TWO clauses which rather clearly argue that the weapons are not only unnecessary for defense but just plain hazardous to the safety of ALL nations... but that's a whole seperate line of argument.

I don't intend to just let that proposal be deleted after reaching the queue without putting up at least SOME fight for it. Especially when I think I have a very solid case.

I'm guessing that the majority of voters don't even bother to read the entirety of any proposal if it exceeds a certain text size but will vote for or against it based on their gut feeling.I'm guessing that you're right.

BTW, it might surprise you to know that we haven't voted for or against this proposal. We might even abstain. It just gets tiring to hear people argue about this proposal without really understanding it (that does not include Reformentia and others who have differences of opinion over what it actually says).

We're not entirely convinced that necessity is or ought to be the sole basis on which decisions regarding such bans are made. Beyond that we like Tex's basic idea...

(...) we like Tex's basic idea...As I have previously stated... I think this is a solid proposal and would have my seal of approval if it weren't for the fact that is states "any and all weapons" combined with the fact that it mentions previous restrictions on weaponry that simply do not exist.

The way Texan Hotroder has avoided this debate when it could still have made a diference in the final draft is another matter that I don't agree with.

I doubt it. Those who build such weapons will likely claim them to be necessary. Those who would ban them - as Reformentia has said - will claim otherwise. The only way to know for sure is to write it down in a resolution and put it to a vote.

I think the question becomes (and Reformatia put this in a lot more words.....):
"Does it fall to the duty of the UN to prove necessity or lack of necessity?"

I think the question becomes (and Reformatia put this in a lot more words.....):

OOC: Yeah, yeah... brevity has never been my strong point. ;)

"Does it fall to the duty of the UN to prove necessity or lack of necessity?"

IC:

Let's see if we can likewise more succinctly present our argument...

In our view the UNSA legislates that the UN cannot ban any weapon system which has been established as necessary to national defense.

In order to make the the current biological weapons proposal illegal the UNSA would have to legislate that the UN could not ban any weapon system that hadn't been established as unnecessary to national defense.

Those are two quite different things.

There, that's better... but we find it somehow not as satisfying...

And we still say (can't repeat this enough) that the current resolution is legal in EITHER case as it contains more than sufficient statements in it's preamble regarding the fact that the possession of biological weapons represent a hazard to national security, rather than a necessary defense of it.