WA General Assembly Vote: "Responsible Arms Trading"

[Myroria]

Responsible Arms Trading

Category: Global Disarmament

Strength: Mild

Proposed by: Sciongrad

Description: The General Assembly,

Reaffirming its commitment to 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 the 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 governments of the nations 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.

[bigbaldben]

I think this is the first one I've seen that I am strongly against, so I'll open my yap:

1) Certifying via "end user certificate" and "registration" or whatever is a bureaucratic nightmare.  The RIAA and software corporations couldn't do it with music and software.  It was too cumbersome...and they were in it for greed and money!  Even if you have a government filled with anti-weapon zealots, it still just becomes another government function of paperwork , misfiling and loopholes.  Which could even be ok if all that paperwork, misfiling and loopholes actually accomplishes something, which this act does not.

2) Terms are vague, ineffective and unenforceable.  "Really, WN, we had no reason to believe those arms that were sold to X would be sold to Y who would sell them to Z who would then sell them to Q."  The WN is really going to argue that the member nation "should have known better?"  This does nothing to stop WN member nations from selling to whomever they want to sell to.

This is a great example of WN politics being a drag on a nation and ultimately the world.  Added requirements, added government functions that would preclude exactly ZERO member nations from doing what they want to anyway.  In fact, the only governments that would be affected by this would be the governments who would follow this guidance with or without the act.  Except now they would follow it AND pay millions more to do what they were already going to do - control their arms sales.

So ends my first rant against the WN.  I will now drink a bottle of Angry Orchard cider and go play Minecraft.

[BaseballPlayer]

I think it invades to much into a nation's own affairs.  It leads to a dictatorship and ruins a nation's sovereignity.

[Delfos]

a dictatorship?