NationStates Jolt Archive

International Arms Trade Act

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights(?) | Strength: Significant(?) | Proposed by: 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.

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 § 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 3 § 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 4 § 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.

Article 5 § IATs shall not be authorised if there is probable cause that the arms will be diverted from their intended legal recipient or re-exported contrary to this Resolution.

Article 6 § IATs shall not be authorised if there is probable cause that the arms will be used for:
- Breaches of World Assembly Resolutions;
- The provocation 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 long-term 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.

Article 7 § 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 8 § 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 second attempt at this proposal. 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.

There are still a number of issues to be resolved with the draft, so all helpful comments are welcome. This is a proposal about the international arms trade; comments about domestic gun control policy will of course be ignored.

-- Samantha Benson
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

well i have to say respected ambassador,

the language used in this resolution is very impressive, you have impressed me greatly with your linguistic capabilities. and i would be quick to support this resolution. however i would need a link. are you undertaking a TG campaign?

Wachichi

No, I submitted it as a test run to see how many approvals it would get. It's not ready for vote and is still in the drafting stage.

Overall, the proposal is well-written. However, I do have some concerns. The first is trivial, regarding the category of this proposal. I believe that this proposal would fit better under Gun Control (tighten). It doesn't really protect any persons right, rather it regulates the movement of weapons.

The second is with Article 6. The restrictions I am concerned about are:

The provocation or prolongation of internal conflict
Acts of political repression

I question whether or not the World Assembly should have the authority to restrict trade in cases of civil wars or other conflicts involving states, and not independent terrorist organizations. Unless I am misunderstanding these restrictions, they can lead to governments being unable to protect themselves from upheaval, if they need to get weapons from other nations.

Another concern is with the authority of the proposed IATC (Article 8). What I'm mainly concerned about is the formation of any kind of database of weapons transfers. Certain transfers are matters of national and international security, and must be kept top secret. For instance, war by proxy. If Glen-Rhodes were to supply a nation of relatively low human rights with arms, in the goal of them warring with an enemy nation, would the IATC have the authority to oversee, prohibit, or keep documentation of these transfers?

Dr. Bradford Castro,
Ambassador to the World Assembly,
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Overall, the proposal is well-written. However, I do have some concerns. The first is trivial, regarding the category of this proposal. I believe that this proposal would fit better under Gun Control (tighten). It doesn't really protect any persons right, rather it regulates the movement of weapons.
I've got some concerns about the category too, but Gun Control is absolutely not the answer. I can't really think of a better answer than Human Rights, since Social Justice doesn't quite fit either.

The second is with Article 6. The restrictions I am concerned about are:

The provocation or prolongation of internal conflict
Acts of political repression

I question whether or not the World Assembly should have the authority to restrict trade in cases of civil wars or other conflicts involving states, and not independent terrorist organizations.
Apparently you missed this line in Article 6:

- The commission or facilitation of terrorism;


Another concern is with the authority of the proposed IATC (Article 8). What I'm mainly concerned about is the formation of any kind of database of weapons transfers. Certain transfers are matters of national and international security, and must be kept top secret. For instance, war by proxy. If Glen-Rhodes were to supply a nation of relatively low human rights with arms, in the goal of them warring with an enemy nation, would the IATC have the authority to oversee, prohibit, or keep documentation of these transfers?
I would certainly hope so. That's one bit of dirty washing that deserves to be hung out in public.

Apparently you missed this line in Article 6:
- The commission or facilitation of terrorism; I didn't miss it. I think you're misinterpreting my syntax. The "and not independent terrorist organizations" part is supposed to go with "or other conflicts involving states", meaning that I question whether or not the WA should have the authority of preventing arms deals in cases of state vs. state.

I would certainly hope so. That's one bit of dirty washing that deserves to be hung out in public.
While it certainly is questionable, war by proxy isn't (to my knowledge) banned by the World Assembly. So, would the IATC have the authority to document these sensitive trades? I would hope that we haven't gone so far as to disregard respect of national security.

Dr. Bradford Castro,
Ambassador to the World Assembly,
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

The Peoples of Sasquatchewain are willing to stand by this proposal. However, we feel the need to raise the following question:

One of the illegal IAT's is one which will assist political repression. Couldn't this be argued to prohibit arms trade with almost any form of fascist state, since the people are not allowed to represent themselves, but must bend to the whim of their leader (whether or not they agree with him)?

As well, regarding war by proxy: it could arguably be considered one of the only forms of offensive capabilities a small nation could have against a large one. Should this small nation have a large and capable arms industry but a lack of an efficient army (due to size and/or quality), war by proxy may be the only form of military maneuver available against another nation with a much larger or efficient army. An international database of arms trades would be a risk to national security for the small nation, since, if their arms trade the nation doing the fighting for them is exposed, then there is a good chance the enemy nation will attack the smaller nation.

Overall, the proposal is well-written. However, I do have some concerns. The first is trivial, regarding the category of this proposal. I believe that this proposal would fit better under Gun Control (tighten). It doesn't really protect any persons right, rather it regulates the movement of weapons.
Duly noted. If it's ok with you, I'd like to return to the category discussion later, so as to concentrate on content for now. My preference is actually to hedge this into Global Disarmament, Mild/Significant; that's what it was originally classified as.
I question whether or not the World Assembly should have the authority to restrict trade in cases of civil wars or other conflicts involving states, and not independent terrorist organizations. Unless I am misunderstanding these restrictions, they can lead to governments being unable to protect themselves from upheaval, if they need to get weapons from other nations.
It's not clear to me how this would prevent a government defending itself against insurgents in the event of a civil war. That's not 'political repression'; it's national self-defence. That it's effected against an internal actor doesn't seem to change anything. So I'm inclined to keep the language, although if it helps 'political repression' could be defined a little.
Another concern is with the authority of the proposed IATC (Article 8). What I'm mainly concerned about is the formation of any kind of database of weapons transfers. Certain transfers are matters of national and international security, and must be kept top secret. For instance, war by proxy. If Glen-Rhodes were to supply a nation of relatively low human rights with arms, in the goal of them warring with an enemy nation, would the IATC have the authority to oversee, prohibit, or keep documentation of these transfers?
--also responding to Sasquatchewain's latter point--
The example you've used seems to be exactly the kind of situation this proposal is aimed at stopping: nations with relatively low human rights records that are armed in the short term tend to remain armed in the long term.

That said, the IATC isn't tasked to create such a database. Insofar as it's tasked to maintain records, these are to ensure compliance with the resolution. The aim isn't to create an international public record. It could be stipulated that information on arms transfers submitted to the IATC will be kept secret for a period of time? That might have the advantage of promoting greater honesty in reporting.
One of the illegal IAT's is one which will assist political repression. Couldn't this be argued to prohibit arms trade with almost any form of fascist state, since the people are not allowed to represent themselves, but must bend to the whim of their leader (whether or not they agree with him)?
Why 'him'? All strong leaders have to be men?

Ok, so I take your point, but I disagree with your interpretation. The only thing that is banned is selling arms that will be used for political repression. Political repression not effected through the use of arms is not a subject for this proposal. Authoritarian states could still continue their policies. So, for example, selling arms to a state that bans unions would not be illegal. Selling arms to a state so that its troops could shoot union members would be.

-- Samantha Benson

We have two questions so far Ms. Benson. Firstly why is the W.A. concerned with Bilateral or multilateral agreements between nations which it has no stake or involvement in ? And secondly if we ban the sale of weapons which are likely to be used to cause large scale civilian casualties aren't we really banning the sale of entire classes of weapon under almost all circumstances ? Please excuse us if our questions have been answered elsewhere.

Yours sincerely,

It's not clear to me how this would prevent a government defending itself against insurgents in the event of a civil war. That's not 'political repression'; it's national self-defence. That it's effected against an internal actor doesn't seem to change anything. So I'm inclined to keep the language, although if it helps 'political repression' could be defined a little. "Political repression" was not the bullet I was referring to, so I guess I should start being more clear in my commentary. The bullet I was referring to was "The provocation or prolongation of internal conflict". Internal conflict, under the obvious definition, is synonymous to civil war. The language used would, in effect, prevent any government from defending itself in a civil war, since you do not provide any protection for governments facing such problems. I would add an article or bullet addressing a nation's right to receive weapons from foreign sources, in the event that they are attacked by their people, and in cases of military usurping.
The example you've used seems to be exactly the kind of situation this proposal is aimed at stopping: nations with relatively low human rights records that are armed in the short term tend to remain armed in the long term.

That said, the IATC isn't tasked to create such a database. Insofar as it's tasked to maintain records, these are to ensure compliance with the resolution. The aim isn't to create an international public record. It could be stipulated that information on arms transfers submitted to the IATC will be kept secret for a period of time? That might have the advantage of promoting greater honesty in reporting.Is it even right for the World Assembly to be the Great Decider of what is right and what is wrong in a war? What concerns me is that this act is blanketed. There's no distinction between a nation fighting an enemy through allies, and a nation supplies weapons to, say, a military regime, so that they can keep their people subdued.

The contracts between nations should not be overseen by committees that have no stake in said contracts. It is not the World Assembly's job to play parent between nations. If a nation gives weapons to an ally with a poor history of human rights, then they know the risk that they are taking. It is their responsibility to get those weapons back, not our responsibility to prevent them from giving away the weapons in the first place.

I do support the tracking of weapons trade. However, this proposals doesn't respect a nation's national security privacy. I believe that an acceptable form of this proposal would track arms trade only between nations not actively engaged in conflict, and prevent arms trade between nations and independent terrorist organizations, or military regimes (in cases where a previous non-military government existed).

Dr. Bradford Castro,
Ambassador to the World Assembly,
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Is it even right for the World Assembly to be the Great Decider of what is right and what is wrong in a war? What concerns me is that this act is blanketed. There's no distinction between a nation fighting an enemy through allies, and a nation supplies weapons to, say, a military regime, so that they can keep their people subdued.

Provided the nations aren't supplying weaponry for the violation of human rights, many of which are enshrined under WA law and thus subject to the provisions in Article 6, there should be no problem. Supporting allies isn't fostering violence against citizens or supporting acts of terrorism. Selling arms to military dictators with poor human and civil rights records is.

The contracts between nations should not be overseen by committees that have no stake in said contracts. It is not the World Assembly's job to play parent between nations. If a nation gives weapons to an ally with a poor history of human rights, then they know the risk that they are taking. It is their responsibility to get those weapons back, not our responsibility to prevent them from giving away the weapons in the first place.

Arguing that an international organization that holds limited sovereignty over member-states should not act on human rights abuses or in some restrict warfare and harmful government actions is stupid. The World Assembly, and the UN before it, have always acted to support rights and peace. At this stage, it is by precedent that the WA is in the business of these things.

Those nations desiring zero oversight of their internal happenings should leave this assembly. It is the moral obligation of the international community to do everything in its power to prevent the spread of weapons to oppressive regimes and end war.

I do support the tracking of weapons trade. However, this proposals doesn't respect a nation's national security privacy. I believe that an acceptable form of this proposal would track arms trade only between nations not actively engaged in conflict, and prevent arms trade between nations and independent terrorist organizations, or military regimes (in cases where a previous non-military government existed).

I reject the concept that this assembly should simply allow warfare to continue without any oversight. Such a policy encourages misconduct, as those commissioning conflict have no cause to fear the consequences of their actions. Having oversight and the ability to cease arms sales encourages nations to seek diplomatic solutions- the threat of having your weaponry cut off is enough to make every general pause.

Nemo Taranton
Ambassador Plenipotens

Provided the nations aren't supplying weaponry for the violation of human rights, many of which are enshrined under WA law and thus subject to the provisions in Article 6, there should be no problem. Supporting allies isn't fostering violence against citizens or supporting acts of terrorism. Selling arms to military dictators with poor human and civil rights records is. ...Your correct. However, what about supporting allies who are in a civil war? The proposal makes no distinction between whether or not these countries have good or poor human rights, when prohibiting arms trade from occurring. It says, quite blatantly, that IATs are prohibited if they provoke or prolong any internal conflict. What of nations that do not have the supplies to quell a civil war, or to protect themselves from military regimes? Are they to inevitably lose because some act passed by an organization that has no stake in their nation says that their allies can't support them?

Also, I don't give a damn about whether or not a precedent was set. Precedents can be reversed. The World Assembly is not the World Government. It is not an all-encompassing executive, legislative, and judiciary body. If a nation goes to war with another nation, the World Assembly has no authority to dictate the war. We are a body of diplomats, not dictators. The World Assembly certainly does have a duty to protect and progress human rights, but the line is drawn at "restricting warfare and harmful government actions". Keep your hands off of Glen-Rhodes' law books, please.

Dr. Bradford Castro,
Ambassador to the World Assembly,
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

The example you've used seems to be exactly the kind of situation this proposal is aimed at stopping: nations with relatively low human rights records that are armed in the short term tend to remain armed in the long term.

What about small, liberally democratic, peaceful states that just so happen to have presidents who slept with the daughters of overly large and militaristic nations' dictators? How are they supposed to fight?

Why 'him'? All strong leaders have to be men?

No, not all of them. Just the good ones. :p

Now go back and study your herstory.

I am against this resolution. This resolution is masquarading itself as human right, but in fact, is only a distorted way of imposing trade barriers that will impede the free flow of goods and capitals between WA nations. The IATC will only acts as another WA regulatory body that will act to impede economic prosperity for all WA citizens..

Your correct. However, what about supporting allies who are in a civil war? The proposal makes no distinction between whether or not these countries have good or poor human rights, when prohibiting arms trade from occurring. It says, quite blatantly, that IATs are prohibited if they provoke or prolong any internal conflict. What of nations that do not have the supplies to quell a civil war, or to protect themselves from military regimes? Are they to inevitably lose because some act passed by an organization that has no stake in their nation says that their allies can't support them?

I don't see a problem prohibiting the provocation of internal conflict, but "prolongation" is definitely a problematic word. I also wonder at the example provided, where the state has insufficient resources to quell rebellion- where did the non-state actors recieve their support? If from non-WA nations, this act doesn't apply. If the non-state actors are receiving support from other WA nations- then those parties are subject to the law as well, and cannot receive support without "provoking internal conflict." The law makes no distinction between the state and non-state. Therefore, if the rebellious party can receive support only from non-WA states, which again renders this legislation moot.

I say renders it moot because it becomes impossible to enforce interactions between WA-states and non WA-states. Member-states can, theoretically, pass arms to independent puppet states, and then funnel them back to WA nations, outside the jurisdiction of the IATC.

Also, I don't give a damn about whether or not a precedent was set. Precedents can be reversed. The World Assembly is not the World Government. It is not an all-encompassing executive, legislative, and judiciary body. If a nation goes to war with another nation, the World Assembly has no authority to dictate the war. We are a body of diplomats, not dictators. The World Assembly certainly does have a duty to protect and progress human rights, but the line is drawn at "restricting warfare and harmful government actions". Keep your hands off of Glen-Rhodes' law books, please.

You're another in a long line of people who have argued the World Assembly has no legal right to interfere in the operations of the nation. Snefaldia's position, though we dislike such labels, is best described as "international confederalist," a weaker form of international federalism. Our philosophy is that the World Assembly can, and should, act as an international democratic government to unify member states, while allowing large degrees of sovereignty. If you look at WA and UN history, I think international confederalism is a term that best describes the political bent of the organization.

To us, this means limiting warfare and harmful government actions. I think most nations agree. Human rights are always violated by warfare and antidemocratic actions; to say the WA has a duty to safeguard human rights and progress while ignoring warfare is hypocrisy.

If you want Glen-Rhodes lawbooks to remain sacrosanct and free from international influence, leave.

Nemo Taranton
etc.

Duly noted. If it's ok with you, I'd like to return to the category discussion laterLikewise noted, but category is my primary concern, obviously.

At the risk of sounding like a pedantic ass, you've defined the arms trade, but not the arms specifically affected by this Proposal. I think the question of what sorts of arms you're looking to regulate would control what category this goes in.

Just something to think about during further drafting.

In my opinion, the category should be Advancement of Industry, Protective tariff. Since it will add regulations to the free trade. I know it is not really a tariff though but more regulation to free trade.

Advancement of Industry
A resolution to develop industry around the world.

This is a wide-ranging pro-business Category that more accurately reflects the power of corporations in Jennifer Government. Don't know why Max didn't give us more like this when he created the game. Guess he's an old softy.

Area of Effect
First choice is Environmental Deregulation. Rather than devoting the whole proposal category to reverse the effects of "Environment', we've chosen a middle ground of 'all business'.

Second, Labor Deregulation. This one is going to benefit corporations at the expense of the worker. Surprise!

Third, Protective Tariffs. This opposes international 'Free Trade' by adding protectionism for national industry.

Fourth, Tort Reform. Removes legal barriers from anti-corporate litigation, reducing government interference in business. Guess who takes the hit when industry wins?

I don't see a problem prohibiting the provocation of internal conflict, but "prolongation" is definitely a problematic word. I also wonder at the example provided, where the state has insufficient resources to quell rebellion- where did the non-state actors recieve their support? If from non-WA nations, this act doesn't apply. If the non-state actors are receiving support from other WA nations- then those parties are subject to the law as well, and cannot receive support without "provoking internal conflict." The law makes no distinction between the state and non-state. Therefore, if the rebellious party can receive support only from non-WA states, which again renders this legislation moot.

I say renders it moot because it becomes impossible to enforce interactions between WA-states and non WA-states. Member-states can, theoretically, pass arms to independent puppet states, and then funnel them back to WA nations, outside the jurisdiction of the IATC.I would suggest leaving the word prolongation out of the proposal. That way, the proposal prohibits arms trade for the purpose of a government oppressing its people, but allows it for the purpose of a government to protect itself if attacked by its people (people being anything from terrorist organization, military regimes, dissenters, etc).

You're another in a long line of people who have argued the World Assembly has no legal right to interfere in the operations of the nation. Snefaldia's position, though we dislike such labels, is best described as "international confederalist," a weaker form of international federalism. Our philosophy is that the World Assembly can, and should, act as an international democratic government to unify member states, while allowing large degrees of sovereignty. If you look at WA and UN history, I think international confederalism is a term that best describes the political bent of the organization.So I hear. I've been given this lecture before, though last time I was on your side. Call me "another in a long line", but last I heard, my line was longer than yours.

If you want Glen-Rhodes lawbooks to remain sacrosanct and free from international influence, leave. It always does end with these statements, doesn't it? "If you don't like my way of doing things, then go away". Well, Honored Ambassador, I'm free to challenge your way. I'm free to declare that the World Assembly has no authority to dictate any sovereign state's laws. What the World Assembly has the authority to do is to mandate international law. This legislation will be bogged down by this never-ending battle, so we might as well shake each other's hand and give up trying to change our minds.

Dr. Bradford Castro,
Ambassador to the World Assembly,
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Not to butt in, but removing the word 'prolongation' was actually a fix I'd considered myself, and would be happy to do so. Would that fix suit other people, too?
If a nation gives weapons to an ally with a poor history of human rights, then they know the risk that they are taking. It is their responsibility to get those weapons back, not our responsibility to prevent them from giving away the weapons in the first place.
They may know what they're getting into, but other nations may not. If you sell weapons to Nastybadstan, perhaps you do so in full knowledge of the risk, but the citizenry of Nastybadstan, or the people of neighbouring Quiveringwithfeartopia, do not. The only way to prevent such regimes obtaining arms is to check sales under all circumstances, not simply the politically convenient ones.
Firstly why is the W.A. concerned with Bilateral or multilateral agreements between nations which it has no stake or involvement in ?
The WA isn't about to get married to a beefy bartender with a fondness for the Pet Shop Girls, but it pushed the Freedom of Marriage Act onto its members. Not being slaughtered with an automatic weapon is almost as important a human right as being allowed to marry, in our view.
And secondly if we ban the sale of weapons which are likely to be used to cause large scale civilian casualties aren't we really banning the sale of entire classes of weapon under almost all circumstances ?
Not sure. But if it were the case, would that be a problem? The old UN passed laws completely banning the proliferation of several categories of weapons of mass destruction, and the WA is yet to do so.

-- Samantha Benson

It always does end with these statements, doesn't it? "If you don't like my way of doing things, then go away". Well, Honored Ambassador, I'm free to challenge your way. I'm free to declare that the World Assembly has no authority to dictate any sovereign state's laws. What the World Assembly has the authority to do is to mandate international law. This legislation will be bogged down by this never-ending battle, so we might as well shake each other's hand and give up trying to change our minds.

I didn't write the operating manual of the World Assembly, Mr. Ambassador. If it keeps being said it's because nations don't understand. We're both posturing philosophically, and since we've clashed before I agree we should end the silly bickering. A drink in the Stranger's Bar after we're done here.

In the larger scope, I want to be wary of how we couch anti-proliferation legislation language, especially when it comes to outlawing classes of weaponry and making purchase more difficult. Snefaldia in particular has a long history of private weapon ownership, and thus our laws allow for private citizens to own weaponry- indeed, most towns have municipal arsenals and all inhabitants are trained in their use. This stems from a cultural reason, which naturally isn't universal, but the question remains.

That having been said, I don't see this legislation as threatening such cultural rights and practices; the list of prohibited transactions covers well (with the exception of the prolongation clause) the situations which come to my mind where it is undesirable to have weapons funneled. For that reason I definitely echo the Gobbanean exhortation not to put this under "Gun Control."

Removing "prolongation" from that clause would definitely be a great improvement, and clear up the most glaring loophole.

N.T.
etc.

Not to butt in, but removing the word 'prolongation' was actually a fix I'd considered myself, and would be happy to do so. Would that fix suit other people, too?

They may know what they're getting into, but other nations may not. If you sell weapons to Nastybadstan, perhaps you do so in full knowledge of the risk, but the citizenry of Nastybadstan, or the people of neighbouring Quiveringwithfeartopia, do not. The only way to prevent such regimes obtaining arms is to check sales under all circumstances, not simply the politically convenient ones.

The WA isn't about to get married to a beefy bartender with a fondness for the Pet Shop Girls, but it pushed the Freedom of Marriage Act onto its members. Not being slaughtered with an automatic weapon is almost as important a human right as being allowed to marry, in our view.

Not sure. But if it were the case, would that be a problem? The old UN passed laws completely banning the proliferation of several categories of weapons of mass destruction, and the WA is yet to do so.

-- Samantha Benson


We have no problem with regulating the sale of weapons and preventing wars and in fact we wholeheartedly approve of it. What we are concerned about is why this organisation should be guaranteeing treaties it cannot be expected to know the validity or justice of.

As for the matter of banning certain kinds of weapons of mass destruction, we would be in favour of such action but we imagine that this should be done by laws which name these weapons specifically. But no matter, doubtless the honoured delegation of Quintessence of Dust knows what it is doing in this regard.


Yours e.t.c. ,

"Article 4 § 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."

I would suggest on article 4 that all people[voluntarily] should see every transaction made in IAT's so that there will be no conspiracy involve. But therefore there will be as you said authorised individuals or concerning bodies that acts as delegates to perform the trades.

thats all. good day.

p.s. i want a link to this proposals for approvement.

Removing the prolongation clause would definitely increase the chance of this proposal getting Glen-Rhodes' vote. However, we are still weary of the authority of the IATC. Earlier, it was offered that trade documents could be kept confidential for a certain period of time. This is an excellent offer. However, I beg the question of whether or not the "certain period of time" can extend to "indefinite". Glen-Rhodes isn't a warmongering military state, I can assure you. But, we do take part in weapons manufacturing, and trade those weapons with our allies. To put it bluntly, some of our constituents would not be happy with the details of some of these trades. I think we can all safely agree that it's best if some -- but, not all -- of these trades remain secret.

Dr. Bradford Castro,
Ambassador to the World Assembly,
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

To put it bluntly, some of our constituents would not be happy with the details of some of these trades. I think we can all safely agree that it's best if some -- but, not all -- of these trades remain secret.
Excuse me? You're making deals that you believe some of your people will find very questionable, and you're expecting the WA to co-operate in deceiving those people?

We are still concerned that this proscription- "- Violations of other international law, including treaties, embargoes or agreements to which one or more involved nations is party to" prevents states which have been aggressed by more powerful states and forced into disadvantageous treaties from seeking the means to undo such oppression.

Naturally arms proliferation will not always solve such situations and indeed in many cases will aggravate them, but without the ability on the part of the w.a. to investigate the details of these kinds of cases is it not unfair of the w.a. to make blanket proscriptions of what may actually be vital measures to prevent terrible injustices and misuse of power.

Yours e.t.c.,

We are still concerned that this proscription- "- Violations of other international law, including treaties, embargoes or agreements to which one or more involved nations is party to" prevents states which have been aggressed by more powerful states and forced into disadvantageous treaties from seeking the means to undo such oppression.

Naturally arms proliferation will not always solve such situations and indeed in many cases will aggravate them, but without the ability on the part of the w.a. to investigate the details of these kinds of cases is it not unfair of the w.a. to make blanket proscriptions of what may actually be vital measures to prevent terrible injustices and misuse of power.



Although the situation you suggest is certainly pertinent, I don't think it's best dealt with by this legislation. There will be problems associated with loopholes and legal traps, but that's the unfortunate nature of law. Such a situation; of unequal treaties forced on neighbour states, would be better handled by a resolution on treaties and sovereignty, not arms trade.

I echo Cery's objection. Sunshine is the best disinfectant; this assembly should be opening the drapes, not stapling them shut.

N.T.
etc.

Although the situation you suggest is certainly pertinent, I don't think it's best dealt with by this legislation. There will be problems associated with loopholes and legal traps, but that's the unfortunate nature of law. Such a situation; of unequal treaties forced on neighbour states, would be better handled by a resolution on treaties and sovereignty, not arms trade.

I echo Cery's objection. Sunshine is the best disinfectant; this assembly should be opening the drapes, not stapling them shut.

N.T.
etc.



Honoured Ambassador Taranton we are not seeking a legislative remedy to the problem of iniquitous treaties, we are concerned that this resolution gives such treaties protection in law. These treaties are made inviolate by arms in this resolution. All we are asking is a small change in wording to allow nations to obtain the means to free themselves from the exploitation of their aggressors.

Yours sincerely,

Excuse me? You're making deals that you believe some of your people will find very questionable, and you're expecting the WA to co-operate in deceiving those people?
We cannot please any constituency all the time, Ambassador. In the end, we do what benefits the nation most. If this includes trading new weapon technology to our allies, in return for investments in our economy, then so be it. You should not be so quick to judge that my Chancellor is some shady, corrupt individual, simply because he participates in things that voters may not understand or accept. He has the authority, vested in him by our founders and their constituents, to keep these deals classified.

We have no use for these weapons, and we'd rather not participate in conflicts when our allies are willing to do it for us, in return for an extended contract. There is nothing illegal about what we are doing, so don't paint Glen-Rhodes as some borderline dictatorship.

I am fully ready to accept this proposal, upon two changes: the removal of the prolongation clause (provocation is acceptable), and the assurance that nations have the right to keep certain documents indefinitely classified. Should these changes not be made, this resolution will be met with a repeal.

Dr. Bradford Castro,
Ambassador to the World Assembly,
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Honoured Ambassador Taranton we are not seeking a legislative remedy to the problem of iniquitous treaties, we are concerned that this resolution gives such treaties protection in law. These treaties are made inviolate by arms in this resolution. All we are asking is a small change in wording to allow nations to obtain the means to free themselves from the exploitation of their aggressors.


What sort of wording change do you suggest? I would suggest that the exemptions in section 6 provide a suitable escape clause for the end of such transations; a regional power using legal treaties to dominate smaller nations would likely be discounted by the IATC

We have no use for these weapons, and we'd rather not participate in conflicts when our allies are willing to do it for us, in return for an extended contract. There is nothing illegal about what we are doing, so don't paint Glen-Rhodes as some borderline dictatorship.

I am fully ready to accept this proposal, upon two changes: the removal of the prolongation clause (provocation is acceptable), and the assurance that nations have the right to keep certain documents indefinitely classified. Should these changes not be made, this resolution will be met with a repeal.

Rather than finding exceptions and outlining what the seemingly exalted government of Glen-Rhodes won't accept, perhaps it's time to put money to mouth and give this assembly a possible wording change that pleases you more?

It's rather undiplomatic to resort to threats, especially when you don't offer any wording to eliminate your major objection.

N.T.
etc.

Rather than finding exceptions and outlining what the seemingly exalted government of Glen-Rhodes won't accept, perhaps it's time to put money to mouth and give this assembly a possible wording change that pleases you more?

It's rather undiplomatic to resort to threats, especially when you don't offer any wording to eliminate your major objection.

N.T.
etc.
I've said it three times already. Remove the word prolongation and add a clause that protects a nation's right to keep a document indefinitely classified. I'm sure Ambassador Benson can write a clause, but if you insist:

Article 7 § 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. Such reports and records will be indefinitely classified, given that they are in compliance with this Resolution.

Dr. Bradford Castro,
Ambassador to the World Assembly,
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

What sort of wording change do you suggest? I would suggest that the exemptions in section 6 provide a suitable escape clause for the end of such transactions; a regional power using legal treaties to dominate smaller nations would likely be discounted by the IATC


N.T.
etc.


As it stands the wording would prevent the IATC from discounting such treaties in our opinion and we would challenge any decision which did discount them since the IATC would be ignoring its own field of reference and would be making decisions without legality. As it is the provisions of clause 6 would be made internally conflicting by continuing to contain this protection of treaties and embargoes.

Our suggestion is that since the rest of clause 6 more than adequately covers the possible situations in which arms trading might provide an excellerant to crisis or might impede the processes of peace that the part about contravention of international agreements not negotiated by the w.a. should be removed altogether and a competence given to the IATC to investigate where arms trading may be preventing the signing of peace accords and treaties and make decisions based on such on whether such trade is preventing a fair and just peace.

yours e.t.c. ,

You should not be so quick to judge that my Chancellor is some shady, corrupt individual, simply because he participates in things that voters may not understand or accept.
Oh, I don't consider him shady for that. It's concealing them afterwards because some voters may not understand or accept that makes him shady.

Oh, I don't consider him shady for that. It's concealing them afterwards because some voters may not understand or accept that makes him shady.
While I don't have the clearance to know the details of arms trade, I feel safe saying that many of the confidential records are of importance to national security. Our Constitution gives the Chancellor authority over all military operations, including the authority to conceal fragile information. Our Chancellor, and the Chancellors before him, have all had hard decisions to make. This has included the trading of arms with NGOs, friendlies, and not-so-friendlies, all in the goal of maintaining peace and prosperity in Glen-Rhodes. I like to think that we've succeeded in that. If it took some "shady" deals to get there, what's the problem? To my knowledge, no major damage has been done.

Revealing these sensitive documents could cause irreparable harm not only to Glen-Rhodes, but our allies and enemies, too. Wars will undoubtedly come to question. If the World Assembly's goal is to maintain a higher standard of human rights, then why is it that you want these documents to be released, when you fully understand the implication of such an action?

Dr. Bradford Castro,
Ambassador to the World Assembly,
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

OOC: I have to be away for a few days as I have my first research project to finish. This will probably mean I spend loads of time on NS putting it off, but in theory I shouldn't do so. So, I'll postpone updating the draft for a week, though you are free to comment in the interim.

When I return, I will probably make the following changes:
- strike 'Violations of other international law';
- strike 'prolongation';
- remove extraneous formatting;
- incorporate some system for IATC records to be held confidentially, though probably not indefinitely. I don't want to make that whole side of things too complex, though.

This note is included so that people don't assume I've abandoned the proposal (again), and isn't intended to be a point of debate. I'll have Ms. Benson give an IC justification for any edits when I return.

Now, away, to read about witch trials!

O.O.C. Good luck with the project, it sounds very interesting :)

I think you'll make Mongkha's day if you strike "violations e.t.c. "

U.

I'll be opposing this one should it come to vote. Nothing personal...its a nice resolution, but one of the primary industries of my fair nation is the arms trade. Somebody has to buy all the "Annies", IPAA produces.
Exceslior,
Senator Horatio Sulla

While I don't have the clearance to know the details of arms trade, I feel safe saying that many of the confidential records are of importance to national security.

If that had been the reason you gave when you brought this up, I'd have been only mildly cautious. It wasn't, however, so you'll have to excuse me if I'm a tad cynical about your motives hereafter.

I'll be opposing this one should it come to vote. Nothing personal...its a nice resolution, but one of the primary industries of my fair nation is the arms trade. Somebody has to buy all the "Annies", IPAA produces.
Exceslior,
Senator Horatio Sulla
OOC_ Please check your 'Diplomatic Corps' thread: Bears Armed has applied for permission to open an embassy, and its staff might do some 'shopping'...

Ms Benson is currently on leave, participating in the Winter Olympics. While everyone here at the WA Office wishes her the very best, work must go on. As such, I would like to renew discussion of this proposal. There is no great hurry - we seem to be the legislative tortoises of the WA after how long it took to get the slavery ban passed - but I would to solicit comments on how best to approach.

My feeling is that the whole system in this proposal is too cumbersome and needs to be overhauled. The key, I feel, is end-user specification: how can the WA best make sure that arms are traded only for the 'right' purposes?

The proposal has been edited slightly from the original draft presented three months ago.

-- Dr Lois Merrywether
WA Ambassador
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

Please forgive us, honoured Ambassador (oh and welcome by the way), if this has already been addressed, but the restriction on IATs which may be used for "Acts prejudicial to sustainable development" confuses us.

Presumably the conditions of conflict are innately prejudicial to sustainable development in almost all cases are they not ? Wouldn't this restriction prevent the trade of arms to any w.a. state which was involved in any serious conflict ?


Yours,

Yes, that is a problem that I feel Ms Benson rather overlooked in her zeal. My briefing notes tell me a delegation called "Ausserland" had a similar, very strong, objection to the proposal by Dashanzi on which this is based, leading to that proposal's language only 'urging' against such trades.

My feeling is that Article 6 is something of a wishlist, and it might be better separated into two halves: what we want, and what we can actually get. That is, certain of the conditions, such as 'crimes against humanity', should definitely remain mandatory; some of the others should perhaps only be included as conditions to be considered.

Though I do also feel the language on that particular point is sufficiently vague that it would be widely flouted anyway.

-- Dr Lois Merrywether
WA Ambassador
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

Yes, that is a problem that I feel Ms Benson rather overlooked in her zeal. My briefing notes tell me a delegation called "Ausserland" had a similar, very strong, objection to the proposal by Dashanzi on which this is based, leading to that proposal's language only 'urging' against such trades.

My feeling is that Article 6 is something of a wishlist, and it might be better separated into two halves: what we want, and what we can actually get. That is, certain of the conditions, such as 'crimes against humanity', should definitely remain mandatory; some of the others should perhaps only be included as conditions to be considered.

Though I do also feel the language on that particular point is sufficiently vague that it would be widely flouted anyway.

-- Dr Lois Merrywether
WA Ambassador
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria



Indeed the term "sustainable development" has an economic and ecological meaning with which we fail to see any connection to arms trading.

The vagueness would reccomend itself, to us anyway, to deletion and replacement with more useful language elsewhere where more complicated subjects may need greater clarification.

Yours,

Indeed the term "sustainable development" has an economic and ecological meaning with which we fail to see any connection to arms trading.
UXO or war residue is an impediment to economic development. While the effects of NBCR weaponry are obvious, even conventional weaponry leaves environmental damage, for example, metal poisoning of water sources. I do feel that irresponsible use of arms does not impair sustainable development: I simply feel that such situations might be unavoidable.

Of course, there is an additional concern: where arms are bought contrary to the interests of sustainable development. So, for example, a poor nation might buy military hardware it really does not need in order to appease a nation to which it ows loan debt or to bolster its regional position, instead of spending that money on agriculture or healthcare. Should such trades really be openly permitted by the World Assembly?

My nation recognises the need for even impoverished nations to arm themselves; I personally feel that it has an interest in promoting responsible trading practices, however.

-- Dr Merrywether
WA Ambassador

UXO or war residue is an impediment to economic development. While the effects of NBCR weaponry are obvious, even conventional weaponry leaves environmental damage, for example, metal poisoning of water sources. I do feel that irresponsible use of arms does not impair sustainable development: I simply feel that such situations might be unavoidable.

Of course, there is an additional concern: where arms are bought contrary to the interests of sustainable development. So, for example, a poor nation might buy military hardware it really does not need in order to appease a nation to which it ows loan debt or to bolster its regional position, instead of spending that money on agriculture or healthcare. Should such trades really be openly permitted by the World Assembly?

My nation recognises the need for even impoverished nations to arm themselves; I personally feel that it has an interest in promoting responsible trading practices, however.

-- Dr Merrywether
WA Ambassador



Well this rather begs the question, what is this resolution trying to achieve ? Is it directly a regulation of trade in a specific commodity, is it a wider ethics of trade statute, is it a law of war, is it an regulation of the environmental effects of war, or is it a combination of all or some of these ?

It would seem foolish to combine all of these aims but a sensible combination of some of them might be achievable.


Yours,

where did the non-state actors recieve their support? If from non-WA nations, this act doesn't apply. If the non-state actors are receiving support from other WA nations- then those parties are subject to the law as well, and cannot receive support without "provoking internal conflict." The law makes no distinction between the state and non-state. Therefore, if the rebellious party can receive support only from non-WA states, which again renders this legislation moot.

I say renders it moot because it becomes impossible to enforce interactions between WA-states and non WA-states. Member-states can, theoretically, pass arms to independent puppet states, and then funnel them back to WA nations, outside the jurisdiction of the IATC.
I am not taking this out of context, as this brings up a very valid point: the WA is not all-encompassing with NS. This also brings up two things: As pointed out, WA nations can circumvent the legislation by funnelling the weapons through non-WA puppets (which the transactions would not be recorded) to aid either side of a conflict, but also it leaves some nations in a very vulnerable positions where their allies don't have such puppets and be overtaken by rebels who have support from either non-WA states or puppets of WA states. It makes me wonder if this line of legislation should be pursued since it will not fulfil it's intention. It will not prevent genocide or repression, just force WA members to either go via a non-WA proxy or straight to a Non-WA nation for them

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

I am not taking this out of context, as this brings up a very valid point: the WA is not all-encompassing with NS. This also brings up two things: As pointed out, WA nations can circumvent the legislation by funnelling the weapons through non-WA puppets (which the transactions would not be recorded) to aid either side of a conflict, but also it leaves some nations in a very vulnerable positions where their allies don't have such puppets and be overtaken by rebels who have support from either non-WA states or puppets of WA states. It makes me wonder if this line of legislation should be pursued since it will not fulfil it's intention. It will not prevent genocide or repression, just force WA members to either go via a non-WA proxy or straight to a Non-WA nation for them

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

I agree 100% with the Ambassador here. And besides in an earlier post I read, unless you take the term "Trade" literally why would the nation ask for its weapons back?? Isnt that the point of an Ams Deal, Nation A sells to Nation B? If my nation sells it, we dont want it back!!! Nation B can not be guaranteed to not use the accqired arms in the bounds of the treaty. The gov't of Nation B would not be silly enough to state its intentions, and besides who cares if Nation A supplies or sells to "Bad" Nation B. As the Ambassador states, A will circumvent the treaty by selling to a 3rd party out of the WA or its juristiction, with intent to supply or manufacture for Nation B.

I agree with Glen-Rhodes also in the light of keep your hands off my law books and out of my nations dealings in trade of any kind at an international level.

I agree 100% with the Ambassador here. And besides in an earlier post I read, unless you take the term "Trade" literally why would the nation ask for its weapons back?? Isnt that the point of an Ams Deal, Nation A sells to Nation B? If my nation sells it, we dont want it back!!! Nation B can not be guaranteed to not use the accqired arms in the bounds of the treaty. The gov't of Nation B would not be silly enough to state its intentions, and besides who cares if Nation A supplies or sells to "Bad" Nation B. As the Ambassador states, A will circumvent the treaty by selling to a 3rd party out of the WA or its juristiction, with intent to supply or manufacture for Nation B.

I agree with Glen-Rhodes also in the light of keep your hands off my law books and out of my nations dealings in trade of any kind at an international level.

You bring up another good point here. While Nation A could sell weapons to Nation B under the proviso of self defence, once the transaction is made what Nation B does with those weapons is out of the hands of Nation A. This could either a) creating a gaping loophole where Nation A pleads ignorance as to Nation B's intentions and gets away with it, making this useless, or b) Innocent Nation A gets dragged over the coals for something they didnt have a hand in, crippiling intra-WA arms trading due to the fact Nations dont want to be held responsible for the actions of others that they had not intended.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

You bring up another good point here. While Nation A could sell weapons to Nation B under the proviso of self defence, once the transaction is made what Nation B does with those weapons is out of the hands of Nation A. This could either a) creating a gaping loophole where Nation A pleads ignorance as to Nation B's intentions and gets away with it, making this useless, or b) Innocent Nation A gets dragged over the coals for something they didnt have a hand in, crippiling intra-WA arms trading due to the fact Nations dont want to be held responsible for the actions of others that they had not intended.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

As the good Ambassador states, we are of the opinion that any arms deal would significantly reduce arms trades, marketing, manufacture of any sort of weapon amongst allies. I mean a butter knife can be considered a weapon. As I have stated earlier who cares, and besides we would need the creation of an Internatonal Police Force(like Interpol in RL) to make sure people were making deals on the level and we suggest the dropping of making nations submit records to a comission about what, how much, and to whom they sold to. Its not anyone else's buisness or productive to keeping the peace. All gov'ts fight shadow wars or wars in which the two nations fighting one gov't is backed by you and the other by your adversary but you dont want to get into an open war with the adversary so you supply one side and they the other.

OOC: RL examples any proxy war involving nations backed by the US and the former USSR: Korea, Vietnam, Afganistan(1980's), Iraq-Iran War, etc

I like the thoughts and sentiments of this piece of legislation submitted by the respectable QoD but we will be vehemently opposed unless significant changes are made in event it gets to submission/vote phase.

Is this legislation going anywhere or is it getting axed?

Is this legislation going anywhere or is it getting axed?
The experiences of your own resolution should have warned you of the dangers of rushing legislation. Most of my research staff seem to be skiving off watching the Winter Olympics, but the legislation has not been abandoned.

Why do you ask?

-- Dr Lois Merrywether
WA Ambassador

I think the authors are simply taking their time, honoured Ambassador.


Yours,

I understand that, I think it is a great proposal going in the right direction that I didnt want to see fall by the wayside.

In reply to QoD, because I oppose now doesnt mean on the way I wont change my mind :) We just thought it needed a few loopholes closed.

While we agree with much of this proposal, ultimately the Trilateral Federation will need to oppose it. Our defense industry is a major part of our national economy, and would be hindered by this legislation.

-Arjel Khazaran, Deputy Ambassador

I understand that, I think it is a great proposal going in the right direction that I didnt want to see fall by the wayside.

In reply to QoD, because I oppose now doesnt mean on the way I wont change my mind :) We just thought it needed a few loopholes closed.

There are a couple of big gaping loopholes that can not be closed, as stated previously by us, which render this proposal useless.

Not to knock QoD's very nice piece of legislation, one we probably would support if those loopholes are fixable, but because of them we can see some conflicts wont change, while others will become one-sided, possibly destroying a nation, because one sides allies wont have the necessary non-WA puppet regimes to filter weapons through.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

There are a couple of big gaping loopholes that can not be closed, as stated previously by us, which render this proposal useless.

Not to knock QoD's very nice piece of legislation, one we probably would support if those loopholes are fixable, but because of them we can see some conflicts wont change, while others will become one-sided, possibly destroying a nation, because one sides allies wont have the necessary non-WA puppet regimes to filter weapons through.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

I agree. Im anxious to see how QoD addresses the issues in which we brought forth earlier.