NationStates Jolt Archive

The nations of the World Assembly,

RECOGNIZING the dangers of landmines to civilians,

DISMAYED at the fact that The Landmine Convention does not take into account landmines which may be remotely deactivated after conflict has subsided,

YET FURTHER DISMAYED at the possibility of nations circumventing The Landmine Convention due to the lacking definitions it states by employing mines that they claim are not specifically for use against personell as anti-personell mines,

SEVERELY SHOCKED at The Landmine Convention limiting strategic and tactical liberties without taking all the facts into account,

ENDORSING the clearing of minefields after military conflict has subsided,

INTENDING to replace The Landmine Convention with more suitable legislation,

hereby repeals The Landmine Convention.

It is indeed a rather basic draft as of yet, but all trees come from seeds, eh? What comments do the esteemed ambassadors have?

Zenocolonies saw the passing of "the Landmine Convention" as a prelude to invasion and we have increased our space program and nuclear development. The peaceful people of Zenocolonies had only asked to be left alone and we were met with with threats and ridicule by the arrogant and warmongering Representatives of the WA.

Should the WA reconsider its expansionist attitude the People of Zenocolonies may be persuaded to scale back on our weapons production.

I'm a little baffled by the 'Further dismayed...' clause. A person wouldn't be heavy enough to activate an anti-tank mine. Could you give a concrete example of how the weapons you discuss could be used in this way?

Furthermore, why are we not banning all landmines, then repealing the first resolution? As your own draft makes clear, there'd be no fear of duplication or contradiction. So it'd make sense to first ban the other mines, then pass the repeal.

-- Dr Lois Merrywether
WA Ambassador
Author, "The Landmine Convention" and "You Want Me To Lick WHAT!?: My Life With George Madison"

OOC: Everyone will ignore this, but for the record, I strongly advise ignoring ZC's trolling.

Can we please put the brakes on this body's compulsion for repealing shit immediately after we pass it? Not even the repeal-happy UN had this many insta-repeals.

Also, do you know any other verbs besides "dismayed"?

Ambassador Merrywether, the Landmine Convention act defines landmines as "designed to cause injury or death to persons activating the device". While regular anti-vehicle mines would indeed usually not be set off by a person, one could design a mine to "cause injury or death to persons activating the device" but claim this not what they are designed to do, but they just so happen to do that too.

Because, after all, it's not the landmine creator's fault who randomly steps on his "anti-vehicle" mine, is it?

Well I recently returned (hey look, a verb!) to Nationstates and I just missed the passing of the Landmine Convention. Had it still been in voting I would have posted my arguments in the thread and attempt to not let it pass.

I would like to note that I am particularly fond of the term "dismayed", because it somewhat lower in rank than "shocked", yet higher in rank than "disgruntled".

Ambassador Merrywether, the Landmine Convention act defines landmines as "designed to cause injury or death to persons activating the device". While regular anti-vehicle mines would indeed usually not be set off by a person, one could design a mine to "cause injury or death to persons activating the device" but claim this not what they are designed to do, but they just so happen to do that too.

Because, after all, it's not the landmine creator's fault who randomly steps on his "anti-vehicle" .



This is not the entire definition, and to quote a portion of it is mendacious. The rest of the definition makes it perfectly clear what kinds of weapon are banned.

One could read any number of bizarre things in to a law if one only interpreted tiny portions of it in isolation.


Yours,

Ambassador from Urgench, I merely shortened the definition because I believe that portion to be irrelevant. "as explosive devices placed on or under the ground and designed to cause injury or death to persons activating the device by proximity or contact,"

I do not see how the "activating the device by proximity or contact" part that is added is relevant to the points I have made.

Very well honoured Ambassador, as you wish.


Yours,

Can we please put the brakes on this body's compulsion for repealing shit immediately after we pass it? Not even the repeal-happy UN had this many insta-repeals.

Also, do you know any other verbs besides "dismayed"?

Oh yeah! And tell that also to some other people... Right to Lawful Divorce! 6 Repeals attempts and counting! Most fun. Even had "passed with only 61%" as an argument... wonder what they would think of the WA Headquarters, with "only" 52%...

By the way, the funniest thing of all is that, all of a sudden, people forgot they wanted to repeal the Freedom of Marriage Act... If this diversion is an unintended consequence of the RtLD, I am most happy.

Even had "passed with only 61%" as an argument... wonder what they would think of the WA Headquarters, with "only" 52%...

That one they ignore percentages and claim it bad mouths the WA by telling the truth about its members.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

So if I recently joined the WA assembly would the kingdom of Minucular Bob have to destroy all landmines? Or does my goverment change based off new changes in legislation after I join.

IC: As a former member of the WA, i strongly suggest for the repealment of this resolution and to replace the current Landmine convention to another resolution which would be acceptable by all nations, i suggest that the resolution does not call for banning of the landmines, but to base the resolution on setting the safety standards of landmines, the procedures of de-minning, cleaning up land full of landmines and educating the citizens of the dangers of landmines. The former WA Delegations on behalf of the President, Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister announces re applying for the WA if the repeal is put to vote and if it passes, the FSSU will be returning back to the WA however untill in the mean time we will only observ the situation in the WA.

So if I recently joined the WA assembly would the kingdom of Minucular Bob have to destroy all landmines? Or does my goverment change based off new changes in legislation after I join.

From an out of character perspective, changes only take effect if they were passed while you are in the WA. From a role-playing perspective, they apply to you when you join and you must indeed eventually destroy all of your landmines.

OOC:
Desh
Actually every resolution passed previous to you joining the WA has influence on your stats after you join the WA.

OOC:
Desh
Actually every resolution passed previous to you joining the WA has influence on your stats after you join the WA.


O.O.C: Is that so? I was of the belief that it was a one-time occurence when the bill is passed. I seem to remember certain members leaving and then rejoining the World Assembly to not have their stats effected.

I'm a little baffled by the 'Further dismayed...' clause. A person wouldn't be heavy enough to activate an anti-tank mine.
OOC: Alas, the nation of
Autonomous CyberTanks (http://www.nationstates.net/autonomous_cybertanks) is no longer capable of posting in these forums... ;)
(Edit: linked...)

O.O.C: Is that so? I was of the belief that it was a one-time occurence when the bill is passed. I seem to remember certain members leaving and then rejoining the World Assembly to not have their stats effected.

O.O.C. Even if players did this in order to keep their stats inviolate, they would still have to r.p. their nation's compliance. The laws of an organisation are the laws of an organisation. So if you join ( or resign and rejoin ) you still have to abide, in r.p. terms anyway, by all laws of the w.a.

Yes, but I meant from a purely technical perspective.

Oh yeah! And tell that also to some other people... Right to Lawful Divorce! 6 Repeals attempts and counting! Most fun. Even had "passed with only 61%" as an argument... wonder what they would think of the WA Headquarters, with "only" 52%...
Only six? People must like it.

BTW, I've persuaded His Nibs not to go for a repeal unless there's some major ructions back home. Now that people are discovering the down-side of formally recognising that your given word is worthless, the divorce rate has plummeted to its lowest level for years.

IC: As a former member of the WA, i strongly suggest for the repealment of this resolution and to replace the current Landmine convention to another resolution which would be acceptable by all nations,
No such animal exists.

Look, as far as I can tell you haven't liked anything the WA has passed, which puts you in a minority of minorities, and your objections to everything have just been incoherent spluttering. Ever considered that it might be your attitude that needs readjusting?

As far as the repeal goes, it's pointless. If you want to ban all landmines, go ahead and try to ban them, just don't pretend this stops you.

--
Cerys Coch, Permanant Undersecretary to:

The point of the repeal is not to ban landmines, nor to legalise them.

I am of the belief that "The Landmine Convention" is flawed, and its loopholes allow for certain nations to "cheat", as it were. Surely the World Assembly wants laws that work?

The point of the repeal is not to ban landmines, nor to legalise them.

Say whaaaaaa?

- Richard York

The current law is flawed. It does not succeed at what it attempts to do.

My intention is to have the law repealed. Then a new one can be drafted, which either bans or legalises mines, but the main point is that the current law is struck from the books.

The current law is flawed. It does not succeed at what it attempts to do.

My intention is to have the law repealed. Then a new one can be drafted, which either bans or legalises mines, but the main point is that the current law is struck from the books.


The honoured Ambassador's casual attitude to replacing what is an excellent law which bans an deeply immoral weapon is chilling.

Does the honoured Ambassador actually care if another statute is drafted ? Or is this merely an exercise in placating the vanity of the delegation of Desh-Shrik which merely wants the gratification of feeling superior in acumen ?


Yours,

In all honesty ambassador, I am pro-landmines. I wish to repeal this otherwise fine legislation because I feel it has some flaws. I encourage a new, better law to be drafted which, because I am pro-landmines, I will oppose. Then we shall have a fair vote and if the bill succeeds we will have better legislation on the subject.

My motivations for this repeal are, if I would put a number to it, 80% because of it's flaws, and 20% because I am pro-landmines. (Though I am most certainly not in favour of killing civilians)

In all honesty ambassador, I am pro-landmines. I wish to repeal this otherwise fine legislation because I feel it has some flaws. I encourage a new, better law to be drafted which, because I am pro-landmines, I will oppose. Then we shall have a fair vote and if the bill succeeds we will have better legislation on the subject.

My motivations for this repeal are, if I would put a number to it, 80% because of it's flaws, and 20% because I am pro-landmines. (Though I am most certainly not in favour of killing civilians)






There has already been a fair vote honoured Ambassador, and the membership in its wisdom chose to ratify the current law on landmines.

So unless unfairness is characterised by whether or not a statute meets with your delegation's approval we still see no cause for this repeal.

There have been several resolutions which did not please our delegation which passed in to law, but we do not have so much self regard as to believe that just because we did not support these laws that they must therefore be repealed, especially since thousands voted for those laws and we are but one state.

Yours,

Indeed there has been a fair vote, but there is a reason we have a repeal system. I believe my repeal to be for a good reason, and so it is now my task to convince you to vote for me.

I do not believe the law must be repealed because I disagree with them, but because they are not proper legislation on the matter. (The content of the law is perfectly acceptable to us here in Desh-Shrik, if perhaps not favourable)

I would also like to note a portion of the World Assembly does not participate in these forums, and as such the only way to reach them and attempt to convince them is by proposal.

Indeed there has been a fair vote, but there is a reason we have a repeal system. I believe my repeal to be for a good reason, and so it is now my task to convince you to vote for me.

Indeed if the statute in question were grossly unjust, or very poorly written or in some way at variance with or superseded by other legislation we could see the point of a repeal. This looks like a repeal for the sake of a repeal, especially so soon after ratification.

I do not believe the law must be repealed because I disagree with them, but because they are not proper legislation on the matter. (The content of the law is perfectly acceptable to us here in Desh-Shrik, if perhaps not favourable)

So you do not disagree with the law, "The content of the law is "perfectly acceptable" to you, you are drafting nothing better to take its place and yet you still think that this repeal is anything other than worthless ?

I would also like to note a portion of the World Assembly does not participate in these forums, and as such the only way to reach them and attempt to convince them is by proposal.

They have already been reached and there opinion on the statute in question was made definitively obvious, they ratified it. Currently all you are suggesting is that the generality have not been exposed to the clearly ridiculous logic of the respected delegation of Desh-Shrik's repeal, one imagines that they will be as non-plussed as those delegations which have bothered to try to understand it.

Again what is your actual argument for this repeal, except that your delegation just feels like proposing it ?


Yours,

quick question: how many resolutions have been repealed?

quick question: how many resolutions have been repealed?

Five resolutions have been repealed, out of a total of forty including the repealed resolutions and the repeals themselves.

As regards the repeal before us, we think that the ambassador for Desh-Shrik needs to lay his reasoning out more clearly. There are two clauses in the repeal which raise issues with the proposal itself. The first is something we do not consider to be a problem, and which the drafting discussion and indeed much of the 'debate' on the floor deemed to be good and fair; the second is incoherent. It is clear that the honoured ambassador believes that something in the resolution is unfair, but it is not clear what that is.

I said I find the content of the law acceptable (i.e the banning of anti-personell landmines), but I do not find the law itself acceptable.

As to the first point, it's rather clear. There exists technology which disables mines by remote, and they are then rendered harmless. They could be dug up for re-use even, as a moneysaver. Assuming civilians do not wander into live minefields during a conflict, there would be no civilian casualties after the conflict and all would be well. This counteracts one of the main arguments of the Landmine Convention yet this technology is banned as well.

As for my second point: The law does not ban mines which kill people. Rather, it bans mines which are designed to kill people. Legally, proving what someone intended to do is difficult. If one claims it is designed for the purpose of destroying vehicles, then it is very difficult to prove it is not designed to do that, for it is your word against his.

Hence, anyone could design a mine with the intent of killing people. If they then claimed it was designed to destroy vehicles but people would also activate it as an unfortunate side-effect, they would not be banned by this law because while they kill people, this is not what they were supposedly designed for.

This is a loophole that nations may take advantage of. Any nation which wished to use anti-personell landmines could continue to do so, while more honest nations would be at a disadvantage. It would be like banning nuclear weapons, but with some countries still having nuclear weapons.

It's clear to me the World Assembly is against the killing of civilians by landmines. I hope to see this law replaced by legislation on the subject which closes this loophole and takes the remote technology I mentioned into account.

I said I find the content of the law acceptable (i.e the banning of anti-personell landmines), but I do not find the law itself acceptable.

A distinction which signifies little or nothing.

As to the first point, it's rather clear. There exists technology which disables mines by remote, and they are then rendered harmless. They could be dug up for re-use even, as a moneysaver. Assuming civilians do not wander into live minefields during a conflict, there would be no civilian casualties after the conflict and all would be well. This counteracts one of the main arguments of the Landmine Convention yet this technology is banned as well.

This is nonsense, our reading of the law suggest an entirely contrary situation. Remotely detonated mines or self deactivating mines are in effect pre-disposed of and therefore are not banned by this statute.

As for my second point: The law does not ban mines which kill people. Rather, it bans mines which are designed to kill people. Legally, proving what someone intended to do is difficult. If one claims it is designed for the purpose of destroying vehicles, then it is very difficult to prove it is not designed to do that, for it is your word against his.

Intent is absolutely crucial in law, the distinction between a mine which is intended to kill a person was purposeful , it provides that mines which are designed not to kill people which are designed to destroy things shall still be legal.



Hence, anyone could design a mine with the intent of killing people. If they then claimed it was designed to destroy vehicles but people would also activate it as an unfortunate side-effect, they would not be banned by this law because while they kill people, this is not what they were supposedly designed for.

This is specious. The design of such a mine would have to meet the criteria of not being intended to kill a person. The intent to destroy a thing would have to be self evident in the design of the mine for it to be illegal.



It's clear to me the World Assembly is against the killing of civilians by landmines. I hope to see this law replaced by legislation on the subject which closes this loophole and takes the remote technology I mentioned into account.

There is no loophole, only a faulty reading of the law which would lead those who believed in this loophole in to grave illegality were they to take advantage of it.

We are shocked at the honoured Ambassador for Desh-Shrik's vague hopes that another delegation will clear up the mess they are intent on making.


Yours,

On behalf of the Everlast Republic I the delegate of the Everlast republic feel this law Is lawful and is made for the better meant of everyone..

Your Truly, Delgate Mitchell Contrastan (Everlast republic)

The Landmine Convention in absolutely no way bans landmines which kill people.

Intent is difficult to prove if the subject is not cooperative, I'm sure you understand, ambassador. Our views on legal matters seem to differ here. I believe that the law is the law, and that such a thing would not be self-evident by design. Any explosive can be used to kill people. In my country, "self-evident" is not a solid legal concept. Just because something appears obvious doesn't mean it is so.

The Landmine Convention does ban landmines which may be remotely disabled. It defines landmines "as explosive devices placed on or under the ground and designed to cause injury or death to persons activating the device by proximity or contact,"

and then goes on to require members to "Dispose of all landmines within their present stocks as soon as is practicably possible, with due regard for safety, security, and environmental consequences; ''

and then requires members to:

"Immediately and permanently cease and desist the production, deployment, and transfer of landmines, including the rendering of technical assistance in their production or deployment; "

While remote disabling of landmines counts as a method of disposal, (if perhaps not entirely within the vague area of "due regard for environmental consequences") it also bans the new deployment of landmines, regardless of their ability to be disposed of.

I was not at all intending to leave another delegation to "clear up the mess". I would be willing to draft a new law if nobody else volunteers, as I believe the subject must not go unlegislated now that we have legislated upon it.

Have it your way honoured Ambassador. It is clear you are set on your course, it is useless for us to continue to attempt to dissuade you.


If your repeal is successful, and your delegation does take up the task of drafting a new ban, we will be ready to assist you.


Yours,