NationStates Jolt Archive

In repeal to UN resolution #40

Repeal "Banning the use of Landmines"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal
Resolution: #40
Proposed by: The Dark SithLord Exar

Description: UN Resolution #40: Banning the use of Landmines (Category: Global Disarmament; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: REPEAL UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #40
Banning the use of land mines.


Whereas it is fact that the irresponsible use of certain types of land mines can bring unfortunate consequences to communities far after the end of conflicts have ended.

Declaring that this bill does represent the indorsement of neither the indiscriminate use of persistent landmines nor a desire to encourage their use.

Emphasising that the current legislation prohibits the use of all land mines regardless of type. The existing legislation prohibits the use of all land mines including self-terminating varieties and limited lifespan area denial munitions that are far less likely to cause the problems of regular landmines after a conflict.

Stating that new forms of land mines and area denial munitions are capable of self-termination by remote or after a period of time. They offer commanders the ability to rapidly create defensive barriers against enemy troops and dissuade the enemy from attacking. They can easily be destroyed by remote after their usefulness has passed.

Stating that land mines of this type can be extremely useful deterrents and aids in defensive warfare. Considering that many states that are not members of this body are not bound by any restrictions and have shown that they are more than ready to wage offensive campaigns there is no reason this body should continue to restrict it’s members from the use of such efficient defensive tools.


This bill calls upon the United Nations to repeal resolution 40 so that it may be replaced by more specific restrictions.
-----------------------------
All UN delegates please approve!!!!!!

This is the exact same argument that was used in opposition to the original resolution. Nothing has changed since it was passed, and the counter-arguments remain the same:
1) "Safe" mines may fail to deactivate
2) Explosives do not become inert
3) The only way to discover a mine is not inert is when it goes off
Additionally, it has been demonstrated that IEDs are far more effective against tanks and troops than minefields ever were.

Shut up The Holy Ekaj Monarchy!

Shut up The Holy Ekaj Monarchy!

Totally uncalled for, Airgialla. Try reading posts without posting for a few days and figure out how things are done here. You won't last long with that sort of 'roleplay'.

Thank the Mods!!!!

Whereas it is fact that the irresponsible use of certain types of land mines can bring unfortunate consequences to communities far after the end of conflicts have ended.I'm failing to think of any types of landmines which do not bring consequences.Declaring that this bill does represent the indorsement of neither the indiscriminate use of persistent landmines nor a desire to encourage their use.Aside from the minor spelling issue, m'kay.Emphasising that the current legislation prohibits the use of all land mines regardless of type. The existing legislation prohibits the use of all land mines including self-terminating varieties and limited lifespan area denial munitions that are far less likely to cause the problems of regular landmines after a conflict.Less likely does not mean infallable. 1 civilian death from an unused land mine is 1 too many.Stating that land mines of this type can be extremely useful deterrents and aids in defensive warfare. Considering that many states that are not members of this body are not bound by any restrictions and have shown that they are more than ready to wage offensive campaigns there is no reason this body should continue to restrict it’s members from the use of such efficient defensive tools.Just because other nations might not have such ideals does not mean we should compromise the UN's ideals.This bill calls upon the United Nations to repeal resolution 40 so that it may be replaced by more specific restrictions.Opposed.

I'm failing to think of any types of landmines which do not bring consequences.

Of course, they all have consequences -- usually blowing the hell out of an enemy. But you missed the word "unfortunate" there. Nice try.

Aside from the minor spelling issue, m'kay.

How generous of you. :rolleyes:

Less likely does not mean infallable. 1 civilian death from an unused land mine is 1 too many.

No weapon is infallible. Weapons are only as infallible as those employing them, and no one is infallible -- not even me (as much as I hate to admit that).

Just because other nations might not have such ideals does not mean we should compromise the UN's ideals.

We have ideals?

Opposed.

For completely ignorant reasons. Congratulations.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

We have ideals?Well....I'm imaging there is a consensus out there who feel in generally the same way on certain matters, and share the same ideals on certain levels.For completely ignorant reasons. Congratulations.For example, I imagine there is a general vague consensus that we were all new once, and most would not appreciate being bashed by the resident troll.

Firstly, without wishing to seem like a busy-body, is there any chance we could, you know, just be stoic about insults. I mean, getting annoyed is fine, but it's excessive to call Cluichistan the resident troll, he just has a way with words sometimes.

Anyway the proposal. Now Daverana has already covered the main counter-arguments of the Republic to this proposal, but there is one clause here giving me concern.

Stating that land mines of this type can be extremely useful deterrents and aids in defensive warfare. Considering that many states that are not members of this body are not bound by any restrictions and have shown that they are more than ready to wage offensive campaigns there is no reason this body should continue to restrict it’s members from the use of such efficient defensive tools.

Now I'm fully aware that it is the case that non-UN nations may conduct themselves in a manner illegal for UN nations. Yet this is not a reason to tear up humanitarian laws. The better course surely would be to convince other nations to accept bilateral or multilateral treaties with UN nations to avoid using landmines or such munitions in future conflicts. Equally, the UN nations have a duty of solidarity with one another. Without our beacon of idealism (yes Cluich, I know we don't have fixed ideals technically, but allow me the rhetorical point. Please?) what incentive is there for other nations to act in a civilised fashion during conflict? Very little indeed.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Firstly, without wishing to seem like a busy-body, is there any chance we could, you know, just be stoic about insults. I mean, getting annoyed is fine, but it's excessive to call Cluichistan the resident troll, he just has a way with words sometimes.He can have a way with words all he ruddy well wants, just not in my direction!

OOC: Yeah, but flaks bound to come your way some time. And there are people who are far worse than Cluichistan can ever be....*

*Not that I'm trying to imply in any way that Cluichistan is bad.

Non-UN nations are not obliged to follow Wolfish, Civilian Rights Post War, Children in War, or any other article of human rights law.

The UN cannot have an army, and cannot conduct military operations on behalf of its members.

The UN has affirmed that its members have a right to self-defence.

Therefore, to prohibit its members from using what can be a useful deterrent - particularly in the capacity of an area-denial munition that shepherds troops away from heavily populated civilian sites - is unspeakably stupid.

He can have a way with words all he ruddy well wants, just not in my direction!

Au contraire, I can fling my words in any direction I please. Get used to it.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Non-UN nations are not obliged to follow Wolfish, Civilian Rights Post War, Children in War, or any other article of human rights law.

The UN cannot have an army, and cannot conduct military operations on behalf of its members.

The UN has affirmed that its members have a right to self-defence.

Therefore, to prohibit its members from using what can be a useful deterrent - particularly in the capacity of an area-denial munition that shepherds troops away from heavily populated civilian sites - is unspeakably stupid.


I coldn't agree more

UN Resolution #40: Banning the use of Landmines (Category: Global Disarmament; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.
Okay.


Whereas it is fact that the irresponsible use of certain types of land mines can bring unfortunate consequences to communities far after the end of conflicts have ended.
This is true, although "far after the end of conflicts have ended" is hilariously redundant.

Declaring that this bill does represent the indorsement of neither the indiscriminate use of persistent landmines nor a desire to encourage their use.
Uhhh, after reading that about 8 times in multiple languages I think you mean that you don't directly support usng landmines? Either way doesn't matter, your still trying to repeal the resolution banning them.

Emphasising that the current legislation prohibits the use of all land mines regardless of type. The existing legislation prohibits the use of all land mines including self-terminating varieties and limited lifespan area denial munitions that are far less likely to cause the problems of regular landmines after a conflict.
This is true, and an excellent point to raise, although again I'd tighten up the grammar to be more readable.

Stating that new forms of land mines and area denial munitions are capable of self-termination by remote or after a period of time. They offer commanders the ability to rapidly create defensive barriers against enemy troops and dissuade the enemy from attacking. They can easily be destroyed by remote after their usefulness has passed.
A little bit redundant, but again true.


Stating that land mines of this type can be extremely useful deterrents and aids in defensive warfare. Considering that many states that are not members of this body are not bound by any restrictions and have shown that they are more than ready to wage offensive campaigns there is no reason this body should continue to restrict it’s members from the use of such efficient defensive tools.

Okay, your whole, 3 article multi-paragraph argument for repealing this proposal can be summed up as "The origional resolution doesn't make concessions for self-detonating or remote-detonatable landmines". Beyond this you have no other argument and don't recommend a replacement proposal. This coupled with bad grammar (or just excessivley obtuse writing) make me opposed to this repeal.