NationStates Jolt Archive

You weren't too keen on the last weapons ban I drafted - and I'm not giving up on that - but, in the meantime, I noticed we need a chemical weapons ban. So here goes. It is, at the moment, both too short, and too long: there's whole sections I've culled from the predraft, yet it's still much too lengthy for submission. Thoughts?

----
The United Nations,

FULLY CONVINCED that cooperation through the implementation of effective international law is required in order to achieve and maintain peace for all citizens of the world,

APPALLED at the effects of chemical weaponry, including widespread death, injury and damage, having the potential to affect non-involved parties, and to continue to cause medical, biological and environmental problems long after the cessation of hostilities,

NOTING that chemical weaponry is not necessary for national defence,

CONDEMNING the use of chemical weaponry, and determined to effectively eliminate it in the interests of global welfare,

DEEPLY CONCERNED that possession of chemical weaponry could constitute a significant threat, as there is the potential for such armaments to cause massive damage if improperly stored, or if possession of such is gained by terrorist organizations,

STRESSING the importance of responsible decommissioning of chemical weaponry, as improper disposal could be as hazardous as direct use thereof,

BELIEVING that scientific research into the development of chemical weaponry can be put to better use, instead contributing to the elimination of disease and hunger,

NOT WISHING to limit legitimate trade in chemicals, in accordance with international law, and noting that such trade has the potential to lead to greater international cooperation in social and economic development,

CALLING INTO MIND UN Resolution #120, 'Repeal "Ban Chemical Weapons"', and the distinction made within that repeal between chemical weaponry for military purposes, and legitimate use of mild chemical agents as part of a police action,

OBSERVING that certain chemical agents can be used responsibly in the maintenance of law and order, whilst further observing that some chemicals with legitimate applications in industry, agriculture, medicine and other aspects of civilian life have the potential to be weaponised by terrorist organizations:

DEFINING for the purposes of this resolution:
(a) "chemical weaponry" as, together or separately:
i. toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where the possession or use of such chemicals is not banned by this resolution, and where the types and quantities of such are consistent with legitimate purposes;
ii. munitions and devices specifically designed to kill, maim, injure or damage utilising the action of those toxic chemicals specified in (i.), which would be released as a result of the employment of such munitions and devices;
iii. any equipment specifically designed for use directly in aid of the employment of such munitions and devices as specified in (ii.);

(b) "toxic chemical" as any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death or permanent harm to animal species, and which has reasonable potential to be used as a military weapon,

(c) "precursor" as any chemical reactant which takes part at any stage in the production of any toxic chemical;

(d) "riot control agent" as any chemical which does not meet the definitions of a toxic chemical, but which can produce in humans and other species sensory irritation and temporary disablement, but whose effects disappear in a relatively short time following termination of normal exposure;

1. PROHIBITS:
i. production, development, retention, acquisition, supply, distribution, trade or use of chemical weaponry;
ii. engagement in military preparation of chemical warfare, except allowing the distribution of anti-chemical protection gear, such as gas masks and protective clothing, the facilitation of anti-chemical training, and instruction in anti-chemical medical aid;
iii. aid or inducement, including but not limited to financial, technical and military support, towards actions in defiance of this resolution by any party, including but not limited to non-state terrorist organizations;
iv. the use of riot control agents, herbicides, or other toxic chemicals of legitimate civilan application for military purposes;

2. REQUIRES:
i. the destruction of all chemical weaponry in possession of any member state, extending to any weaponry within the sovereign territory or other jurisdictional area of that state;
ii. the destruction of any chemical weaponry previously deployed by any member state outside its sovereign territory;
iii. the destruction or complete conversion to other means of all facilities previously directed at the production, development, storage or deployment of chemical weaponry;
iv. a timeframe of ten years from the passage of this Resolution for the complete implementation of (i.-iii.), though not precluding any states from completing implementation more rapidly, or of ten years from the point of entry into the United Nations of states joining the body after the passage of this Resolution;

3. MANDATES that all member states must:
i. declare whether they possess chemical weaponry or chemical weaponry production equipment or facilities;
ii. declare the precise location and quantity, and provide a full inventory of chemical weapons, chemical weaponry production equipment or facilities, which they possess, or that are located within their sovereign territory or other jurisdictional area, regardless of whether they are responsible for them or not, or any further chemical weaponry for which they are otherwise responsible;
iii. declare and where possible provide records and receipts for any recent transfers in chemical weaponry, or of equipment pertaining to the production or deployment of such, which they have been party to;
iv. submit a plan of action for the implementation with respect to clause 2;

4. AUTHORISES the use of economic sanctions and embargoes, and where necessary the use of military force, except where such actions are prohibited in international law, to ensure compliance with this Resolution.

----

After that, I wanted to include more detail about programs for destruction, inspections, and perhaps give examples of what's banned and not. I also need to allow for the legitimate use of riot control agents (which is, I guess, implicit). But, these are the main bits: anyone willing to help me improve it?

I'll say this, you got the UNSA loophole down pat

I'm just too tired to parse a weapons ban resolution intelligently right now.

I'll say this, you got the UNSA loophole down pat

I'm just too tired to parse a weapons ban resolution intelligently right now.

Thank you. There's no rush on this: there's another (your) proposal queued, so there's no point trying to scramble together a submission draft by lunch. But I'm glad you think I have UNSA covered.

I question a part of your defination of chemical weapons.

i. toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where the possession or use of such chemicals is not banned by this resolution, and where the types and quantities of such are consistent with legitimate purposes


What's a legitimate purpose? And how do you check to make sure they are legitimate? "Oh, yep, those are just pesticides. It's okay!" It seems like if you really wanted chemical weapons, this would be pretty easy to get around. And in said pesticide example, the country to quite possibly trick inspectors by actually using it as a pesticide in times of peace. They'd have less of a reason to suspect foul play if the alibi had a backbone, which isn't too hard with chemicals.

And your definition of "toxic chemicals".

(b) "toxic chemical" as any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to animal species, regardless of their origin;

Anything can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm under certain circumstances. Water. Oxygen. Puppies. You wouldn't want to ban these, yet they are chemical weapons under a certain interpretation of the definition. (OoC: They should have been looking for Saddam's deadly puppies! Back IC)

It's, all in all, a good draft, but it's got a few loopholes. Fix them, and it's great.

We don't need to read the proposal; we need only to read the title to know we are firmly opposed. The Sheknu Confederacy can rely on zero support from the Federal Republic on this.

You weren't too keen on the last weapons ban I drafted - and I'm not giving up on that - but, in the meantime, I noticed we need a chemical weapons ban. So here goes. It is, at the moment, both too short, and too long: there's whole sections I've culled from the predraft, yet it's still much too lengthy for submission. Thoughts?

I must tell you I have ambivalent feelings about this, and I would reserve a position until after some debate. However, I am happy to share some comments about the draft (which I didn't read too carefully for lack of time).

CONDEMNING the use of chemical weaponry,
BELIEVING that it is in the interests of all nations to effectively eliminate such weaponry,
DETERMINED to effectively eliminate chemical weaponry in the interests of global welfare:

Repetitive and somewhat empty. I suggest you keep one of these, eventually more detailed, as a conclusion for the motivation.

1. PROHIBITS:
vi. the use of riot control agents in warfare;

Uh? I thought you defined those as being essentially harmless.

After that, I wanted to include more detail about programs for destruction, inspections, and perhaps give examples of what's banned and not. I also need to allow for the legitimate use of riot control agents (which is, I guess, implicit). But, these are the main bits: anyone willing to help me improve it?

I think you don't need to worry too much about implementation (clause 3), as compliance is automatic. I would worry more about keeping tabs on non-UN arms, by asking members to provide details of previous trade with such nations, and urging members to condemn and retaliate against any chemical weapons attack from outside the UN.

FULLY CONVINCED that cooperation through the implementation of effective international law is required in order to achieve and maintain peace for all citizens of the world,

CONDEMNING the use of chemical weaponry,

APPALLED at the effects of chemical weaponry, including widespread death, injury and damage, having the potential to affect non-involved parties, and to continue to cause medical, biological and environmental problems long after the cessation of hostilities,

BELIEVING that it is in the interests of all nations to effectively eliminate such weaponry,

DEEPLY CONCERNED that possession of chemical weaponry could constitute a significant threat, as there is the potential for such armaments to cause massive damage if improperly stored, or if possession of such is gained by terrorist or other militant organizations,

STRESSING the importance of responsible decommissioning of chemical weaponry, as improper disposal could be as hazardous as direct use thereof,

NOTING that chemical weaponry is not necessary for national defence,

BELIEVING that scientific research into the development of chemical weaponry can be put to better use, instead contributing to the elimination of disease and hunger,

NOT WISHING to limit legitimate trade in chemicals, in accordance with international law, and noting that such trade has the potential to lead to greater international cooperation in social and economic development,

CALLING INTO MIND UN Resolution #120, 'Repeal "Ban Chemical Weapons"', and the distinction made within that repeal between chemical weaponry for military purposes, and legitimate use of mild chemical agents as part of a police action,

OBSERVING that certain chemical agents can be used responsibly in the maintenance of law and order, whilst further observing that some chemicals with legitimate applications in industry, agriculture, medicine and other aspects of civilian life have the potential to be weaponised by militant organizations,

DETERMINED to effectively eliminate chemical weaponry in the interests of global welfare:
Good gravy! I'm impressed to ask if there has ever been a longer, more precise, more explanative (and well-argued) preamble for a resolution?

I'm not sure of the answer, but this preamble definitely deserves recognition and praise, I feel (Suh-weet! You even used four "-ED" words--feels special :)).

You weren't too keen on the last weapons ban I drafted - and I'm not giving up on that - but, in the meantime, I noticed we need a chemical weapons ban. So here goes. It is, at the moment, both too short, and too long: there's whole sections I've culled from the predraft, yet it's still much too lengthy for submission. Thoughts?

----
The United Nations,

FULLY CONVINCED that cooperation through the implementation of effective international law is required in order to achieve and maintain peace for all citizens of the world,

Agreed

CONDEMNING the use of chemical weaponry,

APPALLED at the effects of chemical weaponry, including widespread death, injury and damage, having the potential to affect non-involved parties, and to continue to cause medical, biological and environmental problems long after the cessation of hostilities,

BELIEVING that it is in the interests of all nations to effectively eliminate such weaponry,

It could be construed by some opponents of this act that the nature of chemical weaponary is only prone to widespread injury, damage, death, etc, if used in an innapropriate context. Therefore, against civillians it use is reprehensible, yet when used against enemy combattants and armed adversaries, its use becomes less clear. Equally, if the weapon is used to attack only militias or enemy military units and yet causes significant (unintentional) injury and death to civillians, then is this a true act of calculated enormity?

DEEPLY CONCERNED that possession of chemical weaponry could constitute a significant threat, as there is the potential for such armaments to cause massive damage if improperly stored, or if possession of such is gained by terrorist or other militant organizations,

STRESSING the importance of responsible decommissioning of chemical weaponry, as improper disposal could be as hazardous as direct use thereof,

NOTING that chemical weaponry is not necessary for national defence,

With regards to the last point many have no doubt argued that the national defence requirements of a nation are difficult to quantify and thus it could be awkward to accomodate them. How would nations threatened by hostile neighbours, not under the auspices of the U.N., protect themselves, if they are significantly out-numbered and out-gunned in terms of conventional weaponary?

BELIEVING that scientific research into the development of chemical weaponry can be put to better use, instead contributing to the elimination of disease and hunger,

NOT WISHING to limit legitimate trade in chemicals, in accordance with international law, and noting that such trade has the potential to lead to greater international cooperation in social and economic development,

Agreed strongly.

CALLING INTO MIND UN Resolution #120, 'Repeal "Ban Chemical Weapons"', and the distinction made within that repeal between chemical weaponry for military purposes, and legitimate use of mild chemical agents as part of a police action,

OBSERVING that certain chemical agents can be used responsibly in the maintenance of law and order, whilst further observing that some chemicals with legitimate applications in industry, agriculture, medicine and other aspects of civilian life have the potential to be weaponised by militant organizations,

Agreed.

DETERMINED to effectively eliminate chemical weaponry in the interests of global welfare:

DEFINING for the purposes of this resolution:
(a) "chemical weaponry" as, together or separately:
i. toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where the possession or use of such chemicals is not banned by this resolution, and where the types and quantities of such are consistent with legitimate purposes;
ii. munitions and devices specifically designed to kill, maim, injure or damage utilising the action of those toxic chemicals specified in (i.), which would be released as a result of the employment of such munitions and devices;
iii. any equipment specifically designed for use directly in aid of the employment of such munitions and devices as specified in (ii.);

If the munitions used for law and order purposes, as noted before in the resolution text, is legal, then what if the agents used, are exercised under the pretence that they are a necessary 'police action', even if they have been recognised to cause severe health problems?

(b) "toxic chemical" as any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to animal species, regardless of their origin;

Tear gas or CS gas could be construed as causing 'temporary incapacitation'.

(c) "precursor" as any chemical reactant which takes part at any stage in the production of any toxic chemical;

(d) "riot control agent" as any chemical which does not meet the definitions of a toxic chemical, but which can produce in humans and other species sensory irritation and temporary disablement, but whose effects disappear in a relatively short time following termination of normal exposure;

Agreed, but refer to above arguments.

1. PROHIBITS:
i. production, development and retention of chemical weaponry;
ii. acquisition of, supply of, distribution of or trade in chemical weaponry;
iii. use of chemical weaponry;
iv. engagement in military preparation of chemical warfare, except allowing the distribution of anti-chemical protection gear, such as gas masks and protective clothing, the facilitation of anti-chemical training, and instruction in anti-chemical medical aid;
v. aid or inducement, including but not limited to financial, technical and military support, towards actions in defiance of this resolution by any party, including but not limited to non-state terrorist organizations;
vi. the use of riot control agents in warfare;

If riot control agents are allowed to be used in a 'police action', why are they prohibited in warfare?

2. REQUIRES:
i. the destruction of all chemical weaponry in possession of any member state, extending to any weaponry within the sovereign territory or other jurisdictional area of that state;
ii. the destruction of any chemical weaponry previously deployed by any member state outside its sovereign territory;
iii. the destruction or complete conversion to other means of all facilities previously directed at the production, development, storage or deployment of chemical weaponry;
iv. a timeframe of ten years from the passage of this Resolution for the complete implementation of (i.-iii.), though not procluding any states from completing implementation more rapidly;

Agreed.

3. MANDATES that all member states must:
i. declare whether they possess chemical weaponry or chemical weaponry production equipment or facilities;
ii. declare the precise location and quantity, and provide a full inventory of chemical weapons, chemical weaponry production equipment or facilities, which they possess, or that are located within their sovereign territory or other jurisdictional area, regardless of whether they are responsible for them or not, or any further chemical weaponry for which they are otherwise responsible;
iii. declare and where possible provide records and receipts for any recent transfers in chemical weaponry, or of equipment pertaining to the production or deployment of such, which they have been party to;
iv. submit a plan of action for the implementation with respect to clause 2;

If a nation is found to be harbouring chemical agents, what measures shall be taken as reprimands?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

What's a legitimate purpose? And how do you check to make sure they are legitimate? "Oh, yep, those are just pesticides. It's okay!" It seems like if you really wanted chemical weapons, this would be pretty easy to get around. And in said pesticide example, the country to quite possibly trick inspectors by actually using it as a pesticide in times of peace. They'd have less of a reason to suspect foul play if the alibi had a backbone, which isn't too hard with chemicals.

OBSERVING that certain chemical agents can be used responsibly in the maintenance of law and order, whilst further observing that some chemicals with legitimate applications in industry, agriculture, medicine and other aspects of civilian life have the potential to be weaponised by militant organizations,

So legitimate applications would be the things hinted at here. I probably should insert something condemning the use of agricultural chemicals as weaponry, though. Basically, the type and quantities of these chemicals are what is important. You have to bear in mind, I can't ban all potential weapons: some are used for, as I've said, 'legitimate purposes'. This clause refers only to those which the resolution doesn't ban; in which case, the 'legitimate purposes' and 'type and quantities' are in fact further checks, meaning that if it's clear herbicides are being used as weaponry, then the resolution is authorised to prohibit their use.

Anything can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm under certain circumstances. Water. Oxygen. Puppies. You wouldn't want to ban these, yet they are chemical weapons under a certain interpretation of the definition.

The key part of that definition is 'through its chemical action on life processes'. Being bitten by a puppy isn't a chemical action, and it doesn't influence a biological process. Nonetheless, I do appreciate it's a little vague, so if you have any ideas as to how I could tighten the definition, I'd be much obliged.

It's, all in all, a good draft, but it's got a few loopholes. Fix them, and it's great.

Thank you.

----

We don't need to read the proposal; we need only to read the title to know we are firmly opposed. The Sheknu Confederacy can rely on zero support from the Federal Republic on this.

Ok.

----

I must tell you I have ambivalent feelings about this, and I would reserve a position until after some debate. However, I am happy to share some comments about the draft (which I didn't read too carefully for lack of time).

Thanks. I appreciate this is a controversial topic, but I think if we at least get a good draft done, then we can agree to disagree more easily.

Repetitive and somewhat empty. I suggest you keep one of these, eventually more detailed, as a conclusion for the motivation.

Good point. I'll trim it down a bit.

Uh? I thought you defined those as being essentially harmless.

1. In warfare, they are more likely to be used dangerously. Given the obvious need to incapacitate your opponents, they're more likely to be exposed to chemicals for longer periods, and in higher doses.
2. The reason for allowing certain riot control agents to remain in stock is to control law and order. Any military use of chemical weaponry is unnecessary, dangerous, and should be banned.

After that, I wanted to include more detail about programs for destruction, inspections, and perhaps give examples of what's banned and not. I also need to allow for the legitimate use of riot control agents (which is, I guess, implicit). But, these are the main bits: anyone willing to help me improve it?

You're right, but I want to make the proposal as full and detailed as possible, and I certainly think at least a brief summary of how inspections might work would be interesting. As for non-members, I have already asked members to declare any trade in chemical weapons: I'll expand that part. And I'm not keen on a 'retaliatory' clause: I feel if non-member nations use chemical weaponry, they'll be attacked anyway, without the need for a resolution allowing bloodspill.

----

Good gravy! I'm impressed to ask if there has ever been a longer, more precise, more explanative (and well-argued) preamble for a resolution?

I'm not sure of the answer, but this preamble definitely deserves recognition and praise, I feel (Suh-weet! You even used four "-ED" words--feels special ).

Thank you. :) However, I feel ultimately the preamble will have to be cut down, as it stands it's over half the length the total proposal can be, and as pointed out, there's some repetition.

----

It could be construed by some opponents of this act that the nature of chemical weaponary is only prone to widespread injury, damage, death, etc, if used in an innapropriate context. Therefore, against civillians it use is reprehensible, yet when used against enemy combattants and armed adversaries, its use becomes less clear. Equally, if the weapon is used to attack only militias or enemy military units and yet causes significant (unintentional) injury and death to civillians, then is this a true act of calculated enormity?

Firstly, I admit my bias: I do not believe any use of chemical weaponry is just, proportional, or responsible, even against trained and equipped military personnel. Thus I believe that 'any use' constitutes your 'inappropriate context'. But, furthermore, even if used 'responsibly', most chemical agents are very persistive, and are likely to cause damage to civilians, even if used in a military context, and to the environment, long after hostilities have ceased. I'm tempted to remove the entire preamble, and replace it with 'overkill'.

With regards to the last point many have no doubt argued that the national defence requirements of a nation are difficult to quantify and thus it could be awkward to accomodate them. How would nations threatened by hostile neighbours, not under the auspices of the U.N., protect themselves, if they are significantly out-numbered and out-gunned in terms of conventional weaponary?

Firstly, I acknowledge that line is there for a reason: getting 'around' UNSA. But, I genuinely do not believe chemical weaponry is necessary for national defence. Remember that nations may still use nuclear weaponry. Chemical weapons are not, in isolation, capable of supplying overwhelming force against heavily-armed opponents. They might be 'useful' in trying to repel an enemy, but they are not absolutely required, and the damage tehy have the potential to inflict significantly outweighs any military advantage they bestow.

If the munitions used for law and order purposes, as noted before in the resolution text, is legal, then what if the agents used, are exercised under the pretence that they are a necessary 'police action', even if they have been recognised to cause severe health problems?

I'm not sure I follow. Riot control agents are only permitted by this resolution where, when used responsibly, they do not cause severe health problems. If they do, then they're a chemical weapon, and they're banned.

Tear gas or CS gas could be construed as causing 'temporary incapacitation'.

Not really: they're not physically disabling. But I might change this, as you're right, it is a little vague.

If riot control agents are allowed to be used in a 'police action', why are they prohibited in warfare?

Because the use of chemical weaponry in warfare is bad mmmkay full stop. Riot control agents would have minimal effective application in the context of a military action; they would also be far more likely to be abused, leading to serious harm. Part of the rationale is, I would say, this: if you're policing, then it's ultimately 'your' people. You want them to shut up, not to die. In a military action, you're engaging hostile foreign forces, probably, and are much less likely to consider the implications of your actions.

If a nation is found to be harbouring chemical agents, what measures shall be taken as reprimands?

I would imagine I would allow anything from sanctions to military action. I still have to work a bit on the enforcement part, though.

----

Thanks for all your comments; a redraft is coming up.

Redrafted, minorly.

In September, we submitted a proposal, "Chemical Weapons Ban". Although it gained 70 approvals (with no TG campaign), it failed to make the queue. Since this is very much old news, we thought the honorable representative of Sheknu might not be aware of it. The draft was the product of much discussion in this forum and other places, and we thought (and hope) that the honorable representative might find something in the draft and discussion that would be useful. The discussion is here:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=441936

There was also another proposal submitted by Listeneisse shortly thereafter that took a rather different approach. That would also be worth examining.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

I applaud the general principle involved, and the thoroughness with which you have tried to draft this proposal.
But...

Isn't there still a maximum acceptable length for proposals?
Would your definition of 'chemical weapons' cover incendiaries such as white phosphorus?
Also, please bear in mind that some UN members are roleplayed as using levels of technology that differ from ours, and that not all of them are located on Earth... Some of them might well be in situations where the use of chemical weapons would seem rather more accceptable than is the case here & now, for example as a species-specific weapon for use against some kind of totally malevolent aliens...

Ausserland, I'm writing a reply now, but I'll quickly respond to the latter point.

Isn't there still a maximum acceptable length for proposals?

Yes there is, and this is way over. We intend to trim it, substantially. However, we may as well initially pack in all we can, because I wouldn't want someone later on to say "oh, you thought of that? well why didn't you say so?" This draft is much shorter than the original.

Would your definition of 'chemical weapons' cover incendiaries such as white phosphorus?

You may be aware that's a matter of substantial debate in RL. I'm not sure which way to go down. This proposal wouldn't ban white phosphorus, as it is its physical (incendiary) properties, and not its chemical properties, which make it cause harm. Should I extend it to incendiaries?

Also, please bear in mind that some UN members are roleplayed as using levels of technology that differ from ours, and that not all of them are located on Earth... Some of them might well be in situations where the use of chemical weapons would seem rather more accceptable than is the case here & now, for example as a species-specific weapon for use against some kind of totally malevolent aliens...

Firstly, I'm FT, so I do understand. However, I feel that any chemical attack is to be banned; whether or not such aliens are 'totally malevolent', there should be more effective and less cruel ways of fighting them. I appreciate I can't really cater to every tech level, and that this is rooted in MT, but I think it's the best I can do with respect to that.

In September, we submitted a proposal, "Chemical Weapons Ban". Although it gained 70 approvals (with no TG campaign), it failed to make the queue. Since this is very much old news, we thought the honorable representative of Sheknu might not be aware of it. The draft was the product of much discussion in this forum and other places, and we thought (and hope) that the honorable representative might find something in the draft and discussion that would be useful. The discussion is here:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=441936

There was also another proposal submitted by Listeneisse shortly thereafter that took a rather different approach. That would also be worth examining.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Thanks: reading through the various proposals, here are my basic observations:
yours is probably sharper on the definitions. I might ask at some stage if I can steal on or two of them, as I'm aware the definitions are part of the problem some people have with my proposal;
Listeneisse's seem to be primarily created with the intention of generating interesting RP. There's a lot that his proposal, and my predraft, share, in terms of enforcement. I just don't think there'll be room in the proposal, though.

I'm going to try to limit the character count in this one by keeping it to a straight ban, and letting the Compliance Ministry do the rest. I would strongly support a second proposal establishing an actual mechanism for enforcement, though.

Incidentally, it's currently almost 5,000 characters without spaces, and close to 6,000 with spaces. That puts it nearly twice over the limit. :/

Yes there is, and this is way over. We intend to trim it, substantially. However, we may as well initially pack in all we can, because I wouldn't want someone later on to say "oh, you thought of that? well why didn't you say so?" This draft is much shorter than the original.

Fair enough.

You may be aware that's a matter of substantial debate in RL. I'm not sure which way to go down. This proposal wouldn't ban white phosphorus, as it is its physical (incendiary) properties, and not its chemical properties, which make it cause harm. Should I extend it to incendiaries?

Well it is toxic, and so are the oxides formed when it burns, so your definition might cover it even though the incendiary effect is its main intended one...

Firstly, I'm FT, so I do understand. However, I feel that any chemical attack is to be banned; whether or not such aliens are 'totally malevolent', there should be more effective and less cruel ways of fighting them. I appreciate I can't really cater to every tech level, and that this is rooted in MT, but I think it's the best I can do with respect to that.

We may have to agree to differ about this point.

Well it is toxic, and so are the oxides formed when it burns, so your definition might cover it even though the incendiary effect is its main intended one...

Being toxic isn't enough. It is a question of whether its action is chemical. WP's action is primarily physical; this is why it is arguably allowed in RL, as it wouldn't be covered by the CWC.

We may have to agree to differ about this point.

Could you expand? What could I do to cater for FT weaponry?

Thanks: reading through the various proposals, here are my basic observations:
yours is probably sharper on the definitions. I might ask at some stage if I can steal on or two of them, as I'm aware the definitions are part of the problem some people have with my proposal;
Listeneisse's seem to be primarily created with the intention of generating interesting RP. There's a lot that his proposal, and my predraft, share, in terms of enforcement. I just don't think there'll be room in the proposal, though.

I'm going to try to limit the character count in this one by keeping it to a straight ban, and letting the Compliance Ministry do the rest. I would strongly support a second proposal establishing an actual mechanism for enforcement, though.

The honorable representative from Sheknu is more than welcome to use anything from our still-born proposal that he wishes.

We agree wholeheartedly with limiting the scope of the proposal to an actual ban. We think the issue of compliance and verification is much too complex to be included.

We will be watching progress on this draft with keen interest and hope to be able to contribute an idea or two. We cannot promise to support the proposal until we see a final draft, but we have hopes.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

The honorable representative from Sheknu is more than welcome to use anything from our still-born proposal that he wishes.

Thanks.

We agree wholeheartedly with limiting the scope of the proposal to an actual ban. We think the issue of compliance and verification is much too complex to be included.

Yes. Plus, I think for some people it's less of a concern: they don't see the need for what the Compliance Ministry already does.

We will be watching progress on this draft with keen interest and hope to be able to contribute an idea or two. We cannot promise to support the proposal until we see a final draft, but we have hopes.

Of course, I wouldn't expect support from anyone until a final draft is presented; nonetheless if you do have any comments, they'd be very welcome.

So, some specific thoughts regarding your proposal:
I like your definition of "chemical agent". I shall remove 'temporary incapacitation' from my definition, as this was pointed out to be flawed, and will add the line about reasonable potential.
I haven't realled developed the 'equipment' aspect enough. Nonetheless, I'm going to keep my definition of "chemical weapons" for the moment.
I think I'll keep my definition of "precursor", but I'm open to suggestions, as I'm less happy with that.
With regards to listing inclusions and exceptions, I'm not sure. If I did that (and originally I included the entire, rather lengthy, schedule annexes of the RL CWC in my predraft!), I would be more inclined to go by type, rather than mentioning specific chemicals.

I've updated the draft a little more; thoughts on how to reduce the character count further welcome.

A few more points:

The CONDEMNING clause could go: it is not motivated at that point, and its redundant to "condemn" and then "prohibit" something.

APPALLED at the effects of chemical weaponry, including widespread death, injury and damage, ...
Errr... it's a weapon, right? I would consider death, injury and damage as a good measure of effectiveness. Unless you want us to go back to throwing stones... (I agree with the rest of the clause)

NOTING that chemical weaponry is not necessary for national defence,
This point is better supported if placed immediately after the "appalled" clause, and making reference to the side efects described there.

For the word count, I would cut 2 and 3 significantly.

The CONDEMNING clause could go: it is not motivated at that point, and its redundant to "condemn" and then "prohibit" something.

I understand the point, but 'condemns' is the strongest word I can legitimately use. I'll push that clause after the 'appalled one', though.

Errr... it's a weapon, right? I would consider death, injury and damage as a good measure of effectiveness. Unless you want us to go back to throwing stones... (I agree with the rest of the clause)

Yes, it is effective. (Actually, chemical weapons aren't that effective in many situations; this refers to those in which they are.) I don't see anything wrong with pointing out that because of its effectiveness, it is very dangerous.

This point is better supported if placed immediately after the "appalled" clause, and making reference to the side efects described there.

Agreed. Thanks.

For the word count, I would cut 2 and 3 significantly.

Any thoughts as to what I should cut from them, without opening up loopholes?

iv. a timeframe of ten years from the passage of this Resolution for the complete implementation of (i.-iii.), though not precluding any states from completing implementation more rapidly, or of ten years from the point of entry into the United Nations of states joining the body after the passage of this Resolution;

Nice one here: If I go in and out of the UN frequently enough, do I get to keep all my toys? Don't give new members a time frame: They can first lose the weapons, then enter the UN.

Nice one here: If I go in and out of the UN frequently enough, do I get to keep all my toys? Don't give new members a time frame: They can first lose the weapons, then enter the UN.

I think that'll need rewording. I'm going to check the legality of the latter idea.

EDIT: Here's the rewrite, which I'm asking the mods about:

iv. a timeframe of ten years from the passage of this Resolution for the complete implementation of (i.-iii.), though not precluding any states from completing implementation more rapidly, and further demanding that any states joining the UN after this period already have implemented (i.-iii.).

The fact that we don't ratify (or, I guess, that we actually ratify all) resolutions makes this clause harder. Basically, though, I think it's an important step, as otherwise 'grumpy teenager' syndrome might give a window for non-compliance: "alright, I'm doing it..."

I might drop the whole timeframe clause, as it's been pointed out time is something of a no-go area in NS.

Following is what I'd do as far as shortening the preamble. Now, some of these changes might change the style or tone of the proposal, but I'll try to make certain all of them decrease the character count.

NOTE:red is a deletion; brackets indicate a rephrasing of the parenthetic section. For example, "(please don't kill me) [don't kill me]" means I think you should change "please don't kill me" to don't kill me". I've also added Roman numerals to the preambulary clauses to make them easy to reference.

The United Nations,

[I. ]FULLY CONVINCED that (cooperation through the implementation of effective international law)[effective international cooperation and law] is required (in order to achieve and maintain peace for) [for peace] (all citizens of) [throughout] the world,

[II. ]APPALLED at the effects of chemical weaponry, including widespread death, injury (and) [,]damage(, ) [--]having the potential to affect non-involved parties, and to continue to cause medical, biological and environmental problems long after the cessation of hostilities,

[III. ]NOTING that chemical weaponry (is) [as] not necessary for national defence,

[IV. ]CONDEMNING the use of chemical weaponry, and determined to effectively eliminate it in the interests of global welfare,

[V. ]DEEPLY CONCERNED that possession of chemical (weaponry could constitute) [weapons constitutes] a significant threat, (as there is) [due to] the potential for such armaments to cause massive damage if improperly stored, or if (possession of such is gained by terrorist organizations) [terrorist organizations gain possession of them],

[VI. ]STRESSING the importance of responsible decommissioning of chemical weaponry, as improper disposal could be as hazardous as direct use thereof,

[VII. ]BELIEVING that scientific research into the development of chemical weaponry can be put to better use, instead contributing to the elimination of disease and hunger,*

[VIII. ]NOT WISHING to limit legitimate trade in chemicals, in accordance with international law, and (noting that) [NOTING] such trade (has the potential to lead to) [could increase] greater international cooperation in social and economic development,

[IX. ]CALLING INTO MIND UN Resolution #120, 'Repeal "Ban Chemical Weapons"', and the distinction made within that repeal between chemical weaponry for military purposes, and legitimate use of mild chemical agents (as part of a) [used for] police action,

[X. ]OBSERVING that certain chemical agents can be used responsibly in the maintenance of law and order, whilst further observing that some chemicals with legitimate applications in industry, agriculture, medicine (and other aspects of civilian life) [etc.] (have the potential to) [could] be weaponised by terrorist organizations:
I didn't include the "DEFINING" clause since you indicated you might change the definitions somewhat anyway.

* I think you should either get rid of clause VII together or combine it with an earlier or later clause. It's a little non-sequitur with the reference to disease and hunger, and it doesn't seem to be contributing a huge amount to the argument for controls over chemical weapons.

Anyway, here's the preamble with my changes (1437/1649 characters with and without spaces--compared to the 1670/1966 previous):

The United Nations,

FULLY CONVINCED effective international cooperation and law is required for peace throughout the world,

APPALLED at the effects of chemical weaponry, including death, injury, damage--having the potential to affect non-involved parties, and to cause medical, biological and environmental problems long after the cessation of hostilities,

NOTING chemical weaponry as not necessary for national defence,

CONDEMNING use of chemical weaponry, and determined to effectively eliminate it in the interests of global welfare,

DEEPLY CONCERNED possession of chemical weapons constitutes a significant threat, due to the potential for massive damage if improperly stored, or if terrorist organizations gain possession of them,

STRESSING the importance of responsible decommissioning of chemical weaponry, as improper disposal could be as hazardous as direct use thereof,

BELIEVING scientific research into the development of chemical weaponry can be put to better use, instead contributing to the elimination of disease and hunger,

NOT WISHING to limit legitimate trade in chemicals and NOTING such trade could increase international cooperation in social and economic development,

CALLING INTO MIND UN Resolution #120, 'Repeal "Ban Chemical Weapons"', and the distinction made within that repeal between chemical weaponry for military purposes, and mild chemical agents used for police action,

OBSERVING certain chemical agents can be used responsibly in the maintenance of law and order, whilst further observing that some chemicals with legitimate applications in industry, agriculture, medicine etc. could be weaponised by terrorist organizations:

FULLY CONVINCED effective international cooperation and law is required for peace throughout the world,

Done.

APPALLED at the effects of chemical weaponry, including death, injury, damage--having the potential to affect non-involved parties, and to cause medical, biological and environmental problems long after the cessation of hostilities,

I'll drop 'widespread', but I'm not sure about the punctuation change. The force of that clause was 'weaponry...having', with 'death, injury, damage' separated off . I dislike, in general, the use of em-dashes in that context, although that's a personal thing. So I might keep it is 'and damage, having'.

NOTING chemical weaponry as not necessary for national defence,

Fonzoland suggested that I link the second and third preambulatory clauses, with sometimes along the lines of 'NOTING that such effects render chemical weaponry unnecessary for national defence,'.

CONDEMNING use of chemical weaponry, and determined to effectively eliminate it in the interests of global welfare,

I'll take out 'the'. I'm also striking 'in the interests of global welfare', as it was felt that this was an irrelevant addendum.

DEEPLY CONCERNED possession of chemical weapons constitutes a significant threat, due to the potential for massive damage if improperly stored, or if terrorist organizations gain possession of them,

That's a really good change, which cuts down the wordiness a lot. I think it should be 'owing' instead of 'due' though.

BELIEVING scientific research into the development of chemical weaponry can be put to better use, instead contributing to the elimination of disease and hunger,

I really hadn't thought this clause would cause this much of a stink. It seems to me to be a genuinely relevant idea. Nonetheless, in line with your (much more polite) observation, I'll strike it.

NOT WISHING to limit legitimate trade in chemicals and NOTING such trade could increase international cooperation in social and economic development,

I suppose you're right 'legitimate' at least strongly implies 'in accordance wiht international law', so it's tautology. I'll strike that. The phrasing of the second half is also much clearer.

CALLING INTO MIND UN Resolution #120, 'Repeal "Ban Chemical Weapons"', and the distinction made within that repeal between chemical weaponry for military purposes, and mild chemical agents used for police action,

Fine. I have also trimmed it slightly by changing 'the distinction made within that repeal' to 'its distinction'.

OBSERVING certain chemical agents can be used responsibly in the maintenance of law and order, whilst further observing that some chemicals with legitimate applications in industry, agriculture, medicine etc. could be weaponised by terrorist organizations:

Much more succinct: thank you.

In line with most of your comments, then, the pream would now read:

The United Nations,

FULLY CONVINCED effective international cooperation and law is required for peace throughout the world,

APPALLED at the effects of chemical weaponry, including death, injury, and damage, having the potential to affect non-involved parties, and to cause medical, biological and environmental problems long after the cessation of hostilities,

NOTING such effects render chemical weaponry unnecessary for national defence,

CONDEMNING use of chemical weaponry, and determined to effectively eliminate it,

DEEPLY CONCERNED possession of chemical weapons constitutes a significant threat, due to the potential for massive damage if improperly stored, or if terrorist organizations gain possession of them,

STRESSING the importance of responsible decommissioning of chemical weaponry, as improper disposal could be as hazardous as direct use thereof,

NOT WISHING to limit legitimate trade in chemicals and NOTING such trade could increase international cooperation in social and economic development,

CALLING INTO MIND UN Resolution #120, 'Repeal "Ban Chemical Weapons"', and its distinction between chemical weaponry for military purposes, and mild chemical agents used for police action,

OBSERVING certain chemical agents can be used responsibly in the maintenance of law and order, whilst further observing that some chemicals with legitimate applications in industry, agriculture, medicine etc. could be weaponised by terrorist organizations:

----

Thank you so much. The preambulatory section was much too long and verbose, and you've really helped me cut it down. If you have any thoughts on the definitions and operative clauses, I'd be really interested to hear them (even if they're 'only' from an administrative, cleaning up sort of point of view), especially given that you authored Resolution #120. Discussion has now largely moved to this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=457334).