NationStates Jolt Archive

Putting this here to get some help cleaning it up and refining it.

The United Nations;

RECOGNIZING the commendable intentions of UN Resolution # 113 "UN Biological Weapons Ban";

NOTING the excessive detail with definition which allows for egregious loopholes to occur, for example:
-it does not include non-contagious infectious agents such as anthrax
-it does include such things as the common cold and flu
-it would allow for the mass production of "bioweapons" that would have less than a 0.5% fatality rate and allow for widely dispersing it as a "vaccine";

Also NOTING that though UNR #113 hints at it, it makes no suggestions for defense against "bioweapons";

AWARE that the limitation of 250mg is arbitrary and unrealistic as different agents will have different critical masses for biohazard lethality;

APPALLED that the safeguards suggested by UNR # 113 would be crippling to medical research, especially in developing nations or in nations where there is a threat of bioweapon attack and they lack the technology for multi-tier quarantining;

CONCERNED that the immediate and complete destruction required by Article 3 would make forensic investigation to find the source of the "bioweapon" impossible;

DISTURBED that Article 5 is limited in scope to only military partnerships, excluding political, economic, religious and any other partnership with nations in possession of "bioweapons";

CONFUSED that Article 6 urges member nations to employ trade sanctions OR trade incentives as they see fit in regards to to nations in possession of "bioweapons";

HEREBY repeals UN Resolution #113 "UN Biological Weapons Ban".

Tana Petrov
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

A grammatical error:
-it would allow for mass the production of "bioweapons"
Should be "it would allow for the mass production of "bioweapons".

Fixed. Anything else?

Fixed. Anything else?
I don't see anything right now. Still looking it over.

RECOGNIZING the good intentions of UN Resolution # 113 "UN Biological Weapons Ban";
I'd use something like "commendable" instead of good.
APPALLED that the safeguards suggested by UNR # 113 would...
I'd use something milder than appalled, maybe "alarmed".

I'd use something like "commendable" instead of good.

Commendable intentions? Sounds a bit odd to me. I'll put it in to see how it looks.

I'd use something milder than appalled, maybe "alarmed".

Hrm...is there a middle ground? If not, I'll most likely change it to "alarmed".

Commendable intentions? Sounds a bit odd to me. I'll put it in to see how it looks.
Doesn't have to be "commendable", I just meant something like that. Good doesn't sound very "resolutiony". Laudable?

Doesn't have to be "commendable", I just meant something like that. Good doesn't sound very "resolutiony". Laudable?


You are correct, sir. "Good" doesn't sound very "resolutiony". I took a better look at it. I'll stick with commendable for now until I can think of another word or how to rephrase the sentence.

Thank you.

A few comments:


-it does not include non-contagious infectious agents such as anthrax


I don't see this (on its own) as a valid reason for a repeal. A resolution can be passed specifically on anthrax and other agents without this one being repealed.


-it would allow for the mass production of "bioweapons that would have less than a 0.5% fatality rate and allow for widely dispersing it as a "vaccine";


I'm not too sure how you propose we get around that problem without ending up making vaccines effectively illegal.


ALSO NOTING that though UNR #113 hints at it, it makes no suggestions for defense against "bioweapons";


Again, that can be adressed in a new resolution without repealing this one.

The other points are fair enough, but I'm not convinced (yet) they outweigh the benefits of the resolution.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA


OOC: Here's a link (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=112) to the original.

I would like to thank the Representative from Ariddia for voicing her concerns. There has been some talk about removing that clause all together. I have to agree that such issues can be dealt with in a resolution of their own and that they are not sufficient enough reasons to repeal UNR# 113.

Tana Petrov
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

Edit: Draft edited.

When I saw the title I immediately thought "not supporting this" as a member of the UNDC and generally an anti-bioweapon guy. However after reading the resolution and your repeal, I'm agreeing with you.

I'm not too sure how you propose we get around that problem without ending up making vaccines effectively illegal.


Target intention of use instead of quantity. eg-allow gov'ts to use whatever substances for vaccinatory or research purposes only. How much they have is no longer relevant. What they are doing with it becomes the focus.

This clause has been edited back in.

NOTING the excessive detail with definition which allows for egregious loopholes to occur, for example:
-it does not include non-contagious infectious agents such as anthrax
-it does include such things as the common cold and flu
-it would allow for the mass production of "bioweapons" that would have less than a 0.5% fatality rate and allow for widely dispersing it as a "vaccine";

If there is nothing else, this will be submitted by the end of the weekend.

Tana Petrov
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

Target intention of use instead of quantity. eg-allow gov'ts to use whatever substances for vaccinatory or research purposes only. How much they have is no longer relevant. What they are doing with it becomes the focus.

Simple but good. Although it would be fairly easy to exploit as a loophole. "But we ARE trying to vaccinate all these nice people in that rebel province!"


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

ooc: I plan on submitting this early Monday morning (or early afternoon for the Brits :p)

IC (obviously)

This is the final draft.

The United Nations;

NOTING that UNR #113 includes such things as the common cold and flu, but does not include non-contagious infectious agents such as anthrax, which would allow for nations to exploit this oversight and develop biological weapons using such non-contagious infectious agents;

Also NOTING that though UNR #113 hints at it, it makes no suggestions for defense against "bio weapons";

AWARE that the limitation of 250mg is arbitrary and unrealistic as different agents will have different critical masses for bio hazard lethality;

APPALLED that the safeguards suggested by UNR # 113 could be crippling to medical research, especially in developing nations or in nations where there is a threat of bio weapon attack and they lack the technology or funding for multi-tier quarantining;

DISTURBED that Article 5 UNR # 113 would proscribe military partnerships with nations that possess too much of a "bioweapon agent" without regard to the use or purpose to which said agent is employed by that agent;

ENCOURAGING a better replacement;

HEREBY repeals UN Resolution #113 "UN Biological Weapons Ban".

ooc: I plan on submitting this early Monday morning (or early afternoon for the Brits :p)


OOC: I'd wait until today's update if I were you.

Oh, and thanks for putting that line of mine in your sig. :D

OOC: I'd wait until today's update if I were you.

OOC: I've changed my mind about submitting this.

Oh, and thanks for putting that line of mine in your sig. :D

No problem. I thought it was pretty funny! :D