[DISCARDED] Repeal "Rights and Duties of WA States"

[Ballotonia]

Repeal "Rights and Duties of WA States"
Category: Repeal | Resolution: GAR #2

Strongly affirming the need for a World Assembly charter that clearly delineates the basic rights and responsibilities of World Assembly member states,

Regretting that the numerous flaws present in GAR #2, "Rights and Duties of WA States", necessitate its repeal,

Condemning the target resolution's morally repugnant conception of war, which is that war is permissible so long as it is consensual,

Shocked that this conception of war effectively legalizes armed conflict between two or more mutual aggressors, in which each party wishes to take control over the others’ territory, population or resources, because such a war is technically consensual,

Appalled that this conception of war also forbids most just wars, including peacemaking operations and humanitarian interventions, because not all parties consent to the conflict,

Distressed that the target resolution forbids nations from any unrequested intervention in the sovereign affairs of other nations, regardless of whether such intervention is justified, as in the case of peacemaking operations and humanitarian intervention,

Alarmed that the target resolution's requirement that resolutions be implemented in "good faith" is sufficiently vague as to permit the effective circumvention of resolutions through sincere yet invalid interpretations of resolutions, while prohibiting the World Assembly from passing a separate resolution governing the legitimate interpretation of resolutions,

Concerned that the target resolution prevents the World Assembly from taking or supporting any military action whatsoever, precluding the World Assembly from addressing violations of human rights or threats to international peace and security,

Strongly hoping that a replacement charter will soon be passed,

The General Assembly,

Repeals GAR #2, "Rights and Duties of WA States".

[The Remean Lordship]

Yet another idealistic crusade of which I do not approve. The previous statements are very opinionated, and I consider them to be false. Furthermore, I do not approve of the replacement document, as I find that it is somewhat lacking in the motives and idealism (within its text, of course) compared to the original document. Because of these reasons, I cannot support this resolution nor its replacing counterpart.

[Auralia]

Yet another idealistic crusade of which I do not approve. The previous statements are very opinionated, and I consider them to be false. Furthermore, I do not approve of the replacement document, as I find that it is somewhat lacking in the motives and idealism (within its text, of course) compared to the original document. Because of these reasons, I cannot support this resolution nor its replacing counterpart.

Could you be a bit more specific?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Sigh...you're not going to make WA armies legal, no matter how many founding pillars of this institution you manage to tear down. If anything the most you'll get is another Quelesh-style throwdown, with competing factions constantly putting up opposing resolutions and repeals and replacements and resubmissions, until one side finally gives up. Reason won out last time, but this time there's no guarantee...and all over something that's never going to happen, no matter how many resolutions you pass.

Besides, your replacement sucks.

[Sanctaria]

If anything the most you'll get is another Quelesh-style throwdown

Ah yes. The Habeas Corpus shitstorm. Now that brings me back.

[Auralia]

Sigh...you're not going to make WA armies legal, no matter how many founding pillars of this institution you manage to tear down. If anything the most you'll get is another Quelesh-style throwdown, with competing factions constantly putting up opposing resolutions and repeals and replacements and resubmissions, until one side finally gives up. Reason won out last time, but this time there's no guarantee...and all over something that's never going to happen, no matter how many resolutions you pass.

GAR #2's prescription against WA military action is 4th out of 4 in my list of repeal arguments, so I'm not sure why you think this is all about WA armies.

I think it's completely possible to repeal and replace GAR #2, if enough delegates can be convinced.

Besides, your replacement sucks.

I disagree. Would you mind substantiating your claim on the appropriate thread?

[The Remean Lordship]

Yet another idealistic crusade of which I do not approve. The previous statements are very opinionated, and I consider them to be false. Furthermore, I do not approve of the replacement document, as I find that it is somewhat lacking in the motives and idealism (within its text, of course) compared to the original document. Because of these reasons, I cannot support this resolution nor its replacing counterpart.

Could you be a bit more specific?

Section II of GAR #2 is much more specific on ideas of war; it takes into account what war is in comparison to the replacement resolution, which only brushes over topic in a way that is almost a summary of Section II.

Clause III of your repeal (Condemning...) does not take into account the fact that td under Section I, Article 3 forces nations to recognize international law (allowing the WA to intervene in unjust affairs), and the document does have clauses that show feelings against international action such as unjust wars (I,3; II,6 and II,7).

Clause IV of the repeal (Distressed...) fails to take into account I,3 also, as I,3 permits WA nations to take intervention within international law and within requests. If a nation is committing "crimes" than the international laws of the WA govern the fact of what is an international "crime." In this sense, the WA determines action for this clause.

Lastly, Clause VI (Concerned...) is the opinionated part. It basically says that the WA should have a standing army, yet that army could act in cases such as tyranny by majority. Furthermore, the clause states that the WA should have a force to mandate its resolutions in other nations, while the WA does that.

Plainly, I just don't see what the problem is with GAR #2.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Condemning the target resolution's flawed conception of war – that war is perfectly acceptable so long as it is consensual – which completely fails to take into account that war is generally not a legitimate tool of international relations and that the World Assembly should not tacitly legitimize unjust wars, while at the same time just wars should be permitted regardless of whether or not both sides consent to war,

Except that's not what it says.

Distressed that the target resolution forbids nations from any unrequested intervention in the sovereign affairs of other nations, regardless of whether such intervention is justified, such as to prevent crimes against humanity,

Except that we have a resolution prohibiting such crimes, along with several other variations on that. So such things aren't happening in member states.

Alarmed that the target resolution's requirement that resolutions be implemented in "good faith" is sufficiently vague as to permit the effective circumvention of resolutions through sincere yet incorrect interpretations of resolutions, while prohibiting the World Assembly from passing a separate resolution governing the proper interpretation of resolutions,

Didn't you learn anything from your last tilt at that windmill? Seriously?

Concerned that the target resolution forbids the WA from taking any military action whatsoever, precluding the WA from engaging in peacekeeping operations, peacemaking operations or resolution enforcement,

Resolution enforcement? Did the Bar start serving half priced drinks?

[Auralia]

Condemning the target resolution's flawed conception of war – that war is perfectly acceptable so long as it is consensual – which completely fails to take into account that war is generally not a legitimate tool of international relations and that the World Assembly should not tacitly legitimize unjust wars, while at the same time just wars should be permitted regardless of whether or not both sides consent to war,

Except that's not what it says.

Yes, it does: "War in the World of NationStates is defined as a consensual act between two or more NationStates."

Distressed that the target resolution forbids nations from any unrequested intervention in the sovereign affairs of other nations, regardless of whether such intervention is justified, such as to prevent crimes against humanity,

Except that we have a resolution prohibiting such crimes, along with several other variations on that. So such things aren't happening in member states.

Not everyone accepts the notion of mandatory compliance. In addition, not every potential reason for legitimate intervention in the affairs of other member states is authorized by WA resolution, and to assume that could ever be the case is rather naive.

Alarmed that the target resolution's requirement that resolutions be implemented in "good faith" is sufficiently vague as to permit the effective circumvention of resolutions through sincere yet incorrect interpretations of resolutions, while prohibiting the World Assembly from passing a separate resolution governing the proper interpretation of resolutions,

Didn't you learn anything from your last tilt at that windmill? Seriously?

It clearly wasn't tilting at windmills, given your support of "creative compliance". In any event, I learned that GAR #2 prohibited me from passing a resolution governing the interpretation of resolutions, hence this repeal.

Concerned that the target resolution forbids the WA from taking any military action whatsoever, precluding the WA from engaging in peacekeeping operations, peacemaking operations or resolution enforcement,

Resolution enforcement? Did the Bar start serving half priced drinks?

Again, not everyone accepts the notion of mandatory compliance. You can consider this a test to see how the mods will respond to an argument that assumes potential non-compliance.

[Auralia]

Section II of GAR #2 is much more specific on ideas of war; it takes into account what war is in comparison to the replacement resolution, which only brushes over topic in a way that is almost a summary of Section II.

This criticism should really be made in the replacement thread, but I'll address it here anyways. You are right that GAR #2 is somewhat more specific about war, particularly its reference to the right of self-defence against armed attack. (I've now added that to my replacement.) However, it is also less concise and repetitive. For instance, Article 6 essentially duplicates Article 3. More importantly, its conception of war and intervention in other member states is flawed for the reasons outlined in the repeal, and these issues are fixed in my replacement. As such, my replacement can hardly be considered a "summary of Section II".

Clause III of your repeal (Condemning...) does not take into account the fact that td under Section I, Article 3 forces nations to recognize international law (allowing the WA to intervene in unjust affairs), and the document does have clauses that show feelings against international action such as unjust wars (I,3; II,6 and II,7).

Article 3, in conjunction with Article 5, only requires that wars be consensual, not that they be just. (I am assuming that Article 3 allows "unrequested intervention" in the context of military activities during a consensual war; otherwise Article 3 would conflict with Article 5.) A war between two nations in which neither have good reasons for going to war is entirely possible, and GAR #2 suggests that this is perfectly legitimate. Article 6 essentially duplicates Article 3, and so it has the same issues. Article 7 is simply about the enforcement of Articles 5 and 6, and therefore also suffers the same flaws.

Clause IV of the repeal (Distressed...) fails to take into account I,3 also, as I,3 permits WA nations to take intervention within international law and within requests. If a nation is committing "crimes" than the international laws of the WA govern the fact of what is an international "crime." In this sense, the WA determines action for this clause.

A nation that is committing crimes against humanity is unlikely to request the intervention of other nations to stop the bloodshed. Nations should be able to intervene unilaterally in other nations if their cause is just; they should not have to wait for authorization in the form of a WA resolution.

Lastly, Clause VI (Concerned...) is the opinionated part. It basically says that the WA should have a standing army, yet that army could act in cases such as tyranny by majority. Furthermore, the clause states that the WA should have a force to mandate its resolutions in other nations, while the WA does that.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that "that army could act in cases such as tyranny by majority". The WA may not take any action that directly affects non-members, and any nation that believes the WA is not acting in their best interests is free to resign.

Further, not everyone accepts mandatory compliance.

[Leutria]

I haven't gotten to do more then skim (extremely tired right now), but I just wanted to say this. Mandatory compliance is one of the actual rules, and while people can RP noncompliance in their own RPs I would expect it should be a safe assumption within the WA it's self. To assume in a resolution that nations are being noncompliant seems to defeat the point.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Except that's not what it says.

Yes, it does: "War in the World of NationStates is defined as a consensual act between two or more NationStates."

You do not need to find war acceptable to recognize that one must allow it to occur under certain circumstances. Because while war may not always be a legitimate tool of politics, it certainly can be. To claim otherwise is absurdity.

Except that we have a resolution prohibiting such crimes, along with several other variations on that. So such things aren't happening in member states.

Not everyone accepts the notion of mandatory compliance. In addition, not every potential reason for legitimate intervention in the affairs of other member states is authorized by WA resolution, and to assume that could ever be the case is rather naive.

Ladies and gentlemen here you have it! Since this fine ambassador is delusional enough to believe that he can directly disobey WA law, his plan for rectifying this is to... write... a new... WA law... oh... The logic there is a bit off. Just a tad. Please feel free to list other examples.

Didn't you learn anything from your last tilt at that windmill? Seriously?

It clearly wasn't tilting at windmills, given your support of "creative compliance". In any event, I learned that GAR #2 prohibited me from passing a resolution governing the interpretation of resolutions, hence this repeal.

You cannot stop creative compliance. We proved that the last time you swung at that junkball. Feel free to write up whatever you'd like though! After all you believe that WA laws are meaningless and can be ignored whenever you desire, so by all means write on bits of paper in your office. In your mind those are just as important as the serious work that we do here.

Resolution enforcement? Did the Bar start serving half priced drinks?

Again, not everyone accepts the notion of mandatory compliance. You can consider this a test to see how the mods will respond to an argument that assumes potential non-compliance.

Oh so you're asking the mods if it's ok to RP godmodding. Well mods don't generally interfere in RP, however your attempt to legislate RP conventions will fail.

[Auralia]

To assume in a resolution that nations are being noncompliant seems to defeat the point.

I'm only assuming that nations occasionally engage in non-compliance. I am not assuming that non-compliance is the norm.

[Mallorea and Riva]

To assume in a resolution that nations are being noncompliant seems to defeat the point.

I'm only assuming that nations occasionally engage in non-compliance. I am not assuming that non-compliance is the norm.

Doesn't matter. If I can ignore the resolution saying that I can't ignore other resolutions, then what is the bloody point?

[Auralia]

You do not need to find war acceptable to recognize that one must allow it to occur under certain circumstances. Because while war may not always be a legitimate tool of politics, it certainly can be. To claim otherwise is absurdity.

Except GAR #2 does not require that wars be just. It requires that war be consensual. Consensual wars are not always just, and just wars are not always consensual.

Ladies and gentlemen here you have it! Since this fine ambassador is delusional enough to believe that he can directly disobey WA law, his plan for rectifying this is to... write... a new... WA law... oh... The logic there is a bit off. Just a tad. Please feel free to list other examples.

Defying international law carries with it numerous consequences; it is not something to be taken lightly. Auralia's foreign relations have undoubtedly suffered as a result of its policy of non-compliance with several WA resolutions. So yes, international law still carries significant weight even if non-compliance is possible.

It clearly wasn't tilting at windmills, given your support of "creative compliance". In any event, I learned that GAR #2 prohibited me from passing a resolution governing the interpretation of resolutions, hence this repeal.

You cannot stop creative compliance. We proved that the last time you swung at that junkball. Feel free to write up whatever you'd like though! After all you believe that WA laws are meaningless and can be ignored whenever you desire, so by all means write on bits of paper in your office. In your mind those are just as important as the serious work that we do here.

No, you didn't. Not at all. You only established that (at least according to the interpretation of our current mods) GAR #2 is a barrier to the enforcement of proper interpretations of resolutions. With this repeal, I hope to remedy that.

See above for my comments on non-compliance.

[Oaledonia]

So now the WA can intervene in war? How?

[Mallorea and Riva]

You do not need to find war acceptable to recognize that one must allow it to occur under certain circumstances. Because while war may not always be a legitimate tool of politics, it certainly can be. To claim otherwise is absurdity.

Except GAR #2 does not require that wars be just. It requires that war be consensual. Consensual wars are not always just, and just wars are not always consensual.

I asked for examples below and you failed to deliver them. I suppose I'll ask again.

Ladies and gentlemen here you have it! Since this fine ambassador is delusional enough to believe that he can directly disobey WA law, his plan for rectifying this is to... write... a new... WA law... oh... The logic there is a bit off. Just a tad. Please feel free to list other examples.

Defying international law carries with it numerous consequences; it is not something to be taken lightly. Auralia's foreign relations have undoubtedly suffered as a result of its policy of non-compliance with several WA resolutions. So yes, international law still carries significant weight even if non-compliance is possible.

The continued insanity of the Auralian delegation deeply saddens me. Compliance is mandatory.

OOC: Your RP wank is not what I asked for examples of, I asked for examples of other types of wars. Also, you have made it clear that you will seek to godmod your way out of any situation the WA puts you in, so from now on i'd personally appreciate it if you'd just leave it at noncompliance without going through a painstaking list of how you have attempted to justify it.

You cannot stop creative compliance. We proved that the last time you swung at that junkball. Feel free to write up whatever you'd like though! After all you believe that WA laws are meaningless and can be ignored whenever you desire, so by all means write on bits of paper in your office. In your mind those are just as important as the serious work that we do here.

No, you didn't. Not at all. You only established that (at least according to the interpretation of our current mods) GAR #2 is a barrier to the enforcement of proper interpretations of resolutions. With this repeal, I hope to remedy that.

It is almost enough for one to wish that this repeal would be successful, merely to be able to decimate such an argument again.

[Retired WerePenguins]

Not everyone accepts the notion of mandatory compliance. In addition, not every potential reason for legitimate intervention in the affairs of other member states is authorized by WA resolution, and to assume that could ever be the case is rather naive.

Who really cares? Mandatory compliance is a direct result of the inability to write 40 page resolutions with all the enforcement mechanisms in place. If a player is going to outright ignore the mandatory compliance of WA resolutions do you seriously think that the existence of yet another WA resolution is going to result in enforced compliance? The only effective weapon against people who God Mod against the generally accepted rules is not more rules but the IGNORE CANON.

[Abacathea]

I have only one question.

If your repeal and replace succeeds, will you suddenly adopt the laws you currently ignore?

If your answer is ANYTHING other than yes, this whole process is pointless.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Concerned that the target resolution forbids the WA from taking any military action whatsoever, precluding the WA from engaging in peacekeeping operations, peacemaking operations or resolution enforcement,

I would write this differently. Generally, your language could use a bit more flourish!

Concerned that Rights and Duties blocks the World Assembly from addressing massive violations of human rights and does not permit the World Assembly to help bring an end to increasingly deadly civil wars and international armed conflicts,

[Ainocra]

Marshal of the Fleet Alcon Enta leans back in his seat and steeples his fingers. "While I can agree that the rights and duties could use a sound reworking, I have serious doubts about the ability of the Star Empire to find palatable and replacement that you would put forth Ambassador."

Resting his chin on those fingertips he leans in a bit. "You have already tried to shoehorn the flawed idea of just war into it, I suspect that to be your main intent."

Scowling he continues "So it seems to me that should you actually succeed in what you intend you'd not be able to get a replacement passed, leaving this august body adrift."

Shaking his head he reaches for his flask. "The wanton destruction of this assembly is a thing no sane man would wish for, Therefore we cannot support your attempt to repeal at this time."

[Mardenstrum]

His Highness cannot feel the need to support this, and must agree with the other nations that-

The Mardenian ambassador stopped speaking as Prince Martius raised his hand.

"Ever heard of a simple no?" asked Martius to his ambassador.

[Linux and the X]

Resting his chin on those fingertips he leans in a bit. "You have already tried to shoehorn the flawed idea of just war into it, I suspect that to be your main intent."

Be fair, now. They also intend to put millions of people out of work.

[Ainocra]

Resting his chin on those fingertips he leans in a bit. "You have already tried to shoehorn the flawed idea of just war into it, I suspect that to be your main intent."

Be fair, now. They also intend to put millions of people out of work.

The Marshal inclines his head in agreement "Not to mention establishing language that would inevitably lead to this body becoming a police state."

[Auralia]

I asked for examples below and you failed to deliver them. I suppose I'll ask again.

An example of a consensual, unjust war is a war in which two nations are at war, but both nations seek to acquire territory from the other and so neither can be considered to have been acting in self-defence.

An example of a non-consensual, just war is a peacemaking operation or a humanitarian intervention.

The continued insanity of the Auralian delegation deeply saddens me. Compliance is mandatory.

No, it isn't. Isn't anyone else concerned for the health of the Mallorean and Rivan delegatation, given that they seem to believe that national law is automatically re-written by magical gnomes upon the passage of WA resolutions?

It is almost enough for one to wish that this repeal would be successful, merely to be able to decimate such an argument again.

You certainly didn't the last time, so I'd be interested to see what you'll say this time.