Repeal "Landmine Safety Protocol"

Malashaan

Malashaan

TNPer
Repeal "Landmine Safety Protocol"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.
Category: Repeal
Resolution: GA#356
Proposed by: Malashaan Colony
Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #356: Landmine Safety Protocol (Category: International Security; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The General Assembly,

RECOGNIZING that landmines are indiscriminate and persistent tools of war that inherently threaten the long-term safety of civilians in and near conflicted areas as they may remain active long after the conflict has ceased.

BELIEVING, however, that this resolution includes flaws that necessitate repeal of the resolution to close loopholes that may be exploited by member nations not operating in good faith.

NOTING General Assembly Resolution #356 requires inclusion of only one of several listed features, and that use of these features in some combinations and circumstance could cause more harm than good.

HIGHLIGHTING the option to include a feature that would allow for, "A remote or pre-set timed detonation function in lieu of a victim-activated trigger." If implemented in bad faith or negligently, this option could cause severe damage to both the environment and local population.

FURTHER HIGHLIGHTING that member nations may also use landmines with technology that utilizes "a trigger function that reliably lends itself to selectively target hostiles instead of civilians, vehicles instead of personnel, [/u]or[/u] characteristics inherent to military hardware instead of civilian hardware." The use of the term or means that the capability of making only one such distinction is required for compliance. Consequently, the text does not require the trigger to distinguish between military and civilian vehicles, which still poses a significant risk to civilian populations. A mine that is detonated by any vehicle passing nearby would be compliant.

FURTHER NOTING General Assembly Resolution #356 places an obligation on member nations to remove or render inert all mines outside of their territory after hostilities, but provides no mechanism to guarantee the required access to do so. A well-meaning member nation could be required to invade another nation after hostilities have ceased in order to comply with the text of this resolution, which may renew the conflict.

ENCOURAGES the General Assembly to consider additional proposals addressing landmines that are not subject to the flaws of Generally Assembly Resolution #356.

HEREBY repeals "General Assembly Resolution #356: Landmine Safety Protocol"
Click to expand...

We discussed this a little already in Europeia and I'm pretty happy with it. I'm posting it here for additional feedback, and will also be posting on the NS forum shortly.
 
I find the term of "Landmine safety" to be possibly the ultimate oxymoron. Landmines are not supposed to be safe. Having safe landmines tends to undermine the purpose of landmines.
 
That too. "Landmine clearance protocol" or something would have been a better title, or "protecting civilians from unnecessary exposure to landmines." Not the most serious issue with the ordinance though ;)
 
I think the fact that a country cannot remove its mines after a war, due to reapportionment of land, is the most serious flaw in this resolution. Nobody can remove the mine if it is supposed to be removed by a group who cannot legally enter.
 
"The use of the term or means that the capability of making only one such distinction is required for compliance."

Is that "or" supposed to be in there?
 
quak1234:
"The use of the term or means that the capability of making only one such distinction is required for compliance."

Is that "or" supposed to be in there?
Click to expand...
yes, from the use of the term. It'd be best to put that word in quotations as to make sure people know.
 
fortunado:
quak1234:
"The use of the term or means that the capability of making only one such distinction is required for compliance."

Is that "or" supposed to be in there?
Click to expand...
yes, from the use of the term. It'd be best to put that word in quotations as to make sure people know.
Click to expand...
Oh, I get it!!! Yes, "" would be a good idea.
 
Y'might want to fix the coding for "vehicles instead of personnel, [/u]or[/u] characteristics inherent to military hardware instead of civilian hardware" (qtd. by Malashaan) as to actually underline the passage.
 
I'd hope that SP would revise the text of the target resolution and resubmit after resolving the issues in question. Additionally, the resolution currently at vote, in some ways, can help "replace" the target resolution in some ways, as that's focused more on the clearing/deactivating of mines after conflicts cease to promote overall health.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top