NationStates Jolt Archive

New draft (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10267672)

I'm not an expert on the past resolutions because there are so many of them, but isn't there a resolution(s) that cover this? Interesting use of "WARMLY APPLAUDING" there, that's a first for me.

Still don't see any reason to change my stance. Against.:)

Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

I'm not an expert on the past resolutions because there are so many of them, but isn't there a resolution(s) that cover this? Interesting use of "WARMLY APPLAUDING" there, that's a first for me.
It was repealed (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=119).

PUO: Yes, I accept some people won't like this. However, you can keep your precious chemical weapons under this proposal. It's just helping out states who want to disarm.

It was repealed (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=119).

PUO: Yes, I accept some people won't like this. However, you can keep your precious chemical weapons under this proposal. It's just helping out states who want to disarm.


Oh, alright. But about the proposal, it seems like there are a lot of "urges" and "shoulds" that make the proposal sound a lot more optional than most others. That might just be me though.

Oh, alright. But about the proposal, it seems like there are a lot of "urges" and "shoulds" that make the proposal sound a lot more optional than most others. That might just be me though.
It is.

At the end of last year, I got a full ban to quorum. However, I realized there were flaws in it, and so it was deleted. I haven't yet resolved those problems so, in the meantime, I thought it best to try to pass a 'soft' one, which would facilitate voluntary disarmament, because chemical decommissioning is a serious business, and some nations might be deterred from engaging in disarmament if they weren't sure they could do so responsibly.

It is.

At the end of last year, I got a full ban to quorum. However, I realized there were flaws in it, and so it was deleted. I haven't yet resolved those problems so, in the meantime, I thought it best to try to pass a 'soft' one, which would facilitate voluntary disarmament, because chemical decommissioning is a serious business, and some nations might be deterred from engaging in disarmament if they weren't sure they could do so responsibly.


In that case, it'd be illegal. Proposals can't be optional in their wording. Like you can't say:

"URGES member nations to disarm weapons"

but can say:

"REQUIRES member nations to disarm weapons"

I'd wait for some more experienced members to chime in on the legalitites though, because, again, I might be wrong here.

You are wrong.

Firstly, this isn't optional: there are requirements for all member nations.

Secondly, several resolutions which have been optional, including ones which have only 'encouraged, etc.', have passed.

I understand the concern of some, that an optional resolution is useless. However, I would aim, really to set up something whereby chemical disarmament is facilitated.

2. STRONGLY URGES all nations to safely disarm and destroy all stocks of chemical weaponry;


But right here, you are only urging me to disarm, not requiring, so therefore I'm not too inclined to follow your urging, however sound your advice may be.

But right here, you are only urging me to disarm, not requiring, so therefore I'm not too inclined to follow your urging, however sound your advice may be.
Well, then under this proposal, that is your right. I accept the sort of states who really shouldn't be using chemical weaponry won't listen, but it would be irresponsible of me not to include such a clause in a proposal dealing with CW.

Before I start comenting, WOW. It is not as strong as I would like it, but it is definitely a good piece of legislation.

---

Minor suggestions for the preamble:

REAFFIRMING its fundamental objection to cruel and barbaric of treatment of any person,

FURTHER ALARMED at the potential for atrocities should terrorist organisations acquire chemical weaponry,

BELIEVING such an operation falls under the jurisdiction of the UN, as a neutral international body:

---

In the operative part, I would move clause 3 to the beginning. You need it before condemning.

4. ANNOUNCES a policy of partial non-proliferation, prohibiting the sale or transfer, or production with intent to sell or transfer, of chemical weaponry, of materials primarily designed to facilitate the production of chemical weaponry, or of information specifically relating to the production of chemical weaponry, to any non-UN member state, non-state organization, or known or suspected terrorist, and strongly discouraging similar transfers between member states;

4 is messy. You highlight the ANNOUNCES, yet the true active verbs should be PROHIBITS and STRONGLY DISCOURAGES. I suggest you structure this with two subclauses.

I think 5-9 would be clearer if 6-9 were subclauses of 5, since they describe the mandate of the commission.

6. MANDATES that all member nations declare all existing chemical weaponry stockpiles, update such records on a regular basis, and quickly report all uses of chemical weaponry, to the UNCDC;

You have to bear in mind that UN members are frequently at war with each other, and that this is sensitive information. Since you are going all sovereignity-friendly, a non-diclosure guarantee would make sense. After all, the information is only supposed to be used by disarmament experts.

In points 8/9, I see no problem in providing the same services to non-UN nations. Maybe you already intend it, but it is ambiguous.

8. INVITES nations wishing to engage in chemical disarmament to obtain advice and aid from the UNCDC in responsible decommissioning practices, and authorises the UNCDC to send teams to sites if requested to oversee and engage in disarmament;

Again, the problem with sensitive information. Clause 7 makes it possible for some of the experts to be from unfriendly nations.

9. CHARGES the UNCDC with the authority, where requested by at least one party, to mediate and provide assistance towards bilateral chemical disarmament treaties;

Or multilateral. Also, any interested party, or just those involved in the possible treaty?

10. REQUIRES all member nations maintaining stocks of chemical weaponry to ensure adequate security for such facilities.

I would add safe storage.

Nothing in this resolution should be read as detracting from the inalienable right of the United Nations to further restrict, to the point of complete prohibition, the use, possession and proliferation of chemical weaponry.

Meh. I am not so sure you can bypass the duplication rule like that.

Well, then under this proposal, that is your right. I accept the sort of states who really shouldn't be using chemical weaponry won't listen, but it would be irresponsible of me not to include such a clause in a proposal dealing with CW.


I think that might be the optionality right that'll get you if it is brought up then.

But right here, you are only urging me to disarm, not requiring, so therefore I'm not too inclined to follow your urging, however sound your advice may be.

Please. I would URGE the honourable delegate to read the passed resolutions, and count the clauses that urge, recommend, implore, beg, suggest, or something similar. Alternatively, read the stickies.

Before I start comenting, WOW. It is not as strong as I would like it, but it is definitely a good piece of legislation.
It's not as strong as I'd like either. But small steps.

--preamble changes--
Changed. Thanks.

In the operative part, I would move clause 3 to the beginning. You need it before condemning.
I disagree. I only need it to prohibit the production of chemical weaponry for transfer as per clause 4.

4 is messy. You highlight the ANNOUNCES, yet the true active verbs should be PROHIBITS and STRONGLY DISCOURAGES. I suggest you structure this with two subclauses.
I've split it: does this work?

I think 5-9 would be clearer if 6-9 were subclauses of 5, since they describe the mandate of the commission.
Ok. Again, comments?

You have to bear in mind that UN members are frequently at war with each other, and that this is sensitive information. Since you are going all sovereignity-friendly, a non-diclosure guarantee would make sense. After all, the information is only supposed to be used by disarmament experts.
I considered that, and thought against it. I can't really remember my reasoning. I'll put a disclaimer back in. This will need work, I suspect.

In points 8/9, I see no problem in providing the same services to non-UN nations. Maybe you already intend it, but it is ambiguous.
I agree. What I was going for was the distinction between 'nations' and 'member nations'. Is this not clear enough?

Again, the problem with sensitive information. Clause 7 makes it possible for some of the experts to be from unfriendly nations.
Changed.

Or multilateral. Also, any interested party, or just those involved in the possible treaty?
Changed.

I would add safe storage.
Erk, yes.

Meh. I am not so sure you can bypass the duplication rule like that.
Suppose a "Ban Chemical Weapons" proposal did appear. Which clauses of this would it contravene?

Also, I've added category (should be obvious) and strength (again). Suggestions for names are welcome.

Also, I've added category (should be obvious) and strength (again). Suggestions for names are welcome.

How about this:

Chemical Weapons "Please don't do it" - LITE

:p

Chemical Weapons "Please don't do it" - LITE
Chemical Weapons Ban Lite appeals.

Chemical Weapons Ban LITE! Now with less legislative coercion!*

*Warning: may only reduce global armament stocks if taken as part of a human defense policy.

Sheknu: fantastic job on this proposal. Though it could use some slight alterations, we can say with certainty that we will support this and will assist you in any way possible.

Sheknu: fantastic job on this proposal. Though it could use some slight alterations, we can say with certainty that we will support this and will assist you in any way possible.
Thank you. This does not, incidentally, mean I haven't been working on the other proposal(s): thoughts about them are on the GTT board.

It was repealed (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=119).

PUO: Yes, I accept some people won't like this. However, you can keep your precious chemical weapons under this proposal. It's just helping out states who want to disarm.

Out of curiousity, is your government sponsoring this proposal?

The reason I ask is one of the nations of the International Democratic Union was considering tackling a replacement resolution and my government wasn't sure if you are merely bringing to our attention a proposal from the UN queue (which might mean that my government's ally has already submitted a draft).

In any event, I agree that something of this nature is needed, and regardless of the proposals author I can most certainly pledge Mikitivity's support.

Out of curiousity, is your government sponsoring this proposal?

The reason I ask is one of the nations of the International Democratic Union was considering tackling a replacement resolution and my government wasn't sure if you are merely bringing to our attention a proposal from the UN queue (which might mean that my government's ally has already submitted a draft).

In any event, I agree that something of this nature is needed, and regardless of the proposals author I can most certainly pledge Mikitivity's support.
This is just a draft. If I get two endorsements, and if there's sufficient interest, and if a solid (I mean it, this time) draft is prepared, then I guess I'll submit it. If there's an IDU person (Antrium?) who would be interesting in working with me, I'd be more than happy to do so, and perfectly willing to stand aside if a better proposal is presented by them.

Well, this is something we can live with far better than a total ban, but we are still against: one, because it by its very nature is a stepping-stone to a total ban; and two, it is overly intrusive in that it requires nations to report chemical stockpiles and their use. One the one side, forcing us to disclose our stockpiles is an outright violation of our national security, as any requirement to turn state secrets over to a world body would be. On the other side, what is the point of mandating such reports if the UN can't do anything about it? If it is for purely research purposes, there is no reason to "mandate" states to compromise their national security. Or is there a more sinister purpose to this requirement: Forcing nations to displose weapons-programs details to the UN, to make it all the more easy for the UN to force states to disarm once a total ban in put in place? "We already know where you keep your weapons, now hand 'em over!"

We oppose the final clause for obvious reasons, and we are not entirely convinced such a clause would even be legal.

~Jack Riley

--snip--
Ok, thank you. Obviously, you were a fairly vocal opponent originally, and we hadn't really expected to convert such people. We may, upon further consideration, drop the requirement to register chemical weapons supplies, as much as anything because the guarantee of confidentiality would be difficult. We may further drop some of the encouraging clauses in a bid to concentrate solely on facilitating voluntary disarmament, if that is clearly going to find more favour.

I guess, if we get a final draft ready, I'll ask the mods about the final line: if it's true, then it can be left out, and if not, then the proposal can be left out.

This is certainly a well-written and carefully thought out proposal. We believe, though, that it has a fundamental problem. We do not believe that it is reasonable to legislate on a subject like "chemical weaponry" without defining the term.

Members may recall that the principal argument for repeal of NSUN Resolution #107, "Ban Chemical Weapons", was that it failed to define its scope to exclude non-lethal riot control agents. Also, every time a chemical weapons ban has been discussed in this Assembly, questions have been raised as to whether it did/should include herbicides, pesticides, defoliants and incendiaries.

We believe that, to be effective and free from gross misinterpretation, the proposal must clearly define its scope.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

This is certainly a well-written and carefully thought out proposal. We believe, though, that it has a fundamental problem. We do not believe that it is reasonable to legislate on a subject like "chemical weaponry" without defining the term.
However, in this case, the decision to disarm remains a national right. As such, it only seems reasonable to leave the definition to them. They don't have to disarm herbicides if they don't want to; they don't have to disarm sarin if they don't want to. So, the lack of definition was actually a conscious choice: there is, to my mind, little point in an international definition for a national decision. However, it does highlight the importance of dropping the required registration clause, which we have now done.

This is just a draft. If I get two endorsements, and if there's sufficient interest, and if a solid (I mean it, this time) draft is prepared, then I guess I'll submit it. If there's an IDU person (Antrium?) who would be interesting in working with me, I'd be more than happy to do so, and perfectly willing to stand aside if a better proposal is presented by them.

Yes, Antrium was the government interested in this particular subject ... though I would imagine that the majority of the IDU would support this sort of proposal. Right now IDU ambassadors have been discussing a few UN issues: (1) the number of repeals (only in passing of course), (2) the possibility of reducing chemical weapons, and (3) a desire for some sort of standardization or recommendations for disaster mitigation (possibly via building codes for essential emergency response centers). We've not come forward with any formal ideas, thus we've not really taken these sorts of discussions abroad, though it goes without say that most of our governments welcome ideas (UN resolutions) promoting international cooperation that bring about stability.

The distinguished representative of Sheknu is, of course, correct that actual disarmament is a national decision and the definition could arguably be left up to the individual nations. However, clauses 4.i. and 6 are mandatory clauses. We believe the NSUN must set the scope of their coverage -- as with a definition of chemical weaponry.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Wait. This seems like disarmament, so wouldn't it be in the category of Global Disarmament? :confused:

Wait. This seems like disarmament, so wouldn't it be in the category of Global Disarmament? :confused:
Oh good, I'm not the only one thinking that.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Also, I've added category (should be obvious) and strength (again). Suggestions for names are welcome.
Should be "Global Disarmament", not "International Security". As for a name, "Chemical Weapons Convention"?

REAFFIRMING its fundamental objection to cruel and barbaric of treatment of any person,

The first "of" should probably be removed...

i. PROHIBITS the sale or transfer, or production with intent to sell or transfer, of chemical weaponry, of materials primarily designed to facilitate the production of chemical weaponry, or of information specifically relating to the production of chemical weaponry, to any non-UN member state

Hm...Not sure if that's legal, looks a lot like 'effect on non-members.'

Hm...Not sure if that's legal, looks a lot like 'effect on non-members.'

Uh? The effect is that members are forbidden to give weapons to non-members. It does not forbid, permit, encourage, or mandate that non-members do anything, so I fail to see the legislative impact on them.

Uh? The effect is that members are forbidden to give weapons to non-members. It does not forbid, permit, encourage, or mandate that non-members do anything, so I fail to see the legislative impact on them.

Potential impact on the non-member's military status and / or economy if they intended to sell the weapons on. As I said, I'm not sure if it's illegal, just looks dodgy.

The distinguished representative of Sheknu is, of course, correct that actual disarmament is a national decision and the definition could arguably be left up to the individual nations. However, clauses 4.i. and 6 are mandatory clauses. We believe the NSUN must set the scope of their coverage -- as with a definition of chemical weaponry.
Well, ok. Any help with that definition is then appreciated, because it's got me stumped.

The first "of" should probably be removed...
Thank you.

Hm...Not sure if that's legal, looks a lot like 'effect on non-members.'
I didn't think affecting non-members indirectly was illegal.

I know the FAQ says "as a UN non-member you are unaffected by UN decisions" (or similar), but that's a statement of mechanical fact, not of roleplay. UN and non-UN nations RP trade relations, diplomatic relations, military relations. Certain UN decisions will affect non-UN nations, indirectly. For example, if UN nations cut carbon emissions, then the air becomes cleaner. That air doesn't magically transform itself if it passes over non-UN nation. Similarly, economic resolutions will have a global impact, because we form trade partnerships with non-UN nations.

I don't see this as having a direct effect on non-members. However, I do acknowledge it has an indirect effect. If your premise were true, UN Biological Weapons Ban would be illegal for prohibiting military partnerships with non-UN nations having biological weaponry. As it was, that resolution was subjected to considerable legal scrutiny. So, I respect your right to rule on this, but I'd like to ask for a second opinion, as I do see prohibiting the flow of chemical weaponry to non-UN nations as important.

So, I respect your right to rule on this, but I'd like to ask for a second opinion

Well, I haven't ruled on it, because I would too.

Well, I haven't ruled on it, because I would too.
Ok. I understand you weren't saying anything definite, yet. Thanks. I may drop that clause in any case, but this has bearing on another proposal.

I don't see this as having a direct effect on non-members. However, I do acknowledge it has an indirect effect. If your premise were true, UN Biological Weapons Ban would be illegal for prohibiting military partnerships with non-UN nations having biological weaponry. As it was, that resolution was subjected to considerable legal scrutiny.Yes, funny you should mention that as it was almost ruled to be illegal. However, case law does imply that this should be ruled legal. This is very shakey ground, mind, and I don't much like that something is legal written one way, but reversing its phrasing would make it illegal. I would prefer that the clause be removed (for several reasons), but as is, it's not enough to scuttle the Proposal.

I know the FAQ says "as a UN non-member you are unaffected by UN decisions" (or similar), but that's a statement of mechanical fact, not of roleplay.For what it's worth, this is largely irrelevent. The Proposal rules also forbid the imposition of legislation on non-members, which is what GMC was commenting on.

Yes, funny you should mention that as it was almost ruled to be illegal. However, case law does imply that this should be ruled legal. This is very shakey ground, mind, and I don't much like that something is legal written one way, but reversing its phrasing would make it illegal. I would prefer that the clause be removed (for several reasons), but as is, it's not enough to scuttle the Proposal.

Sorry to insist on this, but suppose the proposal was banning the sale or use of a specific weapon. This would also affect non UN members, as they would stop being able to buy from, or being attacked by, UN members. Would it also be dodgy?

For what it's worth, this is largely irrelevent. The Proposal rules also forbid the imposition of legislation on non-members, which is what GMC was commenting on.

Yes, that was my interpretation of the MetaGaming rule. In my view, that would illegalise clauses that impose something on non-members, as laws would then have to be enacted in those nations for compliance. It would not illegalise clauses that tell members how to behave in their relationships with non-members, since only legislation in member nations is needed.

If the rule was meant to be stronger than that (irrespectively of case law), I would like it to be clarified for future reference.

It would not illegalise clauses that tell members how to behave in their relationships with non-members, since only legislation in member nations is needed.

If the rule was meant to be stronger than that (irrespectively of case law), I would like it to be clarified for future reference.

I believe it does also normally ban telling members how to behave with respect to non members: one of the old nuclear weapon ban proposals was removed because it demanded all UN nations cease all trade and impose sanctions on any non-member with a nuclear arsenal. It was struck down under the 'effect on non-members' rule.

http://img378.imageshack.us/img378/5449/sofluffy7tp.jpg

I think, then, I'm just going to concentrate on the CDC aspect for now. Proliferation could come under another proposal.

The Puddle Of Piss Convention
Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Mild

The United Nations,

DECLARING its commitment to the establishment and preservation of world peace, through effective international law and cooperation,

REAFFIRMING its fundamental objection to cruel and barbaric treatment of any person,

DEPLORING the horrific effects of chemical weaponry,

BELIEVING chemical disarmament to be in the interests of world peace,

ACCEPTING that in the presence of many hostile non-member states, certain states may be unwilling to disarm,

WARMLY APPLAUDING the intentions of all states willing to engage in chemical disarmament,

CONCERNED that irresponsible decommissioning of chemical weaponry has the potential for serious accidental damage,

WISHING to provide the means for states to engage in safe chemical disarmament,

BELIEVING that such an operation falls under the jurisdiction of the UN, as a neutral international body:

1. DEFINES for the purposes of international law:

(a) "chemical weaponry" as:
i. toxic chemicals and precursors primarily designed for production of toxic chemicals;
ii. munitions and devices primarily designed to kill or harm through the action of toxic chemicals;
iii. any equipment primarily designed for cooperative use with said munitions and devices;

(b) "toxic chemical" as a chemical that, through its chemical action on life processes, causes death or permanent harm to people in a way that could render it an effective military weapon;

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

(d) "chemical disarmament" as the safe destruction of chemical weaponry:
i. specifically including conversion to other purposes;
ii. specifically excluding dumping in seas or inland waters, burial, or transfer to other states or terrorist organizations;

2. RECOGNISES chemical weaponry as not necessary for national defence;

3. CONDEMNS the use of chemical weaponry under any circumstances;

4. STRONGLY URGES all nations to engage in chemical disarmament;

5. ESTABLISHES the UN Chemical Disarmament Commission:
i. ENCOURAGES nations to declare chemical weaponry stockpiles, update such records on a regular basis, and quickly report all uses of chemical weaponry, to the UNCDC;
ii. REQUESTS that member nations contribute experts, technology and expertise in the field of chemical disarmament to the UNCDC;
iii. INVITES nations wishing to engage in chemical disarmament to obtain advice and aid from the UNCDC in responsible decommissioning, storage and transfer practices, and authorises the UNCDC to send teams to sites if requested to oversee and engage in disarmament or in improvement of safety facilities, allowing nations to bar any specific technology or personnel from entering or leaving their nation with regard to UNCDC operations;
iv. PERMITS the UNCDC to publish reports and advice on decommissioning and storage;
v. CHARGES the UNCDC with the authority to mediate and provide assistance towards international chemical disarmament treaties where requested by at least one party directly involved in negotiations;
vi. GUARANTEES the confidentiality of all information supplied to the UNCDC, except where the nation providing information specifically allows its dissemination or publication;

6. REQUIRES all member nations maintaining stocks of chemical weaponry to ensure adequate security for such facilities, and that all due safety measures are taken with regards to storage or transfer of chemical weaponry.

I believe it does also normally ban telling members how to behave with respect to non members: one of the old nuclear weapon ban proposals was removed because it demanded all UN nations cease all trade and impose sanctions on any non-member with a nuclear arsenal. It was struck down under the 'effect on non-members' rule.


So what about resolutions which create UN-run agencies or programmes that are basically for member-nations but open to those non-member nations whose governments like the idea (even though they obviously wouldn't get any associated stat changes...) too? Are they legal? I've been told -- and I think have actually seen -- that there's precedent for this, and my proposal for international meteorological cooperation (see http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=464082 for details) currently includes it...

Just a quick question, would it ban the use of Francium, Caesium, Rubidium or Potassium? I need to know this because it might threaten our military.

1. DEFINES for the purposes of international law:

(a) "chemical weaponry" as:
i. toxic chemicals and precursors primarily designed for production of toxic chemicals;
ii. munitions and devices primarily designed to kill or harm through the action of toxic chemicals;
iii. any equipment primarily designed for cooperative use with said munitions and devices;

(b) "toxic chemical" as a chemical that, through its chemical action on life processes, causes death or permanent harm to people in a way that could render it an effective military weapon;

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

(d) "chemical disarmament" as the safe destruction of chemical weaponry:
i. specifically including conversion to other purposes;
ii. specifically excluding dumping in seas or inland waters, burial, or transfer to other states or terrorist organizations;
It's too bad you can't list them like the three schedules of the Chemical Weapons Convention. Damn the character limit!

Finalish draft:

The United Nations,

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

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

DEEPLY CONCERNED chemical weapons constitute a major threat, due to the potential for vast damage if improperly stored or appropriated by terrorist organizations,

CONDEMNING chemical weapons, and determined to effectively eliminate them,

STRESSING the importance of responsible decommissioning of chemical weapons, 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 socioeconomic development,

CALLING INTO MIND UN Resolution #120, 'Repeal "Ban Chemical Weapons"', and its distinction between chemical weapons 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:

1. DEFINES for the purposes of this resolution:

a. "chemical weapons" as:
i. toxic chemicals, and precursors primarily designed for production of toxic chemicals;
ii. munitions and devices primarily designed to kill or harm through the action of toxic chemicals;
iii. any equipment primarily designed for cooperative use with said munitions and devices;

b. "toxic chemical" as a chemical that, through its chemical action on life processes, causes death or permanent harm to people in a way that could render it an effective military weapon;

2. DECLARES chemical weapons not necessary for national defence,

3. PROHIBITS:

a. production, development, possession, distribution or use of chemical weapons;

b. aid or inducement towards the production, development or use of chemical weapons by any party, including but not limited to terrorist organizations;

c. the use of herbicides as a military weapon;

4. REQUIRES:

a. the destruction, or complete conversion to purposes other than chemical warfare, of all chemical weapons;

b. the destruction, or complete conversion to purposes other than chemical warfare, of all facilities previously directed to the production, development, storage or deployment of chemical weapons;

c. that such measures are carried out promptly with due regard for health, environmental and security concerns;

5. ESTABLISHES the UN Chemical Disarmament Commission to:

a. research and develop effective disarmament methods, and advise and aid any states requesting assistance with chemical disarmament, including mediation in international chemical disarmament treaties;

b. research and develop effective methods of protection from chemical attack, and advise any states requesting assistance with such measures;

c. stock securely toxic chemicals for the purposes of improving disarmament and protection methods, and, where deemed necessary by the UNCDC, permit to conduct scientific testing on small quantities of toxic chemicals for the sole purposes of improving disarmament and protection methods states demonstrating adequate capacity to handle such chemicals safely and responsibly.

Thoughts?

Nice work. You did a thorough job, mate. However I still oppose it. But you probally already figured that out. Still I'll look foreward to the debate if it comes up to vote,
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

We still oppose as well. However, we appreciate the change to the bit about "precursors."

Looks good Sheknu. A huge improvement on the repealed original.

I've put a copy up on a couple of offsite forums for the delegates to look at. Hopefully you'll get their endorsements.

Elsewhere I have already said that I like this, but I say it again here. I like this. It's well-balanced, well-written and takes away some of the issues with the repealed previous ban.

I will support this as much as I can.

I will support this as much as I can.
Thank you very much.

Are there are final comments on Article 5?

Additionally, I am thinking of preparing a "Chemical Defence" (International Security, Mild) proposal, requesting states develop anti-chemical protective measures.

You have our full support.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN