Nuclear Weapons Act
Nuclear Weapons Act
Authored by Commissioner JennaMarelle Johnson, Councillor Edward Firoux
Presented by Councillor Edward Firoux
An act for the purpose of phasing out the development, construction and transfer of nuclear weapons. This act does not prohibit the storage or use of nuclear weapons of existing member states, but shall prohibit the storage, acquisition of nuclear weapons of member states joining or re-joining the EU.
Section I: Definition
1. For the purposes of this Act, "Nuclear Weapons" are defined as:
"Harmful munitions or devices whose destructive potential derives from the release of energy that accompanies the splitting or combining of atomic nuclei."
Section II: General Obligations
I. Each member state shall refrain from the development, production, sale, or transfer of nuclear weapons.
II. Each member state shall freeze any and all nuclear weapon production and development, in any place under its jurisdiction or control, in accordance to the provisions in this Act.
III. Production facilities may be destroyed or re-purposed for any other legal use, at the discretion of the member state.
IV. The member state shall cease all construction of new nuclear weapons facilities located in any place under its jurisdiction or control, except facilities required for storage or destruction.
V. Member states shall allow inspection of their nuclear weapons production and development facilities, in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
VI. Member states may not join or re-join the European Union unless they have already decommissioned or destroyed all biological, chemical or nuclear weapons under their jurisdiction.
Section III: European Biological, Chemical and Nuclear Weapons Authority (EBCNWA)
I. An inspection agency known as the European Biological, Chemical and Nuclear Weapons Authority (EBCNWA), shall be established to monitor compliance of the Biological Weapons Act, the Chemical Weapons Act of 2006 and the Nuclear Weapons Act. The EBCNWA functions as an expansion of the European Biological and Chemical Weapons Authority and replaces it.
II. The European Biological, Chemical and Nuclear weapons Authority shall conduct inspections of Biological and Chemical weapon production, storage, and destruction facilities.
A. The European Biological, Chemical and Nuclear weapons Authority shall conduct inspections of Nuclear weapon production and development facilities.
B. The European Biological, Chemical and Nuclear weapons Authority shall conduct inspections of Nuclear weapon production, storage and destruction facilities of nations joining or re-joining the European Union.
IV. The European Biological, Chemical and Nuclear Weapons Authority shall set reasonable, standardized procedures for the safe decommission and destruction of chemical and biological weapons and applicable facilities.
V. The European Commissioner of Defense shall appoint a Director for the European Biological, Chemical and Nuclear Weapons Authority.
VI. The Director shall not be officially associated with, or represent, any state or government.
V. The European Biological, Chemical and Nuclear Weapons Authority shall determine whether a member state is in compliance with the provisions of this Act, the Biological Weapons Act and the Chemical Weapons Act of 2006.
Section IV: Non-Compliance
I. The director of the European Biological and Chemical Weapons Authority shall be responsible for bringing cases of non-compliance to the European Council or European Court of Justice, when applicable.
A. A member state deemed to be in Non-compliance may settle the claim in the European Council.
B. If no settlement can be reached, the director of the European Biological, Chemical and Nuclear Weapons Authority may take the claim to the European Court of Justice.
III. The European Court of Justice shall have original jurisdiction to try cases of non-compliance with the provisions of this Act.
Framptonia last edited by
An excellent piece of legislation if I may say so. I do wonder about the omission of a clause prohibiting the use of such weapons.
Mrs Lucinda Bareham
Naturally I would like to also prohibit the use of nuclear weapons, but I feel like this is a fair compromise that even most nuclear states should find agreeable.
The United Kingdom stands opposed to this. These things are a necessary check that bring us peace in the long run. If people are going to be "national sovereignty" about a bank, cannabis, and other acts, then we will also use national sovereignty as an argument against this. That is all of our national sovereignty will be at the whim of a certain other nation, and I think we can all figure out who I mean by this. It's ugly, but it is necessary for peace to not only have these but be able to slowly catch up.
Councillor for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland
I too oppose this Bill. In the first instance, it creates a sort of cartel of those countries that have nuclear weapons at the top - countries that have something that the rest of the region doesn't have and can't ever have. Secondly, nuclear weapons have a shelf life, and so in the very long run, this is in effect enforcing nuclear disarmament - in the meantime, however, it will prejudice things in favour of whoever's got the newest and the longest-lasting nuclear weapons. Rather than achieve its aims, this Bill will only serve to destabilise matters."
I understand if national sovereignty is an issue here. However, with nuclear weapons, it is also everyone's issue at the same time. The weapons are massively powerful, very dangerous and have the potential to devestate any of our nations. The fear of being completely blown up shouldn't be what holds this Union together. Peace should be maintained through cooperation with one's neighbour, not by holding a weapon to their head. I will not deny that nuclear weapons are a deterrent, but many, if not most nations - who don't have any nuclear weapons - have avoided war as it is with sheer diplomacy and cooperation. That is what I believe the European Union should stand together for.
Councillor Montfort, I do find your first comment interesting. A cartel of those countries that have nuclear weapons at the top, with countries that have something that the rest of the region doesn't have and can't ever have at the bottom already exists - it's called the ENAA. I would accept this argument if any nation in the EU could build nuclear weapons at their own whim or if fair licenses were given out - but many nations have been rejected to building their own weapons time and time again, while others have had restrictions placed on them, while others have unlimited amounts. As it stands, those with unlimited licenses and permanent seats on the ENAA have substantial control while the rest of us have to live in fear.
While this will restrict new nations of joining the ranks of the ENAA - which is hopeless endeavour as it is, because we all know that recent histoty shows that virtually no one has been able to attain a license - it will also circumvent the production of nuclear weapons of those who have the ability to build an unlimited stockpile. This is a net gain for the rest of us. I understand Angleter is worried because it has an unlimited licenses, and a massive stockpile with the ability to destroy most of the EU, but it is this power we are attempting to check. Like I said earlier, I believe that the Union should work through diplomacy and cooperation, not through nuclear deterrence. I can understand that Angleter might find this would create a sense of instability, but for many nations who have survived without nuclear weapons, our leaders can tell you that they have navigated peace and diplomacy just fine without threats of destroying millions of people. I reject the belief that nuclear weapons are the only thing stopping our respective nations if going to war. If that even were the case, it just shows that we haven't properly built bonds between our nations in the EU. The only way to de-escale tensions, bring normalcy to relations and come together without threatening to destroy each other is through cooperation and fairness. Nuclear weapons have clearly failed here.
I find my Inquistan counterpart too idealistic and lacking any pragmatic approach to international politics. There simply is too much danger for the United Kingdom to say yes to this.
The fact is that our region has not become more dangerous because these weapons exist. This region has become more dangerous because there is a "good old boys" network that excludes others and we need more inclusive policies all around.
I request an extension to the debate period from the Speaker in order to craft amendments.
Granted. Debate will be extended until 03:48 GMT, 4/06/15.
This legislation is nothing but progressive. It is no secret that Corelian councillors have stood time and time again in this chambered and argued that we need full nuclear disarmament to liberate ourselves from an unfounded and crafted reliance on Weapons of Mass Destruction. In its unacceptable to argue they are for safety when tell me when will you use them?! It is not naive to dream of a nuclear free future but more than we have progressed as society and this obsession with mutually assured destruction as a deterrent is in the way of progress. My nation took a stand and decided again nuclear armament and we happen to be perfectly safe. The risks are no longer about the threat of nuclear war because there isn't one. We need to tackle cyber terrorism for example and I hope we as a council can legislate against it.
The most enlightening thing for me in this debate is a discussion of cartel production of weapons or a cartel of owning them. This is not a business transaction. Are we now celebrating an arms trade of nuclear weapons?We now want free nuclear weapons for all do we, just for parity. Well here's an out of the box idea for equality ban all of them right now.
Now my predecessors in this chamber have always been vocal in opposition to WMDs, I have just continued this train as you have heard, but our ultimate compromise between the fanatical pro-nuke nations and the serene nation states without was the ENAA. Until disarmament is on the table this works.
As tot his bill it is further progress in the right direction and I can assure my learned friend of Os Corelia's total support.
Red Croatia last edited by
"For someone who is against a so-called 'good old boys' network, you and the other ENAA nations seem to have been encouraging it for quite a while, and I'm sure that your stance on this would be different if it didn't harm the interest of Angleter and the United Kingdom. I believe that my colleauge, Edward Firoux, knows what he's doing and approached this situation well, which is why I'm going to support this act on the behalf of Red Croatia. These weapons haven't made the region safer, considering that we've been doing just fine without them for all of these years, they just revealed what nations are running the region - or are at least attempting to. And the attempt to push national soverginity into something that can be used to deal damage to other nations is just desperate, showing how irrational your arguments are."
My colleague from Red Croatia simply doesn't understand the massive disparity in anyone's technology in comparison to a select few. These weapons have prevented quite a few conflicts as nations have had to actually think twice about their own foreign policy conduct. Without them, it will not encourage peace. It will encourage international Darwinism and Realpolitik dominance. There is at least now a chance that nations will listen.
If this were a complete ban and immediate disarmament of nuclear weapons, the United Kingdom would support it. Leaving us unable to produce any more weapons when there is a clear discrepancy of the amount between even the nations who have them.
Furthermore, I think there is a misunderstanding of the hegemony that has taken place over the last few years and how this could be an effective unchaining of that power.
Commissioner JennaMarelle Johnson has passed on a message to me and has told me that she currently plans on holding nuclear disarmament talks with the nuclear states following this bill, as she outlined in her plan when she took office. Nuclear disarmament is complicated and will require specific tailoring, so that is why we decided not to include it in the legislation. I personally think that is the right way to do it and it's best to do that out of the Council.
However, you have raised a point with the total ban. I believe the Framptonian Councillor brought this up earlier too. The Commissioner and I were under the idea that a total ban would scare countries such as the United Kingdom from discussing nuclear disarmament at the table, and so we decided that this would be more compromising to both sides. However, now that you have confirmed that the United Kingdom is open to the idea, and it seems like the country of Angleter is too, then I am happy to then propose the following amendments:
Section II; Article I
I. Each member state must refrain from:
A. The development, production, sale, or transfer of nuclear weapons.
B. The launch, deployment, or use of nuclear weapons for any purpose.
Section IV; Article IV
IV.? If a member state is found to have been in non-compliance with this act, and had used biological, chemical or nuclear weapons for any purpose, then the said member state may be permanently expelled from the European Union at the discretion of the European Court of Justice.
Not entirely sure if my amendments were made within the time allotted by the Speaker. Since this is a topic that requires extensive debate, and because Councillor Devoy hasn't been able to discuss the amendments he was looking for in his initial request, I request that the Speaker once again extends the debate period.
Granted. Debate shall once more be extended, this time to 03:48 GMT, 07/6/15.
This is an interesting proposal. Halsberg is always open to working with other nuclear states to reduce or even eliminate the region's collective nuclear stockpile, which is why I welcome Commissioner Johnson's recently announced summit on the issue. My main issue with this bill as it stands is that it puts Halsberg at a complete disadvantage among the nuclear nations. Halsberg would be stuck at the limit imposed by the ENAA, while the Duxburian Union or Angleter, for example, will be free to construct as many more warheads as they like before this act comes in to force.
Which is why Councillor Firoux's amendments are extremely welcome. With them, this would be a good launching point, excuse the pun, for full disarmament.
Voting on amendments is open.
I, John Walters, on behalf of The Twelve Commonwealths of Halsberg, vote FOR Councillor Firoux's amendments.
I, Rushanara Ali, on behalf of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, vote FOR the proposed amendments.
On the behalf of the Microstate of Inquista, I vote FOR my proposed amendments.
Framptonia last edited by
On behalf of the Federal Democratic Republic of Framptonia I vote FOR the amendments
I, Acwellan Devoy, on behalf of the Duxburian Union, vote
AGAINST Councillor Firoux's 1st amendment
FOR Councillor Firoux's 2nd amendment