NationStates Jolt Archive

International Arms Trade Act

A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.

Category: Global Disarmament | Strength: Significant(?) | Proposed by: probably, us

The World Assembly,

Considering the regulation of the previously uncontrolled international trade in arms a matter of extreme priority,

Aware of the necessity for strong prohibitions to prevent abusive use of arms:

Enacts the International Arms Trade Act.

Section I – Definitions

Article 1 § For the purposes of this Resolution, ‘international arms transfers (IATs)’ are defined as the trade or other transfer between two or more national jurisdictions of weaponry, related equipment, components, spare parts, delivery systems, or ammunition (‘arms’), or of funds expressly earmarked for the purposes of obtaining such arms.

Article 2 § For the purposes of this Resolution, definitions of key terms such as ‘terrorism’ and ‘torture’ shall follow agreed standards World Assembly law.

Section II – Authorisation of IATs

Article 3 § All IATs shall be authorised by all nations with jurisdiction over any part of the transfer, including import, export, transit, transhipment and brokering, and carried out in accordance with national laws and procedures reflecting obligations under international law, and with their expressed obligations under international law.

Article 4 § Nations shall take into account other factors before authorising an IAT, including the likely use of the arms, other involved nations’ records of compliance with international law, the recipient's human rights record, and the possibility of corruption and subversion.

Article 5 § Nations shall only permit authorised individuals or organizations to participate in IATs, subject to ongoing review of conformity to this Resolution. Nations shall immediately revoke the authorisation of individuals violating this Resolution.

Section III – Prohibited IATs

Article 6 § IATs shall not be authorised if it is likely that the arms will be diverted from their intended legal recipient or re-exported contrary to this Resolution.

Article 7 § IATs shall not be authorised if it is likely the arms will be used for:
- Breaches of World Assembly Resolutions;
- Violations of other international law, including treaties, embargoes or agreements to which one or more involved nations is party to;
- The provocation or prolongation of internal conflict;
- Acts of genocide, crimes against humanity, or violations of international human rights law;
- Acts likely to involve high civilian casualty levels;
- Torture, execution, or cruel and unusual punishment;
- Acts of political repression;
- Acts prejudicial to regional stability;
- Acts prejudicial to sustainable development;
- The commission or facilitation of terrorism;
- The commission of violent or organized crime;
- The commission of acts of corruption.

Section IV – Formation and Role of IATC

Article 8 § The International Arms Trade Commission (IATC) is established as an independent council to which all nations shall submit comprehensive national annual reports on all their IATs, including records of compliance with this Resolution.

Article 9 § The IATC is granted authority to:
- Oversee all IATs;
- Prohibit any IATs being conducted in contravention of this Resolution;
- Revoke the authorisation to engage in IATs of any individual or organization;
- Impound and destroy arms intended for use under Article 6 of this Resolution;
- Create and maintain a list of arms the international transfer of which is prohibited;
- Require arms embargoes against nations with habitually poor records of compliance with international law on human rights, arms control, disarmament, and the sponsorship of terrorism.
This is our first draft proposal for the new WA. It is, as should be apparent, based on the delegation of Dashanzi's old Arms Export Code of Conduct (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=495305), some elements of which we have lifted directly. We have obtained their explicit permission for this, although we will be contacting them again about crediting them should this reach the submission stage.

I appreciate that at 43 characters shy of the limit, this is quite a long proposal to read, but we would appreciate as many comments as possible as this is obviously a very important endeavour to get right.

I suspect the biggest question will be about Article 2. We didn't want to - or have room to - kick off the debates on defining such terms in this proposal, nor did we think it appropriate to; but we assume - and hope - that the WA will write legislation on such subjects, in which case we want that legislation's definitions to apply.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison, Department of WA Affairs
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

This looks like a pretty solid draft already! It is well organized, covers its self and is clear. I will certainly be supporting this when/if it comes to vote.

_________________
Fotar,
~King of the Narnian Kingdom of Fotar
~Vice-Chancellor of the Council of Narnia (http://www.nationstates.net/10639/page=display_region/region=the_council_of_narnia)

its interesting...... im a bit startled by article 7, specifically

- Acts likely to involve high civilian casualty levels;
- Torture, execution, or cruel and unusual punishment;
- Acts of political repression;
- Acts prejudicial to regional stability;
- Acts prejudicial to sustainable development;
and
- The commission of acts of corruption.

as always im a fan of how you have an omniscient committee to oversee this, so its foolproof, but these are giant areas weakly defined. would for example, any selling of arms to a government that oppresses be considdered illlegal because it helps 'acts of political repression'? execution is of course, one of those little words that, if noticed, might inflame opposition. and im simply confused by 'sustainable development' and how arms transfers would get in the way of it...... arms isnt listed as one of the areas under the scope according to the all powerful and accurate wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_development

perhaps even an elaboration to me alone would be useful......

as a non human i object to the phrase "human rights" used in article 9, clause 6. might i recomment replacing it with universal rights, or sentient rights?

on the other hand, i agree that it seems fairly polished, and well written. it is however, incredibly liberal and the political repression clause threatens decapodian security...... although im not sure that our weapons fall under the scope of weapons as described....... anyhoo, we could never support it, but like the way its written generally. except for 'human' rights.

The intention of the committee isn't to make it 'foolproof', nor is it to arbitrate over the application of definitions. As to those definitions, they are not 'weakly defined'; they are not defined at all. For those that obviously need definitions, it seems to make sense to go along with what international law recognises; and we're sure there will be proposals on torture and terrorism within the WA.
would for example, any selling of arms to a government that oppresses be considdered illlegal because it helps 'acts of political repression'?
Unless the IATC were to impose an arms embargo, not as an absolute, no. The only prohibit sales would be those where the arms were likely to be used for those purposes. Arms used for illegitimate purposes could still be transferred.

'[E]xecution' can inflame opposition all it wants. This proposal isn't trying to ban the death penalty; indeed, we'd be perfectly willing for the WA not to ban the death penalty. It simply restricts the trade in related weapons. You can still people, using your own weapons.

Arms transfers can of course inhibit sustainable development: a country mired in increasingly well-armed civil strife is unable to develop; a country that spends its money on unnecessary armaments instead of needed infrastructure is set on a bad course.
as a non human i object to the phrase "human rights" used in article 9, clause 6.
Given the World Assembly has an entire category called 'Human Rights', we fear that might just be something you're going to have to get used to. Assuming a 'Rights of Sentients' proposal were filed under that category, it would obviously apply here.

Finally, the idea that it threatens your security is a fairly broad statement, on which you might perhaps elaborate. We're very supportive of a nation's right to self-defence, the investment of the legitimate use of force in a national government, and in collective security, so we'd obviously hate to obviate any of those accidentally.

-- Samantha Benson

as a non human i object to the phrase "human rights" used in article 9, clause 6.
Given the World Assembly has an entire category called 'Human Rights', we fear that might just be something you're going to have to get used to. Assuming a 'Rights of Sentients' proposal were filed under that category, it would obviously apply here.

I too am non-human, but I did not have a problem with this because I knew how big of an issue this has been on the forums since the UN got scrapped. As a result, I fully expect some sort of "Rights of Sentients" act to be passed that would allow for the proper definition. All I am trying to say is using the word "human" is not a problem because it will be taken care of. I see no reason to bring down this proposal for something that will just be fixed anyways.

_________________
Fotar,
~King of the Narnian Kingdom of Fotar
~Vice-Chancellor of the Council of Narnia (http://www.nationstates.net/10639/page=display_region/region=the_council_of_narnia)

I see no reason to bring down this proposal for something that will just be fixed anyways.

there is far from a guarantee that it will be fixed(other proposals have failed before), and i hardly see the change of 'human' to 'universal' as bringing the proposal down.

The intention of the committee isn't to make it 'foolproof', nor is it to arbitrate over the application of definitions. As to those definitions, they are not 'weakly defined'; they are not defined at all. For those that obviously need definitions, it seems to make sense to go along with what international law recognises; and we're sure there will be proposals on torture and terrorism within the WA

perhaps i mispoke, i meant definining terms in article 7. having the IATC "Prohibit any IATs being conducted in contravention of this Resolution" and having Article 7 prohibit certain things, requires the committee define, for example, sustainable development and acts of political repression. please dont take the following as scarcasm: i love having comittees define things because they are omniscient and infallible.

Arms transfers can of course inhibit sustainable development: a country mired in increasingly well-armed civil strife is unable to develop; a country that spends its money on unnecessary armaments instead of needed infrastructure is set on a bad course.

wouldnt that be covered under "The provocation or prolongation of internal conflict;" and make the sustainable development clause redundant?

Unless the IATC were to impose an arms embargo, not as an absolute, no. The only prohibit sales would be those where the arms were likely to be used for those purposes. Arms used for illegitimate purposes could still be transferred.

how would you know they were used for political repression? the tank that guy stopped at tiannamen square http://static.flickr.com/45/127386010_a3d4e3ede1_o.jpg
could have been sold for legitimate purposes. but wait, here's the great part, you have an omniscient committee to oversee it! so we dont have to sit here and discuss semantics!

Finally, the idea that it threatens your security is a fairly broad statement, on which you might perhaps elaborate. We're very supportive of a nation's right to self-defence, the investment of the legitimate use of force in a national government, and in collective security, so we'd obviously hate to obviate any of those accidentally.

very well.

[ic:] We, the Decapodian Government take certain measures to ensure the safety and wellbeing of our populace. These actions do not allow much, what you call 'freedom.' Your clause against "Acts of political repression" could be detrimental to our government's stability and ability to stay in power, as, like all governments, at the very bottom we rely on weapons and coercion to sustain our power. That, and we have been involved in a strangely high number of wars, including squishing the squash of the squash planet, and invading earth and enslaving its populace in 3002 which probably would have violated most of the clauses of Article 7.

[ooc:]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Zoidberg#The_Decapodians
http://www.gotfuturama.com/Information/Encyc-159-Decapod_10/

The Republic of Havensky finds no fault with the resolution and it has our support. We will admit we were a bit cautious when we read the "A Resolution to slash world-wide military spending", but it seems that this resolution would not affect our military spending nor our trade with our allies.

I particularly like the fact that it prevents arms deals to those nations that promote regional instability. I personally despise Invader nations and anything that makes life a little more difficult for them is highly appreciated.

wouldnt that be covered under "The provocation or prolongation of internal conflict;" and make the sustainable development clause redundant?
Not necessarily (although my former example was a poor choice). But in the latter case, certainly not. A nation, at peace, but needing to develop its water system might instead buy an unnecessary extra arms system. That takes away funds from developing its water system. Such trades should not be effected.
how would you know they were used for political repression?
We don't; reasonable point. I've added 'the recipient's human rights record' to Article 4.

-- Samantha Benson

Not necessarily (although my former example was a poor choice). But in the latter case, certainly not. A nation, at peace, but needing to develop its water system might instead buy an unnecessary extra arms system. That takes away funds from developing its water system. Such trades should not be effected.

how would we know its unnecessary? doesnt it infringe greatly on national sovereignty to have a WA council saying if you need that system or not? what if they are forbidden to buy a system, and then a rebellion spreads because of the lack of millitary strength?

how would we know its unnecessary? doesnt it infringe greatly on national sovereignty to have a WA council saying if you need that system or not? what if they are forbidden to buy a system, and then a rebellion spreads because of the lack of millitary strength?
And what if they're fighting for their nation's very existence, perhaps against genocidal opponents?

The Popotan sees this as adequete except for one section of one clause:
- The provocation or prolongation of internal conflict;
We believe that once a conflict has been started a member state should have the right to send arms to a side it favors, especially if they hold the same ideals they do, so long as such would not violate any of the other rules.

The Volzgradien government will not support the passing of this resolution. Even though your attempts at slashing military spending are amiable, many nations (such as mine) have massive arms manufacturing businesses. Arms dealing and weapon trade are some of Volzgrad's best industries.

If you make the articles slightly more liberal, then maybe our nation will support it. Good day to you, and thank you for reading this.

Sincerely,
Vladimir Puchovski, International Affairs Minister

OOC: sorry if this post sounded really bad, this is my first time posting in the WA forums.

We believe that once a conflict has been started a member state should have the right to send arms to a side it favors, especially if they hold the same ideals they do, so long as such would not violate any of the other rules.

Actually, Tanular would agree with this position. We would never sell arms to an unarmed, peaceful group, but once they have attained arms somehow and are actively engaged in a fair war (generally in line with the RL Geneva's which will be covered by multiple resolutions here in the WA) we reserve the right to aid the side we support. This also prevents selling weapons to the government trying to put down any such rebellion, since they are 'prolonging the conflict' by not giving into the rebellion's demands. (OOC eg: If Quebec tried to fight its way apart from Canada, the US should be allowed to assist Canada in fighting the seperatists) Therefore, this clause causes us much trouble.