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: Land Mine Prohibition Treaty Discussion
Details
Submitted by[?]: Liberty Party
Status[?]: passed
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 2611
Description[?]:
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 03:39:46, July 24, 2008 CET |
From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Land Mine Prohibition Treaty Discussion | | Message | Well first off, where you say "section", those aren't actually sections. Sections are equivalent to articles, except that sections are mainly in domestic legislation and articles in treaties, and so the "sections" are in effect sub-articles. You ought to delete "section", e.g. "(1) Land mines shall be prohibited in all forms"
A treaty, or any piece of law in fact, does not need to announce its own name. Art 1 in its current form is completely unnecessary, and should perhaps be replaced by a purpose article, which incorporates the latter half of art 2(1), for instance:
Article 1: Purpose
In order to protect civilians from needless injury and death caused by the use of land mines, this treaty seeks to abolish the use of land mines wholly and under threat of sanction.
Art 2(1) can then be amended to:
"(1) The use of land mines shall be prohibited in all forms."
We believe only the use should come under this treaty. Having historical examples of land mines, or having them for research or something is not a matter that need be regulated by this treaty.
We feel that Art 2(2) should be reworded to cover land mines that are within the borders of a nation, regardless of who they were laid by. By the current wording, it would require historical tracking to determine who must remove a particular landmine. Thus: "(2) A nation shall remove any deployed land mines from within their borders."
Art 2(3) needs a full stop at the end. Nitpicking may be, but treaties need to be perfect.
Article 3 should be the "International Land Mine Commission", to be in line with the provision in art 2(3).
Art 3(1) should not include a reference to "member nations", as it begs the question. "(1) The International Land Mine Commission shall be made up of all ratifying nations, and shall meet annually to report on issues under this treaty."
Art 3(2) should be "monitor", not "investigate", as ultimately the power of disposing of land mines must rest with the nations. Thus: "(2) The International Land Mine Commission shall monitor the removal of all land mines and their safe destruction."
Art 3(3) should not just be limited to ratifying nations, but to all. "(3) The International Land Mine Commission may, on a two-thirds affirmative vote of all member nations, institute such sanctions as they see fit against such nations that continue the use of land mines."
There should also be an art 3(4), to deal with administrative issues "(4) The International Land Mine Commission, in voting on important issues, shall require a two-thirds majority to decide. On other issues, a one-half majority plus one shall be enough." Though the wording of this one isn't very nice really. |
| Date | 02:58:06, July 25, 2008 CET |
From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Land Mine Prohibition Treaty Discussion | | Message | Then that just goes to show that you know nothing of how politics occurs. If you did, you would know that some changes are necessary and some are not. I did changes that were necessary. |
| Date | 03:34:10, July 25, 2008 CET |
From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Land Mine Prohibition Treaty Discussion | | Message | I will change the second one but as to the first, that stays as I already stated and that you agreed to:
"Then replace "article" with "section", keeping in mind that it is non-standard."
All I did was flip them. Heck, in rulebooks that I have, it goes Rule/Section/Article. I modified it to section then article. |
| Date | 03:49:47, July 25, 2008 CET |
From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Land Mine Prohibition Treaty Discussion | | Message | We agreed to you replacing "article" with "section", not for the subsections to be named "articles", for that is wrong. We will vote against it if this is not corrected. There is no room in international law for wrongly drafted treaties. |
| Date | 03:54:18, July 25, 2008 CET |
From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Land Mine Prohibition Treaty Discussion | | Message | A subsection is not an article. Remember, you need our support for Tukarali to ratify this, and as long as your mistakenly refer to subsections as articles, we will not vote for it. |
| Date | 04:02:43, July 25, 2008 CET |
From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Land Mine Prohibition Treaty Discussion | | Message | Presumably the reason for drafting the treaty is so that Tukarali is bound, along with other nations. As long as we vote against it, the former won't happen.
Nevertheless, all it takes is a simple thing to appease us. Remove the word "article", or replace it with "subsection" if you really want something there. Either is preferable to the current, in that the current is wrong. |
subscribe to this discussion -
unsubscribeVoting
| Vote |
Seats |
| yes | Total Seats: 386 |
| no | Total Seats: 50 |
| abstain | Total Seats: 64 |
| Random fact: If you are likely to be logging in to Particracy with the same IP address as another player with an active account, please inform Moderation on the forum. Otherwise your account could be inactivated on suspicion of multi-accounting. |
| Random quote: We are in politics not because we hate our fellow man, but because we love him.
~ Anton Weinreich, General Secretary of the Dorvish Communist Part |