NationStates Jolt Archive

Greetings,
A repeal is presently at vote:

Repeal "Ban Chemical Weapons"
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/65952/page=UN_delegate_votes

A proposal to replace the possibly-repealed resolution #107, has been posted on the forum:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=441936

Please advise us if:

1. Does #107 need to be repealed, or can the new proposal simply clarify it?

2. If the repeal of #107 is approved, would the new proposition be allowed to replace it, considering the provisions of:

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #110
United Nations Security Act
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=109

As the esteemed Kingdom of Listeneisse remarked on his post in the UN forum:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9573225&postcount=42

Thanks a lot for your advice

Since the representative of Love and esterel chose to post this here without my concurrence, I thought, as the author of the draft, that I should at least post my views.

As far as I am concerned, the draft proposal is in no way a "clarification" of Resolution #107. It was drafted and is intended as a replacement, should the current effort to repeal Resolution #107 succeed. I would not submit it for approval if the repeal fails, as I believe it would be illegal duplication.

I also believe that the draft proposal is not an illegal contravention of Resolution #110, in that it clearly states a position of the NSUN that chemical weapons are not necessary for national defense. I would respectfully cite Resolution #113 (the biological weapons ban) as precedent.

Thanks for considering these comments.

ok
sorry for my post, in the mod forum
it seems that Ausserland proposition is legal even if the repeal is voted

The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel is happy about it