An Alternate view of Resolution 110's effect on new Legislation [Archive]

Forgottenlands

16-07-2005, 17:24

This is pretty much a summary of Powerhungry Chipmunks and my argument regarding the legalities of Resolution 110. Considering the length of the argument in question, I would be this one will be long.

I acknowledge Hack’s argument that should the ruling of those who feel that the term necessity must be defined are correct, it would make the resolution do, well, nothing. However, I feel that this is largely irrelevant as whether a ruling makes a resolution useless or not should not stop the ruling from being made, as it does not consider the actual consequences of such a ruling.

I would like to note that I present my case seperately from Lanquassia - though I admit, I present it now because Lanquassia submitted a challenge now and I wanted to present mine tomorrow, and thought Hack would be ready to kill anyone who challenged the resolution further by then...

I would also like to note that since Reformatia’s Bio-weapons ban is now no longer in conflict with this issue of the resolution, and the fact that I do not heavily support any other weapons-related resolution currently known to the UN forums – neither on behalf of my own nation or the region I represent – I am not trying to make this ruling on behalf of any resolution or author. I simply wish to challenge the current policy as I feel it is incorrect.

Of course, we are discussing the one actual active line in Resolution 110:
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.

From my arguments with PC, my understanding of his argument is that the resolution leaves open the space of necessity unless it is directly overruled by the UN (therefore requiring a clause that states a weapon is unnecessary). He argued that this was granted to them by Article 2 in Resolution #49: Rights and Duties of UN States:
Article 2
§ Every UN Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

His argument was that this line stated that a state had the right to rule on its own sovereign territory unless that area of law is overruled by the UN.

I should note, we never actually finished this portion of the argument and had been extensively picking this article apart, but unfortunately, it seems PC has hit a bout of inactivity (perhaps for the weekend). However, due to the fact that a second challenge is circulating the UN against the ruling on the UNSA, I felt I should submit my own opinions:

From my interpretation, Article 2 of Rights and Duties states that all nations within the UN must bow to the decisions of the UN body. Its legislation must take exception to any point within UN law and cannot contradict any UN law. As such, if necessity is undefined in UN law, the nations have the right to define necessity as long as it does not contradict UN law. By this logic, it is my belief that the UN is not required to take into consideration any national definition of necessity – and in absence of a definition of necessity, does not need to adhere to any effects of necessity. My belief is that should the UN pass a ban that contradicts with a nation’s necessity without indicating such a weapon is unnecessary, the nation would be required to modify it’s definition of necessity so that it allows for the ban to go through.

I feel that the argument that we need to deem a weapon unnecessary for defense is based upon the logic that since necessity is undefined, it is up to the nation to decide necessity. However, the UN is not required (through any previous resolution and, AFAIK, no mod ruling) to bend to the will of nations. In fact, I feel that precedent set by both mod rulings and UN law is that nations are solely required to bend to the will of the UN – and the UN is only required to consider the proposal rules and (through them), the previous UN resolutions. As such, I feel that this stance in flawed and I ask that it be reconsidered.

Ok, not quite as long as I thought it would be….

Mikitivity

16-07-2005, 18:15

Yes, I realized that it belongs there about ten minutes after I posted it... :(

Several of the moderators will still see your argument here, and they did bump the former moderation topic back here.

Hopefully they and Texan Hotrodders and the Powerhungery Chipmunks will also respond to your thread. :)

Texan Hotrodders

17-07-2005, 07:11

Oh, fine. I'll try to clear this whole business up. :)

As in most of the other arguments, this discussion is properly centered around what exactly international law is and does.

1. International law is generally considered to be superior to national law in the sense that it takes precedence over national law.

2. As per "Rights and Duties of UN States" national law has what is known as sovereignty over those items left unaddressed by international law.

So what does this mean? It essentially means that in the case of items addressed by international law said law is sovereign, and that in the case of items not addressed by international law the national law is sovereign.

This is very much the natural state of things, and it could be extended further to include colonial, provincial, municipal, or tribal law. In the case of each political entity (and we could include persons here), they are free to manage their own affairs as they please unless a higher authority in the heirarchy has made a binding ruling on those affairs.

In the case of a heirarchical system of law such as we have here, the system generally operates on a very basic and often unarticulated axiom, "that which is not prohibited is allowed". Restated to be appropriate to the context of our discussion this would read, "that which is not addressed in international law is free to be addressed by national law".

Now in the case of the word "necessary" in the UNSA, all this essentially means that until a weapon is stated to be unnecessary in international law (however one chooses to do that), national law is the highest authority regarding the necessity of the weapon. (Caveat: In the case of roleplayed international organizations that are not the UN, the law set forth by the international organization may also be higher than national law.)

Keeping the above in mind, we cannot legitimately say that anything which is not in international law has the force of international law. So in order to define a weapon as unnecessary for the purposes of international law, one has to put that definition in international law. It's really quite a simple equation. Unless it's international law, it's not international law, and therefore it can't have the effect of international law.

Now where my colleague Forgottenlands make a mistake in his argument is here.

By this logic, it is my belief that the UN is not required to take into consideration any national definition of necessity – and in absence of a definition of necessity, does not need to adhere to any effects of necessity.

The implications of this statement are various.

1. It is implied that the UN is currently being required to take into account any national definition of necessity.

This is simply not true. Nations are required to take into account international definitions of necessity, not the other way around. The burden has always been on nations to adhere to international law.

So let's re-write the statement to take this into account.

By this logic, it is my belief that the UN, in the absence of a definition of necessity, does not need to adhere to any effects of necessity.

2. It is implied that the UN can ignore its own law when it is said that the UN does not need to adhere to the effects of "necessity". I was under the impression (via the rules against contradiction and duplication) that the UN could not ignore its own law.

3. It is also implied that the absence of a definition of a word in international law nullifies the effect of a particular word in international law. If this is the case, then the vast majority of words in international law have been nullified and made useless.

(Note that the more traditional meaning of sovereignty was implied in the above post rather than my particular brand of it.)

Now my colleague Lanquassia also made an unfortunate error in their argument.

However, I feel that the very act of submitting a ban is stating that the weapons or tactics being banned is not needed for self-defense, and it is therefore up to those who oppose the ban to prove that the weapon or tactic is, in the form the legislation bans, needed for self defense, and not that of the author of the proposed legislation to prove that it is not.

There are two similar errors here.

1. It is suggested in the above statement that the mere act of submitting a weapons ban (which is not in international law and cannot be, as it is an action rather than a statement of such), has the force of international law. This is incorrect, as I have already pointed out that those items not in international law are not international law and thus cannot have the force of international law.

2. It is suggested in the above quoted statement that if persons could provide proof of the necessity (for defense) of a weapon, then that proof can have the force of international law without actually being international law. This is also incorrect for the reason stated previously.

Reformentia

17-07-2005, 07:40

1. International law is generally considered to be superior to national law in the sense that it takes precedence over national law.

2. As per "Rights and Duties of UN States" national law has what is known as sovereignty over those items left unaddressed by international law.

So what does this mean? It essentially means that in the case of items addressed by international law said law is sovereign, and that in the case of items not addressed by international law the national law is sovereign.

This is very much the natural state of things, and it could be extended further to include colonial, provincial, municipal, or tribal law. In the case of each political entity (and we could include persons here), they are free to manage their own affairs as they please unless a higher authority in the heirarchy has made a binding ruling on those affairs.

In the case of a heirarchical system of law such as we have here, the system generally operates on a very basic and often unarticulated axiom, "that which is not prohibited is allowed". Restated to be appropriate to the context of our discussion this would read, "that which is not addressed in international law is free to be addressed by national law".

All good so far.

Now in the case of the word "necessary" in the UNSA, all this essentially means that until a weapon is stated to be unnecessary in international law (however one chooses to do that), national law is the highest authority regarding the necessity of the weapon.

The highest authority which remains purely local, not international in scope. As far as the UN (which deals on an international level) is concerned there IS NO LAW on the necessity of a weapon if it isn't in a resolution.

2. It is implied that the UN can ignore its own law when it is said that the UN does not need to adhere to the effects of "necessity". I was under the impression (via the rules against contradiction and duplication) that the UN could not ignore its own law.

No such thing is implied at all. If there is no UN law establishing necessity of a weapon system there's nothing TO ignore.

3. It is also implied that the absence of a definition of a word in international law nullifies the effect of a particular word in international law.

"Weapon necessary for defense" is a phrase, not a word... and it is a phrase with a massive possible range of meanings. It requires defining criteria. This cannot be denied seeing as if it HAD a clear definition all on its own then it would be impossible to conclude that a viable loophole was simply to declare a weapon unnecesary. It would be like saying a viable loophole in a law banning red lipstick was to pass another law declaring that red is now blue.

I don't think anybody would buy that that was a legitimate legislative strategy. The only reason that loophole is said to exist in the UNSA is that a declaration that a weapon is unnecessary for defense isn't in any conflict whatsoever with an established definition, because that definition doesn't exist.

Which of course SHOULD mean that the loophole isn't required in the first place, which is what I've been trying to point out.

Texan Hotrodders

17-07-2005, 08:32

All good so far.

Why thank you. :)

The highest authority which remains purely local, not international in scope. As far as the UN (which deals on an international level) is concerned there IS NO LAW on the necessity of a weapon if it isn't in a resolution.

Really? I recall "Rights and Duties of UN States" (specifically Article 10) recognizing that there is law outside of UN resolutions.

No such thing is implied at all. If there is no UN law establishing necessity of a weapon system there's nothing TO ignore.

That wasn't the point. To be clear, I was indicating that the UN could not ignore the word "necessary" which had been altered to be grammatically accurate by Forgottenlands. To extend this, the UN cannot ignore any of the other words in the text either.

"Weapon necessary for defense" is a phrase, not a word... and it is a phrase with a massive possible range of meanings. It requires defining criteria. This cannot be denied seeing as if it HAD a clear definition all on its own then it would be impossible to conclude that a viable loophole was simply to declare a weapon unnecesary.

It cannot be denied that the phrase required defining criteria? Why? Because it has a massive possible range of meanings? Well, in that case we might as well stop writing resolutions now. Given that we have to use English, a language egregiously frought with words having multiplicity of meaning, and given that in defining a word or phrase we are likely to introduce at least on additional word or phrase that would be needing definition, we would be hard pressed to write any legislation and keep it under the character limit.

It would be like saying a viable loophole in a law banning red lipstick was to pass another law declaring that red is now blue. I don't think anybody would buy that that was a legitimate legislative strategy.

Let's assume that this is true. In that case, your biological weapons ban would be using a legislative strategy that you "don't think anybody would buy that that was a legitimate legislative strategy." I'm a little surprised that you would utilize a tactic that you didn't think was legitimate. :confused:

The only reason that loophole is said to exist in the UNSA is that a declaration that a weapon is unnecessary for defense isn't in any conflict whatsoever with an established definition, because that definition doesn't exist.

Precisely. :)

Which of course SHOULD mean that the loophole isn't required in the first place, which is what I've been trying to point out.

You've certainly been trying very hard. :)

Roathin

17-07-2005, 09:20

Greetings.

We quote our colleague of the Hotrodders of Texas:

"Unless it's international law, it's not international law, and therefore it can't have the effect of international law."

This is perfectly true in a legal sense. However, it is important to note that this is 'law between the nations' - inter-national law. On that level, it is legislation which overrides some aspects of intra-national ('law within each state') law.

There is one important point to note, however. Certain laws have even higher priority and require no legislation at all. A blowtorch flame will still heat a certain metal enough so that it will burn a hole through a plate of thickness x of that metal in time y at temperature setting z. Such a law would not have the effect of international law, and yet could be derived from empirical observation as having that quality of truth required to be called a law.

Hence, we can say that certain truths can be derived from observation and would have the effect of law higher than international law. These would be in the realm of physical law.

Further, this might be extended to other empirical observations in which certain results are statistically probable but do not automatically occur - these are in the greyer areas of economic and social laws, for example.

Do these greyer areas then produce 'law', which like physical law, supersedes international law?

This is a very important point in the hypothetical debates which we are having. It would be good to think about that.

Possible test case: empirical evidence might show that nuclear warheads have not been used as a defensive weapon; hence unless it can be shown otherwise, a nuclear warhead cannot be a weapon necessary for national defence - it is not sufficient to invent a case in which they can be used; and deterrence would not count unless you could produce evidence to equate deterrence with defence.

GMC Military Arms

17-07-2005, 09:30

Guys, this isn't the UN forum, the 'our colleague' part isn't needed here.

The Most Glorious Hack

17-07-2005, 09:33

Guys, this isn't the UN forum, the 'our colleague' part isn't needed here.
It was. I just kicked it over here... >_>

Mikitivity

17-07-2005, 09:38

Guys, this isn't the UN forum, the 'our colleague' part isn't needed here.

It isn't in UN forum *now*, but this thread was originally posted there, just like the previous discussion on the changes in UN rules in response to the adoption of the United Nations Security Act resolution was originally here and bumped over there.

Now having read some of the more recent posts, I actually wanted to say that I actually find myself agreeing with Hotroddia's / Texan Hotrodder's interpetation. Specifically the part where he pointed out that national law is sovereign, i.e. rules, when things aren't spelled out in international law.

Specifically I felt he presented a pretty nice argument when he wrote:
In the case of a heirarchical system of law such as we have here, the system generally operates on a very basic and often unarticulated axiom, "that which is not prohibited is allowed". Restated to be appropriate to the context of our discussion this would read, "that which is not addressed in international law is free to be addressed by national law".

Now in the case of the word "necessary" in the UNSA, all this essentially means that until a weapon is stated to be unnecessary in international law (however one chooses to do that), national law is the highest authority regarding the necessity of the weapon.

Texan Hotrodders

17-07-2005, 10:02

Forgottenlands

17-07-2005, 15:48

I guess this is what I get for sleeping....

Anyways - I need to make a correction to my original post in light of TH's response:

1. It is implied that the UN is currently being required to take into account any national definition of necessity.

This is simply not true. Nations are required to take into account international definitions of necessity, not the other way around. The burden has always been on nations to adhere to international law.

I must apologize because I got caught up in the wording already used for several pages on the original thread.

UNSA says that if a weapon is CLASSIFIED as being necessary, it is not banable. However, there is no definition of necessary, no list of items that are for sure necessary, no criteria for proving necessity so therefore, as far as UN law is concerned, there is nothing that is classified as being necessary.

Under normal conditions, the UN is expected to look at a common dictionary for the definition of a word (and use any that are applicable). However, classifications work extra-definition. But hey, let's look at the definition:

1. Absolutely essential. See Synonyms at indispensable.
2. Needed to achieve a certain result or effect; requisite: the necessary tools.
3.
1. Unavoidably determined by prior conditions or circumstances; inevitable: the necessary results of overindulgence.
2. Logically inevitable.
4. Required by obligation, compulsion, or convention: made the necessary apologies.

#1 (which I personally think is the closest thing) says absolutely essential. However, how does one define essential..... (and again, I'd argue that this is a classification)

I'll get back to that

#2 - ok, so we need it to achieve a result or effect. But what result? This result would have to be defined by the individual nation.

#3 - don't think it applies though if someone can correct me on that, please do

#4 - if it was necessary for any of those three reasons, it would, again, be defined by the nation.

Ok - back to essential....

1. Something fundamental.
2. Something necessary or indispensable.

#1 fundamentality (if that is a word) of a weapon is determined by the individual nation - not the UN. Unless we wanted to standardize tech, it would not be legislatable by the UN

#2 - well that just takes us back to where we started

So....pretty much you end up back where we both were arguing....in absence of a note on it in UN law, it must be determined as such by the individual nation.

I'll get the rest after I've had breakfast

Reformentia

17-07-2005, 16:59

Really? I recall "Rights and Duties of UN States" (specifically Article 10) recognizing that there is law outside of UN resolutions.

So do I, but I don't recall rights and duties saying that laws outside the UN had any effect ON the UN, or had to be taken into account BY the UN, or could effect the legality of proposals IN the UN.

As far as the UN is concerned there is no law establishing the necessity of any weapon system (except maybe nukes). At all. There may or may not be hundreds or thousands of various local laws out there among the tens of thousands of member nations which may or may not establish either the necessity or unnecessity of any given weapon on a purely local level (and most likely BOTH hundreds of times over in many cases)... the content of which the UN neither knows nor cares about. Doesn't exist as far as UN law is concerned. UN law allows for their potential existence in the absence of other UN laws overiding them, and that is all. It doesn't care what they are, what they say, or if they actually DO exist or not.

That wasn't the point. To be clear, I was indicating that the UN could not ignore the word "necessary" which had been altered to be grammatically accurate by Forgottenlands. To extend this, the UN cannot ignore any of the other words in the text either.

The UN isn't ignoring the word necessary (or any other word in the UNSA). It just doesn't have any appreciable effect in the legislation in which it is found since no weapon is actually established as BEING necessary (with the possible exception of nukes per res. 109)

It cannot be denied that the phrase required defining criteria? Why? Because it has a massive possible range of meanings?[quote]

Because it's already been clearly ruled it does, and already been admitted by you that that was the case when you acknowledged and the mods ruled that a resolution could simply declare a weapon unnecessary without having to demonstrate that the weapon in question failed to meet a SINGLE defining criteria which would have made it a weapon necessary for defense in the first place.

The only way that can work is if "necessary for defense" doesn't HAVE any definition that we have to consider and then present an argument for WHY a weapon doesn't meet that definition. We don't have to say why, we just have to declare that whatever the heck "necessary for defense" is this weapon "X" we want to ban isn't it. Which is defining the phrase through exclusion as we go along. Which you CAN'T DO if it's already defined because that would be contradicting or amending previous legislation and hence be illegal.

[quote]Let's assume that this is true. In that case, your biological weapons ban would be using a legislative strategy that you "don't think anybody would buy that that was a legitimate legislative strategy."

No, it isn't. Because unlike "red" the phrase "necessary for defense" has absolutely no clear meaning if it isn't proivided in the law. "Red" is not a real ambiguous term. "Necessary for defense" is practically meaningless if lacking accompanying defining criteria for what it means. It could be talking about practically ANYTHING. As things stand now I could declare salad forks necessary weapons for defense with no more substantive an argument than "because I think they are" because I don't have to show that salad forks meet one single required criteria to be considered necessary weapons... because there aren't any!

The bioweapons ban is using a legislative strategy I dont agree is necessary, but that's a whole other matter.

Forgottenlands

17-07-2005, 17:18

Now that I'm well fed - time for one HECK of a long post

Oh, fine. I'll try to clear this whole business up. :)

Good, an opposition.

As in most of the other arguments, this discussion is properly centered around what exactly international law is and does.

1. International law is generally considered to be superior to national law in the sense that it takes precedence over national law.

2. As per "Rights and Duties of UN States" national law has what is known as sovereignty over those items left unaddressed by international law.

So what does this mean? It essentially means that in the case of items addressed by international law said law is sovereign, and that in the case of items not addressed by international law the national law is sovereign.

This is very much the natural state of things, and it could be extended further to include colonial, provincial, municipal, or tribal law. In the case of each political entity (and we could include persons here), they are free to manage their own affairs as they please unless a higher authority in the heirarchy has made a binding ruling on those affairs.

In the case of a heirarchical system of law such as we have here, the system generally operates on a very basic and often unarticulated axiom, "that which is not prohibited is allowed". Restated to be appropriate to the context of our discussion this would read, "that which is not addressed in international law is free to be addressed by national law".

No disputes yet (but we already know it's going downhill)

Now in the case of the word "necessary" in the UNSA, all this essentially means that until a weapon is stated to be unnecessary in international law (however one chooses to do that), national law is the highest authority regarding the necessity of the weapon. (Caveat: In the case of roleplayed international organizations that are not the UN, the law set forth by the international organization may also be higher than national law.)

Keeping the above in mind, we cannot legitimately say that anything which is not in international law has the force of international law. So in order to define a weapon as unnecessary for the purposes of international law, one has to put that definition in international law. It's really quite a simple equation. Unless it's international law, it's not international law, and therefore it can't have the effect of international law.

Nor is necessary defined - and the rest of my argument is kinda summarized in my most last argument for PC (if you need me to clarify anything, ask - BTW, we're discussing the effects of Article 2 in Rights and Duties)

Anyways - back to the original argument

Also, Rights and Duties specifically says "the immunities recognized by international law", not "the immunities implied by international law" and not "whatever immunities a proposal author can pull out of his butt as being remotely associate with previous resolutions". There is not immunity in international law against individual UN nations determining what "is necessary", therefore it is their right to determine that.

I admit - this one is tripping me up - I know why, but I'm having fun trying to express it. I'll get back to you (plus my lunch break is over.....)

Ok - from your arguments, what I THINK you're saying is that because the UN has not directly legislated, the "immunity" is not "recognized" on that matter. By tieing definition of "necessary" and "non-bannable", you are making it so that bans have to fight two fronts - because if you do not deal with both, the one that is not dealt with is not "recognized" by UN law. This is fairly simplified, but I think it emphasizes the main points.

However, I look at this in a different manner. I feel that since you have the words "subject to" before the exemptions of International law, you are required to bend to the will of any UN resolution (and all UN resolutions are recognized international laws). As such, I don't think it says or implies that nations are "exempt from anything the UN hasn't specifically legislated on", I actually see it instead of being your beacon of soverignty, it is your worst nightmare of federalism (and actually, to some extent I'd argue that Section 10 outlines what effectively sums up your rights of soverignty - you can fully choose to ignore any resolution, but you can't make your excuse be because your laws contradict them, it's because you choose to ignore them).

Warning: I'm crashing fast, I apologize in advance if my next point seems a bit incoherent.

I would argue that instead of making a ban have to fight two fronts, it (by tieing the two terms together) puts the banner in the position where he kills two birds with one stone - banning the weapon and then through implication, the "necessity" clause of the weapon. Since national laws are subject to any regonized UN Resolution (not AREA of law, actual resolution), if ANY local law contradicts the UN resolution - either through a combination of several laws or on its own - I would argue that it must still bend its will to that of the resolution.

I'd like to bring back my example with Resolution 61:

Ok - so UN passes resolution 61 - which guarantees abortion. However, Nation X passed a law where it declared that a fetus is a human being upon the moment of contraception - and thus, you would be commiting a murder if you killed it. Though arguably, you could say you are "Euthanising" the fetus (guaranteed by resolution 43), but what if that resolution wasn't there and Euthanasia was illegal in that country. In fact, what if they made it illegal to perform ANY operation where the end result is the death of a living human?

Resolution 61 says that abortions are legal.

Ignoring Resolution 43 (because, after all, all resolutions must stand by themselves)

Between the combination of declaring a fetus to be a human being and that no operation can be performed that would end in the death of a human being, you would outlaw abortions.

Neither outlawing operations that end in the death of a human being or declaring a fetus is a human being (though admittedly, some of the second attempts have dealt with the latter, resolution 61 did not).

Answer me this: does the nation have to bend to the will of resolution 61?

Please answer this entire case study as a single block.
-Edited for format

I've gotta say, I love this tabs feature in Firefox

BTW - it was article 2 you were thinking of and I'll post both articles here:

Article 2
§ Every UN Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

...

Article 10
§ Every UN Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty.

My point - in summary - isn't that national law becomes default, it's that national law can't contradict UN law. I would argue that the UN can pass weapons bans without the unnecessary clause, and if some nation out there has a law saying the weapon is necessary, it would HAVE to change it since its laws are subject to UN law. Actually - I think both articles force you to do that.

BTW - my point with the example of Resolution 61 was for the purposes of showing that if you had to legislate SPECIFICALLY on everything, there would be insane numbers of loopholes in every single resolution.

Now where my colleague Forgottenlands make a mistake in his argument is here.

By this logic, it is my belief that the UN is not required to take into consideration any national definition of necessity – and in absence of a definition of necessity, does not need to adhere to any effects of necessity.

The implications of this statement are various.

1. It is implied that the UN is currently being required to take into account any national definition of necessity.

This is simply not true. Nations are required to take into account international definitions of necessity, not the other way around. The burden has always been on nations to adhere to international law.
-edited to include second quote

No - I'm stating (and this is partly the result of my arguments with PC) that the current ruling requires UN law to take into account national law.

So let's re-write the statement to take this into account.

By this logic, it is my belief that the UN, in the absence of a definition of necessity, does not need to adhere to any effects of necessity.

2. It is implied that the UN can ignore its own law when it is said that the UN does not need to adhere to the effects of "necessity". I was under the impression (via the rules against contradiction and duplication) that the UN could not ignore its own law.

3. It is also implied that the absence of a definition of a word in international law nullifies the effect of a particular word in international law. If this is the case, then the vast majority of words in international law have been nullified and made useless.
-edited to include quote

Hence my correction - 'cause your revised statement is incorrect (which also deals with point 3)

In addressing number 2 - considering that there are no weapons internationally recognized as being necessary, I'd consider 110 irrelevant as it stands. If we passed a new law stating that weapons are considered necessary unless determined otherwise by this body (which has all sorts of soverignty issues), then we have to consider resolution 110 (which is actually the argument that I'm making to begin with)

(Note that the more traditional meaning of sovereignty was implied in the above post rather than my particular brand of it.)

Now my colleague Lanquassia also made an unfortunate error in their argument.

However, I feel that the very act of submitting a ban is stating that the weapons or tactics being banned is not needed for self-defense, and it is therefore up to those who oppose the ban to prove that the weapon or tactic is, in the form the legislation bans, needed for self defense, and not that of the author of the proposed legislation to prove that it is not

There are two similar errors here.

1. It is suggested in the above statement that the mere act of submitting a weapons ban (which is not in international law and cannot be, as it is an action rather than a statement of such), has the force of international law. This is incorrect, as I have already pointed out that those items not in international law are not international law and thus cannot have the force of international law.

2. It is suggested in the above quoted statement that if persons could provide proof of the necessity (for defense) of a weapon, then that proof can have the force of international law without actually being international law. This is also incorrect for the reason stated previously.
-edited to include quotation

Perhaps, but those are technicalities, not the essence of what is being said. My turn for a revision (Lanquassia, nuke me if you disagree):

The act of submitting a ban is in the belief that it already is unnecessary. It is up to those that disagree with the ban of that type of weapon (or tactic) to submit and pass their own legislation proving that such a weapon (or tactic) is necessary for defense.

Now - timeline is an issue, and I note that I'm not uttering it is legislated unnecessary, but the act is done with the belief that the weapon (or tactic) is unnecessary. BTW - tactics are not covered by this resolution - which was the argument Allemande (was that the submitter?) was trying to make of his own legality.

=============
Intermission

*guzzles pop* (yes I just had breakfast - shush)

BTW - does anyone know if there's a limit to post size? I'd copy this to my clipboard, but I'm afraid I might overload my 512MB of RAM (I know, ONLY 512?)
=============

Anyways - moving on:

Really? I recall "Rights and Duties of UN States" (specifically Article 10) recognizing that there is law outside of UN resolutions.

Actually - article 10 (scroll up to read) says that laws outside the UN cannot be used as reason to ignore the UN. Article 2 also says that laws in nations must adhere to the laws of the UN. Both recognize laws outside the UN, but both say that the nations must adhere to the UN. Therefore, the UN does not have to recognize nor consider national law, as they bend to what the UN decrees. It's just how a boss doesn't have to listen or consider what the grunt in cubicle 17 on level 4 thinks (or any of the other grunts) - he may choose to, but he doesn't have to - and no matter what the person may think, if he wishes to continue working at the company, his thoughts and opinions must adhere and cannot be used as a reason to not do as the boss wants.

Enjoy your heirarchial system

That wasn't the point. To be clear, I was indicating that the UN could not ignore the word "necessary" which had been altered to be grammatically accurate by Forgottenlands. To extend this, the UN cannot ignore any of the other words in the text either.

Again - my correction

It cannot be denied that the phrase required defining criteria? Why? Because it has a massive possible range of meanings? Well, in that case we might as well stop writing resolutions now. Given that we have to use English, a language egregiously frought with words having multiplicity of meaning, and given that in defining a word or phrase we are likely to introduce at least on additional word or phrase that would be needing definition, we would be hard pressed to write any legislation and keep it under the character limit.

And my dictionary analysis and conclusion

Let's assume that this is true. In that case, your biological weapons ban would be using a legislative strategy that you "don't think anybody would buy that that was a legitimate legislative strategy." I'm a little surprised that you would utilize a tactic that you didn't think was legitimate.

Um.... he's saying that if you had properly defined necessity of weapons, we wouldn't be having this argument because....well....it would be an illegitamite strategy.

*snip*
Do these greyer areas then produce 'law', which like physical law, supersedes international law?
*snip*

Yes, but those are determined through precedence of mod rulings (hierarchially (I think) - it goes natural law, "English law" (as defined in the holy bible of English - the dictionary), Mod law (which defines that gray area), UN law(and resolutions), Regional law(which might easily be none), National law, etc).

Um.....I think I'm done.

Lanquassia

18-07-2005, 05:35

Well, first off I'd like to say a couple things -

To all the members who have been posting here, arguing their sides of the arguement: Thank you for actually taking the point and argueing the topic and its relevant related topics, and not straying off onto some unknown tangent. Its nice to see that someone finally at least takes the points I bring up seriously, if not me ;)

To the moderators: My apologies for making you guys have to move this topic, but a lack of sleep can cause me to not think about a thing like "Mmm. Is this the right forum?" when I post a topic. I do thank you for moving this to the proper forum, and I do look forward to hearing a ruling from you guys once you feel both sides have argued each other out.

Now, to the actual post.

It is my interpretation of 110 that all weapons that are neccesary to defend a nation are protected from being banned, unless they were banned prior to the passage of 110. I have not seen a contradiction on this summery of 110, so I will continue on in this interpreation.

Further along in my interpretations of 110, it has been said that 110 has a loophole where, if a ban on a weapon or tactic (and we need another ruling on this!) says that it is not neccesary for national defense as one of the arguements for the action of the ban, then the ban is legal. So far, that seems to be the way that the mods and the community are ruling.

What the question I bring up about this loophole is that, if someone is banning a weapon or tactic, it obviously (in the mind of the author) isn't neccesary for national defense!

The alternate view I am proposing is that any new ban on any weapon or tactic implies in the ban itself that it is not needed for national defense, and during the writing and approval process prior to voting, would be argued one way or another.

The UN would decide, as a body, if they agree if the weapon should be banned, and would show their support for one side or the other.

Actually, in my mind it would be a 'more legal' process to first have to pass legislation saying that the weapon isn't needed for national defense, and THEN attempting to ban the weapon; but I don't think anyone wants to go down that road.

...personally, if the Mod's continue to rule the way they do, I think I would start writing a Repeal of 110 on the basis that it does not define a process for determining if a weapon is neccesary for national defense or not. As it stands, 110 appears to be legal; and a damned good idea, if flawed.

And the second thing that occured to my mind: Does 110 also protect TACTICS? It specifically says WEAPONS, not tactics.

Thank you for your time;

The Scatterbrained Writer for Lanquassia.

Texan Hotrodders

18-07-2005, 07:08

Anyways - I need to make a correction to my original post in light of TH's response:

I must apologize because I got caught up in the wording already used for several pages on the original thread.

No biggie. :)

UNSA says that if a weapon is CLASSIFIED as being necessary, it is not banable. However, there is no definition of necessary, no list of items that are for sure necessary, no criteria for proving necessity so therefore, as far as UN law is concerned, there is nothing that is classified as being necessary.

Right. So since it is not yet defined in UN law, in order for a weapon to be classified as necessary (or unnecessary, as the case may be) in UN law and override national sovereignty over this issue one would have to somehow define that weapon as such in UN law.

Under normal conditions, the UN is expected to look at a common dictionary for the definition of a word (and use any that are applicable). However, classifications work extra-definition. But hey, let's look at the definition:

Wait a minute...you're saying that the UN is expected to look at a common dictionary? I was completely unaware of any such expectation, certainly not one at any official level. And the definition of the word is hardly relevant to the legality of a proposal at this point, seeing as the word is not defined in international law.

Well, let's move on to the next bit. After cutting out the parts that didn't seem relevant...

However, I look at this in a different manner. I feel that since you have the words "subject to" before the exemptions of International law, you are required to bend to the will of any UN resolution (and all UN resolutions are recognized international laws).

Correct so far, at least from my roleplay perspective.

As such, I don't think it says or implies that nations are "exempt from anything the UN hasn't specifically legislated on".

Let's assume that what you think is true in this case (which I would disagree with, but whatever). Even if what you said you think is true, it doesn't change the fact that if it ain't international law it can't have the force of international law. Even if "Rights and Duties of UN States" was not in international law, we would still be left with the very basic fact that what the UN has not done it has not done, and thus it is left up to the nations or other lower political entities in the heirarchy to decide.

I would argue that the UN can pass weapons bans without the unnecessary clause, and if some nation out there has a law saying the weapon is necessary, it would HAVE to change it since its laws are subject to UN law. Actually - I think both articles force you to do that.

Ah, the crux of the argument. :)

You are only partially correct. The UN cannot pass weapons bans without said clause, because while it is true that it can safely ignore national law, it sure as hell can't ignore its own law, which is what a weapons ban without the clause would be doing.

No - I'm stating that the current ruling requires UN law to take into account national law.

And I essentially stated that that's what you stated, and then pointed out that it's false. See below.

1. It is implied that the UN is currently being required to take into account any national definition of necessity.

How was my restatement of your statement any different (aside from cosmetic differences) from your restatement of your statement?

The act of submitting a ban is in the belief that it already is unnecessary. It is up to those that disagree with the ban of that type of weapon (or tactic) to submit and pass their own legislation proving that such a weapon (or tactic) is necessary for defense.

1. The first part of the revised statement is irrelevant. Lanquassia's belief (regardless of its basis in truth) is not international law, and thus cannot have the force of international law.

2. This second sentence in the revised statement is suggesting (interestingly enough I think we've covered this one before) that it is the somehow the burden of those who believe that a weapon is necessary to define it as such in international law. The problem is that the only way we can arrive at this conclusion is through the assumption that "all weapons are considered unnecessary until it is stated otherwise" in international law. The problem with this assumption is that, you guessed it, all weapons aren't currently defined as unnecessary in international law, and as such said definition cannot have the force of international law.

Really? I recall "Rights and Duties of UN States" (specifically Article 10) recognizing that there is law outside of UN resolutions.

Actually - article 10 (scroll up to read) says that laws outside the UN cannot be used as reason to ignore the UN. Article 2 also says that laws in nations must adhere to the laws of the UN. Both recognize laws outside the UN, but both say that the nations must adhere to the UN.

Oh look, you agreed with my statement. Adding the other stuff that isn't even relevant to my point doesn't exactly get us anywhere.

Therefore, the UN does not have to recognize nor consider national law, as they bend to what the UN decrees. It's just how a boss doesn't have to listen or consider what the grunt in cubicle 17 on level 4 thinks (or any of the other grunts) - he may choose to, but he doesn't have to - and no matter what the person may think, if he wishes to continue working at the company, his thoughts and opinions must adhere and cannot be used as a reason to not do as the boss wants.

*sigh* To my knowledge, none of us has actually suggested that "the UN has to recognize or consider national law". As such, it would seem that this point to the opposite would be attacking a straw man.

Um.... he's saying that if you had properly defined necessity of weapons, we wouldn't be having this argument because....well....it would be an illegitamite strategy.

If that's the case, then it wasn't even an argument, but a complaint about how I wrote the proposal, and I couldn't care less if someone doesn't like how I wrote the proposal.

***

Okay, I'm getting tired of this. No more Mr. Nice Tex.

So do I, but I don't recall rights and duties saying that laws outside the UN had any effect ON the UN, or had to be taken into account BY the UN, or could effect the legality of proposals IN the UN.

Looky looky, the same straw man being knocked down again. I know I certainly didn't suggest that laws outside the UN had any effect on the UN. I've argued quite the opposite, in fact.

As far as the UN is concerned there is no law establishing the necessity of any weapon system (except maybe nukes). At all. There may or may not be hundreds or thousands of various local laws out there among the tens of thousands of member nations which may or may not establish either the necessity or unnecessity of any given weapon on a purely local level (and most likely BOTH hundreds of times over in many cases)... the content of which the UN neither knows nor cares about. Doesn't exist as far as UN law is concerned. UN law allows for their potential existence in the absence of other UN laws overiding them, and that is all. It doesn't care what they are, what they say, or if they actually DO exist or not.

Argument based on the straw man...invalid.

The UN isn't ignoring the word necessary (or any other word in the UNSA). It just doesn't have any appreciable effect in the legislation in which it is found since no weapon is actually established as BEING necessary (with the possible exception of nukes per res. 109)

So all weapons are assumed unnecessary until proven otherwise? Golly, that sounds familiar, and as I recall...

2. This second sentence in the revised statement is suggesting (interestingly enough I think we've covered this one before) that it is the somehow the burden of those who believe that a weapon is necessary to define it as such in international law. The problem is that the only way we can arrive at this conclusion is through the assumption that "all weapons are considered unnecessary until it is stated otherwise" in international law. The problem with this assumption is that, you guessed it, all weapons aren't currently defined as unnecessary in international law, and as such said definition cannot have the force of international law.

"Red" is not a real ambiguous term.

Fair enough. Bad comparison on my part.

Texan Hotrodders

18-07-2005, 07:12

Reformentia

18-07-2005, 07:31

So all weapons are assumed unnecessary until proven otherwise?

No, they're just not considered to be necessary until something provides any legislative basis whatsoever for doing so. And they have to BE established to be necessary for the UNSA to make a ban proposal of them illegal.

The UNSA does not make it illegal to ban weapons which might possibly be considered necessary by someone somewhere... it only makes it illegal to ban weapons that ARE necessary. If necessity isn't established, a ban isn't illegal. It's that simple.

Lanquassia

18-07-2005, 10:23

You're quite welcome. :)

I'm not going to address the rest of your post because I'm no longer in a good frame of mind for posting at this point.

Like it stops me? :D

Forgottenlands

18-07-2005, 12:32

Ok - if I'm attacking the strawman - let me ask you this:

THIS is every single relevant portion of UN law that has been argued to date on this matter:

§ Every UN Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

§ Every UN Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty.

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.

WHERE and HOW does the UN contradict its own resolutions? WHERE and HOW is the UN REQUIRED to OVERRIDE National Soverignty to declare a weapon as being unnecessary? WHERE and HOW is it stated that if you ban weapons without overriding National Soverignty, you are NOT REQUIRING nations to AUTOMATICALLY, through contradiction of UN resolutions, to change their own laws so that they redefine that weapon as unnecessary?

(Yeah I'm a bit ticked)

Forgottenlands

18-07-2005, 14:36

I'm going to respond to like half of it now (before my shift starts), half of it during lunch break, and then expand my arguments this evening.

No biggie. :)

Right. So since it is not yet defined in UN law, in order for a weapon to be classified as necessary (or unnecessary, as the case may be) in UN law and override national sovereignty over this issue one would have to somehow define that weapon as such in UN law.

Answer my three questions above

Wait a minute...you're saying that the UN is expected to look at a common dictionary? I was completely unaware of any such expectation, certainly not one at any official level. And the definition of the word is hardly relevant to the legality of a proposal at this point, seeing as the word is not defined in international law.

We define things that are non-common. The reason is that common things can be found in the dictionary. Now that you've agreed there's a situation of "lack of definition", we can start working on the implications of such an issue. (I'll get back to that tonight)

Well, let's move on to the next bit. After cutting out the parts that didn't seem relevant...

Just keep them in mind - because if you take anywhere close to the same argument as PC (and you're doing a fine job of it), we'll end up there.

Correct so far, at least from my roleplay perspective.

Fine

Let's assume that what you think is true in this case (which I would disagree with, but whatever). Even if what you said you think is true, it doesn't change the fact that if it ain't international law it can't have the force of international law. Even if "Rights and Duties of UN States" was not in international law, we would still be left with the very basic fact that what the UN has not done it has not done, and thus it is left up to the nations or other lower political entities in the heirarchy to decide.

Which would be overruled through contradiction

Ah, the crux of the argument. :)

You are only partially correct. The UN cannot pass weapons bans without said clause, because while it is true that it can safely ignore national law, it sure as hell can't ignore its own law, which is what a weapons ban without the clause would be doing.

Answer my three questions

And I essentially stated that that's what you stated, and then pointed out that it's false. See below.

How was my restatement of your statement any different (aside from cosmetic differences) from your restatement of your statement?

Your turn to hit the scarecrow. I said the current RULING does that - you argued why it shouldn't be that way for me.

1. The first part of the revised statement is irrelevant. Lanquassia's belief (regardless of its basis in truth) is not international law, and thus cannot have the force of international law.

Actually, I do agree with that point

2. This second sentence in the revised statement is suggesting (interestingly enough I think we've covered this one before) that it is the somehow the burden of those who believe that a weapon is necessary to define it as such in international law. The problem is that the only way we can arrive at this conclusion is through the assumption that "all weapons are considered unnecessary until it is stated otherwise" in international law. The problem with this assumption is that, you guessed it, all weapons aren't currently defined as unnecessary in international law, and as such said definition cannot have the force of international law.

False, because UNSA requires status to be necessary to be unbannable. If it is unclassified, UNSA nor a combo of UNSA and Rights and Duties addresses the situation (and before you say National Soverignty, let me get my post tonight where I address the matter)

Oh look, you agreed with my statement. Adding the other stuff that isn't even relevant to my point doesn't exactly get us anywhere.

The latter half is MY argument, you keep ignoring it, its going to continue spitting in your face.

*sigh* To my knowledge, none of us has actually suggested that "the UN has to recognize or consider national law". As such, it would seem that this point to the opposite would be attacking a straw man.

Apologies - PC made the connection between national soverignty and recognizing what nations say - I'll explain that connection tonight

If that's the case, then it wasn't even an argument, but a complaint about how I wrote the proposal, and I couldn't care less if someone doesn't like how I wrote the proposal.

Your right - it was a complaint. It wasn't an argument for or against the ruling, it was just a complaint that we're still arguing this same point with you and PC talking about National Soverignty and us wondering how the heck it's relevant.

And that's all until lunch

***

Okay, I'm getting tired of this. No more Mr. Nice Tex.

Looky looky, the same straw man being knocked down again. I know I certainly didn't suggest that laws outside the UN had any effect on the UN. I've argued quite the opposite, in fact.

Argument based on the straw man...invalid.

So all weapons are assumed unnecessary until proven otherwise? Golly, that sounds familiar, and as I recall...

Fair enough. Bad comparison on my part.

Powerhungry Chipmunks

18-07-2005, 15:30

The UNSA does not make it illegal to ban weapons which might possibly be considered necessary by someone somewhere... it only makes it illegal to ban weapons that ARE necessary. If necessity isn't established, a ban isn't illegal. It's that simple.
And that's where I disagree with you. I think we're just going to have to leave it at that (rather than arguing forever).

I agree "identity" (or that weapons "ARE" necessary as you say) only occurs when there is an "identifier"--a weapon type's identity as "necessary" is subjective. But I think that the UNSA implicitly puts that identity in the hands of the nations until the UN decides otherwise. I have a two main citations which keep me believing this:
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.
This line acknowledges that necessity is different for each nation. It encourages member states to ensure they have ability to defend their nation. Individual nation.

To me, this means that UNSA allows individual nations to determine how much weaponry they need to defend themselves adequately, establishing that what "is necessary" is relative to the situation a nation is in--and allowing nations to determine necessary weapons based on those situations. Which leads us well into the next clause: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.
Again, this refers to individual nations: "Member state have the right to...all weapons that are necessary to defend their nation from attack". To me, this acknowledges that different nations will have different situations and therefore different definitions of whether a weapon type "is necessary". It seems to place the definition of what "is necessary" in the nations hands, until the UN decides otherwise.

No, it isn't. Because unlike "red" the phrase "necessary for defense" has absolutely no clear meaning if it isn't proivided in the law.
And I think UNSA provides a fairly clear meaning--or at least, provided us with a fairly clear sense of whose meaning is regarded as important.

"Red" is not a real ambiguous term.
Actually, an interesting aside, Whorf might disagree. Different languages differentiate colors in different ways. There are languages with 17 words for what an English speaker typically considers Red to encompass, and there are languages with a single word that encompasses Red, Orange, and Yellow in English.

Anyway, My point is, that "Red" only seems unambiguous to us because we are surrounded by a common language which generally recognizes wavelengths approximately 650nm to 700nm in length as under the same name: red. If we were surrounded with consensus on what is "necessary for defense", I think it would seem unambiguous as well.

"Necessary for defense" is practically meaningless if lacking accompanying defining criteria for what it means. It could be talking about practically ANYTHING. As things stand now I could declare salad forks necessary weapons for defense with no more substantive an argument than "because I think they are" because I don't have to show that salad forks meet one single required criteria to be considered necessary weapons... because there aren't any!

I agree. And I think this is the desired effect of UNSA--that individual nations are able to adapt and change to meet their individual defense situations.

Ecopoeia

18-07-2005, 16:57

Don't get frustrated with each other, folks. I like y'all and, ultimately, we're debating tricksy legal implications born of a really quite simplistic game function.

The use of the word 'necessary' reminds me of an earlier Tex resolution, Right to Self-Protection, where there was much grumbling over the use of the word 'reasonable'. The likes of Tex and I were in favour of such a term as it allowed for leeway in an area that is contentious, namely personal security. We can pretty much all agree that molesting kids is bad in any scenario. We're not all likely to agree on whether or not someone can shoot the kneecaps off (or worse) of someone burgling their home. 'Reasonable' requires that nations attend to the issue and actually determine what they, as states and societies, feel is 'reasonable'. This will obviously vary between nations.

If someone wants to declare a certain response to a threat on personal security as being illegal, they're surely going to have to prove or persuade people that it's 'unreasonable'; stands to, er, reason, yes? If they're persuasive enough, then the UN community - rightly or wrongly - will endorse their position.

So... we have the same situation here. You may not like UNSA, but it establishes the necessity to define a weapon's, er, necessity, yes? You have to ensure that your proposal tackles the issue of necessity. Hopefully for Reformentia, their proposal is persuasive enough.

The UN makes its own laws, regardless of whether or not they trample on sovereignty, national, personal or otherwise. If the UN declares national sovereignty to be an issue for consideration with respect to, say, security, then it becomes an issue. I get the feeling that if UNSA had been passed, say, a year ago, we wouldn't be engaging in these circular arguments. It just so happens that the bioweapons ban followed hard on its heels and threw up a whole heap of fan-unfriendly excreta.

The UN needs to maintain consistency in its legislation, keep topics 'appropriate' and not muck with fechanics. Otherwise, it's a free bird and can limit or widen its mandate as it pleases. And we all know how capricious the UN legislators can be...

Forgottenlands

18-07-2005, 17:32

Yay - PC is back - and with a fresh new point of argument (which I, of course, disagree with him on - but hey, we'll get back to that this evening....)

Frisbeeteria

18-07-2005, 17:44

The UN needs to maintain consistency in its legislation, keep topics 'appropriate' and not muck with fechanics. Otherwise, it's a free bird and can limit or widen its mandate as it pleases. And we all know how capricious the UN legislators can be...
This is a nice summation of why we don't want a Moderation opinion to set the phrases in stone. Mods should not be used as "Deus ex machina" devices to keep an unruly UN in line. If you can convince your fellow Ambassadors that a thing is legal, and it doesn't fail to meet any of the core tests in the UN proposal rules, then you should submit it.

It is true that we can pop out of our God-box and Smite anything that egregiously offends us, but we prefer to leave the finer points of adjudication to the UN membership. These constant legal wranglings and appeals to Mods-on-High gets tiring after a while. This is not the only venue we need to adjudicate, and we've spent enough time on it already.

There has been a ruling about the word "necessary", and you need to live with that. It's not an unreasonable loophole. Work with it.

Forgottenlands

18-07-2005, 19:35

Lunchtime rush:

Okay, I'm getting tired of this. No more Mr. Nice Tex.

Looky looky, the same straw man being knocked down again. I know I certainly didn't suggest that laws outside the UN had any effect on the UN. I've argued quite the opposite, in fact.

*sighs* - why do I feel like we're about to have a round 2 of the other thread - we're arguing exactly where we were on page 4 (or was it 3?) of the other thread.

Argument based on the straw man...invalid.

Actually, it wasn't. Perhaps its response was irrelevant to the post it was responding to, but as a standalone argument, it's valid (it wasn't a disproof of your argument)

So all weapons are assumed unnecessary until proven otherwise? Golly, that sounds familiar, and as I recall...

Again - tonight.

Points for tonight (personal list - will be edited out later)
-WHY it MUST be deemed necessary by the UN, but unnecessary is irrelevant
-National Soverignty irrelevance (if anyone quotes rights and duties, read my behemoth post first)
On second thought - I'll just leave it so you know what to expect on the next page (and can gear up your arguments for it)

MOVING ON (seeing as lunch is only half done)

And that's where I disagree with you. I think we're just going to have to leave it at that (rather than arguing forever).

We are getting a bit redundant, aren't we?

I agree "identity" (or that weapons "ARE" necessary as you say) only occurs when there is an "identifier"--a weapon type's identity as "necessary" is subjective. But I think that the UNSA implicitly puts that identity in the hands of the nations until the UN decides otherwise. I have a two main citations which keep me believing this:

This line acknowledges that necessity is different for each nation. It encourages member states to ensure they have ability to defend their nation. Individual nation.

To me, this means that UNSA allows individual nations to determine how much weaponry they need to defend themselves adequately, establishing that what "is necessary" is relative to the situation a nation is in--and allowing nations to determine necessary weapons based on those situations. Which leads us well into the next clause

Much better point of defense on your part - better than Rights and Duties. I'm going to have to think about that one for a bit

If your argument is true, though, it would also disable the ability to make weapons unnecessary......and so on and so forth. I take issue with the idea that the "line acknowledges that necessity is different for each nation", but it is now my burden to prove so I shall see if I can think of one (unless Reformatia or Roathin beats me to it). The rest of your post is either A) built on this argument, B) irrelevant (red), or C) already settled

Don't get frustrated with each other, folks. I like y'all and, ultimately, we're debating tricksy legal implications born of a really quite simplistic game function.

If you had an entire argument shot down because it was either A) irrelevant or B) scarecrow, you'd be a bit frustrated too. I just needed a bit of a breather after that.

The use of the word 'necessary' reminds me of an earlier Tex resolution, Right to Self-Protection, where there was much grumbling over the use of the word 'reasonable'. The likes of Tex and I were in favour of such a term as it allowed for leeway in an area that is contentious, namely personal security. We can pretty much all agree that molesting kids is bad in any scenario. We're not all likely to agree on whether or not someone can shoot the kneecaps off (or worse) of someone burgling their home. 'Reasonable' requires that nations attend to the issue and actually determine what they, as states and societies, feel is 'reasonable'. This will obviously vary between nations.

And we aren't denying that nations have a right to determine necessity. What we are debating is whether the UN has to override it directly or can it do that implicitly through contradiction?

If someone wants to declare a certain response to a threat on personal security as being illegal, they're surely going to have to prove or persuade people that it's 'unreasonable'; stands to, er, reason, yes? If they're persuasive enough, then the UN community - rightly or wrongly - will endorse their position.

Would you have to, not necessarily. If I got a law saying that you could never kill anyone for any reason (making exception to euthanasia), would it be illegal because it conflicts with the right to self-protection (because of course, some nations might feel that killing someone who's about to kill you is reasonable force)? Would I be required to explain a section that talks about why one shouldn't be allowed to use that form of force within my resolution for self-defense? Debatable. BTW - this is the kind of precedent I'm talking about when I take issue with the "precedent being set"

So... we have the same situation here. You may not like UNSA, but it establishes the necessity to define a weapon's, er, necessity, yes? You have to ensure that your proposal tackles the issue of necessity. Hopefully for Reformentia, their proposal is persuasive enough.

But why?

The UN makes its own laws, regardless of whether or not they trample on sovereignty, national, personal or otherwise. If the UN declares national sovereignty to be an issue for consideration with respect to, say, security, then it becomes an issue.

But it didn't - nor has it passed anything guaranteeing any form of National Soverignty of a nation to date on any matter - except the ability to godmod

I get the feeling that if UNSA had been passed, say, a year ago, we wouldn't be engaging in these circular arguments. It just so happens that the bioweapons ban followed hard on its heels and threw up a whole heap of fan-unfriendly excreta.

Perhaps not then - but it might have when they decided to start working on a Chem Weapons ban or work again on a bio-weapons ban....

Not to mention, a year ago we didn't (AFAIK) have repeals

End lunch break....

Ecopoeia

18-07-2005, 20:35

So... we have the same situation here. You may not like UNSA, but it establishes the necessity to define a weapon's, er, necessity, yes? You have to ensure that your proposal tackles the issue of necessity. Hopefully for Reformentia, their proposal is persuasive enough.
But why?
Er. Well, because the UN membership has decided that this should be the case. An explicit statement of necessity ensures compliance. Why is this such a big problem? Is this really such a bad thing?

Likewise, national sovereignty has, by virtue of passed resolutions, become a UN issue, whether we like it or not. But anyway.

By the way, my comments re 'frustration' were made because I see several articulate, intelligent and decent people getting really wound up at each other over the most trivial of matters. The amount of time being, well, wasted on this issue is bewildering. Fris and Hack hath spoken and explained themselves pretty well, I think. I see no compelling reason to keep beating your heads against the enormous brick walls that have been placed in front of you.

Forgottenlands

18-07-2005, 21:12

Er. Well, because the UN membership has decided that this should be the case. An explicit statement of necessity ensures compliance. Why is this such a big problem? Is this really such a bad thing?

...I suppose I should've referred to the line previously, but no - the UN membership agreed that necessary weapons shouldn't be banned weapons - they did not agree that weapons are defined as necessary by default.

Likewise, national sovereignty has, by virtue of passed resolutions, become a UN issue, whether we like it or not. But anyway.

Did you read my comment? If I state something and then you state something that's COMPLETELY opposite of what I said without providing an explanation for why your statement is more correct than mine is just poor arguing.

By the way, my comments re 'frustration' were made because I see several articulate, intelligent and decent people getting really wound up at each other over the most trivial of matters. The amount of time being, well, wasted on this issue is bewildering. Fris and Hack hath spoken and explained themselves pretty well, I think. I see no compelling reason to keep beating your heads against the enormous brick walls that have been placed in front of you.

And yet we debate it still. Twice I've had the urge to write up a resolution that does exactly what PC and Tex claim this resolution does just to kill the issue - but:
A) I wasn't certain how well it would do
B) I wasn't certain how the legality of such a resolution would work - especially considering the current ruling
C) I still feel the mod ruling needs to be overruled (as I said, I have a concern about precedence being set by the ruling)
D) PC JUST brought up what I consider the first point in this entire debate that I can see just WHERE the source of his belief comes from - whereas the entire debate outside that is from instances of "this does this" and I blink twice and still don't see how they got that conclusion. I can build most of Tex and PCs arguments, but the problem is that they are based upon fundamental beliefs - both of UN power and UN law - that I can't see ANYWHERE.
E) I don't want that effect to go into place
F) Many other reasons, I just don't have time to list them all

Ecopoeia

18-07-2005, 22:03

Did you read my comment? If I state something and then you state something that's COMPLETELY opposite of what I said without providing an explanation for why your statement is more correct than mine is just poor arguing.

Actually, I didn't state the complete opposite at all, but never mind. I apologise for poor phrasing - I was about to eat and couldn't be arsed to faff around addressing each point in depth. I can't really be arsed now, in truth, but you deserve a response (and then I'm gone as this debate doesn't interest me enough to get involved any further - no offence to you, I'm just struggling to see the point of getting bogged down in a legal quagmire in a game).

The UN makes its own laws, regardless of whether or not they trample on sovereignty, national, personal or otherwise. If the UN declares national sovereignty to be an issue for consideration with respect to, say, security, then it becomes an issue.
But it didn't - nor has it passed anything guaranteeing any form of National Soverignty of a nation to date on any matter - except the ability to godmod
I'm not certain what the godmod reference is about, in truth. Anyway, national sovereignty has become a consideration (not a guarantee, I didn't intend to suggest that) not because a resolution has 'RECOGNISED that national sovereignty is a consideration for the UN', but because a number of resolutions have incorporated the concept in their drafting. Most obvious in recent times are UNSA and Flibbleites' Nuclear Armaments; however, here are a few (by no means comprehensive) samples from earlier resolutions that acknowledge national sovereignty in some form or another and, in most cases, restrict potential future legislation:

AFFIRMING ALSO that this resolution shall not affect each nation's sovereign right to allow or ban capital punishment within its own borders
VALUING member nations' right of self-determination, since they may determine the individual characteristics of their government much more adequately than the UN, which is far removed from the individual nation’s various situations and unique qualities,

WHILST RECOGNISING that UN Proposal #49 on the Rights and Duties of UN States defends the rights of national sovereignty and non-intervention
DETERMINING it a member nation’s right to allow or disallow prostitution independently, based upon that member nation’s independent medical need and standing
2. Statement of Sovereignity Assurance:
This Protocol is humanitarian in nature. Sovereignity of each UN Member is guaranteed.
And so on. Christ, all that for what was originally only an aside on my part!

Forgottenlands

19-07-2005, 00:27

*drafts response*

As a side note, I find it rather interesting that a line that many interpreted as an encouragement for member nations to bolster their military funding as being a key part of an argument giving sovereignty.

First of all, I need to go through my list of items to address:

1) National Sovereignty on the matter of necessary is irrelevant unless you can prove that it was SPECIFICALLY legislated that necessary is up to the nations to address until the UN rules otherwise. Why? Because it isn’t guaranteed anywhere – so nations would have to modify their laws to what the UN decides. Since (and I’ll address PC’s point in a minute, and it’s WHY I gave the three questions) this is not the case, then the UN is not required to worry about what anyone has defined as necessary, unnecessary, or chicken little. Want proof – read my Abortion case study, ask yourself that question. If you disagree with it – RESPOND to it. That’s why it’s there, to deal with National Sovereignty and the “sovereignty over things that the UN hasn’t addressed” (and if you keep ignoring the argument, it’ll keep coming back.)

2) BECAUSE the resolution states that only weapons that are NECESSARY for defense are not bannable, only weapons that ARE CLASSIFIED as NECESSARY in the scope of what the UN must consider (which is NOT national law, and they DON’T have sovereignty over the term necessary – they can only deem stuff necessary until it contradicts a UN resolution), it doesn’t matter whether a weapon is unclassified or unnecessary or is a Bush, as long as it is NOT classified as necessary, it is NOT under the consideration of this resolution (and therefore, bannable).

I know – that’s a lot of caps.

This is why it is up to a resolution to prove necessity rather than disprove it. Since the default is not necessary, you need to prove its necessity for it to be considered by the UNSA.

Now, Powerhungry Chipmunks brings forth a rather interesting argument. I disagree with it, of course – but I had difficulty and (for once) was not immediately against the argument on grounds of it being false. After a bit of further analysis, it wasn’t quite what I thought:

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.

This line acknowledges that necessity is different for each nation.

Like I said, the word necessity I took issue with. It implies that the situation is different for different nations – not just in how their nation is build, but also run. However, that is a far cry from necessity – unless you wish to declare that the definition of necessity is the ability to “effectively defend their sovereign nation from attack in the interest of protecting their citizens” – which was never said (and has never been argued and I’ve often seen must DIFFERENT definitions of necessity used in the debates about UNSA).

It encourages member states to ensure they have ability to defend their nation.

It does, but one’s ability to defend one’s nation isn’t that he has the necessary weapons – because it depends on your definition of necessary. It also does not address the issue of whether a nation has the right to define necessity – in lieu of the UN.

Individual nation. Just had to toss that in

To me, this means that UNSA allows individual nations to determine how much weaponry they need to defend themselves adequately, establishing that what "is necessary" is relative to the situation a nation is in--and allowing nations to determine necessary weapons based on those situations.

Intended meanings, AFAIK, do not hold up as UN law unless actually stated - else loopholes would never exist. Just because you state that nations should bolster their defense so they can adaquetely protect themselves doesn’t mean you’re telling them “you get to create your own list of weapons you deem as necessary”. Also, I point to Lanquassia’s first post where she makes a distinction between the term “desirable” and “necessary”.

Which leads us well into the next clause:

Which I must apologize for misinterpreting at first read. I thought it built upon this one, but then I realized it is a standalone.

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.

Again, this refers to individual nations:

Fine

"Member state have the right to...all weapons that are necessary to defend their nation from attack". To me, this acknowledges that different nations will have different situations and therefore different definitions of whether a weapon type "is necessary".

The words “What am I missing?” are sitting right at the forefront of my brain.

*rambling* weapons that are necessary for a nation, does it recognize that the nation has the right to determine a weapons necessity

Nation A states that weapon a is necessary. UNSA states that the nation is allowed to build any weapon that is necessary for defense. UN wants to ban weapon a, does UNSA block it…..*thinks*

No it doesn’t. A nation has the right to build any weapon that is necessary for defense, but it doesn’t state WHO gets to decide that necessity. As a result, the nation’s choice is irrelevant to the UN (and yes, Nation’s choice being considered by the UN and requirement of overriding National Sovereignty are the same thankyouverymuch). It does not guarantee the nation’s right to determine the necessity of a weapon – just that if the weapon is necessary, it can be built. If the UN banned that weapon, that weapon can not (through contradiction) be necessary.

It seems to place the definition of what "is necessary" in the nations hands, until the UN decides otherwise.

It doesn’t place it in anyone’s hands.

ARGUMENT AGAINST THE “NATIONS HAVE DEFAULT AUTHORITY”

I know this is going to come back so I’ll try to address it now. Yes nations have default authority of necessity – HOWEVER, this authority extends only to the point where they don’t contradict UN law. If UN law through UNSA and a ban of any sort (whether it says the weapon is unnecessary or not) contradicts a nation’s determination of a weapon’s necessity, that nation is REQUIRED to change it. The UN is not required to consider the ability for that nation to deem necessity since, well, it’s given through default – just as the default for the UN is “unclassified”.

I’m sure I’m going to be correcting flaws in my arguments, etc in this post. It’s going to be fun.

Finally:

I'm not certain what the godmod reference is about

Section 10 of Rights and Duties guarantees the right to godmod

Anyway, national sovereignty has become a consideration (not a guarantee, I didn't intend to suggest that) not because a resolution has 'RECOGNISED that national sovereignty is a consideration for the UN', but because a number of resolutions have incorporated the concept in their drafting. Most obvious in recent times are UNSA and Flibbleites' Nuclear Armaments; however, here are a few (by no means comprehensive) samples from earlier resolutions that acknowledge national sovereignty in some form or another and, in most cases, restrict potential future legislation:

Ah - I see. I thought you were weighing in using national sovereignty as a defense.

Lanquassia

19-07-2005, 03:43

Erm, no comments about my question/comments? ;-;

Forgottenlands

19-07-2005, 04:10

Sorry - I was going to comment on your post, but I forgot

Well, first off I'd like to say a couple things -

To all the members who have been posting here, arguing their sides of the arguement: Thank you for actually taking the point and argueing the topic and its relevant related topics, and not straying off onto some unknown tangent. Its nice to see that someone finally at least takes the points I bring up seriously, if not me ;)

I have to agree - people have been taking this issue as seriously as the tone for it was set to be taken

To the moderators: My apologies for making you guys have to move this topic, but a lack of sleep can cause me to not think about a thing like "Mmm. Is this the right forum?" when I post a topic. I do thank you for moving this to the proper forum, and I do look forward to hearing a ruling from you guys once you feel both sides have argued each other out.

As do I

Now, to the actual post.

It is my interpretation of 110 that all weapons that are neccesary to defend a nation are protected from being banned, unless they were banned prior to the passage of 110. I have not seen a contradiction on this summery of 110, so I will continue on in this interpreation.

Which pretty much just justified every one of NSO's points (sorry guys for grouping you - I know you are arguing seperately, but it's just easier to do it that way)

Further along in my interpretations of 110, it has been said that 110 has a loophole where, if a ban on a weapon or tactic (and we need another ruling on this!) says that it is not neccesary for national defense as one of the arguements for the action of the ban, then the ban is legal. So far, that seems to be the way that the mods and the community are ruling.

The mods, yes. The community is split (as this thread shows) - with some people going as far as saying you can't ban any weapons from this resolution (yes, there has been at least one, plus I've brought up a logic chain to that extent at one point - which I later disproved) to people like myself who think the resolution does nothing (at least not right now - we could pass some resolutions later that call a certain weapon necessary) - which, to some extent, was what you initially tried to argue (indirectly of course)

What the question I bring up about this loophole is that, if someone is banning a weapon or tactic, it obviously (in the mind of the author) isn't neccesary for national defense!

As TH pointed out, implied lack of necessity is not sufficient. Also, be careful with assumptions like that - as I pointed out to someone on the UN thread, just because I call Al Queda a terrorist organization doesn't mean that A) I disagree with them or B) I think their actions are disproportionate to their aims, I simply just don't want to see them win so I believe them to be terrorists. A person may acknowledge that many nations will be so hampered by the banning of a weapon that it is truly necessary for their defense and still feel that it is too dangerous for them to use. Actually - I'm thinking of superpowers and nukes TBH - we may acknowledge that it is crucial to the balance of power to keep nuclear deterrence in place, but some feel that MAD is just so dangerous, that it is better to have a nuclear regime impose their will upon us than the chance of a nuclear holocaust.

The alternate view I am proposing is that any new ban on any weapon or tactic implies in the ban itself that it is not needed for national defense, and during the writing and approval process prior to voting, would be argued one way or another.

You're assuming it all goes through an approval process. The vast majority of weapons bans do not (though, for that matter, the vast majority of weapons bans are missing that all important line)

The UN would decide, as a body, if they agree if the weapon should be banned, and would show their support for one side or the other.

Ok

Actually, in my mind it would be a 'more legal' process to first have to pass legislation saying that the weapon isn't needed for national defense, and THEN attempting to ban the weapon; but I don't think anyone wants to go down that road.

Actually, PC has suggested it before so....

...personally, if the Mod's continue to rule the way they do, I think I would start writing a Repeal of 110 on the basis that it does not define a process for determining if a weapon is neccesary for national defense or not. As it stands, 110 appears to be legal; and a damned good idea, if flawed.

Your opinion, not mine.

And the second thing that occured to my mind: Does 110 also protect TACTICS? It specifically says WEAPONS, not tactics.

You want a mod ruling on that? I've already stated my answer

Thank you for your time;

Thank you for your interest

The Scatterbrained Writer for Lanquassia.

Powerhungry Chipmunks

19-07-2005, 14:45

D) PC JUST brought up what I consider the first point in this entire debate that I can see just WHERE the source of his belief comes from - whereas the entire debate outside that is from instances of "this does this" and I blink twice and still don't see how they got that conclusion. I can build most of Tex and PCs arguments, but the problem is that they are based upon fundamental beliefs - both of UN power and UN law - that I can't see ANYWHERE.
Well, in Reformentia's thread I was almost ready to get to it before the weekend. A lot of the reason for me not sharing that until now (or then even) was I unsure about the fundamental reasons for me reading the resolution as I did anyway (in the Right to Self Protection resolution's thread, the matter seemed resolved fairly quickly and not as thoroughly as a full account wasn't necessary). I also thought there was some confusion about what Rights and Duties I needed to tend to before I looked back to the UNSA for reasons I feel the way I do.

Actually, I felt a lot of the same way (less so when responding to you, moreso when responding to Refomentia), that we were just going in circles and not really discussing anything. So, in the end, my lack of articulation, I think, was based in my (mis)understanding of yours and Reformentia's posts and with me not fully understanding my own reasons for feeling the way I do.

If your argument is true, though, it would also disable the ability to make weapons unnecessary......and so on and so forth. I take issue with the idea that the "line acknowledges that necessity is different for each nation", but it is now my burden to prove so I shall see if I can think of one (unless Reformatia or Roathin beats me to it). The rest of your post is either A) built on this argument, B) irrelevant (red), or C) already settledI'm not following you. Why would my argument mean that we wouldn't have the ability to make weapons unnecessary?

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.

This line acknowledges that necessity is different for each nation.
Like I said, the word necessity I took issue with. It implies that the situation is different for different nations – not just in how their nation is build, but also run. However, that is a far cry from necessity – unless you wish to declare that the definition of necessity is the ability to “effectively defend their sovereign nation from attack in the interest of protecting their citizens” – which was never said (and has never been argued and I’ve often seen must DIFFERENT definitions of necessity used in the debates about UNSA).My point is that the situation is different for each nation, and the "ability [needed by UN nations] to effectively defend their sovereign nation from attack..." is different for each situation. This ability is later connected to the "necessary for the defense of one's nation" clause.

It never says "necessary" but it says that we need to "have the ability to defend...", which is to say "have the ability [needed in order to] defend...". I read it as having the same meaning. If I say "You have to buy some milk to make the cake", carries the implied meaning of "You have to buy some milk [which is needed] to make the cake". This "ability to effectively defend nations" we're encouraged towards is read the same way.

Lemme break it down a different way. "Ability" is tagged as the way we get a result ("effectively defend our nation"). Therefore, this "ability" appears to be necessary to enact that result. "Ellie encouraged me to have studied enough to pass the test" means that Ellie's encouraging me to pass the test, but through something that we both see (presumably I agree) as necessary to bring about the result (having "studied enough")--even though she never said the word "necessary". Ellie wouldn't encourage me to "drink iced tea to pass the test", unless she thought I needed to drink iced tea to pass the test, that it was 'necessary' in some way to bring about the desired result.
1) National Sovereignty on the matter of necessary is irrelevant unless you can prove that it was SPECIFICALLY legislated that necessary is up to the nations to address until the UN rules otherwise. Why? Because it isn’t guaranteed anywhere – so nations would have to modify their laws to what the UN decides.
I disagree. If a biological weapons ban passes and does not declare that biological weapons are "unnecessary for defense", weapons which may in some situation be necessary for defense (protected by UNSA) are banned. Contradiction, and illegal under current proposal rules. If you don't believe the relativity granted nations, then (over-objectifying) weapons which are *in fact* needed in a defense situation are banned and that's a contradiction.

2) BECAUSE the resolution states that only weapons that are NECESSARY for defense are not bannable, only weapons that ARE CLASSIFIED as NECESSARY in the scope of what the UN must consider (which is NOT national law, and they DON’T have sovereignty over the term necessary – they can only deem stuff necessary until it contradicts a UN resolution), it doesn’t matter whether a weapon is unclassified or unnecessary or is a Bush, as long as it is NOT classified as necessary, it is NOT under the consideration of this resolution (and therefore, bannable).

I know – that’s a lot of caps.
First, the caps. I find it tactless, personally. I mean, I don't hold anything against you, but in the forum (to me anyway) emphasis is expressed through italics, whereas CAPS imply more of you yelling at me. I'd rather not imagine you yelling at me when you deliver your arguments--otherwise I'll likely just ignore your arguments as worthless (good points don't need to be yelled--and even if they did, they shouldn't be yelled). That's one of the main reasons my respect for Reformentia was flagging in his thread--he kept yelling the same things at me often as if he were a genius and I were a gum-encrusted ceiling tile.

Anyway, I think we're back to the old points of disagreement. I don't see the UN having to say something is "necessary for defense" for it to be objectively "necessary for defense"--which UNSA defend--or even to be considered subjectively “necessary for defense”. I think if that strict a reading were taken of all UN resolutions, there'd be none that would have any effect (since Definition of Marriage never defined "defines" or "civil union" or "gender", etc.).

The words “What am I missing?” are sitting right at the forefront of my brain.

*rambling* weapons that are necessary for a nation, does it recognize that the nation has the right to determine a weapons necessity

Nation A states that weapon a is necessary. UNSA states that the nation is allowed to build any weapon that is necessary for defense. UN wants to ban weapon a, does UNSA block it…..*thinks*
Unless the UN develops a policy for the necessity of the weapon, as Hack has ruled, that weapons ban *is* blocked (as Reformentia's ban has been blocked once before).
No it doesn’t. A nation has the right to build any weapon that is necessary for defense, but it doesn’t state WHO gets to decide that necessity. As a result, the nation’s choice is irrelevant to the UN (and yes, Nation’s choice being considered by the UN and requirement of overriding National Sovereignty are the same thankyouverymuch).
And the UN has never said “WHO” determines what “prostitution” is (from “Sex Industry Worker Act”), but does that mean that resolution has no effect? If only a resolution in which the UN defines every word it uses is effected, then no resolution is effected.

It does not guarantee the nation’s right to determine the necessity of a weapon – just that if the weapon is necessary, it can be built. If the UN banned that weapon, that weapon can not (through contradiction) be necessary.
Hardly. The weapon can easily be necessary. Say a nation is being ransomed to exchange biological weapons or be attacked--biological weapons are "necessary". Say a nation is being invaded and there is a perfect, uninhabited hot-zone enemy troops are about to pass through which will, if filled with harmful microbes, stop the enemy troops in its tracks--biological weapons could be necessary in that situation, and thus protected by UNSA regardless of what ban is passed afterward.

Allemande

19-07-2005, 22:28

BTW - tactics are not covered by this resolution - which was the argument Allemande (was that the submitter?) was trying to make of his own legality.Yes, it was me, and that was one of the two arguments I offered. I'll restate them both (w/re to the Bayonet Ban):
The UNSA's use of the word "weapons" doesn't mean that "tactics" can't be banned (eg., "terrorism", "carpet bombing", or - in my case - sticking your knife on the end of your longarm,
The Bayonet Ban (specifically) doesn't actually ban any weapon, per se. It says that you can have bayonets and longarms, and use either one independently of the other. But you can't train people in the use of the bayonet while said bayonet is attached to the end of a longarm, and you can't actually use that particular assembly in combat, either.
Now, I'm the player who first enunciated the notion that adding the "magic words" to your resolution overcomes the UNSA. That said, I did not insert such "magic words" in the Bayonet Ban, because I didn't think they were necessary.

For the record, although it was not my intention, I've created a loophole that could be used to ban the Bomb. Already someone is trying to ban ballistic missiles. What's more interesting is the possibility that a player could offer the NSUN a ban on putting nukes aboard an ICBM and lobbing them at your enemy: you could say, in essence: "Yes, you can have ballistic missiles, and yes you can have nukes, and yes you can use either one. But no, you can't mate the two together and use them as a combined assembly," and not have the UNSA get in their way...

Forgottenlands

19-07-2005, 22:56

PC - I'll get to your post in a second.

Yes, it was me, and that was one of the two arguments I offered. I'll restate them both (w/re to the Bayonet Ban):
The UNSA's use of the word "weapons" doesn't mean that "tactics" can't be banned (eg., "terrorism", "carpet bombing", or - in my case - sticking your knife on the end of your longarm,
The Bayonet Ban (specifically) doesn't actually ban any weapon, per se. It says that you can have bayonets and longarms, and use either one independently of the other. But you can't train people in the use of the bayonet while said bayonet is attached to the end of a longarm, and you can't actually use that particular assembly in combat, either.

Forgot the last part....though to an extent, it's an extension of the first part.

Now, I'm the player who first enunciated the notion that adding the "magic words" to your resolution overcomes the UNSA. That said, I did not insert such "magic words" in the Bayonet Ban, because I didn't think they were necessary.

Sorry - wasn't trying to claim you were - I was trying to refer to the tactics part.

For the record, although it was not my intention, I've created a loophole that could be used to ban the Bomb. Already someone is trying to ban ballistic missiles. What's more interesting is the possibility that a player could offer the NSUN a ban on putting nukes aboard an ICBM and lobbing them at your enemy: you could say, in essence: "Yes, you can have ballistic missiles, and yes you can have nukes, and yes you can use either one. But no, you can't mate the two together and use them as a combined assembly," and not have the UNSA get in their way...

*shivers* Such strange loopholes we're finding in this resolution. Certainly many more and much more complex than I think TH wanted them to be.....

Majesto

19-07-2005, 23:01

Allow me to interject for a second, please.

Uhh... everyone here is aware of the fact that the thread was originally created for a mod ruling, right? Are you also aware that that no moderator has actually posted in here yet regarding this proposal, and that your debating back and forth has already brough this thread to page three/the brink of page four?

If you want to debate this amongst yourselves (which is how this looks now), then you should just ask to have this moved back into the UN forum. If you want a mod ruling, why don't you just wait for a mod ruling instead of adding more and more discourse for the mods to wade through?

Obviously, I'm not a moderator - I'm just trying to point something out here.

Frisbeeteria

19-07-2005, 23:04

Are you also aware that that no moderator has actually posted in here yet regarding this proposal
Strictly speaking, I *have* ruled that we're not going to rule on this.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9273206&postcount=29

Forgottenlands

19-07-2005, 23:55

Majesto.... a person external to the main argument thread decided to try and fast-track a mod decision - while we actually hadn't finished our debate on the original thread (and I think you can see why we hadn't finished). To some extent, that resulted in us hijacking this thread (which kinda sucks....but both sides of the original thread disagreed with the argument presented to kick this thread off so....)

Well, in Reformentia's thread I was almost ready to get to it before the weekend. A lot of the reason for me not sharing that until now (or then even) was I unsure about the fundamental reasons for me reading the resolution as I did anyway (in the Right to Self Protection resolution's thread, the matter seemed resolved fairly quickly and not as thoroughly as a full account wasn't necessary). I also thought there was some confusion about what Rights and Duties I needed to tend to before I looked back to the UNSA for reasons I feel the way I do.

Actually, I felt a lot of the same way (less so when responding to you, moreso when responding to Refomentia), that we were just going in circles and not really discussing anything. So, in the end, my lack of articulation, I think, was based in my (mis)understanding of yours and Reformentia's posts and with me not fully understanding my own reasons for feeling the way I do.

*nods*. I was wondering why you went quiet when you did, but I thank you for taking the time to think it through.

I'm not following you. Why would my argument mean that we wouldn't have the ability to make weapons unnecessary?

Sorry - I threw that in there while doing a rush job and forgot to get back to it (partly because I had changed my stance on the initial opinion). Anyways:

=====
Quotes of importance:

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.

This line acknowledges that necessity is different for each nation. It encourages member states to ensure they have ability to defend their nation. Individual nation.

To me, this means that UNSA allows individual nations to determine how much weaponry they need to defend themselves adequately, establishing that what "is necessary" is relative to the situation a nation is in--and allowing nations to determine necessary weapons based on those situations.

If your argument is true, though, it would also disable the ability to make weapons unnecessary......and so on and so forth.

I suppose it was a slightly rash argument, and a fairly weak position to sit from, but it is an argument:

First of all - I'm going to work from the point of ASSUMING that this line does permit nations to determine necessity - just so this entire section is not used against me in further arguments.

Because of this assumption, the statement "establishing that what "is necessary" is relative to the situation a nation is in--and allowing nations to determine necessary weapons based on those situations." is validated (kinda) which means, well, that the UN cannot determine (as a blanket coat) what is necessary for defense - because they cannot account for the different situations. In effect, the UNSA would conflict with any attempts to overrule necessity because it's failing to address the specific status of a nation's situation ..... and so on and so forth.

Overall, I'd like to withdraw that argument - but that is the logic I used to arrive at that conclusion
=====

My point is that the situation is different for each nation, and the "ability [needed by UN nations] to effectively defend their sovereign nation from attack..." is different for each situation. This ability is later connected to the "necessary for the defense of one's nation" clause.

It never says "necessary" but it says that we need to "have the ability to defend...", which is to say "have the ability [needed in order to] defend...". I read it as having the same meaning. If I say "You have to buy some milk to make the cake", carries the implied meaning of "You have to buy some milk [which is needed] to make the cake". This "ability to effectively defend nations" we're encouraged towards is read the same way.

Lemme break it down a different way. "Ability" is tagged as the way we get a result ("effectively defend our nation"). Therefore, this "ability" appears to be necessary to enact that result. "Ellie encouraged me to have studied enough to pass the test" means that Ellie's encouraging me to pass the test, but through something that we both see (presumably I agree) as necessary to bring about the result (having "studied enough")--even though she never said the word "necessary". Ellie wouldn't encourage me to "drink iced tea to pass the test", unless she thought I needed to drink iced tea to pass the test, that it was 'necessary' in some way to bring about the desired result.

I'll get back to you on that, though initial analysis isn't good.

I disagree. If a biological weapons ban passes and does not declare that biological weapons are "unnecessary for defense", weapons which may in some situation be necessary for defense (protected by UNSA) are banned. Contradiction, and illegal under current proposal rules. If you don't believe the relativity granted nations, then (over-objectifying) weapons which are *in fact* needed in a defense situation are banned and that's a contradiction.

Weak point in both our arguments is National Sovereignty. Aside from possibly your above argument, Nation's sovereign right to determine necessity is never guaranteed, so the UN ban, IMO, isn't contradicting anything that is must consider. Because a nation's law is the weakest link in this series of conflicting laws - unless it is specifically mandated as being able to be determined, it is the one that needs to change. The UNSA doesn't declare any weapons as being necessary and doesn't grant nations the right to determine it specifically (your argument aside), so necessity is not within the scope of consideration for any UN law.

First, the caps. I find it tactless, personally. I mean, I don't hold anything against you, but in the forum (to me anyway) emphasis is expressed through italics, whereas CAPS imply more of you yelling at me. I'd rather not imagine you yelling at me when you deliver your arguments--otherwise I'll likely just ignore your arguments as worthless (good points don't need to be yelled--and even if they did, they shouldn't be yelled). That's one of the main reasons my respect for Reformentia was flagging in his thread--he kept yelling the same things at me often as if he were a genius and I were a gum-encrusted ceiling tile.

Noted, I'll work on that

Anyway, I think we're back to the old points of disagreement. I don't see the UN having to say something is "necessary for defense" for it to be objectively "necessary for defense"--which UNSA defend--or even to be considered subjectively “necessary for defense”. I think if that strict a reading were taken of all UN resolutions, there'd be none that would have any effect (since Definition of Marriage never defined "defines" or "civil union" or "gender", etc.).

*points to post where he notes difference between definitions and classifications*

UNSA says that if a weapon is CLASSIFIED as being necessary, it is not banable. However, there is no definition of necessary, no list of items that are for sure necessary, no criteria for proving necessity so therefore, as far as UN law is concerned, there is nothing that is classified as being necessary.

Under normal conditions, the UN is expected to look at a common dictionary for the definition of a word (and use any that are applicable). However, classifications work extra-definition. But hey, let's look at the definition:

1. Absolutely essential. See Synonyms at indispensable.
2. Needed to achieve a certain result or effect; requisite: the necessary tools.
3.
1. Unavoidably determined by prior conditions or circumstances; inevitable: the necessary results of overindulgence.
2. Logically inevitable.
4. Required by obligation, compulsion, or convention: made the necessary apologies.

#1 (which I personally think is the closest thing) says absolutely essential. However, how does one define essential..... (and again, I'd argue that this is a classification)

I'll get back to that

#2 - ok, so we need it to achieve a result or effect. But what result? This result would have to be defined by the individual nation.

#3 - don't think it applies though if someone can correct me on that, please do

#4 - if it was necessary for any of those three reasons, it would, again, be defined by the nation.

Ok - back to essential....

1. Something fundamental.
2. Something necessary or indispensable.

#1 fundamentality (if that is a word) of a weapon is determined by the individual nation - not the UN. Unless we wanted to standardize tech, it would not be legislatable by the UN

#2 - well that just takes us back to where we started

So....pretty much you end up back where we both were arguing....in absence of a note on it in UN law, it must be determined as such by the individual nation.

Unless the UN develops a policy for the necessity of the weapon, as Hack has ruled, that weapons ban *is* blocked (as Reformentia's ban has been blocked once before).

That was analysis of UNSA - not mod ruling. Considering I disagree with and am trying to repeal the mod ruling.....

And the UN has never said “WHO” determines what “prostitution” is (from “Sex Industry Worker Act”), but does that mean that resolution has no effect? If only a resolution in which the UN defines every word it uses is effected, then no resolution is effected.

No - but if Nation X decided to deem any women on the street between ages 14 and 17 as prostitutes, and then we outlawed pediophilia....

(BTW - did we?)

Hardly. The weapon can easily be necessary. Say a nation is being ransomed to exchange biological weapons or be attacked--biological weapons are "necessary". Say a nation is being invaded and there is a perfect, uninhabited hot-zone enemy troops are about to pass through which will, if filled with harmful microbes, stop the enemy troops in its tracks--biological weapons could be necessary in that situation, and thus protected by UNSA regardless of what ban is passed afterward.

Fine - be "deemed" necessary. What it's actual status is is irrelevant (hmm....that sounds like a familiar argument....oh yes - the Terrorist vs Freedom Fighter argument). If you want to argue the deemed part - then we get to a question of whether the concept that a weapon is unnecessary for defense clause is actually valid.

Forgottenlands

20-07-2005, 00:17

Hmm....ended up missing that last line - but I do wish to comment

It is true that we can pop out of our God-box and Smite anything that egregiously offends us, but we prefer to leave the finer points of adjudication to the UN membership. These constant legal wranglings and appeals to Mods-on-High gets tiring after a while. This is not the only venue we need to adjudicate, and we've spent enough time on it already.

There has been a ruling about the word "necessary", and you need to live with that. It's not an unreasonable loophole. Work with it.

We're repealing this ruling because we disagree with it, feeling it failed to take into account the fundamental beliefs the ruling was built on and believing these beliefs to be flawed (as has been brought forth in the various arguments). Admittedly, we probably should've resolved our internal debates before finalizing an actual statement representing a repeal, but I did not want to end up in a situation where you shot down all debate of the repeal on site because you were sick of it so I ended up fast tracking my repeal in light of Lanquassia's. In a rather ironic twist of fate, I think I ended up doing exactly what I was afraid of happening and I do apologize for that.

*edit* Forgot to mention that we feel it sets a rather startling precedent (as has been alluded to in various arguments) with concerning consequences if founded upon the wrong beliefs. I also feel that if the resolution is interpreted in a certain way, that precedent actually suggest that this resolution does nothing - though we are (obviously) still debating interpretation - both methods and reasoning.

Forgottenlands

20-07-2005, 00:37

Considering what I have stated, and considering what I would like to do, I would like to propose the following

1) A ruling be made on Lanquassia's arguments as they stand (unless she expands them). This is a seperate argument from the main one that has generally dominated this thread. I would further like to request the ruling on tactics (though we have by and large consented on what it actually says, I think Lanquassia would feel more at ease if this was made official). With that, Lanquassia's component of this argument I feel is largely closed.

2) This thread be returned to the UN so that our debate may finish without annoying the moderator community on the whole

3) That once this debate is fully finished (either by concession of one side or by agreement that there is a fundamental difference in opinions that cannot be resolved by us), should a repeal be wanted by either side on the ruling, they be permitted to present their case in a single post. Further, should the debate be concluded where the two sides cannot come to a consensus, the opposing side also be granted a chance to post their explanation. I would recommend that the two sides discuss their personal posts so that a general understanding and ability to talk about the same argument (and fundamental issue - as I feel and I think there are others that agree that this is an issue with the fundamental logic of how the UN works and how its powers work) before they post. At that point, I would ask both sides to cease debate and allow the moderators to rule without having to worry about the inflation of the thread.

Obviously, this last point will require the consensus of both the moderators and the opposing side.

Majesto

20-07-2005, 00:42

Strictly speaking, I *have* ruled that we're not going to rule on this.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9273206&postcount=29
I saw that, but I thought it was relating to something else and not the proposal. Sorry about that, I guess I stand corrected on both counts. Well, since Fris has already made a ruling and the UN reps are still debating this, perhaps a mod can move this back to the UN forum and remove the "mod request" from the topic title? :)

Lanquassia

20-07-2005, 02:43

Well, three things.

First, a general apology for starting this thread. I was under the impression that, by and large, the discussion on this topic had been finished.

Second, I do ask that the words in parenthesis saying "Mods, please rule!" be removed from the topic, and that this thread be moved to UN.

Third, I'm a he. XY chromosones. I like red meat, porno, and books about war. Not a she. ;)

And, I am 'mostly' satisfied with the mod's rulings on this. I say mostly, becuase the issue isn't resolved, but the mod's have taken the only action that they - and I - feel safe with taking.

Forgottenlands

20-07-2005, 03:48

Oh - oops. I was trying to make that statement as gender neutral as possible (seeing as I only had a guess) - obviously I missed one. Appologies

Frisbeeteria

20-07-2005, 03:55

Lanquassia

20-07-2005, 04:14

Allemande

20-07-2005, 08:34

I thank Frisbeeteria and the rest of the mod team for allowing the players to present our views to you.

I'm also withdrawing myself from being the writer of either side of the arguement, as there are definatly others better qualified. I will however, raise up points for both sides.

/Bengaley of lanquassiaThanks, Lanquassia.

My real interest is in trying to figure out what I can and can not do in drafting a resolution, as well as in knowing what is and is not possible.

Simple, right? ;)

Lanquassia

20-07-2005, 09:19

Thanks, Lanquassia.

My real interest is in trying to figure out what I can and can not do in drafting a resolution, as well as in knowing what is and is not possible.

Simple, right? ;)

Well, state what side you're for, and throw together what you think are the six or so best ideas behind what side your on, then do a conclusion tieing them together.

We'll quibble, as will anyone else that agrees, but its a draft.

Forgottenlands

20-07-2005, 14:38

Fris - thank you

PC: I realized (after quickly skimming the resolution) that my argument wasn't entirely valid per-se... due to clause 1 and 5, but I do wish to change it.

Ok - first of all, I'm going to pull the same trick I did when arguing resolution 61 - I'm going to ignore the resolutions regarding child protection on a House of Cards rule argument. This will also remove Clause 5 as it is very much a House of Cards argument.

Let's say a nation declares that any citizen (and yes, human citizen) over the age of 12 (I have heard of this belief before) to be mature. By the resolution, any person over the age of 12 is allowed to become a prostitute - no matter what the definition of prostitute is. If we pushed in a resolution that stated no person under, say, the age of 16 may give consent to sex - would we have to make a clause acknowledging Resolution 87 (and I should note, we are still not defining prostitution - but I think it would be safe to argue that MOST nations would have that as a component of prostitution)? I would argue no.

Lanquassia

21-07-2005, 18:07

Forgottenlands

22-07-2005, 01:24

What the...?

Check my last previous post aimed at PC. We discussed a point of prostitution.

PC: I finally have a response. To refresh everyone's memories:

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.
This line acknowledges that necessity is different for each nation. It encourages member states to ensure they have ability to defend their nation. Individual nation.

To me, this means that UNSA allows individual nations to determine how much weaponry they need to defend themselves adequately, establishing that what "is necessary" is relative to the situation a nation is in--and allowing nations to determine necessary weapons based on those situations. Which leads us well into the next clause:
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.
Again, this refers to individual nations: "Member state have the right to...all weapons that are necessary to defend their nation from attack". To me, this acknowledges that different nations will have different situations and therefore different definitions of whether a weapon type "is necessary". It seems to place the definition of what "is necessary" in the nations hands, until the UN decides otherwise.

Like I said, the word necessity I took issue with. It implies that the situation is different for different nations – not just in how their nation is build, but also run. However, that is a far cry from necessity – unless you wish to declare that the definition of necessity is the ability to “effectively defend their sovereign nation from attack in the interest of protecting their citizens” – which was never said (and has never been argued and I’ve often seen must DIFFERENT definitions of necessity used in the debates about UNSA).

It does, but one’s ability to defend one’s nation isn’t that he has the necessary weapons – because it depends on your definition of necessary. It also does not address the issue of whether a nation has the right to define necessity – in lieu of the UN.

Intended meanings, AFAIK, do not hold up as UN law unless actually stated - else loopholes would never exist. Just because you state that nations should bolster their defense so they can adaquetely protect themselves doesn’t mean you’re telling them “you get to create your own list of weapons you deem as necessary”. Also, I point to Lanquassia’s first post where she makes a distinction between the term “desirable” and “necessary”.

(rest deals with another face of the argument, not the one at hand)

My point is that the situation is different for each nation, and the "ability [needed by UN nations] to effectively defend their sovereign nation from attack..." is different for each situation. This ability is later connected to the "necessary for the defense of one's nation" clause.

It never says "necessary" but it says that we need to "have the ability to defend...", which is to say "have the ability [needed in order to] defend...". I read it as having the same meaning. If I say "You have to buy some milk to make the cake", carries the implied meaning of "You have to buy some milk [which is needed] to make the cake". This "ability to effectively defend nations" we're encouraged towards is read the same way.

Lemme break it down a different way. "Ability" is tagged as the way we get a result ("effectively defend our nation"). Therefore, this "ability" appears to be necessary to enact that result. "Ellie encouraged me to have studied enough to pass the test" means that Ellie's encouraging me to pass the test, but through something that we both see (presumably I agree) as necessary to bring about the result (having "studied enough")--even though she never said the word "necessary". Ellie wouldn't encourage me to "drink iced tea to pass the test", unless she thought I needed to drink iced tea to pass the test, that it was 'necessary' in some way to bring about the desired result.

I've gotta bring back Roathin's point in his first post:
We agree with what we think is your stand, provisionally. We believe the crux of the matter is the word 'necessary' and the implied necessity behind it, as opposed to words such as 'desirable' and the implied desire.

A necessary weapons is one that is required to defend your nation. A desirable weapon is one that is needed to defend your nation "effectively". If I could defend my nation by arming a mere 100k troops, but arming 99 999 would means my nation is overrun (ignoring chaos theory and probability and the fact that the world has yet to be solved on a calculator), then 100k troops is necessary for defense. If I can reduce my losses by 50%, make sure I don't lose X number of acres of land before recapturing it and such by having 10k of those troops in armored divisions (and thus being more effective in my defense of my territory), it is not necessary for my defense, but it would be nice. It would be even more effective to defend one's nation by nuking your opponent before his troops reach the border. However - is that necessary, or desirable?

Though in today's world, all of these numbers are extraordinarily small, I think they shall suffice to get my point across.

My point is that the use of the word "effectively" suggest having desirable forces both in size and type to defend one's nation - not the necessary number. As a result, it doesn't give the nations the right to determine necessity, but it does give them the right to determine desirability....though one might argue that the UN really doesn't care and one would have to be freaking foolish to decide what weapons are desirable for a bunch of people who want to rule a nation their own way.....

As a result, this list is not considered by the UN as being a nation's list of necessary weapons. Therefore, it is not dealt with by the last clause.

Texan Hotrodders

23-07-2005, 07:42

OK, back into the UN with it.

Here's the deal. I realize that a lot of people have put a lot of thought into a lot of verrrry long posts, but I just don't have the time to read and evaluate them all. If you guys can summarize this into two positions of less than ... say, eight paragraphs each, then perhaps we could evaluate the options realistically.

Work it into a couple of proposals (not necessarily UN format, but 'moderator proposals'). Bullet points would be good. Extensive cross-referencing would be bad. You get the idea.

I'll do as you suggest instead of wasting my time with pointing out the same thing over and over again in different ways.

My proposal for a Moderator ruling is this.

1. I agree with part of Hack's ruling, specifically that future proposals seeking to ban weapons are not legal if they do not take into account the UNSA within their proposal text. The author's intent, the membership's opinion, the lack of definition of key terms, and the fact that UN law has precedence over national law; none of those things are even relevant by themselves to the legality of the proposal when it comes to the rule against contradiction -- only the text of the proposal and its relationship to previous legislation is relevant.

2. I disagree with the other part of Hack's ruling that the default status of weapons is "necessary". I believe that weapons don't have a default status of "necessary" (as Hack suggested) or "unnecessary" (as my opponents suggested) in international law because they were not given either of those stati in international law.

My argument is summed up below. It has been edited to be more thorough and flow more logically.

As in most of the other arguments, this discussion is properly centered around what exactly international law is and does.

1. International law is generally considered to be superior to national law in the sense that it takes precedence over national law.

2. As per "Rights and Duties of UN States" national law has what is known as sovereignty over those items left unaddressed by international law.

3. Even without "Rights and Duties," it would be the same situation, as outlined below.

This is very much the natural state of things, and it could be extended further to include colonial, provincial, municipal, or tribal law. In the case of each political entity (and we could include persons here), they are free to manage their own affairs as they please unless a higher authority in the heirarchy has made a binding ruling on those affairs.

In the case of a heirarchical system of law such as we have here, the system generally operates on a very basic and often unarticulated axiom, "that which is not prohibited is allowed". Restated to be appropriate to the context of our discussion this would read, "that which is not addressed in international law is free to be addressed by national law".

Keeping the above in mind, we cannot legitimately say that anything which is not in international law has the force of international law. So in order to define a weapon as unnecessary for the purposes of international law, one has to put that definition in international law. It's really quite a simple equation. Unless it's international law, it's not international law, and therefore it can't have the effect of international law.

1. So what does this mean? It essentially means that in the case of items addressed by international law said law is sovereign, and that in the case of items not addressed by international law the national law is sovereign.

2. Now in the case of the word "necessary" in the UNSA, all this essentially means that until a weapon is stated to be unnecessary in international law (however one chooses to do that), national law is the highest authority regarding the necessity of the weapon. (Caveat: In the case of roleplayed international organizations that are not the UN, the law set forth by the international organization may also be higher than national law.)

Forgottenlands

23-07-2005, 15:24

I'll give PC till monday evening to reply - else I'll draft my mod ruling post.

(If you need time to think, just say and I will wait)

Powerhungry Chipmunks

23-07-2005, 16:26

A necessary weapons is one that is required to defend your nation. A desirable weapon is one that is needed to defend your nation "effectively". If I could defend my nation by arming a mere 100k troops, but arming 99 999 would means my nation is overrun (ignoring chaos theory and probability and the fact that the world has yet to be solved on a calculator), then 100k troops is necessary for defense. If I can reduce my losses by 50%, make sure I don't lose X number of acres of land before recapturing it and such by having 10k of those troops in armored divisions (and thus being more effective in my defense of my territory), it is not necessary for my defense, but it would be nice. It would be even more effective to defend one's nation by nuking your opponent before his troops reach the border. However - is that necessary, or desirable?
I think you've highlighted the right point. Except I think the distinction between necessary and desirable is fuzzy and nigh unto impossible to predict. Besides that, even the most largely supported as "necessary" weapons have their enemies (ie. what is "necessary" in a situation depends on who you ask and what office they're running for).

Forgottenlands

06-08-2005, 22:20

Sorry for getting this done two weeks after I promised it – been a bit busy so….

Anyways:

-----------------------------

As we all know, the current belief held by the moderator community is that the United Nations Security Act makes it so that to pass a weapons ban resolution these days, one must have 5 extraordinary words sitting in their resolution: “$weapon is unnecessary for defense”. This of course is thanks to the last clause in the UNSA which states:

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.

However, I feel that this ruling is based upon faulty logic. A weapon must be classified as “necessary for defense” for it to be unbannable. There is no attempt made by this resolution to declare who has the right to determine necessity, what the criteria is for weapons to be “necessary for defense” or any method of proving one way or the other what the status of the weapon is. As such, the default value of weapons is undefined.

Many National Sovereigntists have suggested that the nation, therefore, has the default ability to determine necessity. While I admit this is true, I don’t believe this prevents resolutions saying that a weapon is now banned without explicitly saying that it is unnecessary for defense. Why? Because the default value in the scope of consideration by the UN is still undefined. Since the nations are not, in any way, guaranteed the right to determine necessity of a weapon by this or any other resolution (with 2 possible exceptions which I’ll address later), the UN can assume that no weapon is necessary for defense unless stated otherwise. As such, should the UN pass a resolution, any nation that has declared the weapon as being necessary for defense would find itself in contradiction with a UN resolution. The individual nation is responsible to make sure it is not contradicting a UN resolution, not the UN is responsible to make sure it is not contradicting a nation’s laws.

As an example, I would like to use Resolution 61 (Abortion Rights) as a case study. For the purposes of this case study, I will argue that due to the rules regarding House of Cards, should any of my arguments and theoretical laws contradict a resolution other than this one (most likely Resolution 43), they are irrelevant as Resolution 61 is still required to stand on its own. Resolution 61 states:

Henceforth all women shall have the right to choose whether to have an abortion or not, no member nation will interfere with a woman's right to have an abortion.

Let us pretend that before this resolution was passed, Nation X had a law declaring that a person’s life begins at the moment of conception (therefore making fetuses alive). They also have a separate law stating that no person may choose that any other human being may die (therefore making it illegal to choose to have an abortion). If neither of these points are legislated on directly by the UN, would they not have to change at least one of these laws to bring itself so it is not contradicting the UN resolution?

There are two points in UN resolutions that have thus far been brought forth as arguments as to why the nation has the right to determine necessity so that it must be overridden by a UN resolution. The first is the Resolution 49: Rights and Duties of United Nations, Article 2 which reads as follows:

§ Every UN Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

However, I feel that this does nothing I haven’t already argued. A nation is allowed to pass any laws it feels like, “subject to the immunities” of UN resolutions. This is equivalent to saying that no nation may contradict any UN resolution (or more localized international governments in which the nation is a part of). It is not, as some National Sovereigntists have argued, stating that nations have a right to legislate in any area that the UN has not specifically addressed.

The second point is the second last paragraph of the United Nations Security Act, which states:

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.

It has been argued that since we are encouraging member states to “ensure that they have the ability to effectively defend” themselves, we are telling them that they have the right to determine what is “necessary for defense” so that they can accomplish that goal. While I feel that this is not actually provided, I would like to bring forth a point made by Roathin where he differentiated between the word “necessary” and the word “desirable”. If you are ensuring that you have the ability to “effectively defend” yourself, then you are looking at desirability. A nation may feel that a way to effectively defend themselves is to drop a nuke on the enemy capital. However, this nuke is not necessary for the defense of their nation; this nuke is a desirable weapon. As such, I feel that this statement gives the rights of nations to determine a wishlist of weapons, not a list of weapons they need to defend themselves.

-----------------------

Fris, I know you asked for 8 paragraphs.....I ended up with 9 plus 3 quotes

Ok, here's the current plan: I have a feeling there are others who might want to also post their final arguments or to debate this a bit further. Also, considering this thread is massive, I will not request that it itself get moved so what will happen is if by Wednesday, no one has responded, I will start a new thread in moderation moving TH's post (BTW - you are more than welcome to modify your arguments), my post, and Fris's post to the new thread (which will not be for debate purposes). As stated in the deal, once that thread is made, DEBATE IS OVER. If anyone else wants to get added to the list of posts to move, make your 8 paragraphs and post them.

NationStates Jolt Archive

An Alternate view of Resolution 110's effect on new Legislation