[DEFEATED] No Penalty Without Law

[Potted Plants United]

A large potted plant in a big plantpot with wheels suddenly comes to life, revealing a large leaf curled up to form a cone, from which a somewhat hissing voice can be heard:

"As we only have two actual laws of our own, and thus adopt those WA laws as we find applicable to our selves, we have no issue with this proposal. While the majority of what has been argued here is of no consequence to us¹, we recognize its significance to the single-thinking species with multitudous laws, and as such have decided to vote for."

OOC: ¹The hivemind has no punishments on individual plants any more than a human would punish their left hand for committing a consciously-directed action.

[Defwa]

"With all due respect, your Excellency, this is the type of behavior that this resolution seeks to prevent. If the crime was not previously illegal, the individual should not be prosecuted."

After the speech of Sciongrad's representative, Mrs Komvorovska makes a phone call, after two minutes hunges up the mobile phone and answers :

"I have just phone our First Secretary, The Excellent Jorji Costava [Mrs Komvorovska keeps silent while making a simple reverence] and He is now writing a decree to create the Ministry of Bureaucracy, whose function shall be receive and keep all administrative procedures while our People's Administration enacts all written laws that shall be needed in case this resolution is passed.

We hope that our People shall not starve or dying for curable diseases while this provisional situation remains.

Glory to Asrtotzka!".

"I just looked up information on your nation with my tablet here," she holds it up, "And it appears your nation already has a legislative branch with the duty of creating and passing laws. What has it been doing since your nation formed?"
Link

EDIT: She reads on, "It also appears that Asrtotzka have an extensive socialist economy. Do you mean to imply this is run without any stated regulation?"

[Scow Creek]

OOC: But rulings don't have to be based solely on statute. Rulings can be based on precedent, and the ruling itself can be used as precedent in the future. That's how stare decisis works. Rulings based on nothing - by which I mean neither statute, precedent, nor other guidelines with the force of law - are obviously not permissible.

It is your "obviously not permissible" condition which is the problem. I am quite aware as to how stare decisis works - and neither 'stare decisis' nor 'precedent' are synonyms for Common Law - and that has been your legal error.

OCC: Having practiced law for 30 years, I strongly disagree with your assessment of the limitations of common law and your imprecise use of the word 'precedent' in arguing for this resolution.

[Sciongrad]

It is your "obviously not permissible" condition which is the problem. I am quite aware as to how stare decisis works - and neither 'stare decisis' nor 'precedent' are synonyms for Common Law - and that has been your legal error.

"I haven't ever said that precedent is the same thing as common law, and if you interpreted my argument as that, then I apologize for being unclear. However, common law systems use court rulings as a basis for criminal punishment and therefore rely inherently on precedent. Arresting an individual for an action that is not a crime at the time the action occurred (or where precedent doesn't indicate that the action could be considered criminal) and then using the new ruling as a basis for punishment is already illegal according to General Assembly law, however (GAR#79, No Ex Post Facto Laws), as it should be."

OOC: Regarding what I've said is 'obviously not permissible:' common law systems use particulars to reach conclusions - decisions are always based on precedent, statute, or occasionally other factors typically considered to have some force of law (actions considered malum in se, for example, which is how nations like England have banned murder and many other actions through common law). In no instance, common law or not, is it just or reasonable to permit a court to mete out punishment without some basis in previous law, precedent, etc. I'm uninterested in discussing our real world professions, but someone who claims to have extensive legal knowledge should be familiar with how common law fits into nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali.

[Asrtotzka]

"I just looked up information on your nation with my tablet here," she holds it up, "And it appears your nation already has a legislative branch with the duty of creating and passing laws. What has it been doing since your nation formed?"
Link

EDIT: She reads on, "It also appears that Asrtotzka have an extensive socialist economy. Do you mean to imply this is run without any stated regulation?"

Nadiesda Komvorovska loooks to the Defwa's Representative, checks she is a woman and says:

"Our nation, Honourable Lady, has a legislative branch to pass laws oriented to improve our People's life and develop their rights and duties. Of course we would be very pleased if we could embody all our customary law in textual law, but many needs must be dealt before adapting our customary law to a resolution that does not give us anything new.

About your second question, Lady, we have textual legislation. And a lot of laws, indeed. But the question is that customary law is a rich source of rights and duties that our People accepts and our legislative and judiciary applies without legal discrepances.

Our legislative branch works hard to legislate about many things that are needed at this moment. Despite all, we shall obey the mandate of the World Assembly if the resolution passes, but we hope our People do not suffer the consequences of a legislative jam.

Glory to Asrtotzka!"

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Man, the attitude of the opponents to this thing really are making me want to switch my vote to "for."

At the very least, the defeat of this resolution should enable the author to clarify some of the more contentious points of this legislation, so it may turn out to be a blessing in disguise. I sincerely hope Scion will try this one again.

[Asrtotzka]

Man, the attitude of the opponents to this thing really are making me want to switch my vote to "for."

At the very least, the defeat of this resolution should enable the author to clarify some of the more contentious points of this legislation, so it may turn out to be a blessing in disguise. I sincerely hope Scion will try this one again.

Mrs. Komvorovska answers from her seat:

"My People hopes the same. This resolution has good intentions, but we need a more lax treatment of the customary law or even a transitional period to adapt all customary legislation to the requirements of the resolution.

Glory to Asrtotzka!".

[Jakuso]

Man, the attitude of the opponents to this thing really are making me want to switch my vote to "for."

At the very least, the defeat of this resolution should enable the author to clarify some of the more contentious points of this legislation, so it may turn out to be a blessing in disguise. I sincerely hope Scion will try this one again.

Or we just realise that the WA doesn't have a duty to pass this sort of legislation and leave it be. Then we can concentrate on drafting/voting on/debating proper proposals that do have a place in this council.

[Lalaki]

Man, the attitude of the opponents to this thing really are making me want to switch my vote to "for."

At the very least, the defeat of this resolution should enable the author to clarify some of the more contentious points of this legislation, so it may turn out to be a blessing in disguise. I sincerely hope Scion will try this one again.

Or we just realise that the WA doesn't have a duty to pass this sort of legislation and leave it be. Then we can concentrate on drafting/voting on/debating proper proposals that do have a place in this council.

May the WA know what your criteria is for resolutions belonging on the council?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Man, the attitude of the opponents to this thing really are making me want to switch my vote to "for."

At the very least, the defeat of this resolution should enable the author to clarify some of the more contentious points of this legislation, so it may turn out to be a blessing in disguise. I sincerely hope Scion will try this one again.

Or we just realise that the WA doesn't have a duty to pass this sort of legislation and leave it be. Then we can concentrate on drafting/voting on/debating proper proposals that do have a place in this council.

Rule of law does not have a place in this council??

[Valendia]

Or we just realise that the WA doesn't have a duty to pass this sort of legislation and leave it be. Then we can concentrate on drafting/voting on/debating proper proposals that do have a place in this council.

Rule of law does not have a place in this council??

"Apparently neither does reading comprehension. While this resolution's fate is a foregone conclusion, we will be supporting our ally Sciongrad and vote FOR this resolution which really should come with the territory of being a reasonable nation."

[Scow Creek]

"Apparently neither does reading comprehension.

Well, that's certainly an odd way to win over votes....

[Araraukar]

"Apparently neither does reading comprehension.

Well, that's certainly an odd way to win over votes....

There's little cause in trying to win over votes of those who will not have their opinions changed in any case.

[The Eternal Kawaii]

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

As near as we can figure it, the purpose of this proposed legislation is to require nations to have codes of law. Given that the ability to exercise legal authority over a people and/or territory is pretty much a requirement for a nation to be considered such, this proposal states the obvious. What is the point of this exercise, then?

[Defwa]

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

As near as we can figure it, the purpose of this proposed legislation is to require nations to have codes of law. Given that the ability to exercise legal authority over a people and/or territory is pretty much a requirement for a nation to be considered such, this proposal states the obvious. What is the point of this exercise, then?

The problem I see that this resolution is trying to solve is fear based police states where people that haven't actually done anything are imprisoned just to remind people that it can be done.

[Scow Creek]

Well, that's certainly an odd way to win over votes....

There's little cause in trying to win over votes of those who will not have their opinions changed in any case.

Well that's an exercise in Arrogance. It's going to be defeated; I expect it will come back. If it addresses my concerns about Common Law, I would normally be in...but if its supporters are simply going to write people off as lacking reading comprehension or intelligence, well, its unlikely you will have my support in ANY case. We are not ribbon-clerks to be ordered about and dismissed....we are equals in a deliberative body.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Well that's an exercise in Arrogance. It's going to be defeated; I expect it will come back. If it addresses my concerns about Common Law, I would normally be in...but if its supporters are simply going to write people off as lacking reading comprehension or intelligence, well, its unlikely you will have my support in ANY case. We are not ribbon-clerks to be ordered about and dismissed....we are equals in a deliberative body.

Bear in mind that what happens on the forum is irrelevant to whether a resolution passes or fails. So whether this resolution has a chance of passing second time around won't really be affected by how this debate goes anyway. What determines whether a resolution passes or not is how a half dozen powerful delegates vote in the first few hours, and most of them don't frequent the forums.

Which isn't to justify anyone being rude to you, just that it won't automatically condemn the proposal to defeat either.

[Sciongrad]

Well that's an exercise in Arrogance. It's going to be defeated; I expect it will come back. If it addresses my concerns about Common Law, I would normally be in...but if its supporters are simply going to write people off as lacking reading comprehension or intelligence, well, its unlikely you will have my support in ANY case. We are not ribbon-clerks to be ordered about and dismissed....we are equals in a deliberative body.

OOC: I can't speak for anyone else, but I do apologize if I've come across as arrogant or mean-spirited - that isn't my intention. I do respect you, and other opponents, as equals and I don't think this game would be any fun if everyone agreed with everything I had to say. Although for full disclosure, I still have no idea how this prevents common law systems from continuing to function, but during the redrafting period, I'll gladly hear any suggestions you have and will try to incorporate them to the best of my ability.

[Valendia]

Well, that's certainly an odd way to win over votes....

"Stating the truth rarely is. There is nothing in this proposal which implicitly favors Common Law over Statute Law, yet a few delegates have been harping on this baseless assertion as though their mothers were being axe murdered. If you are so adamant that it does, I would like to hear your alternative wording that prevents such a favoring; if you're not willing to throw down, I suggest you withdraw your objection."

[Jakuso]

Or we just realise that the WA doesn't have a duty to pass this sort of legislation and leave it be. Then we can concentrate on drafting/voting on/debating proper proposals that do have a place in this council.

Rule of law does not have a place in this council??

And that's because the WA is trying to pass resolutions like this that remove the state's right to enforce its own laws. NatSov/nationstate democracy or not, the WA should not pass these resolutions. The WA should pass resolutions about banning child pornography or limiting the production of nuclear weapons. Those are REAL issues.

[Separatist Peoples]

And that's because the WA is trying to pass resolutions like this that remove the state's right to enforce its own laws. NatSov/nationstate democracy or not, the WA should not pass these resolutions. The WA should pass resolutions about banning child pornography or limiting the production of nuclear weapons. Those are REAL issues.

"Fairness and equality in the rule of law is an area the WA has legislated on many times. Many, many times. It's one of the largest precedents here. Claiming that this isn't an issue is like claiming that a house fire isn't the problem of a fire brigade because the owner has the right to deal with it themselves. Try again."

[Valendia]

And that's because the WA is trying to pass resolutions like this that remove the state's right to enforce its own laws. NatSov/nationstate democracy or not, the WA should not pass these resolutions. The WA should pass resolutions about banning child pornography or limiting the production of nuclear weapons. Those are REAL issues.

"Last I recall, ambassador, the principle of nulla poena sine lege in no way precludes a state from enforcing its own laws. It simply requires that people cannot be punished arbitrarily for something that is not illegal under law. You might as well claim that GAR#79 'removes a state's right to enforce its own laws' because it bans ex post facto legislation, or that GAR#201 does the same for implementing the principle of habeas corpus."

"So as the honorable delegate from Separatist People said, try again. Rule of law is something of intimate importance to the WA amongst its member nations."

[Jakuso]

And that's because the WA is trying to pass resolutions like this that remove the state's right to enforce its own laws. NatSov/nationstate democracy or not, the WA should not pass these resolutions. The WA should pass resolutions about banning child pornography or limiting the production of nuclear weapons. Those are REAL issues.

"Last I recall, ambassador, the principle of nulla poena sine lege in no way precludes a state from enforcing its own laws. It simply requires that people cannot be punished arbitrarily for something that is not illegal under law. You might as well claim that GAR#79 'removes a state's right to enforce its own laws' because it bans ex post facto legislation, or that GAR#201 does the same for implementing the principle of habeas corpus."

"So as the honorable delegate from Separatist People said, try again. Rule of law is something of intimate importance to the WA amongst its member nations."

Ahh, but common law is defined in many a nation's constitution, but the case in many sovereign states is that there is no set law, bill, act or document of statutory law to define murder as illegal. Now we all know that this proposal wants to do away with detainment under customary law: the detaining of someone for an infringement of the common law of a sovereign state.

Now I wasn't saying that the WA shouldn't debate on matters of human rights or rights of member state citizens etcetera, but this isn't exactly a violation of human rights; if someone is suspected of murder, then the relevant authorities should have the right to detain that suspect, regardless of the legal status of murder in that nation as long as they do not violate human rights in the process of doing so. A suspected murderer will lose certain rights if detained, such as the right to freedom of movement or the right to vote; that's inevitable.

I would very much have like to have seen the drafting of this proposal, but strangely it doesn't seem to have occurred here... Isn't that considered unconstitutional in the WA?

[Mundiferrum]

Now I wasn't saying that the WA shouldn't debate on matters of human rights or rights of member state citizens etcetera, but this isn't exactly a violation of human rights; if someone is suspected of murder, then the relevant authorities should have the right to detain that suspect, regardless of the legal status of murder in that nation as long as they do not violate human rights in the process of doing so. A suspected murderer will lose certain rights if detained, such as the right to freedom of movement or the right to vote; that's inevitable.

That sounds highly contradictory, ambassador: Why would a person be detained for murder in a nation where murder isn't even illegal? That's essentially detaining someone for doing something innocent (since in their nation, murdering someone is considered "innocent"), like having someone arrested for, say, living, while living isn't considered an illegality. Also, the suspicion there would be invalid, since murder wouldn't be prosecuted. I literally do not understand what you're getting at here.

I would very much have like to have seen the drafting of this proposal, but strangely it doesn't seem to have occurred here... Isn't that considered unconstitutional in the WA?

This has been here for three months; but no, that is not "unconstitutional" in our constitutionalless Assembly . People are allowed to submit drafts without having said drafts go through a drafting process; do so, however, and you shall be considered a jackass.

[Gruenberg]

People are allowed to submit drafts without having said drafts go through a drafting process; do so, however, and you shall be considered a jackass. :P

Why? This very proposal thread demonstrates that drafting on the forums really isn't of any help.

~ Gruenberg
Author, "Abortion Legality Convention"
A Jackass