NationStates Jolt Archive

I would like to take this issue to the WA sometime soon.

Nuclear Laws and Human Rights
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Category: Political Stability

RECOGNIZING that Nuclear waste is extremely toxic and pollutes the ecosystems of the entire planet, not just participating countries.

RECOGNIZING that any country may make decisions on their own involvement in nuclear armament.

PROPOSING that no country may test Nuclear weapons above ground or in the ocean.

PROPOSING that any and all Nuclear testing be done in underground facilities which may be searched at any given time by any WA delegate wishing to inspect another country's Nuclear facilities upon notice of at least 7 days time.

Category and strength?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

I would like to take this issue to the WA sometime soon.
PROPOSING that any and all Nuclear testing be done in underground facilities which may be searched at any given time by any WA delegate wishing to inspect another country's Nuclear facilities upon notice of at least 7 days time.


Why would I want to allow any number of the thousands of WA delegates to inspect my country's defence systems?

At the very least I think this right should be limited to some kind of WA nuclear inspections body, but not just any random delegate.

Not just anyone should be allowed into anyones country to inspect anything. Such a system as that would and could be dangerous for state secrets and the life and liberty of a nations people.

A proposal should be set that a nuclear body could inspect a countries nuclear arms and the such.

How the hell is this Political Stability?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

A good idea overall, but the category is clearly wrong. The way resolution is worded, I'd say it falls into "Environmental" category (since the resolution doesn't hinder nuclear research, only regulates it to prevent pollution, it cannot be classified as "Global Disarment").

Technically, it also doesn't do anything. There isn't a single binding clause.

Technically, it also doesn't do anything. There isn't a single binding clause.

That too.

If this proposal is ever made, that word "PROPOSING" should really be changed for someting more binding.

The most binding part of this proposal is the requirement to allow search. In order for this to be WA applicable, it would have to include or follow a development of a Nuclear Waste Inspection Corp of some kind, as opposed to allowing anyone from a WA nation search. Also, the time limit may be changed.

There's no search requirement in this document. The closest it gets is proposing that sites may be searched. That's very weak language. "Proposing" is not the same as "requiring".

"I propose that you give me all your money."

"I demand that you give me all your money."