NationStates Jolt Archive

OOC: Hack, I think we'd all like it if a few things were cleared up regarding the pending United Nations Security Act proposal and what effects it will and will not have if passed, so that we can decide how to move forward accordingly. And so...

IC:

The Reformentian delegation wishes to raise two points of order regarding the recently proposed United Nations Security Act, which will soon reach quorum. The single active legislative clause in this proposal is as follows:

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.

First:

This proposal incorporates no criteria for how this body is to determine what constitutes a "necessary" weapon for the defense of a nation. Reformentia would submit that the most reasonable, objective criteria for evaluating this in any given circumstance would be a direct vote of the UN membership on the matter. Therefore, it is the Reformentian position that any proposed weapons ban which reaches quorum and passes a general vote of the UN membership is de facto established as being considered by that membership to be unnecessary to the defence of UN member nations and thus the United Nations Security Act would not preserve the right for such weapons to be constructed or used regardless of when such a resolution was passed... nor would it make illegal the submission of proposals on such matters to be considered by the UN membership. In fact this would appear to be self-evident, and the interpretation most consistent with UN rules regarding the ability of proposals to restrict future legislation. We ask for a ruling from the Secretary General on our interpretation of this matter.

Second:

Seperately from our first point of order, it is also the Reformentian position that a legislative precedent of the intention of the UN membership to ban the use of biological weapons has already been established in "previous legislation by this body that is still in effect" as described by the clause previously cited. Namely, we refer to the recently passed UN resolution 108: Repeal "Elimination of Bioweapons". Over the years since the original Elimination of Bioweapons resolution was enacted a great many attempts have been made within this body to have it repealed so that member nations might use biological weaponry and every one of them failed to gain the support of the UN membership. The repeal resolution that did pass however contained the explicit statement within the text of the resolution that the repeal was instituted only for the purposes of replacing the original resolution with a new, more effective resolution banning such weapons.

Reformentia is aware of the UN rules pertaining to repeal proposals and their injunction against repeals incorporating into themselves new laws, and that the only active clause permitted in a repeal is the act of repeal itself. We argue however that the closing statement of the repeal text:

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

...represents a modifier to that single active clause. An attachment of the intent of that repeal which is part of the corpus of UN legislation and which establishes clearly and unambiguously that biological weapons fall into the category of weapons considered to be both not necessary for the defense of UN member nations and weapons warranting a ban. Such a statement is not a binding requirement for the passage of a new resolution banning such weapons, however it does express an intent to do so. We believe this interpretation to be consistent both with the letter and perhaps more importantly with the spirit of UN rules regarding repeals. Thus we would argue that completely independent of our first point the United Nations Security Act by virtue of the wording of it's active clause has no effect on future proposed bans of biological weaponry specifically as it does not qualify as weaponry that the UN considers to be "necessary" and additionally is legislatively established as weaponry that the UN considers to be, if not currently banned, at least warranting such. We ask for a ruling on our interpretation of this matter as well.

-Martin Freeold
-Reformentian Ambassador to the United Nations.

Ya know, we have a topic for this. As it appears most likely to be the next resolution, using that topic is most appropriate.

Ya know, we have a topic for this. As it appears most likely to be the next resolution, using that topic is most appropriate.

If the mods decide that's where it belongs I have no objections to it being merged, however they are rather busy and I didn't want this query being overlooked in the clutter of the other thread as the uncertainty in this situation is preventing me from moving forward with my replacement biological weapons proposal and I'm starting to field inquiries from multiple nations as to when I am going to submit it as I promised to do during the campaign for the repeal.

Of course. A simple proposal where the author has pointed out the loophole and the measly addition of a small amount of words holds you up while the real issues your draft faces, such as lacking necessary definitions to actually make it an effective piece of legislation, are not really that high of a priority.

Congrats. You'd make a perfect politician.

Of course. A simple proposal where the author has pointed out the loophole and the measly addition of a small amount of words holds you up while the real issues your draft faces, such as lacking necessary definitions to actually make it an effective piece of legislation, are not really that high of a priority.

Congrats. You'd make a perfect politician.

How about you go amuse yourself demanding someone else vigorously define the meaning of the word "the" for a while DLE? I'm all done entertaining this stuff from you, it's getting old. I've already told you that the terms in my proposal have been defined as thoroughly as necessary and I'm not playing with you anymore just because you have this compulsive need to refuse to accept that any UN weapons ban can actually ban you from having a weapon.

The replacement proposal is more than clear on what weapons it applies to and what requirements it outlines and if you want to pretend as if you can unilaterally redefine the meaning of "biological virus" so that you can keep some super virus biological weapon go right ahead. It's not an ambiguous term. I for one would place you on instant ignore as a godmoder if you tried to pull something like that with me and I'm willing to bet that most RPers would... but if it makes you feel better to think of yourself as teflon coated as far as UN resolutions are concerned then feel free.

I have my proposal in a final draft form with which I am satisfied and I am pushing the upper character limit and would rather not try sticking in extra terminology at this point if it isn't necessary and I want to know if it's going to get booted out of the proposal list as being illegal in its present form if this UN Security Act passes before I submit it. Clear enough?

Submit anyways. If UNSA passes, request it get deleted and then campaign to remove it. If UNSA fails, they won't have a chance to get a second version moving through the UN before your resolution is on the floor.

Regardless, Hack - we will need a ruling so we can decide whether we'll actually need to request it to be deleted or not if UNSA passes.

OOC: In the interest of informing Hack's decision through a counter-argument...

IC:

IC:

The Reformentian delegation wishes to raise two points of order regarding the recently proposed United Nations Security Act, which will soon reach quorum. The single active legislative clause in this proposal is as follows:



There are actually two active clauses in the UNSA. I would advise you to re-read the text carefully.

First:

This proposal incorporates no criteria for how this body is to determine what constitutes a "necessary" weapon for the defense of a nation. Reformentia would submit that the most reasonable, objective criteria for evaluating this in any given circumstance would be a direct vote of the UN membership on the matter. Therefore, it is the Reformentian position that any proposed weapons ban which reaches quorum and passes a general vote of the UN membership is de facto established as being considered by that membership to be unnecessary to the defence of UN member nations and thus the United Nations Security Act would not preserve the right for such weapons to be constructed or used regardless of when such a resolution was passed... nor would it make illegal the submission of proposals on such matters to be considered by the UN membership. In fact this would appear to be self-evident, and the interpretation most consistent with UN rules regarding the ability of proposals to restrict future legislation. We ask for a ruling from the Secretary General on our interpretation of this matter.

1. The proposal does not incorporate criteria to determine what constitutes a necessary weapon for multiple reasons.

A. It would be impossible to do so given that each situation where weapons can be used is different and even if we were to lay out a set of guidelines they would not be mandatory because there are occassionally extreme cases in which those guidelines might be harmful rather than helpful.

B. If we were to have constructed such guidelines, it would have also created even more loopholes than before, which would hardly improve the proposal's effectiveness.

2. The suggestion that any weapons ban that passes is a de facto recognition of a lack of necessity is nonsense.

A. For it to be a de facto recognition of a lack of necessity, what you would essentially need to have is every UN member decide that there is absolutely no case in which they would ever need to have the ability to use that weapon as a defense against attack, which most of us can't do because there are only a relatively few nations that rely on psychics and can predict what they will need with any accuracy.

B. If the membership did decide to ban a type of weapon because they are unnecessary and they later become necessary for some reason, the nation that needs them would have two options: leave the UN and try to find someone to sell them these weapons or try to repeal the ban on the grounds that their nation needs the weapon now. The problem with this is that by the time you have written a likely repeal, get it to quorum, it passes...you're already screwed because you've wasted your time dilly-dallying and the reason you need the weapon is already killing your citizens. Neither of those are good options.



Second:

Seperately from our first point of order, it is also the Reformentian position that a legislative precedent of the intention of the UN membership to ban the use of biological weapons has already been established in "previous legislation by this body that is still in effect" as described by the clause previously cited. Namely, we refer to the recently passed UN resolution 108: Repeal "Elimination of Bioweapons". Over the years since the original Elimination of Bioweapons resolution was enacted a great many attempts have been made within this body to have it repealed so that member nations might use biological weaponry and every one of them failed to gain the support of the UN membership. The repeal resolution that did pass however contained the explicit statement within the text of the resolution that the repeal was instituted only for the purposes of replacing the original resolution with a new, more effective resolution banning such weapons.

Reformentia is aware of the UN rules pertaining to repeal proposals and their injunction against repeals incorporating into themselves new laws, and that the only active clause permitted in a repeal is the act of repeal itself. We argue however that the closing statement of the repeal text:



...represents a modifier to that single active clause. An attachment of the intent of that repeal which is part of the corpus of UN legislation and which establishes clearly and unambiguously that biological weapons fall into the category of weapons considered to be both not necessary for the defense of UN member nations and weapons warranting a ban. Such a statement is not a binding requirement for the passage of a new resolution banning such weapons, however it does express an intent to do so. We believe this interpretation to be consistent both with the letter and perhaps more importantly with the spirit of UN rules regarding repeals. Thus we would argue that completely independent of our first point the United Nations Security Act by virtue of the wording of it's active clause has no effect on future proposed bans of biological weaponry specifically as it does not qualify as weaponry that the UN considers to be "necessary" and additionally is legislatively established as weaponry that the UN considers to be, if not currently banned, at least warranting such. We ask for a ruling on our interpretation of this matter as well.

-Martin Freeold
-Reformentian Ambassador to the United Nations.

After reviewing the second point of order, our office finds nothing that we have not already addressed adequately in the previous discussion on this matter.

Deputy Minister of UN Affairs
-Thomas Smith

OOC: In the interest of informing Hack's decision through a counter-argument...

IC:



There are actually two active clauses in the UNSA. I would advise you to re-read the text carefully.



1. The proposal does not incorporate criteria to determine what constitutes a necessary weapon for multiple reasons.

A. It would be impossible to do so given that each situation where weapons can be used is different and even if we were to lay out a set of guidelines they would not be mandatory because there are occassionally extreme cases in which those guidelines might be harmful rather than helpful.

B. If we were to have constructed such guidelines, it would have also created even more loopholes than before, which would hardly improve the proposal's effectiveness.

2. The suggestion that any weapons ban that passes is a de facto recognition of a lack of necessity is nonsense.

A. For it to be a de facto recognition of a lack of necessity, what you would essentially need to have is every UN member decide that there is absolutely no case in which they would ever need to have the ability to use that weapon as a defense against attack, which most of us can't do because there are only a relatively few nations that rely on psychics and can predict what they will need with any accuracy.

B. If the membership did decide to ban a type of weapon because they are unnecessary and they later become necessary for some reason, the nation that needs them would have two options: leave the UN and try to find someone to sell them these weapons or try to repeal the ban on the grounds that their nation needs the weapon now. The problem with this is that by the time you have written a likely repeal, get it to quorum, it passes...you're already screwed because you've wasted your time dilly-dallying and the reason you need the weapon is already killing your citizens. Neither of those are good options.



So pretty much, my point from the other thread holds: it either bans bans on NO weapons or ALL weapons. Hack, which is it?


After reviewing the second point of order, our office finds nothing that we have not already addressed adequately in the previous discussion on this matter.

Deputy Minister of UN Affairs
-Thomas Smith

Reformatia: request that you don't reply to that - nothing extra was brought foreward for Hack to consider the legality

Approvals: 146 (Volumeamplify, Whipjangle, Plutonix, Flibbleites, Jiangland, Iznogoud, Funkdunk, Blessed Isles, Entcepatiolis, Teredona, Garnilorn, Yelda, Antrium, Jaghur, Stumpy Midgets, Strobania, Springsylvania, 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, Wolfish, Cav, Raderia, Starps, Flagellumpa, Melmond, Conservative Haters, Brians Room, The doomed world, Trans-Union States, Jebulon, Beerhood, The Bruce, Mayve, The Care Bears FOO, Janistania, Checkers McDog, Grays Harbor, The Talisman, Joseph Seal, Vastiva, Shikyrie, Kluane, Ness Snorlaxia, Tambien, Rexdale, Pyrodex, The Liamic Kingdom, Zouloukistan, Heliosence, Spaz Land, Refill Pad, Sean Sweeney, Spoon Bitch, Fenure, Tierra de Dea, The Derrak Quadrant, Crankton, Assorted Pasta, Demokrasy ToWN, Nintytopia, Wesleys, Nicolaisya, Meteorologica, MoralMajority, Northside Brothers, Ethernal damnnation, Caldane, Filiplandia, Borograd, NewTexas, Foxenburg, Domzalski, Ilyich, Phlogisten, Nevscrow, Krioval, Mgd966, Kaushland, Tannu Tuval, Brausi-mausi, Salatoria, Tbohner, Zealotos, Blue Scorpions, Tennegus, Tonanashia, Allendis, Nick52B, Tananza, Blue Floyd, Senseless Aggression, Citrus Grove, Alberta Patriots, Jacob_is_our_king, Ushani, The Cristal Rose, Abok, Finbergia, Serinistad, Flaming Empire, Atlantic Districts, Geekopolous, President Wesley Jones, The Bud, Shazbotdom)

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

So pretty much, my point from the other thread holds: it either bans bans on NO weapons or ALL weapons. Hack, which is it?

OOC: It does not eliminate weapons bans. It just makes them more difficult to legally propose and encourages nations defend themselves. It isn't really an either/or situation at all.

There are actually two active clauses in the UNSA. I would advise you to re-read the text carefully.

We do not consider 'encouragements' to be active clauses as they can be followed or ignored by any nation at will... but that is a matter of opinion as you could consider that the UN taking action to 'encourage' makes the clause active. It is not really of any consequence.

From this point we leave the rest of this issue in the hands of the Secretary General... with the note that your point 2A, if your interpretation were accepted, would in fact mean you were forbidding any future legislation on the banning of any weapons whatsoever even if (hypothetically) the entire UN decided that they considered at that time that the weapons in question were unnecessary for defense (since they would be unable to psychically determine that this would always be the case)... which is more likely to make this proposal illegal.

OOC: Edit: To simplify, you would in effect be banning basically the entire category of "Global Disarmnament" proposals which I would hope the mods would put their foot down on.

We do not consider 'encouragements' to be active clauses as they can be followed or ignored by any nation at will... but that is a matter of opinion as you could consider that the UN taking action to 'encourage' makes the clause active. It is not really of any consequence.

From this point we leave the rest of this issue in the hands of the Secretary General... with the note that your point 2A, if your interpretation were accepted, would in fact mean you were forbidding any future legislation on the banning of any weapons whatsoever even if (hypothetically) the entire UN decided that they considered at that time that the weapons in question were unnecessary for defense (since they would be unable to psychically determine that this would always be the case)... which is more likely to make this proposal illegal.

OOC: Edit: To simplify, you would in effect be banning basically the entire category of "Global Disarmnament" proposals which I would hope the mods would put their foot down on.

OOC: There is a difference between a de facto recognition of a lack of necessity and a majority vote that says the weapons should be banned. You don't need the former to get the latter.

OOC: There is a difference between a de facto recognition of a lack of necessity and a majority vote that says the weapons should be banned. You don't need the former to get the latter.

Who said you did?

You may want to read my argument again. I said that a majority vote to ban a weapon would be a de fecto statement of the voting members that the weapon in question was considered unnecessary. Therefore future weapons ban proposals would not be illegal under your resolution as they would in effect be putting the question of the necessity of a weapons system to the UN for a vote. If it passes a vote to ban it has been ruled not to be a necessary weapon system and is therefore not afforded the right of either construction or utilization which the terms of your proposal attempt to reserve.

If on the other hand you want to argue that the only means by which the defensive necessity of a weapon system can be determined by the UN is through the application of psychic powers that the member nations do not possess (which you just finished doing) then you are banning the entire Global Disarmnament category which is really pushing the rules on proposals. IMO, it significantly crosses the line.

And we get repetition of arguments, which is really why these things should be confined to one thread.

This has been an OOC post.

2. The suggestion that any weapons ban that passes is a de facto recognition of a lack of necessity is nonsense.

A. For it to be a de facto recognition of a lack of necessity, what you would essentially need to have is every UN member decide that there is absolutely no case in which they would ever need to have the ability to use that weapon as a defense against attack, which most of us can't do because there are only a relatively few nations that rely on psychics and can predict what they will need with any accuracy.

B. If the membership did decide to ban a type of weapon because they are unnecessary and they later become necessary for some reason, the nation that needs them would have two options: leave the UN and try to find someone to sell them these weapons or try to repeal the ban on the grounds that their nation needs the weapon now. The problem with this is that by the time you have written a likely repeal, get it to quorum, it passes...you're already screwed because you've wasted your time dilly-dallying and the reason you need the weapon is already killing your citizens. Neither of those are good options.
The United States of Allemande must respectfully disagree with our dear friends in Texan Hotrodders.This proposal incorporates no criteria for how this body is to determine what constitutes a "necessary" weapon for the defense of a nation. Reformentia would submit that the most reasonable, objective criteria for evaluating this in any given circumstance would be a direct vote of the UN membership on the matter. Therefore, it is the Reformentian position that any proposed weapons ban which reaches quorum and passes a general vote of the UN membership is de facto established as being considered by that membership to be unnecessary to the defence of UN member nations and thus the United Nations Security Act would not preserve the right for such weapons to be constructed or used regardless of when such a resolution was passed... nor would it make illegal the submission of proposals on such matters to be considered by the UN membership. In fact this would appear to be self-evident, and the interpretation most consistent with UN rules regarding the ability of proposals to restrict future legislation. We ask for a ruling from the Secretary General on our interpretation of this matter.The United States of Allemande must also respectfully disagree with the opinion of the Ambassador from Reformentia.

Addressing the second point first: the finding that a weapon is not "necessary" for defense is a separate finding from the finding that a majority of the Membership might wish to ban its use. A resolution calling for the latter, therefore, can not automatically be assumed to be a de facto resolution asserting the former.

On the former point, Reformentia's position - that "necessity" can only be determined by a majority of the General Assembly - is the correct one. It is not necessary that each and every Member sign off on the assessment, or that we allow a single Member to repeal a ban ex post facto on the basis of a statement that they percieve "necessity" in its ownership.

The correct view, then, is this: that, in the wake of the passage of this proposed resolution, any ban must contain two parts: A finding that said weapon is "unnecessary" to the defense of any Member (that the weapon is universally unnecessary is the required finding here, given the wording of the proposed resolution), and then


An assertion that it is the sense of the Membership that the ownership of the weapon ought to be banned.
In other words, the passage of this proposed resolution would simply require that, in the preamble to the ban, the author state that the weapon is not needed by any member of the U.N., and that the General Asembly agree to this statement by voting the entire Resolution.

And we get repetition of arguments, which is really why these things should be confined to one thread.

This has been an OOC post.

Actually I think one thread chould focus on the text / roleplay. Everybody could agree that the moderation ruling is wise (or at least avoid too much discussion on that topic). A second thread could debate OOC the metagame issues.

If we take that approach, which thread should host which debate?

For the record, while I agree with the moderators this time, I also believe we should feel free to question their judgements and actions. I certainly find myself not agreeing with their decisions and actions at times and really think discussing things will help resolve potential future conflicts. :)

The correct view, then, is this: that, in the wake of the passage of this proposed resolution, any ban must contain two parts: A finding that said weapon is "unnecessary" to the defense of any Member (that the weapon is universally unnecessary is the required finding here, given the wording of the proposed resolution), and then


An assertion that it is the sense of the Membership that the ownership of the weapon ought to be banned.

I would argue that the second automatically encompasses the first as all UN resolutions are by their nature universal to the UN membership and a vote that a weapon is to be banned represents an inherent judgement that the weapon is not necessary... but I leave this in the hands of the moderators.

Seperately from our first point of order, it is also the Reformentian position that a legislative precedent of the intention of the UN membership to ban the use of biological weapons has already been established in "previous legislation by this body that is still in effect" as described by the clause previously cited. Namely, we refer to the recently passed UN resolution 108: Repeal "Elimination of Bioweapons". Over the years since the original Elimination of Bioweapons resolution was enacted a great many attempts have been made within this body to have it repealed so that member nations might use biological weaponry and every one of them failed to gain the support of the UN membership. The repeal resolution that did pass however contained the explicit statement within the text of the resolution that the repeal was instituted only for the purposes of replacing the original resolution with a new, more effective resolution banning such weapons.

Reformentia is aware of the UN rules pertaining to repeal proposals and their injunction against repeals incorporating into themselves new laws, and that the only active clause permitted in a repeal is the act of repeal itself. We argue however that the closing statement of the repeal text:
Quote:
IT IS PROPOSED: This resolution be repealed so that it may be replaced with a new, effective resolution
...represents a modifier to that single active clause. An attachment of the intent of that repeal which is part of the corpus of UN legislation and which establishes clearly and unambiguously that biological weapons fall into the category of weapons considered to be both not necessary for the defense of UN member nations and weapons warranting a ban. Such a statement is not a binding requirement for the passage of a new resolution banning such weapons, however it does express an intent to do so. We believe this interpretation to be consistent both with the letter and perhaps more importantly with the spirit of UN rules regarding repeals. Thus we would argue that completely independent of our first point the United Nations Security Act by virtue of the wording of it's active clause has no effect on future proposed bans of biological weaponry specifically as it does not qualify as weaponry that the UN considers to be "necessary" and additionally is legislatively established as weaponry that the UN considers to be, if not currently banned, at least warranting such. We ask for a ruling on our interpretation of this matter as well.Reformentia's own admission, in their second paragraph, that "repeals (may not) incorporat(e) into themselves new laws", undermines the rest of their argument.

Had it been the opinion of the parliamentarian that Resolution 108 was both a repeal and the prelude to a new weapons ban, the Resolution would have been struck down as illegal. Clearly it was not. Consequently we must view the call for a "new, effective resolution" as rhetoric and nothing more.

Moreover, were we to accept Reformentia's argument, then there would be another basis on which Resolution 108 could have been held illegal: that it compelled future action on the part of the Membership. After all, Reformentia is ultimately asserting that the Members voted 108 in place solely because it promised a new weapons ban, and that, with 108 on the books, we are "honour bound" to finish the job. But this could not have possibly been the case, because such a constraint (negative or affirmative) on the future actions of these United Nations is not allowed.

The United States of Allemande therefore call for this argument to be discarded.

Who said you did?

I thought you did. Perhaps I was mistaken.

You may want to read my argument again. I said that a majority vote to ban a weapon would be a de fecto statement of the voting members that the weapon in question was considered unnecessary. Therefore future weapons ban proposals would not be illegal under your resolution as they would in effect be putting the question of the necessity of a weapons system to the UN for a vote. If it passes a vote to ban it has been ruled not to be a necessary weapon system and is therefore not afforded the right of either construction or utilization which the terms of your proposal attempt to reserve.

Then as far as I can tell I understood your argument just fine.

If on the other hand you want to argue that the only means by which the defensive necessity of a weapon system can be determined by the UN is through the application of psychic powers that the member nations do not possess (which you just finished doing) then you are banning the entire Global Disarmnament category which is really pushing the rules on proposals. IMO, it significantly crosses the line.

Oh dear. Look, all you need to get a legal weapons ban is to claim (make a statement of belief) that the weapon is unnecessary (to defense) somewhere in your proposal and get the majority of the membership to buy it. Recognition of a fact (that the weapon is necessary or unnecessary) is entirely irrelevant to a possible weapons ban. All you need is to get people to believe you. Recognizing the facts isn't generally relevant in passing UN proposals. Belief is.

Sorry if I wasn't clear on that before. Apologies if I still misinterpreting something.

I would argue that the second automatically encompasses the first as all UN resolutions are by their nature universal to the UN membership and a vote that a weapon is to be banned represents an inherent judgement that the weapon is not necessary... but I leave this in the hands of the moderators.We disagree, and assert that it is dangerous to assume that an implied position is the actual position of the body, especially when it would have been so easy to say at the outset, "BELIEVING that $weapon is not and could not ever be necessary for the defense of any country, and... [$verbiage]" or such.

Hotrodders, do you realize the latest server belch resulting in a triple post on your part?

Reformentia's own admission, in their second paragraph, that "repeals (may not) incorporat(e) into themselves new laws", undermines the rest of their argument.

With respect, you appear to have simply ignored the argument we presented and replaced it with one of your own crafting. We made it explicitly clear that we did not consider there to be a single statement containing any compulsion or constraint upon the UN membership within that repeal beyond the actual act of repeal itself and yet you say we argued the opposite. Attaching an intent to the repeal is not a compulsion to follow through on that intent. Additionally, the statement you yourself reproduced the quote of says:

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

Which is clearly not a requirement that a replacement resolution be enacted. It is not the incorporation of any additonal laws. It is simply clarifying the intent of the repeal itself but that intent still becomes part of the official record of UN legislation whether it is a law or not... just as every resolution preamble and every repeal argument does. The acceptance of these resolutions and repeals is an acceptance of the entire body of their text, not just of the active legislative portions. It accepts the arguments they incorporate in support of those legislative statements as well.

Which is clearly not a requirement that a replacement resolution be enacted. It is not the incorporation of any additonal laws. It is simply clarifying the intent of the repeal itself but that intent still becomes part of the official record of UN legislation whether it is a law or not... just as every resolution preamble and every repeal argument does. The acceptance of these resolutions and repeals is an acceptance of the entire body of their text, not just of the active legislative portions. It accepts the arguments they incorporate in support of those legislative statements as well.

IC:

With respect, assuming that every member nation applies the same exacting standards to legislation that you do seems to be incorrect. Many nations choose to vote FOR a resolution based entirely on one active clause while disregarding the perambulatory clauses as irrelevant. Many nations care little for what the intent of the resolution may be but base their vote entirely on the practical affect it will have on their nation.

Deputy Minister of UN Affairs
-Thomas Smith

IC:

With respect, assuming that every member nation applies the same exacting standards to legislation that you do seems to be incorrect. Many nations choose to vote FOR a resolution based entirely on one active clause while disregarding the perambulatory clauses as irrelevant.

It really doesn't matter because nations don't get to vote on one clause regardless of what they're basing their decision on. When you cast your vote you vote on whether or not the entire resolution will pass or not. A nation can choose how to vote based on the outcome of a coin flip too, it wouldn't change anything we just argued.

How about you go amuse yourself demanding someone else vigorously define the meaning of the word "the" for a while DLE?

Actually, all I asked you to do the last time for definitions was use common sense and bother defining the words "virus," "bacteria," and "microbe." Considering a lack of definitions is your reason for writing that draft, one would think you would at least bother to define words that are so important to your resolution so as to prevent others from working around it by using a simple case of reclassification.

I'm all done entertaining this stuff from you, it's getting old.

It's getting old because you are refusing to accept a valid point, one that will undermine your proposal and will later get it repealed.

I've already told you that the terms in my proposal have been defined as thoroughly as necessary and I'm not playing with you anymore just because you have this compulsive need to refuse to accept that any UN weapons ban can actually ban you from having a weapon.

Now you're not even using logic. "Defined as thoroughly as necessary?" Fine then. Point out where, in your proposal, it says what a virus, what a bacterium, and what a microbe is. As long as you lack a definition for those, anyone with five seconds of work can keep any biological weapon they want without violating your ban.

The replacement proposal is more than clear on what weapons it applies to and what requirements it outlines and if you want to pretend as if you can unilaterally redefine the meaning of "biological virus" so that you can keep some super virus biological weapon go right ahead.

Actually, it's not clear. It uses words with the sheer hope that someone who actually knows what they mean and the etymology of them doesn't bother to work around them using a minor bit of creativity.

Oh, and as for virus:

Main Entry: vi·rus
Pronunciation: 'vI-r&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, venom, poisonous emanation; akin to Greek ios poison, Sanskrit visa; in senses 2 & 4, from New Latin, from Latin
1 archaic : VENOM 1
2 a : the causative agent of an infectious disease b : any of a large group of submicroscopic infective agents that are regarded either as extremely simple microorganisms or as extremely complex molecules, that typically contain a protein coat surrounding an RNA or DNA core of genetic material but no semipermeable membrane, that are capable of growth and multiplication only in living cells, and that cause various important diseases in humans, lower animals, or plants; also : FILTERABLE VIRUS c : a disease caused by a virus
3 : something that poisons the mind or soul <the force of this virus of prejudice -- V. S. Waters>
4 : a computer program usually hidden within another seemingly innocuous program that produces copies of itself and inserts them into other programs and that usually performs a malicious action (as destroying data)

Of those five (one has two options) definitions, four are perfectly acceptable interpretations of the word as presented in your draft while maintaining a sentence that isn't gibberish. It gets even worse if I go to the original Latin "virus," which has a wide range of meanings completely unrelated to what you are thinking of as a virus.

Now, if I can do that with the word "virus" and two minutes of web surfing, imagine what I can do with the word "bacteria" using two hours and the very large personal library I happen to own.

It's not an ambiguous term. I for one would place you on instant ignore as a godmoder if you tried to pull something like that with me and I'm willing to bet that most RPers would... but if it makes you feel better to think of yourself as teflon coated as far as UN resolutions are concerned then feel free.

It's very ambiguous. Do you mean biological venom? Biological agents of infection? Biological poisons of the mind? Or biological submicroscopic infective agents? Keep in mind that all four of those can easily be entirely different from each other.

I have my proposal in a final draft form with which I am satisfied and I am pushing the upper character limit and would rather not try sticking in extra terminology at this point if it isn't necessary and I want to know if it's going to get booted out of the proposal list as being illegal in its present form if this UN Security Act passes before I submit it. Clear enough?

The only reason you are pushing the upper limits is the fact you are refusing to accept any logical advice, which includes the advice of someone to cut a couple of unnecessary comments. Go back and read that topic again, and notice that I'm not the only one advising you change items. But as it exists, your proposal doesn't actually illegalize biological weapons, just three categorizations that themselves are likely to be changed (for the 50th time) within the next two decades.

As for this: It doesn't actually make your draft illegal. All it means is you have to add the words "not necessary for defense" to your definition of biological agents.

Upon consideration of the arguments thusfar presented, I find myself most persauded by the delegate from Allemande.

As an aside, I would politely request that the delegates from Reformentia and DemonLordEnigma cease their tangential discussion in this debate. It is a distraction from the issue at hand: the legality of UNSA.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

As an aside, I would politely request that the delegates from Reformentia and DemonLordEnigma cease their tangential discussion in this debate. It is a distraction from the issue at hand: the legality of UNSA.

We note the original topic brought up the replacement effort by Reformentia as being potentially blocked by the UNSA, making it part of the topic. The topic is a duality, with it being the legality of the UNSA in the general and how it affects the replacement ban on bioweapons in the specific. If the Ecopoeian delegate wishes to dispute this, we will kindly replay the recordings of the original statements by the Reformentian delegate.

We note the original topic brought up the replacement effort by Reformentia as being potentially blocked by the UNSA, making it part of the topic. The topic is a duality, with it being the legality of the UNSA in the general and how it affects the replacement ban on bioweapons in the specific. If the Ecopoeian delegate wishes to dispute this, we will kindly replay the recordings of the original statements by the Reformentian delegate.
This is fair comment. I suppose what I'm really asking for is a little less unpleasantness. Probably a foolish request, given the circumstances.

Oh dear. Look, all you need to get a legal weapons ban is to claim (make a statement of belief) that the weapon is unnecessary (to defense) somewhere in your proposal and get the majority of the membership to buy it. Recognition of a fact (that the weapon is necessary or unnecessary) is entirely irrelevant to a possible weapons ban. All you need is to get people to believe you. Recognizing the facts isn't generally relevant in passing UN proposals. Belief is.

Sorry if I wasn't clear on that before. Apologies if I still misinterpreting something.

OOC: To build on this argument because I realized I left a bit of a hole in it...

IC:

Recognition is strongly related to fact. One cannot recognize that which one does not have the means to recognize, and one cannot recognize that which is not actually the case.

Related Examples:

1. Can a blind man recognize that my red HRMC Chromera in the parking lot is indeed red? No (at least not without assistance). He does not have the means to perform such a recognition. This is similar to the case of the UN recognizing necessity. Because of certain practical realities (including the fact that a ban only affects the future necessity of a weapon), they would have to be able to see the future to recognize the necessity, which most nations simply don't have the means to do.

2. Can you recognize that my red HRMC Chromera in the parking lot is indeed blue? Of course not, because it's red. But you can believe it's red. This is similar to the case of the UN recognizing necessity. The UN can believe whatever it wants and legislate based on that, but without knowing the facts they can't recognize them.