NationStates Jolt Archive

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #40

Banning the use of Landmines
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Abrizza

Description: All nations are advised that landmines are cruel and unnecessary devices to civilian populations of nations around the world. These weapons indiscriminately maim and kill civilian targets. When conflicts end, landmines pose a serious threat to farming and render large portions of land unuseable. The expense and difficulty of removing landmines after hostilities cease means that farmland and other areas might never be useful to populations for any enterprise. For this reason the immediate banning of the use of landmines in conflicts carried out by UN counties is called for.

Votes For: 14,603
Votes Against: 4,967

Implemented: Sat Dec 6 2003

...Er, yeah. It's too vague, it limits national soverginty, and it conflicts with a much, much better Resolution, etc. I have an propsal against it that I need help in crafting:

REPEAL AGAINST THE PROPSAL:

SUPPORTING the main intent behind the propsal writers of the Propsal to Ban Landmines (UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #40), which is to ensure the protection of civilian lives and farmland after that of war,

REALIZING that the prospal is too vague on how to stop the use of landmines,

EXPRESSES SORROW that the propsal is not written in a professional manner befitting of UN regulations,

ACKNOWLEDGES that there are non-UN nations that uses landmines and that if a member state gets attacked, the nation using the landmine has an advantage,

POINTS to UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #150 that regulates the use of landmines by presenting an effective method by which to "demine" an area after a conflict is over, thereby allowing for civilians to live in an area that has once been mined,

NOTES that since landmines can be removed with ease if member nations follow this UN Resolution, fears that civilian casualties after the war will continue seems quite unwarranted,

HEREBY repeals United Nations Resolution #40

REMINDS member nations that landmines are still very dangerous, and that they should be used as a last-restort in warfare and that they should request the help of the UNDS (UN Demining Survey) whenever possible after using landmines in a conflict.

EDIT: The UN resolution #150 is here, for you to look at.
http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=150

It's too vague, it limits national soverginty, and it conflicts with a much, much better Resolution

These are bad arguments not sufficient to require a repeal.

EXPRESSES SORROW that the propsal is not written in a professional manner befitting of UN regulations

In the Rules For UN Proposals :
"Also, Repealing on the grounds of an old Resolution violating the current rules is not sufficient. Many old Resolutions were in existence before this rule set (or the Enodian rules) were in effect; some were in effect before Moderators existed. On a more practical side, Repealing because a Resolution violates the rules is itself a MetaGaming violation: the laws do not "exist" from an In Character standpoint."

ACKNOWLEDGES that there are non-UN nations that uses landmines and that if a member state gets attacked, the nation using the landmine has an advantage,

This is true for all weapons and recently the UN took a resolution against Bio-weapons. In this case, it's not a problem because landmines are not "large-range" weapons so our countries can counter-attack with other arms.

POINTS to UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #150 that regulates the use of landmines by presenting an effective method by which to "demine" an area after a conflict is over, thereby allowing for civilians to live in an area that has once been mined,

That is a strange interpretation of the resolution #150. Resolution #150 do not at all regulate the use of landmines, it just proposes what we could name a "demining campaign".

NOTES that since landmines can be removed with ease if member nations follow this UN Resolution, fears that civilian casualties after the war will continue seems quite unwarranted,

Demining is very expensive because it's not easy at all so I don't see why UN Nations will use landmines to, afterward, be obliged to demine following resolution#150.

HEREBY repeals United Nations Resolution #40

REMINDS member nations that landmines are still very dangerous, and that they should be used as a last-restort in warfare and that they should request the help of the UNDS (UN Demining Survey) whenever possible after using landmines in a conflict.

The description of Resolution 40 is always true today. Your proposal reminds that landmines are still very dangerous and that if we use landmines we should demining. So I'm opposed to this repealing proposal.

UNR #150 was part of a campaign to repeal and replace UNR #40. While the repeal failed, the replacement was passed. That said, UNR #150 was permitted to be voted upon because it isn't, as you suggestion, conflicting or contradicting UNR #40 in any way

With that in mind, let us begin:

SUPPORTING the main intent behind the propsal writers of the Propsal to Ban Landmines (UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #40), which is to ensure the protection of civilian lives and farmland after that of war,

It's spelt "proposal", note the second "o". In fact, I recommend always drafting your proposals in MS Word or equivalent first so you can at least get rudimentary spell and grammar checking. Nothing beats the naked eye for editing, but they at least do wonders for helping you get a readable proposal

REALIZING that the prospal is too vague on how to stop the use of landmines,

Really? I would've thought this line was fairly clear:

the immediate banning of the use of landmines in conflicts carried out by UN counties

But hey, if telling our members that they can no longer use landmines is too vague....what do I know?

I note: UNR #40 does not say anything about what to do with the landmines already there. In fact, this is where UNR #150 truly comes into play - #150 deals with cleanup while #40 deals with utilization

EXPRESSES SORROW that the propsal is not written in a professional manner befitting of UN regulations,

Alone, this isn't an argument. Considering that this is a relic of an era where proposal quality standards were much different.....*shrugs* Cleaning up old garbage is useful, but this proposal actually does its job well enough for the time being

ACKNOWLEDGES that there are non-UN nations that uses landmines and that if a member state gets attacked, the nation using the landmine has an advantage,

How? Landmines are a defensive weapon, not an offensive weapon. This argument is a load of crap. Landmines are an excellent defensive tool and if you want to argue that it seriously hinders nations to have to invest in other forms of defensive measures, that's one thing. However, a nation attacking me doesn't mean I'm at a disadvantage because they have landmines and I don't. I'm at a disadvantage ONLY because I don't have landmines because then they can cross the border where ever they please. Sure, it might mean I can't follow them back across their border if and when I repel them without serious concern, but that's a different type of issue, completely.

POINTS to UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #150 that regulates the use of landmines by presenting an effective method by which to "demine" an area after a conflict is over, thereby allowing for civilians to live in an area that has once been mined,

It doesn't regulate landmines. It regulates demining. The two are not the same. While it provides a reasonable alternative solution to concerns about landmine usage, that is not the same as regulating landmines

NOTES that since landmines can be removed with ease if member nations follow this UN Resolution, fears that civilian casualties after the war will continue seems quite unwarranted,

Fine

HEREBY repeals United Nations Resolution #40

This really should be the end of your proposal

REMINDS member nations that landmines are still very dangerous, and that they should be used as a last-restort in warfare and that they should request the help of the UNDS (UN Demining Survey) whenever possible after using landmines in a conflict.

THIS is a violation of the rules for repeal (you can't encourage/make/whatever them do actions) and a violation of House of Cards (you can't encourages/make/whatever them utilize a tool from another resolution unless you are directly utilizing the tool....in which case, it can't be a repeal). If you stop this line at "warfare", both issues disappear.

Also, I recommend moving this up so that your proposal indicates its opposition to the use of landmines while still conducting the repeal.

Ah, sorry then for the resolution. I understand the points against it, and I think I may have to withdraw it.

I note: UNR #40 does not say anything about what to do with the landmines already there. In fact, this is where UNR #150 truly comes into play - #150 deals with cleanup while #40 deals with utilization

Okay.

It doesn't regulate landmines. It regulates demining. The two are not the same. While it provides a reasonable alternative solution to concerns about landmine usage, that is not the same as regulating landmines


There was a part of the resolution that would minize landmine casualties during war. They actually called for public maps so that everyone knows where the landmines are, so that no civilians would be able to cross the landmines...



How? Landmines are a defensive weapon, not an offensive weapon. This argument is a load of crap. Landmines are an excellent defensive tool and if you want to argue that it seriously hinders nations to have to invest in other forms of defensive measures, that's one thing. However, a nation attacking me doesn't mean I'm at a disadvantage because they have landmines and I don't. I'm at a disadvantage ONLY because I don't have landmines because then they can cross the border where ever they please. Sure, it might mean I can't follow them back across their border if and when I repel them without serious concern, but that's a different type of issue, completely.


This is what I meant, by defenses. If a non-UN nation invades a UN nation, then landmines would be required to defend the nation. Sorry for not making it clear...

Well, thanks anyway for advice. I guess this prospal doesn't exactly work...

How? Landmines are a defensive weapon, not an offensive weapon.

But suppose you came up with a horseshoe crab type of land mine. One that would uncover itself, sneak a little further into enemy territory and then bury itself into the sand every night. Now that could be quite offensive.

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c284/collier78/Florida2006006.jpg

Don't touch it. It might EXPLODE!

But suppose you came up with a horseshoe crab type of land mine. One that would uncover itself, sneak a little further into enemy territory and then bury itself into the sand every night. Now that could be quite offensive.

*image snipped to save Jolt*

Don't touch it. It might EXPLODE!

Hmmm... Inquisitor Serim, make a note... "horseshoe crab landmines."

Rang Erman
Advisor
Grand Admiral, Osmanan Fleet (retired)

I agree with forgottenlands that resolution # 40 is quite clear. And therefore we believe it shouldn't be repealled.

I agree with forgottenlands that resolution # 40 is quite clear. And therefore we believe it shouldn't be repealled.

Understand that my comment about it not being vague does not mean it doesn't need to be repealed. Whether it needs to be repealed or not is dependent upon whether its current value to the UN is one that either is insufficient or excessively oppressive for the topic at hand. Our government believes neither to be the case and thus do not support a repeal, but we do oppose poor arguments and poorly worded proposals.

It's either vague or it restricts national sovereignty, but it's difficult to imagine any concoction could do both. We're not quite sure which it is, but basically: if it's vague, then you can exploit the loopholes and all but ignore it, in which case a repeal is only likely to induce a more restrictive replacement. In our view it should be repealed anyway, but that would probably be as a statement more than anything.

You need to spend more of the repeal explaining how/why landmines are useful. The last time someone tried a repeal of this resolution, here where their are arguments:
The United Nations,

RECALLING the many resolutions in UN law forming a fundamental commitment to the protection of citizens' rights,

TAKING NOTE, especially, of Resolution #31, "Wolfish Convention on POW", Resolution #51, "Children in War", and Resolution #111, "Civilian Rights Post War",

REAFFIRMING the intent of these and other resolutions to protect both military and civilian personnel from undue abuse,

RECOGNISING that there exist many non-UN nations who may be hostile to UN member nations and to the UN, and who are not governed by the responsibilities of such resolutions,

LAMENTING that war between UN member nations and non-UN nations is inevitable, and concerned that in such cases non-UN parties will not be bound by international law on the treatment of soldiers and civilians, especially children, and on the use of torture,

ACKNOWLEDGING that the UN can do little to prevent such circumstances, and must allow its members to exercise to the fullest degree possible their ability to deter attack and invasion by non-UN nations,

UPHOLDING the sentiment of Resolution #110, "United Nations Security Act", that 'all member states have the right to construct and utilize any and all weapons that are necessary to defend their nation from attack',

OBSERVING the capacity of landmines to act as an effective deterrent to invading forces, and acknowledging the possibility that they could be used to prevent human rights abuses on the behalf of an occupying force not bound by UN law,

FURTHER NOTING that, in their capacity as 'area-denial munitions', landmines have the capability to divert hostile forces away from settled areas and the civilian populace, and thereby to actually limit civilian casualties,

EXPRESSING FAITH in Resolution #150, "UN Landmine Convention", in tackling the unfortunate potential of landmines to pose risk to civilians after the cessation of hostilities,

RESOLVING that member nations should not be denied the possibility of defending themselves and their citizens from unregulated attack through the responsible deployment of landmines:

REPEALS Resolution #40, "Banning the Use of Landmines".
Maybe they would be of some use in helping you think how to expand your argument.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

There was a part of the resolution that would minize landmine casualties during war. They actually called for public maps so that everyone knows where the landmines are, so that no civilians would be able to cross the landmines...
We note that clause 3 (the one in question) is recommended rather than mandated; in other words making such maps is optional.

Inasmuch as Resolution #40 only calls for an end to the use of landmines by "UN counties", and there are no geopolitical entities defined under that term (unless some nation has chosen it as a pre-title...), it's totally useless anyway...