NationStates

Posted: **Tue Apr 28, 2015 6:14 pm**

Christian Democrats wrote:
Excidium Planetis wrote:How so?

Read Section 3.

3) Reserves to individual member states, within the requirements of existing international law, the power to create, implement, amend and repeal electoral laws, rules, regulations and guidelines regarding elections held within member states.

Note the bold. Any WA resolutions passed would affect this clause, obviously. It does not prevent any further resolutions promoting (or discouraging) free and fair elections.

Posted: **Tue Apr 28, 2015 7:02 pm**

Excidium Planetis wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote: Read Section 3.

3) Reserves to individual member states, within the requirements of existing international law, the power to create, implement, amend and repeal electoral laws, rules, regulations and guidelines regarding elections held within member states.

Note the bold. Any WA resolutions passed would affect this clause, obviously. It does not prevent any further resolutions promoting (or discouraging) free and fair elections.

"Incorrect. It says existing. Therefore, new proposals, which are not existing laws, would be in contradiction of this clause, and ruled illegal prior to making it to vote."

Posted: **Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:23 pm**

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Excidium Planetis wrote:

Note the bold. Any WA resolutions passed would affect this clause, obviously. It does not prevent any further resolutions promoting (or discouraging) free and fair elections.

"Incorrect. It says existing. Therefore, new proposals, which are not existing laws, would be in contradiction of this clause, and ruled illegal prior to making it to vote."

No, they are correct. Existing, in a legal sense, means an enforced law, any new law will be an 'existing' law, by virtue of the fact that it exists. If this was meant to excuse all WA members from adhering to any future regulations, this proposal should be thrown out the window so hard, the resulting concussive force is visible from Mars.

Posted: **Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:33 pm**

LeaveAlone wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:"Incorrect. It says existing. Therefore, new proposals, which are not existing laws, would be in contradiction of this clause, and ruled illegal prior to making it to vote."

No, they are correct. Existing, in a legal sense, means an enforced law, any new law will be an 'existing' law, by virtue of the fact that it exists. If this was meant to excuse all WA members from adhering to any future regulations, this proposal should be thrown out the window so hard, the resulting concussive force is visible from Mars.

It wasn't meant to to excuse WA members from future proposals. It is opponents of this resolution that claim it was meant as a blocker, which clearly it is not due to the "existing laws" clause.

It was, however, meant to clarify that it isn't an ideology ban by imposing democracy.

I am always astounded at the ways people can misinterpret resolutions. I think should I ever write a GA resolution I will have the final clause say "CLARIFYING the contents and intents of this resolution as..." to make sure people get the picture.

Posted: **Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:34 pm**

LeaveAlone wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:"Incorrect. It says existing. Therefore, new proposals, which are not existing laws, would be in contradiction of this clause, and ruled illegal prior to making it to vote."

No, they are correct. Existing, in a legal sense, means an enforced law, any new law will be an 'existing' law, by virtue of the fact that it exists. If this was meant to excuse all WA members from adhering to any future regulations, this proposal should be thrown out the window so hard, the resulting concussive force is visible from Mars.

Point of order. Existing, in a temporal sense, means that something is tangible now. Future law doesn't exist yet, therefore it is not and cannot be dreamed to be "existing law." The intent is not "to excuse all WA members from adhering to any future regulations," the intent is to bar future regulations themselves from asserting WA control (which is partly driven by the concerns of anti-democratic regimes) over the electoral affairs of democracies. Which seems more than rational to us.

Posted: **Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:41 pm**

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:
LeaveAlone wrote:
No, they are correct. Existing, in a legal sense, means an enforced law, any new law will be an 'existing' law, by virtue of the fact that it exists. If this was meant to excuse all WA members from adhering to any future regulations, this proposal should be thrown out the window so hard, the resulting concussive force is visible from Mars.

Point of order. Existing, in a temporal sense, means that something is tangible now. Future law doesn't exist yet, therefore it is not and cannot be dreamed to be "existing law." The intent is not "to excuse all WA members from adhering to any future regulations," the intent is to bar future regulations themselves from asserting WA control (which is partly driven by the concerns of anti-democratic regimes) over the electoral affairs of democracies. Which seems more than rational to us.

No, because when any future law passes it becomes an "existing" law. As soon as Resolution X passes it becomes an existing law, and therefore becomes part of this resolution's clause. If a resolution forcing everyone to become democracies, for example, was passed, then nations would have to become democracies because this resolution's clause expressly states nations must comply to existing laws.

Posted: **Tue Apr 28, 2015 9:01 pm**

Excidium Planetis wrote:
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:
Point of order. Existing, in a temporal sense, means that something is tangible now. Future law doesn't exist yet, therefore it is not and cannot be dreamed to be "existing law." The intent is not "to excuse all WA members from adhering to any future regulations," the intent is to bar future regulations themselves from asserting WA control (which is partly driven by the concerns of anti-democratic regimes) over the electoral affairs of democracies. Which seems more than rational to us.

No, because when any future law passes it becomes an "existing" law. As soon as Resolution X passes it becomes an existing law, and therefore becomes part of this resolution's clause. If a resolution forcing everyone to become democracies, for example, was passed, then nations would have to become democracies because this resolution's clause expressly states nations must comply to existing laws.

We'll agree that the language is somewhat ambiguous, but the context makes it clear that "existing" is meant to be read as "existing at the time of passage of the resolution", especially in light of similar language used in other "blocker" proposals as well as the third clause in the preamble of this proposal:

However concerned that any further WA legislation regarding elections will discourage further democratisation,

You should also consider that, under your interpretation, the clause would have no effect whatsoever; nations maintain sovereignty in areas not addressed by World Assembly legislation by default. Why would the author include a completely useless clause in their proposal?

Incidentally, we are strongly opposed to this proposal for prohibiting World Assembly regulation of elections.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

Posted: **Tue Apr 28, 2015 9:08 pm**

Excidium Planetis wrote:
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:
Point of order. Existing, in a temporal sense, means that something is tangible now. Future law doesn't exist yet, therefore it is not and cannot be dreamed to be "existing law." The intent is not "to excuse all WA members from adhering to any future regulations," the intent is to bar future regulations themselves from asserting WA control (which is partly driven by the concerns of anti-democratic regimes) over the electoral affairs of democracies. Which seems more than rational to us.

No, because when any future law passes it becomes an "existing" law. As soon as Resolution X passes it becomes an existing law, and therefore becomes part of this resolution's clause. If a resolution forcing everyone to become democracies, for example, was passed, then nations would have to become democracies because this resolution's clause expressly states nations must comply to existing laws.

What on earth would be the point of mentioning any law whatsoever, then? Forget for a moment that a resolution forcing everyone to become democracies would be illegal (for being an ideological ban), if your interpretation were correct there would be literally nothing that could possibly contradict that clause. No matter what you wrote, it would become part of the body of "existing international law." Thus even if your draft included the statement "Only walruses will be given sovereign franchise and considered to be citizens of WA states," this schizophrenic time traveler's definition of the word "existing" means that's the law now.

No legislative body could possibly function so.

In sum: it is a blocker; and we strongly support it.

Posted: **Tue Apr 28, 2015 9:09 pm**

Railana wrote:
Excidium Planetis wrote:
No, because when any future law passes it becomes an "existing" law. As soon as Resolution X passes it becomes an existing law, and therefore becomes part of this resolution's clause. If a resolution forcing everyone to become democracies, for example, was passed, then nations would have to become democracies because this resolution's clause expressly states nations must comply to existing laws.

We'll agree that the language is somewhat ambiguous, but the context makes it clear that "existing" is meant to be read as "existing at the time of passage of the resolution", especially in light of similar language used in other "blocker" proposals as well as the third clause in the preamble of this proposal:

However concerned that any further WA legislation regarding elections will discourage further democratisation,

You should also consider that, under your interpretation, the clause would have no effect whatsoever; nations maintain sovereignty in areas not addressed by World Assembly legislation by default. Why would the author include a completely useless clause in their proposal?

Incidentally, we are strongly opposed to this proposal for prohibiting World Assembly regulation of elections.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

Why would an author include an absolutely useless clause? Probably in a (failed) attempt to prevent this:

Kaltib wrote:Kaltib believes that this idea to expand democracy is ridiculous. We can not impose democracy on sovereign nations. In addition some countries don't want to rule with a democracy and that is fine.

It is remarkable that even with a clause stating the obvious fact that nations are not compelled to be democratic, some WA members still believe that is the intent of the resolution!

How does this proposal prohibit WA regulation of elections, when it expressly allows it in clause 2?

Posted: **Tue Apr 28, 2015 9:12 pm**

Let's not forget the author's stated intent.

Bananaistan wrote:The problem I wish to address here is the various proposals we have seen in recent times which seek to either impose restrictions on nations on how they run their own internal democracy. We have had proposals regarding the ex-cons voting, free and fair elections and the current debate regarding compulsory voting. I find it objectionable that the WA would even consider any of these things when it has not yet even established a right to vote. While I well realise that the WA cannot do so due to the ideological ban rule, within an RP mode, I would say that until we address such an issue we should not be skirting around the edges. I hope the above can be turned into an effective blocker on the issue.

Posted: **Tue Apr 28, 2015 9:19 pm**

LeaveAlone wrote:[... Existing, in a legal sense, means an enforced law, any new law will be an 'existing' law etc ...

Most GA members are not lawyers, so it's unwise to write a proposal that depends on readers knowing the legal sense of a term. You might be able to squeeze one in by putting it in a definition, but for the most part, mods tend to interpret meaning based on the general sense of a word, not the specific legal meaning. For example, in Australian industrial law there's a difference in meaning between "child labour" and "child work". But, while the concept is central to GA#4, Restrictions on Child Labor, GA members don't have to have a specialist legal vocabulary to understand that Resolution.

[EDIT]Plus, "legal meaning" in a Real World nation is not related to "legal meaning" in an NS nation, unless the latter is modelled on the former.[/EDIT]
(Newcomers, the preceding is just a general comment about reading GA Resolutions, in case you decide you want to write one one day.)

As to the clause in question, Separatist Peoples is right. (Sierra Lyricalia's and Christian Democrats' explanations are right, too, but SP's post is neutral.) It's a classic, specific, WA blocker. By giving nations a right, the WA hands over its own power to enact new laws about that right.

Posted: **Tue Apr 28, 2015 9:20 pm**

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:What on earth would be the point of mentioning any law whatsoever, then? Forget for a moment that a resolution forcing everyone to become democracies would be illegal (for being an ideological ban), if your interpretation were correct there would be literally nothing that could possibly contradict that clause.

The point of the clause is to clarify that it is not an ideology ban, and makes sure nothing can contradict it so that it isn't a blocker. How do you not see the point of this clause?

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:this schizophrenic time traveler's definition of the word "existing" means that's the law now.

No legislative body could possibly function so.

Funny, because most real world legislatures function so. It isn't a schizophrenic time traveler's definition, is is the definition. If at the time I read the proposal, there exists a law applying to WA nations, it is an existing law! 5 years from now, if I read this proposal, it will read "existing [at this moment in time] laws".

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:In sum: it is a blocker; and we strongly support it.

It isn't, but your support is appreciated.

Posted: **Thu Apr 30, 2015 7:34 am**

Elections have been a component of decolonization, democratic transitions, and the implementation of peace accords in countries around the globe, and the WA needs to play a major role in providing assistance for these important processes of change.

The WA needs to promote the electoral assistance draws upon the complementary expertise and capacities of many parts of the WA family. The World Assembly needs to provides a wide variety of electoral assistance. In terms of technical support, which is most frequently requested, advice and support may be provided for electoral administration and planning, review of electoral laws and regulations, electoral dispute resolution, boundary delimitation, voter registration, election budgeting, logistics and procurement, use of technology, training, voter and civic education, voting and counting operations and election security.

In addition to requests from Member States, WA electoral assistance would be mandated by a WA governing body such as the Security Council or the General Assembly. This is often the case when peacekeeping or peacebuilding missions are established with electoral components. Even when mandated by such bodies, WA electoral assistance must be approved by the relevant Member State.

Furthermore, Democracy is built on the very pillar of fairness which gives it clear advantage over alternative forms of government. In democracy, every citizen has a fair chance to come to power. Every individual has one vote and every vote has equal value. The say of a slum dweller in deciding the political future of the country is the same as that of a millionaire industrialist. Free and fair elections are held from time to time under the supervision of an independent body. A true democracy is a platform of healthy competition, not subjected to muscle might or power play.

We and all the nations that believe in the work of WA promoting peace and stability are strongly opposed to this proposal for prohibiting World Assembly regulation of elections.

Lady Clarisse of Grimaldi
Chief Ambassador, Montenbourg Mission to the World Assembly

Posted: **Thu Apr 30, 2015 7:38 am**

Montenbourg wrote:In addition to requests from Member States, WA electoral assistance would be mandated by a WA governing body such as the Security Council or the General Assembly. This is often the case when peacekeeping or peacebuilding missions are established with electoral components. Even when mandated by such bodies, WA electoral assistance must be approved by the relevant Member State.

"The World Assembly doesn't have a Security Council, is constitutionally prohibited from engaging in or sanctioning peacekeeping or peacebuilding missions, and cannot require free and fair elections - or indeed, any form of required democracy.

"It's a nice little speech, but it doesn't bear any relationship to the political reality this proposal is trying to address."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

Posted: **Thu Apr 30, 2015 9:12 am**

Montenbourg wrote:Elections have been a component of decolonization, democratic transitions, and the implementation of peace accords in countries around the globe, and the WA needs to play a major role in providing assistance for these important processes of change.

The WA needs to promote the electoral assistance draws upon the complementary expertise and capacities of many parts of the WA family. The World Assembly needs to provides a wide variety of electoral assistance. In terms of technical support, which is most frequently requested, advice and support may be provided for electoral administration and planning, review of electoral laws and regulations, electoral dispute resolution, boundary delimitation, voter registration, election budgeting, logistics and procurement, use of technology, training, voter and civic education, voting and counting operations and election security.

In addition to requests from Member States, WA electoral assistance would be mandated by a WA governing body such as the Security Council or the General Assembly. This is often the case when peacekeeping or peacebuilding missions are established with electoral components. Even when mandated by such bodies, WA electoral assistance must be approved by the relevant Member State.

The Organisation for Electoral Assistance, referred to in this proposal, was established by GAR#130. It already provides all this assistance to transitioning nations. Nothing in this proposal would impact on that. However, once a nation begins a transition to democracy, they must comply with any binding WA legislation on the matter. For example, GAR#130 requires a secret ballot and that aggregate results be published. The Disabled Voters Act also has some requirements around access to polling. There have been other proposals in the area which would also have introduced further requirements on all democratic nations, whether transitioning or mature. It is our opinion that such requirements may be onerous on transitioning nations and it is unreasonable to expect them to immediately comply with a potentially large volume of international law on the subject. This is a secondary plank of our argument and we have referred to it in the proposal.

Furthermore, Democracy is built on the very pillar of fairness which gives it clear advantage over alternative forms of government. In democracy, every citizen has a fair chance to come to power. Every individual has one vote and every vote has equal value. The say of a slum dweller in deciding the political future of the country is the same as that of a millionaire industrialist. Free and fair elections are held from time to time under the supervision of an independent body. A true democracy is a platform of healthy competition, not subjected to muscle might or power play.

We fully agree and Bananaistan, like any other mature democracy, can do all this perfectly well by ourselves. However, this proposal would have actually allowed us to call in an international body to supervise and certify our elections if we so wished. At the moment, there is no method open to members of the WA to call in a WA body to do so.

We and all the nations that believe in the work of WA promoting peace and stability are strongly opposed to this proposal for prohibiting World Assembly regulation of elections.

That's all well and good. Bananaistan believes in this also, yet what we primarily object to is the status quo in which every sort of abominable dictatorship has a say in regulating our elections while they themselves do not have to comply. The main reason we brought this proposal before this assembly was to attempt to address this situation.

We are somewhat heartened that the proposal is not being defeated by a huge margin. This suggests to us that there may be a passable resolution on the topic and we will endeavour to continue our work on it. But as we have bemoaned throughout the debate, it is rather a shame that so many delegations have not contributed to the debate. It is difficult to address issues with the proposal of which we have not made aware.

Posted: **Thu Apr 30, 2015 11:09 am**

The Dark Star Republic wrote:
Montenbourg wrote:In addition to requests from Member States, WA electoral assistance would be mandated by a WA governing body such as the Security Council or the General Assembly. This is often the case when peacekeeping or peacebuilding missions are established with electoral components. Even when mandated by such bodies, WA electoral assistance must be approved by the relevant Member State.

"The World Assembly doesn't have a Security Council, is constitutionally prohibited from engaging in or sanctioning peacekeeping or peacebuilding missions, and cannot require free and fair elections - or indeed, any form of required democracy.

"It's a nice little speech, but it doesn't bear any relationship to the political reality this proposal is trying to address."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

Yes. Yes it does. It's right here: https://www.nationstates.net/page=sc

And it isn't prohibited from engaging in peacekeeping efforts, it's only prohibited from having a peacekeeping army.

Posted: **Thu Apr 30, 2015 2:04 pm**

Excidium Planetis wrote:
The Dark Star Republic wrote:"The World Assembly doesn't have a Security Council, is constitutionally prohibited from engaging in or sanctioning peacekeeping or peacebuilding missions, and cannot require free and fair elections - or indeed, any form of required democracy.

"It's a nice little speech, but it doesn't bear any relationship to the political reality this proposal is trying to address."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

Yes. Yes it does. It's right here: https://www.nationstates.net/page=sc

And it isn't prohibited from engaging in peacekeeping efforts, it's only prohibited from having a peacekeeping army.

OOC: many players RP as though the SC, which is not inherently IC, doesn't exist. It's common practice. Additionally, the WA cannot have a peacekeeping military, and cannot assume command of member states. There is then no way for the WA to direct concerted peacekeeping efforts. TDSR is correct.

I notice that you haven't made a comment on the overturning of your "existing law" interpretation by a mod. I assume you accept that as truth now, or are you going to turn to more incorrect assumptions regarding Roleplay to cover it up?

Posted: **Thu Apr 30, 2015 7:13 pm**

As all nation-states are, by definition, sovereign, their freedom to pursue political objectives and exert political pressure wherever they so choose is of utmost importance. Allahngrad, for one, is vehemently opposed to submitting to an international government, in regards to its own political pursuits. Our holy nation beseeches understanding and assent from the World Assembly, that this proposal is contrary to the ideals of a sovereign nation.

Posted: **Thu Apr 30, 2015 9:03 pm**

Allahngrad wrote:As all nation-states are, by definition, sovereign, their freedom to pursue political objectives and exert political pressure wherever they so choose is of utmost importance. Allahngrad, for one, is vehemently opposed to submitting to an international government, in regards to its own political pursuits. Our holy nation beseeches understanding and assent from the World Assembly, that this proposal is contrary to the ideals of a sovereign nation.

If you don't want to submit to an international government, why is your nation part of the World Assembly? As the world assembly is, by definition, a device to infringe on sovereignty.
And this proposal is actually designed to reduce the amount that the WA can intervene in your nation's affairs.

Posted: **Fri May 01, 2015 11:20 am**

Excidium Planetis wrote:
The Dark Star Republic wrote:"The World Assembly doesn't have a Security Council, is constitutionally prohibited from engaging in or sanctioning peacekeeping or peacebuilding missions, and cannot require free and fair elections - or indeed, any form of required democracy.

"It's a nice little speech, but it doesn't bear any relationship to the political reality this proposal is trying to address."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

Yes. Yes it does. It's right here: https://www.nationstates.net/page=sc

And it isn't prohibited from engaging in peacekeeping efforts, it's only prohibited from having a peacekeeping army.

He doesn't mean the "Security Council" where you get to hand out badges and referee raids, but an actual security council equipped to address international crises and authorize appropriate coordinated responses.

Posted: **Fri May 01, 2015 11:39 am**

this is an outrage!! regions invading regions and nations invading nations is the nature of the world!

Posted: **Fri May 01, 2015 11:40 am**

but seriously that had no chance of passing.

Posted: **Sat May 02, 2015 1:04 pm**

From the Rejected Times, posted here for posterity (I can plug articles too, you know

):

The Rejected Realms Media Corporation wrote:Moderator Interference Proves Troublesome with 'Non-Interference' Proposal
COMMENTARY | OMIGODTHEYKILLEDKENNY, EDITORIAL ASSISTANT

In what must have been a botched training exercise for improving moderation in the General Assembly -- because really, their timing could not have been worse -- a wrongful deletion of a proposal on monitoring elections cast a pall over GA mods' recent attempts to reach out to players for suggestions on how they could do better.

Just hours following the submission of Bananaistan's Non-interference in Elections, and after 1,400 stamps had already been purchased to advertise the proposal to delegates, the proposal was removed from the queue, with the only advisement from the moderation team being a form telegram helpfully informing the author that he should draft his proposal in the GA forum -- even though he had already been drafting the proposal there for months, with no mod input -- and a vague note that his work supposedly duplicated Elections and Assistance Act. (For those not in the know, duplicating past resolutions is illegal.)

When Bananaistan asked for clarification, another telegram was sent from the mods, informing him that his proposal also duplicated Rights and Duties of WA States. As it became apparent that the proposal didn't actually duplicate either resolution, Mousebumples and Mallorea and Riva, newly appointed Game Mods, promised more clarification, just as soon as they could huddle together to figure out what exactly was wrong with the proposal (which might have been a useful discussion before they abruptly deleted it, really).

As players began to chide the mods for seemingly demonstrating why a conference with players over improving GA moderation was so badly needed -- allegedly uninformed actions/rulings based on mods' refusal to interact on the drafting forum, and essentially 'deleting proposals first, asking questions later' -- the mods quickly issued another ruling that the proposal was legal after all, but still needed work (ostensibly to make it even more legal).

With Bananaistan left to lick his wounds after spending money to campaign for a totally legal proposal that the mods nonetheless deleted, GA regulars continued to hound the Secretariat over an embarrassing SNAFU that easily could have been prevented had they set out to do what they've been promising to do over the past couple of weeks: increase their presence in the GA drafting rooms, lest there be any more unnecessary mishaps after proposals are submitted.

Better luck next time, Bananaistan.

NationStates

[DEFEATED] Non-interference in Elections