[GA] Responsible Arms Trading [Complete]

Separatist Peoples

Separatist Peoples

TNPer
Responsible Arms Trading

Category: Global Disarmament | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: Sciongrad​


The General Assembly,

Reaffirming its position of international peace and goodwill,

Recognizing the extreme hazard to national populations posed by the unregulated trade of weapons and armaments,

Hoping to limit the involvement of member nations and their citizens in violence made possible by the aforementioned unregulated trade of weapons and armaments,

1. Defines the term "armament" as military equipment, specifically weapons and ammunition, which possess a practical application in military conflict, including the parts necessary in their construction or production;

2. Defines the term "transfer" as the movement of an armament from one member nation, political subdivisions thereof, or non-state entities associated with a member nation to any other such entity, including non-member nations and non-state entities not associated with any nation;

3. Defines term "end-user certificate" as an affidavit completed by the buyer of armaments subject to the provisions of this resolution which verifies that said buyer is the final recipient of the product;

4. Assures member nations of the exclusive right to determine purely internal arms trading and firearm policy, excepting those regulations recognized by the terms of this resolution or extant international law, future regulations which seek to prevent firearms from being sold to or used by individuals that pose a danger of performing imminent lawless action, or future resolutions which seek to relax regulations on purchasing firearms for recreational reasons only;

5. Requires all manufacturers, exporters, and brokers of armaments within member nations to register with the relevant government(s) of the nation(s) in which they operate, and the terms of such a registration shall, at minimum, encompass the provisions of this resolution;

6. Mandates that the export of armaments by any manufacturer, exporter, or broker operating within a member nation shall make the sale of their armaments conditional on the completion of an end-user certificate by the buyer; member nations are strongly urged to implement systems of end-use monitoring to ensure that the end-user certificate is authentic, when possible;

7. Prohibits the sale or transfer of armaments if:
There is reason to suspect that they will be used in contravention of extant World Assembly legislation on human rights,
There is reason to suspect that they will be diverted from their originally intended recipient, or
There is reason to suspect they will be used to initiate, or aid the aggressor in, a war of conquest or expropriation;
8. Further prohibits the sale or transfer of armaments to non-member nations with the intent of then transferring them to nations where the aforementioned circumstances apply.
Click to expand...

For, Against, or Abstain.
 
Before I dig into the merits of the proposal, let me toss in the caveat that this is not yet at vote. However, the author, Sciongrad, is an accomplished GA Veteran who directly indicated to me that he was submitting this imminently. There is little chance for this failing to make quorum, so we may as well get an early vote in! If it fails, I'll pull this and try not to jump the gun so hard.

Ministry Determination
Vote Recommendation: For

The proposal itself has been in drafting for at least a year, and has been a hotbed of debate since its creation. The requirements are pretty simple: Thou Shalt Not Sell Guns To Bad People. The requirements are complex in letter, but astonishingly simple in practice: There shall be end-user certificates, that require that member states do not transfer these weapons to individuals who might use them illegally, according to WA law. It requires that we not sell weapons to entities that we have any reasonable suspicion of breaking international law or a part of a war of aggression.

Please note that these restrictions based on suspicion are based on that moment in time: If a nation decides to sell to another nation that is currently not pursuing or actively ramping up production for a war, they are free to sell to them, even if they later decide to change that policy without the seller's foreknowledge.

This does certainly put a bit of a strain on those nations with solid arms manufacturing industries, but it behooves me to point out that the number of currently-peaceful nations with legitimate and legal uses for such purchases outnumbers the tinpot war-orcs out there.

Finally, and what I consider to be most important, member states get a significant benefit from this passing: Clause 4 blocks any future attempts to impose more strict Gun Control laws via the World Assembly. This leaves the issue almost 100% up to individual nations to decide for themselves, a situation we can all agree is beneficial.

While it is theoretically possible for somebody to pass a GC law that Loosens the laws, the odds of this are exceedingly small, given the liberal slant to the forums. This means that, by passing Responsible Arms Trading, the WA is essentially protected from one of the greatest annoyances plaguing it since the creation of the Gun Control category.

In light of these arguments, especially the very last one, it is the determination of The North Pacific that a vote FOR Responsible Arms Trading is in the best interest of TNP and her citizens.
 
Separatist Peoples:
Clause 4 blocks any future attempts to impose more strict Gun Control laws via the World Assembly.
Click to expand...
What? Really? I'm not an expert in terms of the WA, but for one, I read it as an assurance that nations can still decide their own internal gun control unless a future resolution changes that, and for two, how would that even work? Is that even allowed under the GA rules, to block future resolutions? How would the mechanics work to prevent future gun control resolutions?
 
Darcania:
Separatist Peoples:
Clause 4 blocks any future attempts to impose more strict Gun Control laws via the World Assembly.
Click to expand...
What? Really? I'm not an expert in terms of the WA, but for one, I read it as an assurance that nations can still decide their own internal gun control unless a future resolution changes that, and for two, how would that even work? Is that even allowed under the GA rules, to block future resolutions? How would the mechanics work to prevent future gun control resolutions?
Click to expand...
I was more general then I needed to be, so I can understand your confusion.

Yes, one can block off parts of a category. The exceptions it allows are deliberate to avoid blocking off an entire category, but this one blocks off enough to be effective. It specifically states "except by extant WA Legislation", which only includes that which is already existing. So, any new resolution that doesn't fit the narrow exceptions would be illegal for duplication or contradiction, effectively making future international gun control impossible. This is ideal, because member states are allowed to make their own domestic policy, so everybody gets to handle it their own way.

It does, however, allow room for legislation on restricting or limiting firearms sales to individuals about to imminently commit a crime. So, unless it focuses on those individuals who are buying a gun so they can turn around and rob a convenience store, it blocks the potential for legislation.
 
Many apologies, everybody. Scion was kind enough to pop in and explain the issue, so I'll just keep this parked until such time as it makes it to vote...
 
Yes. And don't roll your eyes. Disagreeing with you doesn't make me an idiiot.
 
karrak:
Yes. And don't roll your eyes. Disagreeing with you doesn't make me an idiiot.
Click to expand...
To be fair, any attempt at international gun control will fail. Every time. There is a large coalition of influential players dedicated to ensuring exactly that. All this does in reality is make illegal those pathetic attempts to do so that plague the GA.

The fact of the matter is that domestic gun control law is not an international issue, and should never be the topic of the WA. So true is this statement that the moderators are currently looking at removing the topic entirely from use.
 
karrak:
Yes. And don't roll your eyes. Disagreeing with you doesn't make me an idiiot.
Click to expand...
I wasn't suggesting you were an idiot, and I apologize if you feel that I somehow conveyed that. I was just genuinely confused. It's just that resolutions dictating domestic gun policies are so wildly unpopular that even without a blocker, I can't imagine one would ever pass. As SP noted, the gun control category is so unpopular that (assuming more sweeping reforms don't occur) it may be removed altogether.
 
My NS persona is a naive idealist with no sense of Realpolitik. I have no experience with getting things done in the WA so I can only vote according to my convictions.
 
Voting on this resolution has ended.

Thanks to those nations who cast their votes. Your participation is a great help to the region.

This topic has been locked and sent to the Archives for safekeeping. If you would like this topic to be re-opened for further discussion, please contact the WA Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top