Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: February 5461
Next month in: 00:28:57
Server time: 23:31:02, March 28, 2024 CET
Currently online (1): reformist2024 | Record: 63 on 23:13:00, July 26, 2019 CET

We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.

Bill: CBW disarmament treaty: discussion

Details

Submitted by[?]: Cooperative Commonwealth Federation

Status[?]: defeated

Votes: This bill is a resolution. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.

Voting deadline: November 2096

Description[?]:

A treaty drafted by the Adam Smith Party:

Chemical and Biological Weapon disarmament Treaty

This treaty was drafted in September 2090 by the Adam Smith Party.

Status: ratification

Description

INTENT: This treaty commits the signatories to not develop, purchase or store chemical and or biological weapons.

DEFINITION: For the sake of clarity in this treaty a weapon is defined as substance, artifact, life form or other construction which is specifically designed to disable, incapacitate or kill human beings. Excluded from this ban are any anesthetics or other chemicals which have legitimate use in beneficial medical procedures.

Clause 1. Peaceful use of dangerous materials
Any chemical or biological product which could potentially be used as a weapon but has other non violent uses can be developed, purchased or stored under the condition that thiese procedures are fully documented and all documents and facilities are open to inspection on demand.

Clause 2. Inspection Request
Any signatory nation may request inspection of the activities of any other signatory nation at any time.

Clause 3. Inspection procedure
The request for inspection shall result in the selection of three inspecting nations. One chosen by the requester, one by the requestee, and a third that is agreed between the two. Both the requester and the requestee have the right to veto the nomination of the other party, but this veto must be seen as justifiable by the mutually agreed nation. (i.e. the requester nominates an ally in a war against the requestee could be justifiably vetoed)

Clause 4. Inspection results.
The results of any inspection shall be published for the whole world to see as an announcement in the Global Gazette.
Articles

The treaty consists of the following articles.

Article 1

This ratifiers acknowledge that with respect to:

The government's policy concerning biological and chemical weaponry.

The policy of their national government and law should be:

The nation shall never purchase, produce, or store biological or chemical weaponry, for military purposes. Research and development of the technology is permitted.

or

The nation shall never develop, purchase or store biological or chemical weaponry.

Article 2

This ratifiers acknowledge that with respect to:

The government's policy concerning the use of chemical and biological weaponry in warfare.

The policy of their national government and law should be:

The nation shall never use chemical or biological weaponry in warfare.

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date03:04:18, August 09, 2005 CET
FromCooperative Commonwealth Federation
ToDebating the CBW disarmament treaty: discussion
MessageThe Greens believe this is a strong draft by the ASP. We recommend that once ratification becomes possible, Lodamun ratify this treaty.

Date16:43:52, August 09, 2005 CET
FromAdam Smith Party
ToDebating the CBW disarmament treaty: discussion
MessageObviously we support the GA in this.

Date05:59:31, August 10, 2005 CET
FromCNT/AFL
ToDebating the CBW disarmament treaty: discussion
MessageLooks pretty solid.

Date00:54:48, August 16, 2005 CET
FromCooperative Commonwealth Federation
ToDebating the CBW disarmament treaty: discussion
Messageare we to become a rogue state?

Date06:50:47, August 16, 2005 CET
FromCooperative Commonwealth Federation
ToDebating the CBW disarmament treaty: discussion
Messagewe urge the LPC to allow this treaty to pass.

Date06:50:55, August 16, 2005 CET
FromCooperative Commonwealth Federation
ToDebating the CBW disarmament treaty: discussion
Messagewe urge the LPC to allow this treaty to pass.

Date11:07:58, August 16, 2005 CET
FromLodamun Centre-Left Coalition
ToDebating the CBW disarmament treaty: discussion
MessageThe <emphasis> PCL </emphasis> will stick to its pro-nuclear policy.

Date15:46:03, August 16, 2005 CET
FromAdam Smith Party
ToDebating the CBW disarmament treaty: discussion
MessagePerhaps if the GA provided some argument, rather than thin rhetoric we might get somewhere.

PCL - This has nothing to do with nuclear, ASP is pro nuclear. This is purely and simply referring to chemical and biological weapons. These do not act as deterrents, they are vulnerable to extremist misuse, they have limited or dubious military effectiveness, they will kill, cripple or maim civilians whilst having little effect on the military. Why would you want to develop these supposed weapons?

Date16:56:41, August 16, 2005 CET
FromCooperative Commonwealth Federation
ToDebating the CBW disarmament treaty: discussion
MessageApologies to the PCL on getting its name wrong. They are changing with dizzying speed these days. In fact, we're going to change our own name.

We can only second the comments of the ASP here: this has nothing to do with nuclear weapons. The text of the treaty speaks for itself, and offers us a more secure world free of chemical weapons. There is no good reason to oppose this treaty. We suppose that is why none of the opponents have offered a word against it in the several years it has spent in debate: there is no rational argument for opposing mutually verifiable chemical weapons disarmament.

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
     

Total Seats: 193

no
   

Total Seats: 257

abstain

    Total Seats: 0


    Random fact: Cabinet ministers who disagree seriously with the head of government would usually be expected to resign. Parties within the cabinet may attempt to manoeuvre to replace the head of government though, for example by proposing a new cabinet bill or voting for an early election.

    Random quote: "Public schools are government-established, politician- and bureaucrat-controlled, fully politicized, taxpayer-supported, authoritarian socialist institutions. In fact, the public-school system is one of the purest examples of socialism existing in America." - Thomas L. Johnson

    This page was generated with PHP
    Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
    Queries performed: 60