NationStates Jolt Archive

War-time Chemical Weapons Ban

A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.


Category: Global Disarmament


Strength: Significant


Proposed by: Canditas

Description: RECOGNISING the difference between peace-time chemical weapons such as pepper spray and tear gas, and war-time chemical weapons used for killing.

REALISING the need for individuals to have the means to protect themselves, and for police officers to have effective means of controlling unruly crowds in non-lethal ways.

OBSERVING that there is no UN resolution in effect to ban war-time chemical weapons.

URGES
1: All nations shall comply with a complete ban on lethal, war-time chemical weapons.

2: All nations will recognise the need for peace-time chemical weapons needed to ward off rapists and other attackers, and will not pass further laws to ban these safe and effective means of self-protection.

Approvals: 3 (WZ Forums, Punrovia, Republic of Freedonia)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 126 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Fri Sep 23 2005


Seeing as the last repeal leaves us with no ban whatsoever on chemical weapons, and also noting the main concerns people had, and thus the successful repeal, I believe this is a resolution to address the issues both sides had with the bill.

I'm interested to know what other heads of state would suggest to a small developing nation whose chemical weapon arsenal is the only deterrant it can offer against the aggression of larger neighbours.

Description: RECOGNISING the difference between peace-time chemical weapons such as pepper spray and tear gas, and war-time chemical weapons used for killing.

OK, you reconize the difference between peace-time weapons and war-time weapons. You even name some example if peace-time and war-time weapons. However, there is not a single definition provided in this resolution of what is a peace-time weapon and what is a war-time weapon. These definitions must be included in your proposal, or you will have many delegates saying it does nothing.

REALISING the need for individuals to have the means to protect themselves, and for police officers to have effective means of controlling unruly crowds in non-lethal ways.

OK

OBSERVING that there is no UN resolution in effect to ban war-time chemical weapons.

URGES
1: All nations shall comply with a complete ban on lethal, war-time chemical weapons.

Pst. All nations have to comply with banning lethal, war-time chemical weapons if this passes. It is always better to make a short, sweet statement to catch the attention of the reader, like

BANS all lethal, war-time weapons.

2: All nations will recognise the need for peace-time chemical weapons needed to ward off rapists and other attackers, and will not pass further laws to ban these safe and effective means of self-protection.

Be prepared for a debate on this last sentence.

If you are planning to have this in effect as soon as possible, then I suggest not including this clause. This could cause many nations to vote against this proposal because of National Sovereignty, and maybe cause the resolution to go down hill.

Overall, I think this proposal needs a lot more work. You need a longer preamble, with more reasons on why this should pass. State the dangers of chemical weapons. As is, it doesn't seem really thought out to be a good UN resolution.

If this had been posted for feedback before submission, that feedback may have resembled the following...

Description: RECOGNISING the difference between peace-time chemical weapons such as pepper spray and tear gas, and war-time chemical weapons used for killing.

REALISING the need for individuals to have the means to protect themselves, and for police officers to have effective means of controlling unruly crowds in non-lethal ways.

OBSERVING that there is no UN resolution in effect to ban war-time chemical weapons.

URGES
1: All nations shall comply with a complete ban on lethal, war-time chemical weapons.

And yet does not actually enact such a ban since:

1. This is an "Urging".
2. Even if it wasn't an "urging", that statement doesn't institute a ban unless it is read in just the right way, it only requires compliance with such a ban... which doesn't necessarily exist upon the passage of this resolution.

As suggested by a previous poster... "Hereby bans all lethal chemical weapons" gets the job done more effectively, with of course an accompanying definition of what actually constitutes a chemical weapon.

1. This is an "Urging".

You are allowed to use words like "Urging" in your proposals. It does not mean this will become optional (because resolutions cannot be optional) You will still have to comply with the laws.

But I still encourage you to use one of the changes suggested. Makes the resolution stronger.

You are allowed to use words like "Urging" in your proposals. It does not mean this will become optional (because resolutions cannot be optional) You will still have to comply with the laws.

Yes, actually it does mean it's optional. It's not optional that you be "urged"... but it is optional whether you do anything about it because compliance to a law that only "urges" does not require you to actually follow the recommendations of that urging.

Yes, actually it does mean it's optional. It's not optional that you be "urged"... but it is optional whether you do anything about it because compliance to a law that only "urges" does not require you to actually follow the recommendations of that urging.

Hack Laws

Many 'Mild' Proposals will have phrases such as "RECOMMENDS" or "URGES", which is just fine. The opinionality ban refers to when language such as "Nations can ignore this Resolution if they want," which is right out.

Ok, well when the resolution ends, I will make a word change from "URGES". However, I see no point in naming off the difference between war-time and peace-time chemical weapons. I would assume people would know the difference. That is like banning nuclear weapons not working because you didn't name off the type of missile used to deliver the payload.

The two main issues I see most people had with the former chemical weapons ban was the tear gas and pepper spray, those I mentioned specifically just to address those individual concerns. Otherwise I would not have listed those either, once again, it's implied in the "Peace-time" wording, just as Agent Orange or Sarin would be implied in "War-time" chemical weapons.

Any other suggestions would be appreciated.

Description:

RECOGNISING the difference between peace-time chemical weapons such as pepper spray and tear gas, and war-time chemical weapons used for killing.

DEFINING a war-time chemical weapon as that which is used to kill or disfigure.

DEFINING a peace-time chemical weapon as that which is non-lethal and intended to temporarily stun or disable.

REALISING the need for individuals to have the means to protect themselves, and for police officers to have effective means of controlling unruly crowds in non-lethal ways.

OBSERVING that there is no UN resolution in effect to ban war-time chemical weapons.

BANS
1) The manufacture of war-time chemical weapons as defined.
2) The trading of war-time chemical weapons as defined.
3) The possession of war-time chemical weapons as defined.

GRANTS
1) The right of individuals residing in member nations to access peace-time chemical weapons, with the exception of crowd controlling peace-time chemical weapons, such as tear gas.
2) The right of individuals residing in member nations to use peace-time chemical weapons in self-defense, and the defense of family and neighbors as allowed by the laws in that nation.
3) The right of police and other government sponsored organizations to use peace-time chemical weapons as a means of upholding law and order.


How about this?

I'm assuming you are going to put this in Global Disarmament, Significant, correct?

I am glad you took my suggestion and added definitions. :)

BANS
1) The manufacture of war-time chemical weapons as defined.
2) The trading of war-time chemical weapons as defined.
3) The possession of war-time chemical weapons as defined.

MUCH better then what I posted earlier. You really did a good job here. Was this your idea?

Overall, I think this proposal has greatly improved from the last draft. You have my support :)

Yes, global disarmament, significant. And yes, I wrote that right after my post before it. I guess I was too much in a hurry to write it the first time. I'll make sure to put that resolution up once the current one has expired on friday.