NationStates Jolt Archive

Esteemed Delegates,

On behalf of the New Cultural Revolution of Dashanzi, I submit to you a proposal that seeks to apply a sense of ethics to an industry rarely associated with moral actions. I do not claim that this proposal will cure all associated ills, nor do I claim that it will please all delegates, but it is my hope that it will serve as a force for good in the international arena.

I would be honoured if you would do me the kindness of critiquing the following draft [version 7 - submitted]:

Arms Export Code of Conduct

Category: International Security
Strength: Significant

Description: The United Nations,

NOTING the potentially damaging effects of unregulated trade in armaments, and

SEEKING to limit the potential for UN states' complicity in acts of barbarity facilitated by the trade;

DEFINES 'armaments', for the purpose of this resolution, as military weapons of any variety, related matériel and equipment, spare parts, components, and the means of delivery of such weapons to their targets.

FORBIDS the export of armaments under the following conditions:

1) If there is a clear risk that the proposed export might be used for internal repression within the receiving nation;

2) If exports will provoke or prolong internal conflicts or aggravate existing tensions in the nation of final destination;

3) If there is a clear and substantial risk that the intended recipient will use the proposed export aggressively against another country or to acquire new territory by force of arms;

4) If the receiving nation has a record of support or encouragement of terrorism, or has a bad track record on compliance with its international legal commitments, or has a bad track record on its commitment to non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and other areas of arms control and disarmament, or

5) If there is a clear risk that exported goods might be diverted or transferred to an aggressor nation or terrorist organisation.

STRONGLY DISCOURAGES the export of armaments if the proposed export will seriously hamper the sustainable development of the recipient nation.
Some commentary (superseded commentary appears [thus]):

[A) The preamble is, I regret, the product of hasty drafting and I suspect it requires much attention in order to pass muster.]

[B) There may be some duplication and redundancy in some terms. I beg your mercy for my laxity in not thoroughly cross-checking this draft against existing legislation.]

[C) I see a case to be made for each of the categories listed. I confess that base egotism drives me towards hoping that Gun Control is the most appropriate designation: it would be a great honour to be the first to successfully pass legislation in any field.]

[D) Dashanzi has, as yet, no endorsements from its UN fellows. Come the time for submittal, we will seek to either gain the requisite endorsements or request that another member state take the role of sponsor for the proposal.]

Thank you for taking the time to hear me today, I am most grateful for your attention. The floor is yours.

Benedictions,

We must commend the honorable Foreign Minister for being willing to tackle a very difficult issue -- one which will certainly raise the hackles of a certain set of very vocal extremists. We couldn't honestly say, at this point, whether we would support such an effort at all. That remains to be seen. But we do have a few questions and comments on specific clauses.

Clause 1: What UN sanctions?

Clause 3: This clause would seem to prohibit exporting arms to a nation that was defending itself from armed aggression. This would prolong the conflict by enabling the defending nation to continue to resist.

Clause 4: The portion "or to assert by force a territorial claim" gives us pause. On a quick reading, this seems to us to prohibit export to a nation that is attempting to assert a valid, legal claim to territory encroached upon by another nation.

Clause 7: We think the language needs to specify what third-party transfer is prohibited. "Undesirable" seems too vague a description.

Clause 8: We have to admit we don't understand the point of this clause. We look forward to an explanation.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Might want to look over this (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030153&postcount=58) to avoid overlap.

We must commend the honorable Foreign Minister for being willing to tackle a very difficult issue -- one which will certainly raise the hackles of a certain set of very vocal extremists.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

You called?

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

Esteemed Delegates,

I would be honoured if you would do me the kindness of critiquing the following draft:Let's have a look :)escription: Noting the damaging effects of unregulated trade in armaments;

Seeking to limit the potential for UN states' complicity in acts of barbarity facilitated by the trade;Preamble seems fine. Could perhaps do with fleshing out a little.

The UN hereby forbids the export of armaments under the following conditions:

1) If the receiving nation is subject to UN sanctions;Sanctions are not part of the game, so this bit is irrelevant.2) If there is a clear risk that the proposed export might be used for internal repression within the receiving nation;Might be awkward to define this.3) If exports will provoke or prolong armed conflicts or aggravate existing tensions in the nation of final destination;I think you were trying to phrase this to prevent intervention in internal civil unrest. If that's the case, this may need redoing.4) If there is a clear risk that the intended recipient will use the proposed export aggressively against another country or to assert by force a territorial claim;Fair enough, but that's very subjective and difficult to prove.5) If there is a risk of use of the goods concerned against their own forces or those of friends, allies or other member states;Again, quite difficult to demonstrate.6) If the receiving nation has a record of support or encouragement of terrorism, and/or has a bad track record with compliance with its international legal commitments, and/or has a bad track record on its commitment to non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and other areas of arms control and disarmament;I happen to agree with this bit, but it's very difficult to reach agreement on.7) If there is a risk that exported goods might be diverted to an undesirable end user;Absolutely.8) If the proposed export will seriously hamper the sustainable development of the recipient nation.That's also subjective.

Right now, it's very vague. Hard to prove a case one way or the other. Lots of vagueness leads to lots of loopholes.

Some commentary:

A) The preamble is, I regret, the product of hasty drafting and I suspect it requires much attention in order to pass muster.Actually, the preamble is pretty good.

B) There may be some duplication and redundancy in some terms. I beg your mercy for my laxity in not thoroughly cross-checking this draft against existing legislation.I think hack has referred you to the most obvious legislation you need to check on.

D) Dashanzi has, as yet, no endorsements from its UN fellows. Come the time for submittal, we will seek to either gain the requisite endorsements or request that another member state take the role of sponsor for the proposal.I'd consider it, or you could move region and get the neccessary endorsements. I'd be happy to talk to my region to do this for you.

Gwenstefani is opposed to any proposal attempting to regulate its primary exports industry. However, in the interests of at least creating a fair proposal should it ever regretfully be passed:

Clause 2: Is internal repression currently outlawed by the UN? And how could this be interpreted? The UN is not allowed to outlaw any particular type of government and so dictatorships or martial law are valid political systems in the NS world. This proposal should therefore not pass judgement on an area as of yet unregulated by international law. Furthermore, weapons may be purchased by a nation to arm their police forces. Police forces are arguably a means of repression, albeit the repression of criminal activity. But this shouldn’t prevent arms sales to this nation.

Clauses 3 & 4: As has been previously mentioned, a major reason for buying arms in the first place is for defensive purposes, in case of war. It would be illogical then to say that war should make a nation ineligible to buy weapons: it is then that a country would need them most. This is especially the case if a country is trying to defend itself against an aggressor. I suspect you meant to limit the flow of weapons to a nation carrying out an aggressive campaign against another, but we should still be careful when judging the political situations of other regions. Attack can be the best form of defence, and often there are valid reasons for going to war that should not be punished. Gwenstefani, for example, is currently mobilising after a neighbouring state has detained/arrested over 100,000 Gwenstefanian nationals within its borders.

Clause 5: Similar to the above. An ally now may not be an ally later, and vice versa. If Gwenstefani wants to sell arms to a nation that may use them against Gwenstefani, then Gwenstefani should be allowed to, silly as that may be.

Clause 8: I don’t see how selling arms to a country could hamper its development, and certainly this would be debatable in any given situation.

The rest of the clauses are fair enough.

Sincere thanks to the respondents thusfar.

Clause 1: What UN sanctions?
I am unaware of any currently existing, however, the possibility that sanctions may be enacted in the future cannot be discounted.

* ooc: technically sanctions are not possible in the game? But I like the idea of acting as if they are possible, since in RL they are reasoably common. This clause can be dropped if it proves too contentious. *

Clause 3: This clause would seem to prohibit exporting arms to a nation that was defending itself from armed aggression. This would prolong the conflict by enabling the defending nation to continue to resist.
Excellent point, Minister. Would the following suffice as an alteration?

If exports will provoke or prolong armed conflicts or aggravate existing tensions within the nation of final destination

This, I hope, shifts the emphasis of the clause more towards preventing the exacerbation of internal conflict.

[Clause 4: The portion "or to assert by force a territorial claim" gives us pause. On a quick reading, this seems to us to prohibit export to a nation that is attempting to assert a valid, legal claim to territory encroached upon by another nation.
Perhaps an alteration clarifying that this address 'new' claims, rather than attempts to 'reclaim' land under occupation?

Clause 7: We think the language needs to specify what third-party transfer is prohibited. "Undesirable" seems too vague a description.
I will give some thought to how best to clarify this clause. I suspected that brevity would prove the undoing of the first draft.

Clause 8: We have to admit we don't understand the point of this clause. We look forward to an explanation.
Including this clause ensures, one would hope, that member states will not assist poorer countries from squandering their scant resources on, for example, unnecessary military installations.

* ooc: a prime example is the UK government (via its Export Credit Guarantee Department) assisting BAe Systems in selling an out-dated and over-priced military air traffic control system to Tanzania back in 2001. Even the World Bank condemned the deal. More. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1717516.stm) *

Thank you, Minister Olembe, for your thought-provoking commentary.

Might want to look over this to avoid overlap.
Thank you. I have perused Resolution: Reduce Black Market Arms Sales and believe that my own proposal overlaps only with the following extract (since the resolution in question deals specifically with already illicit arms trades):

6. RECOMMENDS that participating States should implement programmes of action which would:

a) employ regulations to control the production of small arms and light weapons within their jurisdiction, and over the export, import, transit or retransfer of such weapons;

I don’t believe that any of the clauses in my draft proposal overlap to such an extent that would necessitate paring down or removal.

Any other action mandated by the proposal under discussion merely clarifies the arena of operation for the above resolution.

Thank you, representative of The Most Glorious Hack.

Sanctions are not part of the game, so this bit is irrelevant.
* ooc: please see above *

Might be awkward to define this.
I’m not convinced that definition is required, though I welcome contributions in this regard. Is the issue concerning what specifically defines repression?

I think you were trying to phrase this to prevent intervention in internal civil unrest. If that's the case, this may need redoing.
Please see the proposed amendment above.

Fair enough, but that's very subjective and difficult to prove.
Too true, and such is the nature of international law. Would a re-wording based on my comments above (in response to Minister Olembe) be acceptable?

Again, quite difficult to demonstrate.
Quite difficult, yes, but not impossible by any means.

I happen to agree with this bit, but it's very difficult to reach agreement on.
Is it fair to assume that member states’ delegates will be able to reach accord in a fair and sensible manner?

That's also subjective.
Point taken. I’m willing to clarify, though I’m loathe to make this proposal too wordy.

Right now, it's very vague. Hard to prove a case one way or the other. Lots of vagueness leads to lots of loopholes.
* ooc: true, though it’s hard to be specific in this game. Besides – and this may surprise some of you – this is cribbed almost directly from the EU code of conduct. *

I'd consider it, or you could move region and get the neccessary endorsements. I'd be happy to talk to my region to do this for you.[/quote
You are most kind. Many thanks.

[quote=Gwenstefani]Gwenstefani is opposed to any proposal attempting to regulate its primary exports industry.
I regret this, but admit that my sympathy for your position is limited. You profit from suffering and misery: it is my wish that you cease to do so.

Clause 2: Is internal repression currently outlawed by the UN? And how could this be interpreted? The UN is not allowed to outlaw any particular type of government and so dictatorships or martial law are valid political systems in the NS world. This proposal should therefore not pass judgement on an area as of yet unregulated by international law. Furthermore, weapons may be purchased by a nation to arm their police forces. Police forces are arguably a means of repression, albeit the repression of criminal activity. But this shouldn’t prevent arms sales to this nation.
This proposal is not intended to impinge on the activities of police forces. I am willing to adapt the terms to ensure that there is no confusion on this matter.

Certain examples of internal repression are indeed forbidden, so the clause stands.

Clauses 3 & 4: As has been previously mentioned, a major reason for buying arms in the first place is for defensive purposes, in case of war. It would be illogical then to say that war should make a nation ineligible to buy weapons: it is then that a country would need them most. This is especially the case if a country is trying to defend itself against an aggressor. I suspect you meant to limit the flow of weapons to a nation carrying out an aggressive campaign against another, but we should still be careful when judging the political situations of other regions. Attack can be the best form of defence, and often there are valid reasons for going to war that should not be punished. Gwenstefani, for example, is currently mobilising after a neighbouring state has detained/arrested over 100,000 Gwenstefanian nationals within its borders.
Please see above regarding clause 3. Regarding clause 4, would an amendment along the lines mentioned above be satisfactory?

Clause 5: Similar to the above. An ally now may not be an ally later, and vice versa. If Gwenstefani wants to sell arms to a nation that may use them against Gwenstefani, then Gwenstefani should be allowed to, silly as that may be.
The UN should not be encouraging member states to wage war with each other. I can amend the clause to clarify this point but I see no need to remove it.

Clause 8: I don’t see how selling arms to a country could hamper its development, and certainly this would be debatable in any given situation.
Please see above.

Thank you for your input.

We were very pleased to read the thoughtful and responsive answers of the honorable Prime Minister of Dashanzi to the comments expressed here so far. It seems obvious to us that he's concerned with the quality, as well as the acceptability, of this proposal. To reply on some specifics....

Clause 3: How about changing "armed" to "internal"?

Clause 4: We'd suggest substituting "or to acquire new territory by force of arms" for the quoted text.

Clause 5: The distinguished representative of Gwenstefani has a point. On closer reading, this clause seems to be simply legislating common sense, something that usually makes us wince. Also, selling arms to a nation that might use them against us later might not always be "silly." It would depend on the type of arms and the international situation at the moment.

Clause 7: How about just tying it back to the first six clauses? In other words, if the probable end user is disqualified under one of the first six clauses, the initial export is prohibited. We'd also like to see "probable cause" worked into this clause. There is always some risk of an illicit transfer.

Clause 8: We'd like to see this clause deleted. We understand the reason for including it, but we can't accept it. If a country is willing to squander its resources buying arms from an NSUN nation, they'll squander them buying from a non-UN nation. We also believe that decisions on how to expend national resources are the proper business of the nations themselves unless there are meaningful international implications. It's a matter of setting national priorities, which we believe each nation is best qualified to do for itself.

As a side note, we'd suggest the honorable Prime Minister not worry about submission. Whether we end up supporting the proposal or not, we'll be happy to work with him to enable submission under his nation's flag. We've managed that before (e.g., "Rights of Neutral States").

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

We were very pleased to read the thoughtful and responsive answers of the honorable Prime Minister of Dashanzi to the comments expressed here so far. It seems obvious to us that he's concerned with the quality, as well as the acceptability, of this proposal.
Heartfelt thanks, though I must clarify that I am but the Foreign Minister. I would not want my friend the Prime Minister to feel uncomfortable about my future intentions should he read a transcript of this debate!

Clause 3: How about changing "armed" to "internal"?
An excellent suggestion that I will implement.

Clause 4: We'd suggest substituting "or to acquire new territory by force of arms" for the quoted text.
Again, excellent. This too will be implemented.

Clause 5: The distinguished representative of Gwenstefani has a point. On closer reading, this clause seems to be simply legislating common sense, something that usually makes us wince. Also, selling arms to a nation that might use them against us later might not always be "silly." It would depend on the type of arms and the international situation at the moment.
How about an amendment to focus purely on the use of exported armaments against other UN member states? Something like:

If there is a risk of use of the goods concerned against other member states

I maintain a strong belief that member states should not be permitted to assist nations in conflict with other member states.

Clause 7: How about just tying it back to the first six clauses? In other words, if the probable end user is disqualified under one of the first six clauses, the initial export is prohibited. We'd also like to see "probable cause" worked into this clause. There is always some risk of an illicit transfer.
There is a persuasive argument for dropping this clause. I will give it some more thought.

Clause 8: We'd like to see this clause deleted. We understand the reason for including it, but we can't accept it. If a country is willing to squander its resources buying arms from an NSUN nation, they'll squander them buying from a non-UN nation. We also believe that decisions on how to expend national resources are the proper business of the nations themselves unless there are meaningful international implications. It's a matter of setting national priorities, which we believe each nation is best qualified to do for itself.
Taking purely the point of view of the purchasing nation, I am inclined to agree. However, I am an advocate of nations actively rejecting unsavoury dealings. If a selling nation (or nation within which the dealer is resident) is aware that the deal is unworthy, then it should not take any part in the deal! I am loath to offend the honourable Ambassador, but this clause must remain. I am nonetheless keen to find some means of making it less contentious. Do you have any suggestions? I will give the matter further thought myself.

Thank you again for your considered analysis.

As a side note, we'd suggest the honorable Prime Minister not worry about submission. Whether we end up supporting the proposal or not, we'll be happy to work with him to enable submission under his nation's flag. We've managed that before (e.g., "Rights of Neutral States").
The kindness of this institution's delegates again humbles me. Many thanks.

How about an amendment to focus purely on the use of exported armaments against other UN member states? Something like:

If there is a risk of use of the goods concerned against other member states

I maintain a strong belief that member states should not be permitted to assist nations in conflict with other member states.

But member states often go to war with each other. The UN says nothing to say this shouldn't be the case. If my ally were to go to war with a mutual enemy, shouldn't I be able to sell arms to my ally. I still maintain that this clause should be removed.

In regards to the other clauses, I agree with Ausserland's reccommendations. I would also like to say that despite my objections, I do think you have a well written and thought out proposal. It can be easy to just focus on the negatives.

But member states often go to war with each other. The UN says nothing to say this shouldn't be the case. If my ally were to go to war with a mutual enemy, shouldn't I be able to sell arms to my ally. I still maintain that this clause should be removed.
I will look at this again to see if there is some way past this impasse.

In regards to the other clauses, I agree with Ausserland's reccommendations. I would also like to say that despite my objections, I do think you have a well written and thought out proposal. It can be easy to just focus on the negatives.
Sincere thanks. We may disagree, but it pleases me that we can do so and maintain mutual respect

Arms Exports Code of Conduct

Category: Global Disarmament / International Security / Gun Control ?


Description: Taking into account the dangers to world peace of unregulated arms movement;

Seeking to limit the potential for UN states' complicity in acts of barbarity facilitated by the trade of armaments;

The UN hereby forbids the export of armaments under any of the following conditions:

1) If the receiving nation is subject to UN sanctions prohibiting the movement to within its country of armaments;

2) If there is a clear risk that the proposed export might be used for internal repression within the receiving nation. Clear risk must be agreed by 75% of the UN body;

3) ---

4) If there is a clear risk that the intended recipient will use the proposed export aggressively against another country or to assert by force a new territorial claim. This therefore does not cover existing claims to land;

5) If there is a risk of use of the goods concerned against their own forces or those of friends, allies or other UN states, in an agrtessive move. This therefore does not cover defending itself from attack;

6) If the receiving nation has a record of support or encouragement of terrorism, and/or has a bad track record with compliance with its international legal commitments, and/or has a bad track record on its commitment to non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and other areas of arms control and disarmament, after this being agreed and the state being put under UN sanction;

7) If there is a risk that exported goods might be diverted to an aggressor or similar terrorist organisation.

8) If the proposed export will seriously hamper the sustainable development of the recipient nation.


Not sure about number 8 and number 3 i thought was a terrible proviso. Number 6 may also need more of a look ove rbut what are peoples thoughts.

Thank you, Pixil Indians.

I will not be amending the preamble as proposed as I am reluctant to cite world peace as a principal motivation for the legislation. This is, after all, a restriction on arms tarding, not a cessation.

1) If the receiving nation is subject to UN sanctions prohibiting the movement to within its country of armaments;
Interesting idea: restricting the sanctions available for the purposes of the proposal. However, I may well bow to pressure and remove this clause.

* ooc: since there's no practicable use for it *

2) If there is a clear risk that the proposed export might be used for internal repression within the receiving nation. Clear risk must be agreed by 75% of the UN body;
* ooc: I suspect the 75% requirememt constitutes metagaming. *

4) If there is a clear risk that the intended recipient will use the proposed export aggressively against another country or to assert by force a new territorial claim. This therefore does not cover existing claims to land;
Thank you, this clause does need amending. I will assess the suggestions made by Ambassador Bulfanger and yourself in due course.

5) If there is a risk of use of the goods concerned against their own forces or those of friends, allies or other UN states, in an agrtessive move. This therefore does not cover defending itself from attack;
Again, thank you. Your suggested amendment has been noted.

6) If the receiving nation has a record of support or encouragement of terrorism, and/or has a bad track record with compliance with its international legal commitments, and/or has a bad track record on its commitment to non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and other areas of arms control and disarmament, after this being agreed and the state being put under UN sanction;
The sanctions addition may not be necessary if clause 1 is dropped.

7) If there is a risk that exported goods might be diverted to an aggressor or similar terrorist organisation.
A good clarification, though I will probably adapt it slightly.

Not sure about number 8 and number 3 i thought was a terrible proviso. Number 6 may also need more of a look ove rbut what are peoples thoughts.
Thank you, though clause 3 will remain (though not necessarily in its current form).

I have posted a second draft in the opening post for this discussion.

A note regarding clause 6 (formerly 7): this has been retained and, I hope, clarified. The issue addressed here is if there is a clear risk of armaments being diverted (rather than being directly exported ) to undesirables.

The former clause 1 has been struck and amendments made as proposed in previous replies.

Any further comments?

We apologize to the honorable Foreign Minister for misstating his title. (Our apology, though, is not terribly sincere, since he called our Ambassador "Bulfanger".)

Although the instant draft is much improved over the original, we regret that we will be unable to support the proposal. Our objections rest primarily on clauses 4 and 7.

As has been pointed out, there is nothing in the world of NationStates to preclude aggression by one NSUN member nation against another. Clause 4 would prohibit transfer of arms to a nation defending itself against such aggression. We also object here, as we did in reference to another clause, to the use of the unqualified term "risk". There is no such thing as perfect certainty in international affairs, and there is always some risk involved in any transaction. Read literally, this clause would effectively prohibit all arms transfer.

We have voiced our objection to Clause 7 (formerly Clause 8) before. To us, it is unacceptable "Big Brotherism" and, given the presence of a multitiude of non-member states, useless.

While we will oppose the proposal should it come to a vote, we believe it is worth being considered for approval. Our offer of assistance in submission stands.

Hurlbot Barfanger ;)
Ambassador to the United Nations

We apologize to the honorable Foreign Minister for misstating his title. (Our apology, though, is not terribly sincere, since he called our Ambassador "Bulfanger".)
My goodness, I do apologise! I fear that the extra hours I have been putting into this proposal have dulled my faculties. Humble apologies, Ambassador.

As has been pointed out, there is nothing in the world of NationStates to preclude aggression by one NSUN member nation against another. Clause 4 would prohibit transfer of arms to a nation defending itself against such aggression. We also object here, as we did in reference to another clause, to the use of the unqualified term "risk". There is no such thing as perfect certainty in international affairs, and there is always some risk involved in any transaction. Read literally, this clause would effectively prohibit all arms transfer.
If we were utopians in Dashanzi, then we would surely rejoice at such a conclusion. We are not, however, and so this clause must once again be addressed.

How about something along the lines of:

If there is a risk of use of the goods concerned against other member states, excepting scenarios where the member state is an aggressor or a sponsor of terrorism

Does this revision bring us nearer to accord?

We have voiced our objection to Clause 7 (formerly Clause 8) before. To us, it is unacceptable "Big Brotherism" and, given the presence of a multitiude of non-member states, useless.
I do not wish to remove this clause as it lies at the very heart of what I seek to achieve. However, I have a compromise: what if this were rephrased such that it required (or urged?) governments to withhold support and assistance from home country companies seeking to conduct such exports?

I wish to address the comment that "given the presence of a multitiude of non-member states," this clause would be "useless".

The argument that "if we don't sell arms then someone else will" is oft used in defence of arms exports. I hold that this is fallacy. Is it acceptable to use this argument for other ethically contentious goods and services? Would we argue the same in the case of heroin or child pornography? I think not.

I accept that the placing of arms exports alongside such unpleasant items will be controversial. However, these are not the statements of a pacifist, nor the representative of a demilitarised nation. Arms manufacture is a significant industry for Dashanzi, yet we seek to minimise the potential for ill arising from our trading.

While we will oppose the proposal should it come to a vote, we believe it is worth being considered for approval. Our offer of assistance in submission stands.
You are most kind.

Hurlbot Barfanger ;)
My thanks to you, Ambassador Barfanger. :)

We'll give some thought to the revision of Clause 4. The proposed language does come closer to what we would consider acceptable, though.

As to Clause 7, it remains, unfortunately, a deal-breaker. We simply think it's inappropriate and unreasonable to require nations to make judgments about the economic circumstances of other nations. We'll continue to think about this, but not with much hope of reaching agreement. As for the business about non-member states, you have a valid point. But we do believe it's a consideration. Frankly, if we weren't opposed to the clause as a whole, we might not have mentioned it.

And one technical nit which we forgot to pick earlier.... In Clause 6, we recommend "diverted or transferred". Diversion has a specific meaning in the arms/technology transfer world, and this should cover all the necessary bases.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Thank you, Ambassador-at-Large. Another Ausserlander representative - how delightful! If only my nation saw fit to provide me with the company of another compatriot.

I have amended clauses 4 as proposed earlier and also clause 6 as per your advice. As for clause 7, our inability to reach an accord pains me. I will look again to see if I can draft something that appeases you.

Any more comments before I work on the next draft?

OOC: A definition of armaments would help. I know it sounds silly, but some object even to selling, say, parachutes to another country. Parachutes? They're (primarily) safety devices. There've been objections to selling even unarmed trucks and other non-offensive equipment to some countries.

One thing: regarding your uncertainties about category, I don't think Gun Control is right, because this is mainly talking about weapons to be used by police and military.

Other thing: I actually see no reason to specify "member states" at all. The UN is not an alliance, and we owe no special obligation or allegiance to "fellow members".

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
Security Advisor

OOC: A definition of armaments would help. I know it sounds silly, but some object even to selling, say, parachutes to another country. Parachutes? They're (primarily) safety devices. There've been objections to selling even unarmed trucks and other non-offensive equipment to some countries.
* ooc: I'll look at drafting a definition over the next few days. I'm in no rush to submit the proposal, so time is no worry. I agree concerning parachutes but there are numerous examples of 'unarmed trucks' being sold in the full knowledge that they will be kitted out or used to assist a war machine. You'd be amazed at just how many companies will sell trucks to Sudan only to express amazement when they are later found in the hands of the Janjaweed. *

One thing: regarding your uncertainties about category, I don't think Gun Control is right, because this is mainly talking about weapons to be used by police and military.
I am inclined to agree, more's the pity.

Other thing: I actually see no reason to specify "member states" at all. The UN is not an alliance, and we owe no special obligation or allegiance to "fellow members".
With the greatest respect, Mr Pyandran, I could not disagree more. If members of the UN cannot even pledge to maintain peace with each other, then what purpose does membership serve?

* ooc: I'll look at drafting a definition over the next few days. I'm in no rush to submit the proposal, so time is no worry. I agree concerning parachutes but there are numerous examples of 'unarmed trucks' being sold in the full knowledge that they will be kitted out or used to assist a war machine. You'd be amazed at just how many companies will sell trucks to Sudan only to express amazement when they are later found in the hands of the Janjaweed. *


OOC: Oh, I understand completely, but those trucks could just as easily be outfitted to serve as ambulances. And parachutes were just one example. During my years covering the international arms trade as a journalist, I saw numerous instances of sales being blocked that involved the transfer of safety equipment for logistical and search-and-rescue aircraft, for example.

Now IC...

Upon reading this closely, Clause 8 leaped out. You want countries to say, "No, we're not going to sell you these tanks, because you need to spend more on health care"? Who are we to judge the spending priorities of other nations' governments?

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

As the representative of Cluichstan points out, the issue of dual use is always a problem area in arms and technology transfer control. "Armaments" does include military equipment, as well, as weapons, so the examples discussed were on point. We're not terribly troubled by the issue in this case, though, since the limiting clauses specify perceived intent of use as the decision criterion. Once again, though, we find these clauses overly broad. Risk may be "clear" while also being minimal.

And we must agree with our respected colleague from Gruenberg. We see the current Clause 4 as unnecessary, given Clauses 3 and 5.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

As the representative of Cluichstan points out, the issue of dual use is always a problem area in arms and technology transfer control. "Armaments" does include military equipment, as well, as weapons, so the examples discussed were on point. We're not terribly troubled by the issue in this case, though, since the limiting clauses specify perceived intent of use as the decision criterion. Once again, though, we find these clauses overly broad. Risk may be "clear" while also being minimal.
Would 'clear and substantial' suffice?

And we must agree with our respected colleague from Gruenberg. We see the current Clause 4 as unnecessary, given Clauses 3 and 5.
Upon further reflection, I think I agree. You are most persuasive, ladies and gentlemen.

When I set about drafting this document, I never imagined the final draft would be shorter than the first. This is most pleasing!

Our delegation finds "clear and substantial" quite satisfactory.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Our delegation finds "clear and substantial" quite satisfactory.
Wonderful news!

I have not made the same amendment to what is now clause 5 as I feel the criteria are such that a harder line is warranted. I have, however, substantially amended the final clause to soften the requirements made. Does this now meet with delegates' approval?

I am pleased to declare that Dashanzi has now received two endorsements from its regional allies and is thus in a position to submit the proposal.

Remaining points of contention:

1) Need armaments be defined?

2) Is the final clause satisfactory?

3) Is the preamble satisfactory (this links with point 1)?

4) Category and strength?

I await your thoughts with almost breathless anticipation, delegates. This process has proved most exciting for me.

* ooc: I omitted to reply to Cluichstan earlier - essentially, my hope is that Ausserland's subsequent comments have allayed your concerns. Interesting job you had, by the sounds of things. *

Just finished perusing through the drafting process here. I may have missed something, but the only real issue I can see at this point is not a direct one. Bear with me....

As it pertains to

3) If there is a clear and substantial risk that the intended recipient will use the proposed export aggressively against another country or to acquire new territory by force of arms;

I have some minor concern as to how this could affect international alliances of a military nature. Let me use a hypothetical example....

There is an alliance between the bordering nations of Lions, Tigers, and Bears. Bears is attacked by another nation, Monkeys, which borders on both Bears and Tigers, but not Lions. The military might of Lions lies in their ground based equipment. Through strategic planning sessions, the heads of defence for the three allies decides that the best way for Lions to assist is by supplying armament to Tigers to mount a counter-offensive into Monkeys, to force the attention of Monkeys back into their homeland, and cutting off their supply lines. While the back of Monkeys is turned, Bears can eject them from the sovereign soil of Bears.

*ooc: I'm not sure I followed that myself, but I think it made sense*

With Clause 3 the way that it is, Lions would not be able to assist Tigers in the counter-offensive to help liberate Bears.

I might be seeing it the wrong way, but that's how it occured to me.

We believe, in the example cited by the the esteemed representative from Kivisto, that the counter-offensive against Monkeys would be considered defensive in nature, as Monkeys initiated the aggression. We are also pleased to see that the last clause is no longer a mandate. However, we still feel that armaments need to be defined for the purposes of this proposal.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

We cannot agree with our respected colleague from Kivisto. In the hypothetical presented, Monkeys is clearly the aggressor, with the counter-offensive conducted in defense of an ally.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

OOC: ICly, Gruenberg will oppose this most strongly. OOCly, my views on it are uncertain and irrelevant.

Nonetheless, in one sense I'm delighted by this proposal, and I hope it does get to quorum. It's the sort of thing I'd like the UN to deal with - and it's exactly the sort of thing Gruenberg the nation (and possibly the player, not sure where I stand on this sort of thing) is very adamantly opposed to. But I think it will produce some interesting discussions and RP potentials.

As to category...
- it's clearly not EN, FT, SJ, AI, EC, PS, FD, RDU, G
- it's not Gun Control (as it deals with institutional armaments, not personal ones)
- that leaves IS/GD, or HR/MD

Here's where I think the mods' advice about writing to a category is pertinent. Which category it fits into is a minor concern, insofar as I think the proposal can be tweaked with no loss of meaning and little change of wording to fit several.

As it stands, I would say it would be Human Rights.

My thanks to the Cluichstani and Ausserlander ambassadors for, I trust, assuaging any concerns held by the Kivistan delegation.

What remains now? Possibly a definition of armaments, certainly determining the category.

* ooc: Thanks, Gruenberg. In real life, I'm considerably more hardline on this issue. I'd hoped not to have to water down the EU code of conduct on which this is based, but NS's quirks must be respected.

As for category, I'd really rather not submit this as a Human Rights resolution. They're so passé, no? ;) At the moment, I'm minded to use Global Disarmament, as the restrictions the proposal places would, I feel, inevitably reduce the flow of arms around the world, reducing access and so on.

There's a lot of enforcement in this resolution, so I think Mild is inappropriate. Since the GD categorisation is a bit of a squeeze, I think Strong would also be ill-advised. So: Global Disarmament, Significant.

Just this bloody definition to worry about, then. I suspect this will cause more strife than any other part of the proposal. *

As it stands, I would say it would be Human Rights.

I would have thought that as it involves governments limiting the actions of people (in this case the arms-dealers) on moral grounds the obvious category would be 'Moral Decency'...

At the moment, I'm minded to use Global Disarmament, as the restrictions the proposal places would, I feel, inevitably reduce the flow of arms around the world, reducing access and so on.

Reduced supply -> higher demand -> probably raised prices, so military budgets would more probably have to rise than to fall as GD resolutions require...
No?

Reduced supply -> higher demand -> probably raised prices, so military budgets would more probably have to rise than to fall as GD resolutions require...
No?

That would make economic sense, though I'm not sure that translates into game mechanics.

I would have thought that as it involves governments limiting the actions of people (in this case the arms-dealers) on moral grounds the obvious category would be 'Moral Decency'...
Hmm, that's actually a very sensible argument. And MD would seem a better fit than GD.

Reduced supply -> higher demand -> probably raised prices, so military budgets would more probably have to rise than to fall as GD resolutions require...
No?
* ooc: Yes, the likely (and theoretical, I admit) increase in policing budgets did lead me to consider International Security.

I'll defer to a moderator on this. If GD or IS proves acceptable, then I will be using one of these rather than MD or HR. *

I'd say this is a pretty definate yes for me. I think most of that is basic common sense.

I'd say this is a pretty definate yes for me. I think most of that is basic common sense.
Sincere thanks, ambassador.

* ooc: moderator input regarding category, please? *

3) If there is a clear and substantial risk that the intended recipient will use the proposed export aggressively against another country or to acquire new territory by force of arms;

This seems to be a bit much. You're essentially banning war between UN nations if the weapons involved were imported.

Although Ceorana is a peace-loving nation, we can envision a scenario where we would want to take up arms against another nation that was hurting us in some way that could not be resolved diplomatically, and since we are not a significant manufacturer of armaments, we would, initially at least, want to rely on imports.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

We're still awaiting a definition of armaments as it applies to this proposal.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

This seems to be a bit much. You're essentially banning war between UN nations if the weapons involved were imported.


We disagree with the interpretation of our distinguished colleague from Ceorana. The proposal places restrictions on the export of armaments, not the use later made of them. Nation A exports armaments. Nation B imports them. All of the provisions apply to Nation A. None of them place any requirements on Nation B.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

While we are not yet ready to commit our nation to support of this proposal, we can say that the recent revisions bring us much closer to it. This is particularly true of the changing of the last clause to a discouragement -- one which our nation, not considering itself competent to pass judgment on other states' economies, will cheerfully ignore.

To some degree, we share the concern of the representative of Cluichstan that "armaments" remains undefined in the proposal. However, we don't consider that a fatal--or even serious--flaw. Given the term is undefined, it would have the standard dictionary meaning.

One suggestion: In clause 4, delete the and/ in both occurrences of and/or. We believe any of the three conditions should be a disqualifier, and the and/ is unneeded.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Many thanks again to Ambassador Ahlmann for addressing a point of contention.

One suggestion: In clause 4, delete the and/ in both occurrences of and/or. We believe any of the three conditions should be a disqualifier, and the and/ is unneeded.
I completely agree and have amended the clause appropriately.

A definition of armaments will follow in due course. In the meantime, a question: is the title satisfactory, or would 'Arms Trade Code of Conduct' please delegates more?

We disagree with the interpretation of our distinguished colleague from Ceorana. The proposal places restrictions on the export of armaments, not the use later made of them. Nation A exports armaments. Nation B imports them. All of the provisions apply to Nation A. None of them place any requirements on Nation B.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large
But suppose Nation B runs out of armaments and needs to import more. Nation A would be forbidden to export them to Nation B under clause 3, because Nation B is obviously going to use them aggressively.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

Originally Posted by Ausserland
We disagree with the interpretation of our distinguished colleague from Ceorana. The proposal places restrictions on the export of armaments, not the use later made of them. Nation A exports armaments. Nation B imports them. All of the provisions apply to Nation A. None of them place any requirements on Nation B.


But suppose Nation B runs out of armaments and needs to import more. Nation A would be forbidden to export them to Nation B under clause 3, because Nation B is obviously going to use them aggressively.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

Certainly. That's pretty much the main point of the proposal -- to stop transfer of arms to nations which will use them in aggression against other nations. But that's a far cry from "banning war". We're assuming here, of course, that Nation B is the aggressor.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Certainly. That's pretty much the main point of the proposal -- to stop transfer of arms to nations which will use them in aggression against other nations. But that's a far cry from "banning war". We're assuming here, of course, that Nation B is the aggressor.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large
Well, the Chairwoman of the Congressional Category for War and National Security, Amelia Leon, has informed me that they wouldn't mind making it harder to attack other nations, since we're not planning on doing any of it ourselves. But still, she says, Ceorana has very few reserves of the materials needed for armaments, and our Arms Manufacturing industry is not strong at all, so if we did need to attack, we'd have a problem.

She says we're coming up on an election year for the House of Representatives, so a lot of Reps will be straddling the fence on this issue -- and President Lin doesn't seem too keen to take a side either. Therefore, you'll most likely meet with an abstention from Ceorana unless clause 3 is removed, in which case we'll support.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

* ooc: Thanks for the ongoing contributions. In light of the chock-full proposals queue and my own lack of time at the moment, I'm going to leave off further work on this for a couple of weeks. *

Please forgive me the *bump*.

A definition of armaments remains to be presented. In the meantime, I beg again the wisdom of a moderator: Global Disarmament or International Security? I remain unconvinced by advocates of Human Rights or Moral Decency.

Benedictions,

OOC: The only category this would fit under is International Security, in my opinion.

I'll see if I can't get Hack or Fris to take a look at it too.

* ooc: thanks *

Friends, I have made further amendments to the text. The preamble has been rejigged and now includes a definition of armaments*, the sentence breaking the mandatory and voluntary clauses has been rewritten, and I've plumped for International Security as advised above.

I would be most grateful for comments on the latest draft, especially category and definition of armaments. In addition, I am contemplating amending the title from 'Arms Exports Code of Conduct' to 'Arms Trade Code of Conduct'. What say you?

Kind thanks in anticipation of your input.

*ooc: taken from the Canadian Centre for Treaty Compliance (http://www.carleton.ca/cctc/markland_definitions.htm) *

We've taken the liberty of turning our rather notorious legislative nit-pickers loose on the honorable representative's draft. Most of their emendations are in the way of punctuation and minor rewording to bring the draft more closely into conformity with the usual legislative style. One or two explanations follow their suggested revision.

Arms Export Code of Conduct

Category: International Security

Description: The United Nations,

NOTING the potentially damaging effects of unregulated trade in armaments, and

SEEKING to limit the potential for UN states' complicity in acts of barbarity facilitated by the trade;

DEFINES 'armaments', for the purpose of this resolution, as military weapons of any variety, related matériel and equipment, spare parts, components, and the means of delivery of such weapons to their targets.

FORBIDS the export of armaments under the following conditions:

1) If there is a clear risk that the proposed export might be used for internal repression within the receiving nation;

2) If exports will provoke or prolong internal conflicts or aggravate existing tensions in the nation of final destination;

3) If there is a clear and substantial risk that the intended recipient will use the proposed export aggressively against another country or to acquire new territory by force of arms;

4) If the receiving nation has a record of support or encouragement of terrorism, or has a bad track record on compliance with its international legal commitments, or has a bad track record on its commitment to non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and other areas of arms control and disarmament, or

5) If there is a clear risk that exported goods might be diverted or transferred to an aggressor nation or terrorist organisation.

STRONGLY DISCOURAGES the export of armaments if the proposed export will seriously hamper the sustainable development of the recipient nation.

In the title, "Exports" is changed to "Export". The proposal seeks to place restrictions on the activity, not the material.

In NOTING, added "potential". Unregulated trade in arms does not necessarily have damaging effects, but the potential is there.

In DEFINES, removed the mention of radiological dispersal devices. If these meet the test of a "military weapon", we see no need to single them out. Also added "for the purposes of this resolution". We think this is a good practice, as it avoids potential problems for writers of later proposals.

We might mention to the author that we would still prefer to see the final provision (STRONGLY ENCOURAGES....) deleted. However, now that it is not a mandate, we can accept it. Our nation will simply ignore it, as we will not get into the business of making judgments about other nations' economies.

We hope these suggestions will be found useful.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Ahhh...a few months can do wonders in politics. Alex Klaus (OOC: Joint Speaker of Congress) has informed me that Congress now fully supports this proposal. Seems like they elected a few pacifists last cycle.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

Ambassador Olembe, I truly am beholden to you! I aim to adopt your amendments in full.

Ambassador Lopez, this is good news indeed.

Now, I consider that this is a proposal of Significant strength - would you agree?

Now, I consider that this is a proposal of Significant strength - would you agree?
Yes, especially given the precedent of Resolution #57.

The proposal 'Arms Export Code of Conduct' has been submitted. I do not anticipate it reching quorum on this submission; consider it a 'dry run' to assess the level of support amongst the wider UN community.

Link (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=conduct)

Benedictions,

* ooc: Three days later and the proposal reaches the front page of the queue. 28 approvals is... moderate, I suppose. Maybe I need a snappier title. *

Some ideas for catchy titles:

Prevent International Arms Terror
Responsible Arms Export Act
Reduce Global Arms Proliferation
Don't Mind Him, He's Armless
Ethical Arms Trading Restrictions
Protection of Dolphins Act II

(For the last one, you'd have to add a rider banning arms exports if there was a serious risk of their being used to harm creatures that are cute, cuddly and beloved of children everywhere, but it would probably make it more likely to pass.)

http://209.85.48.12/6802/45/emo/happy175%5B1%5D.gif

I must confess that the potential for unregulated arms trading to harm creatures that are cute, cuddly and beloved of children everywhere was not one of my principal concerns while drafting this document, however, I now see the error of my ways.

Perhaps a further rider banning jaywalking may also be of value?

* ooc: Last I saw (about 15 hours before removal from the queue), this had 32 approvals. Looks like some work will be needed to get this to quorum. *

Friends, this proposal has been resubmitted in what may, I fear, be regarded as a fit of whimsy. I would be most grateful for any support delegates care to offer.

Benedictions,

Ambassador Euphobes likes it a lot and has given it his support.

You are most kind, Ambassador. Many thanks!

The Beloved President for Life of The Democratic Republic of Excruciatia carefully considers the possible effects of the proposal...

While at first the goals of the proposal seem to be the antithesis of those of the Excruciatian Revolution, it could in fact aid The Revolution by vastly decreasing competition for Excruciatian arms industries, with the proceeds going back into supporting Revolutionary activities everywhere.

BPL-DRE grins as he thinks back to the few months before the victory of The Revolution in Dystopiacia. Excruciatia was supplying both the Government and the Rebels there, letting them blow each other and the country apart themselves, until it got to the stage where only one Division of Policarmy was needed to gain control of the country.

BPL-DRE stops his reminiscing and says "What a great idea, of course we will support it..." ;)

The proposal currently has the support of 32 delegates and will hopefully be on the front page of the proposal list for its final day before deletion. Fingers crossed, fellow delegates!

Benedictions

Love and esterel support the text of this proposal, good job.

If you allow me, I would like to let you know some facts and tips about proposals who reach the UN floor.

-This may seem sad, but I think that the last proposal which reached the UN floor whitout a telegramming campaign was long ago (if that even happen in first place). How much telegram is needed may depend, speaking for my experience: my first campaigns were too large (800), now I send 250-300 of them.

-to reduce this number you can keep a list of delegates who approved it for its previous submition, they will be the most likely delegates to approve it once again. After that you can use the list of proposal in queue, or the list in the vote page.

-I donno what time you submitted your proposal, but the hour of the day of the submition is really important. The best time is after the reboot which take place around 9AM GMT, but this is not fixed, so one have to check the reboot
had indeed been made (by watching carefully that the proposal on 1st page had been deleted). I even recommand to you wait 20 minutes after that, to be secure, as it happen I get some surprise.

-for the telegram text, I suppose Omygodtheykilledkenny is the best writter in this particular exercice. Mine have nothing special, nothing original, but I will post it as an example among others:


Greetings New Cultural Revolution of Dashanzi,

Please forgive me to disturb you; we would like to inform you that we have submitted the following proposal:

“Arms Exports Code of Conduct”

This proposal does this / try to do this / aim is to do this ... in 2-3-4 lines.

We hope you will look at it and approve it, if you agree with it.
nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=Export (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=Export)
Let us know about your thoughts.
Dashanzi

NB: Love and esterel support your proposal but would like to express publicly our desaprobation about your regional name "Anticapitalist Alliance", as love and esterel is a capitalist nation, by pragmatism. Furthermore we would like to express also our regret that some nations have to refer to this tragic episode of our history which is the Chinese cultural revolution in a nation title.
We feel really uneasy about that and many people in love and esterel are shocked by such things.

ps: by the way a character is missing in your title:
Arms Export Code of Conduct

Many thanks for your support and advice but not for the following:

NB: Love and esterel support your proposal but would like to express publicly our desaprobation about your regional name "Anticapitalist Alliance", as love and esterel is a capitalist nation, by pragmatism. Furthermore we would like to express also our regret that some nations have to refer to this tragic episode of our history which is the Chinese cultural revolution in a nation title.
We feel really uneasy about that and many people in love and esterel are shocked by such things.
Your disapproval of anti-capitalism has been noted and disregarded, with some confusion, as irrelevant.

As for the rest: you are shocked and uneasy about the Old Cultural Revolution? I do not mean to be brusque, but your hand-wringing is of little consequence to those of us who lived through that dark time.

* ooc: Dashanzi is a post-Maoist nation, a breakaway state from China. The 'New' Cultural Revolution refers to a revolution overthrowing the old system and creating a democratic, liberal society devoted to the arts. A true cultural revolution, if you like. It's also a moderately capitalist nation; regional affiliation is merely a matter of convenience. *

It seems my assumptions concerning time left for approvals were erroneous and, regrettably, I failed to obtain a list of approving delegates. This will be resubmitted, though when I am unsure.

Benedictions,

Bump.

I must admit I have a few concerns:

1) If there is a clear risk that the proposed export might be used for internal repression within the receiving nation;
Internal repression is too loose a term, in my honest opinion. It could include armaments for riot police, armed police or military patrols in area's of high crime or where terrorism is rampant.

2) If exports will provoke or prolong internal conflicts or aggravate existing tensions in the nation of final destination;
Sometimes it better to prolong a conflict, if by shortening it you give the baddies an advantage...

3) If there is a clear and substantial risk that the intended recipient will use the proposed export aggressively against another country or to acquire new territory by force of arms;
Even if you use the weapons to agressively attack an agressive nation?

OoC: One could class the British Empire as an aggressive nation during WWII (as Germany proposed peace and no part of it had been invaded when it declared war), yet this resolution, had it been in place, would have illegalised the lend lease programme that was a major help to the UK

4) If the receiving nation has a record of support or encouragement of terrorism, or has a bad track record on compliance with its international legal commitments, or has a bad track record on its commitment to non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and other areas of arms control and disarmament, or
No problem here

5) If there is a clear risk that exported goods might be diverted or transferred to an aggressor nation or terrorist organisation.
Apart from the problem of the term agressor nation, I have no problem here...

We find ourselves slightly bemused as to what Arms Exports this proposal intends to permit, since recipients are not supposed to use such arms for internal repression or external warfare. Unless one subscribes to the notion that the mere possession of arms acts as a deterrent to potential invaders, which we don't particularly but we understand and accept that others do, or the more likely case that we have missed something, we don't understand what the Arms Trade is expected to have left in terms of international sales.

Internal repression is too loose a term, in my honest opinion. It could include armaments for riot police, armed police or military patrols in area's of high crime or where terrorism is rampant.
Point taken, Sir Cyril, though I am not fully swayed. Perhaps 'oppression' would be a more appropriate term?

Sometimes it better to prolong a conflict, if by shortening it you give the baddies an advantage...
This seems a very dangerous justification for further endangering the lives of civilians.

Even if you use the weapons to agressively attack an agressive nation?

OoC: One could class the British Empire as an aggressive nation during WWII (as Germany proposed peace and no part of it had been invaded when it declared war), yet this resolution, had it been in place, would have illegalised the lend lease programme that was a major help to the UK
* ooc: OK, here I'm stumped. Suggestions? *

Many thanks for your time, Sir.

We find ourselves slightly bemused as to what Arms Exports this proposal intends to permit, since recipients are not supposed to use such arms for internal repression or external warfare. Unless one subscribes to the notion that the mere possession of arms acts as a deterrent to potential invaders, which we don't particularly but we understand and accept that others do, or the more likely case that we have missed something, we don't understand what the Arms Trade is expected to have left in terms of international sales.
Not a great deal, with any luck.

Flippancy aside, Your Highness, the arms industry will still - thankfully - be of assistance in defensive capacities; after all, there are many non-UN nations out there.

Benedictions,

This seems a very dangerous justification for further endangering the lives of civilians.[OOC: Well, look at it this way: the Coalition in 2003 was so bent on staging a quick and easy victory over Saddam that they rushed to Baghdad and declared "major combat operations" over in a matter of weeks. But Iraqi civilians are no better off now than they were when the war started, now are they? Wouldn't, in hindsight, Bush's time in spring 2003 have been better spent further beating down and demoralizing the enemy and potential destablizing elements, rather than making victory laps and playing dress-up on the Lincoln? (I'm sure this example could easily be reframed in the "internal conflicts" context.)]

* ooc: Good point. Very good point. Damn you! More to ponder, it seems. *

* ooc: Time passes...

It would be nice to have a stab at this and I may have time to devote to a TG campaign in a week or so (I know, I know, I've said this before!), so are there any further comments? Cobdenia and OMGTKK raised very valid concerns above that I'd like to address, but I'm struggling.

Thanks *