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

[Frisbeeteria]

Given that I have been given both public(non-specificly as part of his general gifting of all drafts to public domain) and private permission(in a TG last night) by Auralia, and given that the current "at vote" version will be discarded after the vote... I am resubmitting Auralia's proposal to repeal GA#2.

UPDATE: I've been mostly quiet about this repeal since I submitted it, mostly because I didn't want the permission I'd been given to submit it to be withdrawn by the original author.

However, now that it is up for vote and losing by a wide margin, I'd like to come out officially against this repeal and thank the delegates who're voting against it. It should be clear to everyone that this piece of legislation will remain on the books for a good long time, and that the first effort by Auralia only nearly succeeded as it did due to surprise and not a little amount of manipulation of the voter base.

Let's examine the number of things that would've changed if this were to actually pass:

1. GA#2 would be repealed.

2. There is no second item.

Let's examine the language.

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,

This is a strong introduction, but honestly says little. Let's see what kind of flaws it's talking about.

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,

This is an RP rule in NS. End of story. Wars must be consensual. Now that alone isn't enough to kill this line's effectiveness, but the implication that if we repeal this somehow we can ban war at all is dishonest at its very core. If GA#2 were to ever be repealed, war would still only be permissible as long as it is consensual and if consensual it would be permissible. These lines are misleading.

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,

The distressed line really puts me waaay on the other side of this issue from my co-author. Distressed that the target resolution forbids unrequested intervention in the sovereign affairs of other nations? Are you serious? No, No, and double no. GA#2 literally enshrines basic National Sovereigntist Doctrine in the founding charter of the World Assembly. Why would I ever support a repeal of such a resolution? My Co-author's distinctions between "just wars" and "unjust wars" are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things anyway... these actions will not be allowed even if the piece is repealed.

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,

What is a "sincere yet invalid interpretation"? I don't really know. What I do know is that I'm a strong suppporter of the phrase "good faith" in multiple other resolutions. As a phrase it strikes a balance between requiring compliance to the exact letter of the law(which given the multitude of cultures this assembly represents could often be disastrous), and still requiring compliance. There is nothing wrong with the inclusion of the phrase "good faith" here.

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,

Actually the target resolution does no such thing, the GA ruleset does. This is more in the vein of the originally incorrect reasoning of my co-author. Now, I accept that there are folks out there who honestly believe that the ruleset can change if GA#2 is repealed. That is a large motivation for this effort... but those people are not correct.

The General Assembly,

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

No, I don't think so.

The issue here is simple... when this was pushed through once before... the resolution was slammed through on an expensive stamp campaign. When it was to be discarded, there were plenty of folks who were chomping at the bit(and were given permission by Auralia) to resubmit. I beat them to the punch because we needed to have an adequate dialogue on why this resolution is a bad idea. A particularly well organized argument is given here: http://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=241882

[The Dark Star Republic]

"The omission of the call for a replacement charter is actually more in line with our own preferences, so we plan on supporting this version even more strongly."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

[Rotwood]

Jericho rolls his eyes "Not this again."

"Did I miss something before my appointment?" Felicia asks before missing Jericho's "Don't Go There" Look

"Our position still stands as before," continues Jericho "All GAR #2 does is reiterate the rules, the foundation blocks upon this institution was built. Repealing it will do nothing. There still will not be a WA army or backing for military operations, including peacekeeping. Resolutions will still be binding, and creative compliance will still function. Some will argue that my statements mean that there is no problem in repealing it, but we do see one problem: It wastes our time, just like it has wasted our time up until an illegality was found the first time. So can we please just move on, leave this be, and focus on better things for this institution.

[Normlpeople]

OOC: Given its repeal will not change the rules, especially with regards to military action by the WA (since WA armies will still be illegal), is it really worth the time and effort to do so?

[Societatis Frigidus]

This is a necessary step in shaping the World Assembly to become less idealistic and more pragmatic.
We are very happy to see this repeal motion resubmitted and will obviously support it!

[Veranda]

Veranda supports this resolution.

[Unibot III]

OOC: Given its repeal will not change the rules, especially with regards to military action by the WA (since WA armies will still be illegal),

OOC: Not necessarily, but probably.

[Wrapper]

Regardless of our feelings about GAR #2, as a pacifist nation we cannot endorse a document that contains the following language, and shall be voting against this repeal:

Appalled that this conception of war also forbids most just wars, including peacemaking operations and humanitarian interventions

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

Concerned that the target resolution prevents the World Assembly from taking or supporting any military action whatsoever

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: The text in this is outright fallacious. GAR#2 doesn't prevent the WA from participating in peacekeeping or military operations, the rules do. The definition of war isn't wrong, its how war works in this game, and GAR#2 just puts it into an IC form. This entire proposal purports to change these things that cannot be changed, and is inherently dishonest. I'm shocked that experienced players, who should know how disingenuous Auralia is being with this proposal, are supporting it.

[Glen-Rhodes]

SP, there are no rules preventing the WA from legalizing peacekeeping and intervention. It's WAR2 that compels total neutrality.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Gruenberg]

SP, there are no rules preventing the WA from legalizing peacekeeping and intervention. It's WAR2 that compels total neutrality.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

OOC: Not sure I agree about that. The mods at some point added "peacekeepers" to the No Army rule.

The WA doesn't get an army. Nor does it get to form The World Police. This is pretty clear: don't do it.

The WA cannot have or form a military, peace keeping force, the World Police or any other such variation. This is pretty clear: don't do it.

[Mallorea and Riva]

SP, there are no rules preventing the WA from legalizing peacekeeping and intervention. It's WAR2 that compels total neutrality.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

OOC: Not sure I agree about that. The mods at some point added "peacekeepers" to the No Army rule.

The WA doesn't get an army. Nor does it get to form The World Police. This is pretty clear: don't do it.

The WA cannot have or form a military, peace keeping force, the World Police or any other such variation. This is pretty clear: don't do it.

It's pretty straightforward in terms of what the rules say, the current wording is clearer than the Hackian rule set on the issue.

One of the problems though is that he mods hinted that they might, maybe, consider, if the wind is blowing just right on a Wednesday during a full moon, allow the rule to be changed by a player blitzing a proposal to vote. Naturally the concern there is that now that the discard function is in place, they cannot simply "turn the other way" and utilize the fact that once a proposal got to vote it was considered legal for all intents and purposes.

[Gruenberg]

OOC: Not sure I agree about that. The mods at some point added "peacekeepers" to the No Army rule.

It's pretty straightforward in terms of what the rules say, the current wording is clearer than the Hackian rule set on the issue.

OOC: How clear it is not the issue for me; It's that the rule is different now. I suspect it was done when Kryozerkia posted the revised "compendium" in early 2012, though I wasn't around at the time so I can't confirm. What's clear is there was not any form of discussion with the players. Bear in mind that when the rules were previously revised, it was done in concert with extended conversation with the players.

One of the problems though is that he mods hinted that they might, maybe, consider, if the wind is blowing just right on a Wednesday during a full moon, allow the rule to be changed by a player blitzing a proposal to vote. Naturally the concern there is that now that the discard function is in place, they cannot simply "turn the other way" and utilize the fact that once a proposal got to vote it was considered legal for all intents and purposes.

I don't see much point in discussing the possibility of them revising the rule until they can confirm they are even considered it. Ardchoille seemed to flatly deny that any change would be forthcoming.

[Elke and Elba]

Hmmm, I'm suspecting why you decided to credit that to the mission rather than Auralia himself.

It's smells of conspiracy.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Hmmm, I'm suspecting why you decided to credit that to the mission rather than Auralia himself.

It's smells of conspiracy.

Perhaps because Auralia is banned from the WA and cannot submit proposals or, presumably, co-submit them either?

[Ainocra]

Given the fact that GA#2 is the underpinning for most of the existing body of WA law we cannot support it's repeal.

OOC:
and as has been previously stated all it does is codify the rules in an IC manner. Frankly this is a waste of time and in my view nothing but an excuse for drama.

Frankly you are all better than that, or at least I had thought so.

[Elke and Elba]

Hmmm, I'm suspecting why you decided to credit that to the mission rather than Auralia himself.

It's smells of conspiracy.

Perhaps because Auralia is banned from the WA and cannot submit proposals or, presumably, co-submit them either?

That's the worst reasoning of all. Many co-authors have had their name imprinted on resolutions at a time when they were not in the WA too.

[Ramaeus]

That's the worst reasoning of all. Many co-authors have had their name imprinted on resolutions at a time when they were not in the WA too.

E&E, the difference here is that Auralia cannot rejoin the WA, but co-authors who were not in the WA at the time of vote can still rejoin the WA.

[Elke and Elba]

That's the worst reasoning of all. Many co-authors have had their name imprinted on resolutions at a time when they were not in the WA too.

E&E, the difference here is that Auralia cannot rejoin the WA, but co-authors who were not in the WA at the time of vote can still rejoin the WA.

You don't have to be in the WA to be recognised as the co-author.

I'm still wondering why not "Auralia" or "Auralian blah blah Mission"(can't remember name, sorry). Not like it makes much a difference, though.

[Glen-Rhodes]

SP, there are no rules preventing the WA from legalizing peacekeeping and intervention. It's WAR2 that compels total neutrality.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

OOC: Not sure I agree about that. The mods at some point added "peacekeepers" to the No Army rule.

To any normal person, there's a difference between the WA "having" a peacekeeping force and the WA "authorizing" peacekeeping. I wouldn't put it past the mods to ban the subject altogether, but the rules prohibit the WA from intervening, not member states.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[The Dourian Embassy]

E&E, the difference here is that Auralia cannot rejoin the WA, but co-authors who were not in the WA at the time of vote can still rejoin the WA.

You don't have to be in the WA to be recognised as the co-author.

I'm still wondering why not "Auralia" or "Auralian blah blah Mission"(can't remember name, sorry). Not like it makes much a difference, though.

I actually offered to use his original nation. He asked for what you see.

[Elke and Elba]

You don't have to be in the WA to be recognised as the co-author.

I'm still wondering why not "Auralia" or "Auralian blah blah Mission"(can't remember name, sorry). Not like it makes much a difference, though.

I actually offered to use his original nation. He asked for what you see.

That's odd. Sooooooooooo odd.

[The Dourian Embassy]

I actually offered to use his original nation. He asked for what you see.

That's odd. Sooooooooooo odd.

His reasoning was the same as that you've seen in the thread, that he didn't think it was legal for his banned nation to be a co-author. I personally don't think that would've mattered.

[Auralia]

That's odd. Sooooooooooo odd.

His reasoning was the same as that you've seen in the thread, that he didn't think it was legal for his banned nation to be a co-author. I personally don't think that would've mattered.

Hey, can you blame me for not wanting to take any risks?

[Gruenberg]

OOC: Not sure I agree about that. The mods at some point added "peacekeepers" to the No Army rule.

To any normal person, there's a difference between the WA "having" a peacekeeping force and the WA "authorizing" peacekeeping. I wouldn't put it past the mods to ban the subject altogether, but the rules prohibit the WA from intervening, not member states.

OOC: My problem with the rule is that there is no nuance to it. It is used to shut off any discussion of anything even tangentially related, even where it nowhere qualifies as an "army", such as on the gun amnesty proposal. Look at how my Interpol proposal got immediately dumped in the Silly Proposals thread and shit all over - despite the fact the NSUN version, the ICPIN, was ruled perfectly legal. Anything that looks like a violation is dismissed out of hand without any sort of qualification.

The rule about "forced roleplay" is inconsistently applied between committees, and peacekeepers: the argument that the WA mods would have to moderate roleplayed WA peacekeeping missions is ridiculous, unless I've somehow missed them being forced to moderate ICC cases, WTC disputes, or WHA conferences. It is because the roleplay element of the WA has degraded so much - led by people who would rather use this as a forum for spouting RL IR theory and who view their ambassadors as interchangeable with their OOC personas - that this has arisen.

It is no longer even clear what purpose the rule's expansiveness serves.

Nonetheless, I am sorry for failing to qualify as a "normal person".