[PASSED] Disabled Voters Act

[Christian Democrats]

There are "free and fair" elections in RL. The point of having someone poke their head in is to ensure that the person helping the disabled person is truly filling out the ballot as the disabled person wishes. And not voting as they wish while misleading the rightful voter.

Just because a person's disabled doesn't mean he's stupid. Also, Australian balloting isn't universal.

No resolution is enforced. The gnomes makes sure the laws conform to resolutions, but the enforcement of the laws are in the hands of the individual nations. If those nations choose to ignore those laws, then they are not enforced. The WA has no way to make a nation enforce those laws.

Even if we accept this unorthodox roleplay, your nation opens itself to a barrage of lawsuits under Section 5. If your domestic courts start issuing rulings declaring your government noncompliant with Sections 1, 2, and 4, what then?

The High Court of Jarish Inyo finds that the government is not making a good-faith effort to secure equal voting rights for disabled citizens.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The High Court of Jarish Inyo finds that the government is not making a good-faith effort to secure equal voting rights for disabled citizens.

Then, in Your Excellency, in my country, you'd get three results, either:

(1) "Your Lordship! The horror! Whilst the government has been attempting to do this, it has proven impossible"

(2) "The House of Lords overrides all lower courts and their decisions regarding the operability of any 'good faith' clause"

(3) "... sentenced to naught years in prison, a fine of naught pounds sterling, and no additional penalties whatsoever"

You cannot really legislate 'you must follow legislation' into your law. It doesn't work.

[Jarish Inyo]

There are "free and fair" elections in RL. The point of having someone poke their head in is to ensure that the person helping the disabled person is truly filling out the ballot as the disabled person wishes. And not voting as they wish while misleading the rightful voter.

Just because a person's disabled doesn't mean he's stupid. Also, Australian balloting isn't universal.

No resolution is enforced. The gnomes makes sure the laws conform to resolutions, but the enforcement of the laws are in the hands of the individual nations. If those nations choose to ignore those laws, then they are not enforced. The WA has no way to make a nation enforce those laws.

Even if we accept this unorthodox roleplay, your nation opens itself to a barrage of lawsuits under Section 5. If your domestic courts start issuing rulings declaring your government noncompliant with Sections 1, 2, and 4, what then?

The High Court of Jarish Inyo finds that the government is not making a good-faith effort to secure equal voting rights for disabled citizens.

I never said being disabled means a person is stupid. But needed someone to explain and fill out one's ballot is evidence that a person should not be voting.

You're first assuming that the courts of Jarish Inyo would even entertain wasting it's time on frivolous law suits, it doesn't actually opens my nation to a barrage of law suits. The High Court of Jarish Inyo is the Emperor himself. I doubt you'll get him to rule against his own government.

Providing booths that citizens in wheel chairs can vote or providing ballots in braille so a blind citizen can vote are one thing. But allowing someone that can't read and write or comprehend the ballot to take someone into the booth with them is another. The state can protect itself by requiring medical forms proving an individual is disabled is provided and verified.

[Hirota]

C) No resolution is enforced. The gnomes makes sure the laws conform to resolutions, but the enforcement of the laws are in the hands of the individual nations. If those nations choose to ignore those laws, then they are not enforced. The WA has no way to make a nation enforce those laws.

Outside of roleplay wank, they are absolutely enforced. You can pretend all you want (and I have neither the interest or inclination to correct your delusions), but that doesn't change the facts.

[Mandokarla]

C) No resolution is enforced. The gnomes makes sure the laws conform to resolutions, but the enforcement of the laws are in the hands of the individual nations. If those nations choose to ignore those laws, then they are not enforced. The WA has no way to make a nation enforce those laws.

Has anyone mentioned this straight from the help page yet?

"Unfortunately you can't obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations."

The defense rests, Your Honor.

[Christian Democrats]

I never said being disabled means a person is stupid. But needed someone to explain and fill out one's ballot is evidence that a person should not be voting.

Who said an explanation is needed? What if a quadriplegic citizen has a cousin with him in the voting booth to mark the boxes?

Providing booths that citizens in wheel chairs can vote or providing ballots in braille so a blind citizen can vote are one thing. But allowing someone that can't read and write or comprehend the ballot to take someone into the booth with them is another.

Dyslexia is explicitly named in Section 1 because dyslexics are completely normal except for their difficulties processing written words.

[Hirota]

C) No resolution is enforced. The gnomes makes sure the laws conform to resolutions, but the enforcement of the laws are in the hands of the individual nations. If those nations choose to ignore those laws, then they are not enforced. The WA has no way to make a nation enforce those laws.

Has anyone mentioned this straight from the help page yet?

"Unfortunately you can't obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations."

The defense rests, Your Honor.

You don't expect nutjobs like the ambassador from Jarish Inyo to actually read do you?

[Bears Armed Mission]

I'm afraid you're mistaken. The national government does not have to ratify a resolution for it to be effective. Membership in the World Assembly itself is agreement to abide by its legislation whether or not your nation agrees or disagrees (ratifies or does not ratify) with any particular resolution. As long as support exceeds 50 percent, it must be incorporated into your laws.

Maybe in your nation all resolutions passed automatically enter the law-books without the government having to consider whether or not they’re acceptable, but the Bears were a bit more cautious. The constitutional amendment that was actually necessary before the national government could take the nation into the WA on the first paw (and that was only the 8-&-1'th amendment that had then been passed during the almost [4x(8 squared)] years since the constitution was initially adopted] contained a checking process: When each resolution [that came to vote during their period of membership] was about to pass it had to be examined by a ministerial committee for constitutionality, with the committee either ratifying it as acceptable or indicating that the nation had to leave the WA instead… which is why, due to an earlier resolution that also breached our constituional rules as to what would be acceptable, Bears Armed itself — as distinct from Bears Armed Mission — is no longer within the WA…

This proposal would permit that incorporation of international law to be done by national governments or by their "political subdivisions" (states, provinces, territories, clans, etc.), so it does account for federal and confederal setups.

You’re missing the point of my argument. In those nations with federal or confederal setups within which jurisdiction over this topic constitutionally lies with the “political subdivisions” rather than with the national government, or at least in some of them (including Bears Armed), the very fact that the national government isn’t allowed to legislate on the matter directly itself also means that it can’t do so indirectly by passing a law requiring those subdivisions to pass laws themselves adopting a specified policy in that respect neither.

Your argument -- each subdivision did not make an individual choice to join the World Assembly -- could be made against any resolution.

Firstly, my argument isn’t “ each subdivision did not make an individual choice to join the World Assembly”, it’s “this proposed resolution goes into matters that my nation’s constitution holds should be handled at the ‘Clan’ level rather than nationally, and over which therefore the national government has no legal jurisdiction, meaning that my main nation [rather than its just WA puppet, which operates under simpler rules) simply could not be a WA member while this resolution was in force”… and this isn’t the first proposal that the Bears’ diplomats have argued against on that basis.
Secondly, actually, in effect each Clan [and other Confederated Body) did make “an individual choice to join the World Assembly” — or, at any rate, enough of them to form the necessary [qualified] majority for passing the constitutional amendment involved, and thus to over-ride the “anti-“ faction’s wishes did so — even though the WA’s rules meant that it was then their collective ‘national’ government alone rather than the separate governments of the individual clans [& etc] in which that membership was legally vested.

Internal disagreement with your national government's WA membership is purely a domestic issue.

And in some people’s opinion the topic of this proposal should also be “purely a domestic issue” too.

It would not be duplication to write a separate proposal on this issue. I'll give you the main clause right now:

Declares that no member state or subdivision thereof shall deny an individual the right to vote in a public election because of education, knowledge, intelligence, or intellectual disability.

I doubt it would pass, but you're free to try. Nothing in this act prevents such an attempt as Section 6 explicitly states.

However it might fall foul GA resolution #299 ‘Legal Competence’ , whose operative clause #4 “Acknowledges the right of member nations to set reasonable thresholds of maturity and/or mental capability for people to hold any other rights or responsibilities within their jurisdictions (including but not limited to, whatever is legal there in terms of political matters,”.

[Christian Democrats]

Thank you for pointing that out! If this proposal had covered intellectual disability,* it would have violated Resolution 299, which reserves for individual member states the power to set intelligence limits on political rights, such as the right to vote.
______________
* I wouldn't have wanted this anyway.

[Bananaistan]

I do believe that section 5 has led to a lot of the recent debate on compliance. We raised this already but in the rush to submission our contribution was missed or ignored by the proposing delegation.

Section 5 seems to assume that all nations have a particular style of justice system. Ofc this is another thing that the WA has failed to implement: independent judiciary. Also, I had though that it was considered unnecessary to include provisions dealing with non-compliance in proposals?

Not to worry anyway. This can be a major plank of a repeal effort. I am unaware of any other resolution which deals in itself with non-compliance by governments of member states; the assumption across the board seems to be that these things automatically happen. This proposal doesn't make that assumption. Instead it introduces a hugely exploitable loop hole: this is the resolution, this is what you must do but if you don't a citizen can sue you in your courts. So instead of the usual automatic compliance, this resolution implements a new, differing method of attempting to ensure compliance. Ofc, given that the WA has yet to guarantee an independent judiciary, who's to say that anyone suing a non-compliant government would get any fair or reasonable redress?

FWIW, given this loop hole, Bananaistan will be almost in full compliance with the resolution anyway, except that we will continue to only allow a person to assist no more than two individuals, regardless of how they're related or who they live with.

[Separatist Peoples]

C) No resolution is enforced. The gnomes makes sure the laws conform to resolutions, but the enforcement of the laws are in the hands of the individual nations. If those nations choose to ignore those laws, then they are not enforced. The WA has no way to make a nation enforce those laws.

Has anyone mentioned this straight from the help page yet?

"Unfortunately you can't obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations."

The defense rests, Your Honor.

OOC: thank you! I've been looking for that quote for ages!

[Bananaistan]

Has anyone mentioned this straight from the help page yet?

"Unfortunately you can't obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations."

The defense rests, Your Honor.

OOC: thank you! I've been looking for that quote for ages!

Doesn't that little sentence make this proposal illegal considering this proposal, by including a remedy for citizens in the case of non-compliance, allows nations not to comply?

Edit: Interesting post here about enforcing compliance within a resolution. Although the proposal in question was entirely relating to compliance, one would expect that the point stands, as clause 5 here attempts to enforce compliance by providing a remedy at court to anyone effected by non-compliance.

(Major nod to The Dourian Embassy's "ruling repository" for allowing me to quickly find this.)

[Jarish Inyo]

I never said being disabled means a person is stupid. But needed someone to explain and fill out one's ballot is evidence that a person should not be voting.

Who said an explanation is needed? What if a quadriplegic citizen has a cousin with him in the voting booth to mark the boxes?

Providing booths that citizens in wheel chairs can vote or providing ballots in braille so a blind citizen can vote are one thing. But allowing someone that can't read and write or comprehend the ballot to take someone into the booth with them is another.

Dyslexia is explicitly named in Section 1 because dyslexics are completely normal except for their difficulties processing written words.

There are other ways for a quadriplegic citizen to vote without having someone in the booth with them. It's most likely that said citizen would not come to the polling place and vote by absentee ballot.

Actually, dyslexic citizens can learn to to read normally. They just have to be willing to work at. I know from personal experience as I am dyslexic. I'm sorry, dyslexia is not an excuse for needing someone in the booth with them.

C) No resolution is enforced. The gnomes makes sure the laws conform to resolutions, but the enforcement of the laws are in the hands of the individual nations. If those nations choose to ignore those laws, then they are not enforced. The WA has no way to make a nation enforce those laws.

Has anyone mentioned this straight from the help page yet?

"Unfortunately you can't obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations."

The defense rests, Your Honor.

Actually, one can ignore resolutions that the don't like. The issues are regularly opposed to WA resolutions and the way you vote has alot to do with a nation's stats. A nation can regularly pass laws in opposed to WA resolutions. While the passage of a WA resolution changes current laws of a nation to conform to the resolution, a nation can always wait until an issue comes again and vote in opposition of the resolution.

Everyone seems to be under the assumption that the gnomes changing a nations law to comply with WA resolutions means that a nation is actually enforcing the resolutions. This is not true. As I pointed out, the gnomes of the compliance committee change the laws. They don't ensure actual enforcement of a resolution.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Doesn't that little sentence make this proposal illegal considering this proposal, by including a remedy for citizens in the case of non-compliance, allows nations not to comply?

If you really think this proposal is illegal then you have about 33 hours to lobby for a discard. But given the current mod response time is closer to 33 weeks, I would put your chances of effecting that at less than zero.

(Major nod to The Dourian Embassy's "ruling repository" for allowing me to quickly find this.)

It is indeed wonderful that we have such a resource that is kept up to date and which the mods avail themselves of so regularly.

[Bananaistan]

Doesn't that little sentence make this proposal illegal considering this proposal, by including a remedy for citizens in the case of non-compliance, allows nations not to comply?

If you really think this proposal is illegal then you have about 33 hours to lobby for a discard. But given the current mod response time is closer to 33 weeks, I would put your chances of effecting that at less than zero.

In order to be above board and transparent, we can state that we have sent an emergency communication to the secretariat in this respect.

[Mandokarla]

Doesn't that little sentence make this proposal illegal considering this proposal, by including a remedy for citizens in the case of non-compliance, allows nations not to comply?

The proposal as I understand it only give citizens the right to fight back in the case of non-compliance. It doesn't actually give a nation the right to not to comply.
For example, let's say a nation decided that the proposal was stupid and didn't comply. A citizen that is considered disabled by the definition of this proposal could sue the government.
Please correct me if I'm misinterpreting something or if my logic is screwed up.

[Bananaistan]

Doesn't that little sentence make this proposal illegal considering this proposal, by including a remedy for citizens in the case of non-compliance, allows nations not to comply?

The proposal as I understand it only give citizens the right to fight back in the case of non-compliance. It doesn't actually give a nation the right to not to comply.
For example, let's say a nation decided that the proposal was stupid and didn't comply. A citizen that is considered disabled by the definition of this proposal could sue the government.
Please correct me if I'm misinterpreting something or if my logic is screwed up.

It has already been established by the game rules and by moderator precedent that compliance is mandatory and automatic. It is impossible for a nation to decide not to comply. It is ofc possible for rulers to creatively comply, that is comply with the letter of the law but not the spirit. But that's not my point, my point is that, AFAIK, no other resolution within itself provides a remedy for people harmed by a government's non-compliance with it.

[Defwa]

The proposal as I understand it only give citizens the right to fight back in the case of non-compliance. It doesn't actually give a nation the right to not to comply.
For example, let's say a nation decided that the proposal was stupid and didn't comply. A citizen that is considered disabled by the definition of this proposal could sue the government.
Please correct me if I'm misinterpreting something or if my logic is screwed up.

It has already been established by the game rules and by moderator precedent that compliance is mandatory and automatic. It is impossible for a nation to decide not to comply. It is ofc possible for rulers to creatively comply, that is comply with the letter of the law but not the spirit. But that's not my point, my point is that, AFAIK, no other resolution within itself provides a remedy for people harmed by a government's non-compliance with it.

OOC: Until I can see that reflected in the role play reality with any measure of reliability, I'm going to continue to encourage compliance clauses.

[Christian Democrats]

We raised this already but in the rush to submission our contribution was missed or ignored by the proposing delegation.

It was neither missed nor ignored. I replied to your post.

I am unaware of any other resolution which deals in itself with non-compliance by governments of member states

It's an enforcement mechanism, much like those of other resolutions and proposals.

GA#306 tells nations not to kill POWs but instructs courts to try soldiers who do kill POWs, thus assuming that some soldiers (who are, in fact, government agents) will not comply.

GA#300 tells nations to "treat violations of this resolution as criminal offenses."

GA#297 declares "that no National Adoption Board may establish regulations, procedures, protocols, or standards regarding intercountry adoption that are contradictory or additional to those established by WAAA."

GA#272 bans chemical weapons attacks by member states but creates a committee to deal with chemical weapons attacks "offensive" to the resolution, thus assuming some nations will not comply.

GA#263 tells an international committee "to verify a nations [sic] economic requirements to conform to this act," thus assuming some nations will not conform to the resolution.

GA#255 exempts from protection nations that are not "in full compliance with the obligations" of the resolution.

GA#242 gives nations certain rights "so long as they are in compliance with the provisions of this resolution."

GA#208 gives a committee the power to fine governments noncompliant with the provisions of the resolution.

GA#198 prohibits governments from "circumventing" the resolution.

GA#194 gives prisoners the right to sue the prison (a government actor) if it is violating their rights under the resolution.

GA#183 gives courts the power to block government prosecutions that violate the right to self-defense.

I looked at resolutions going back to 2012. These resolutions and others deal with the possibility of noncompliance.

This proposal doesn't make that assumption. Instead it introduces a hugely exploitable loop hole: this is the resolution, this is what you must do but if you don't a citizen can sue you in your courts. So instead of the usual automatic compliance, this resolution implements a new, differing method of attempting to ensure compliance.

It doesn't implement a new, differing method of compliance. It commits to domestic courts the authority to interpret this resolution given that there will naturally be differing views within nations of what counts as a good-faith effort toward equality.

Interesting post here about enforcing compliance within a resolution.

Apparently, you didn't read the line in that four-year-old post that says that players are allowed to "[take] existing game mechanics and [give] them an RP flavour." This proposal does not assume noncompliance; it assumes different views of good-faith efforts and equality and gives domestic courts the jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes between such competing views OF COMPLIANCE.

The government says it's doing enough to comply, but disability rights advocates think it should do more. Hence, they sue.

Also, that ruling deals with a stand-alone proposal that tried to deal with noncompliance in roleplay, thus breaking the fourth wall.

In order to be above board and transparent, we can state that we have sent an emergency communication to the secretariat in this respect.

Your claim doesn't fit within any recognized violation named in the General Assembly Rules. Nothing prevents proposals from establishing mechanisms for deciding between competing views of compliance. It's the same as a committee.

---

Also, is Resolution 301 illegal because it allows nations to be noncompliant for one year?

How about all of the international tribunal proposals right now? Do they not assume that some member states will violate the human rights protected by international law, thus warranting trials of their leaders?

[Christian Democrats]

In addition, it should be noted that the ruling you cite above (July 1, 2011) predates the current set of rules (January 10, 2012).

Compliance enforcement mechanisms (CEMs) are legal and quite common in recent General Assembly history.

The most radical CEM is in Resolution 208 (July 7, 2012, under the current set of rules):

Authorizes the World Assembly Trade Commission to impose any applicable financial penalties on member nations which consented to the arbitration process but refused to comply with a final ruling by an arbitration panel or its corresponding appellate panel, as appropriate.

This clause, of course, assumes that some nations will violate an earlier section establishing trade arbitration procedures.

Indeed, a clarification in the existing rules might clear up that CEMs are perfectly fine so long as the Optionality Rule is not violated.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: it's always been my understanding that nations cannot systematically be in noncompliance, but individuals are as capable of breaking WA law as they are of breaking national law. Enforcing WA law is part of the contract. /$.02

[Bananaistan]

It was neither missed nor ignored. I replied to your post.

You replied to that particular contribution but you didn't address our point regarding the compliance issue.

It's an enforcement mechanism, much like those of other resolutions and proposals.

GA#306 tells nations not to kill POWs but instructs courts to try soldiers who do kill POWs, thus assuming that some soldiers (who are, in fact, government agents) will not comply.

There is nothing in #306 stating that anyone harmed by a government's non-compliance has recourse to the courts for remedy. It mentions nothing about a government's non-compliance.

GA#300 tells nations to "treat violations of this resolution as criminal offenses.

This clearly speaks to individual perpetrators and not the governments themselves. It mentions nothing about a government's non-compliance.

GA#297 declares "that no National Adoption Board may establish regulations, procedures, protocols, or standards regarding intercountry adoption that are contradictory or additional to those established by WAAA."

This is not a compliance issue nor is it a resolution within itself providing for remedy against a non-compliant government. #297 clearly states that the WAAA is to “establish and implement a stringent and rigorous uniform code of rules and regulations regarding intercountry adoption;”, that is regulations etc not explicitly stated in the resolution. Therefore that resolution mentions nothing about a government’s non-compliance.

GA#272 bans chemical weapons attacks by member states but creates a committee to deal with chemical weapons attacks "offensive" to the resolution, thus assuming some nations will not comply.

There’s nothing in that resolution suggesting that these unprovoked offensive attacks would come from WA members. It’s clearly talking about attacks from non-members and how the committee would assist any member nations subject to such an attack.

GA#263 tells an international committee "to verify a nations [sic] economic requirements to conform to this act," thus assuming some nations will not conform to the resolution.

These provisions do not assume non-compliance by the government. They are there to assist with compliance and they do not establish a precedent about granting a remedy to a person harmed by the government’s non-compliance. Many resolutions provide assistance to a member nation to help with compliance in a similar fashion as #263.

GA#255 exempts from protection nations that are not "in full compliance with the obligations" of the resolution.

You’re grasping at straws here. That’s only in the definition of a neutral state.

GA#242 gives nations certain rights "so long as they are in compliance with the provisions of this resolution."

Christ in a hand cart! The meaning is clear that a member state is only permitted to possess biological weapons for research purposed within the terms of the resolution.

GA#208 gives a committee the power to fine governments noncompliant with the provisions of the resolution.

This mentions nothing about any breach of that particular resolution. It merely states that if a member state agrees to the arbitration and ends up with an adverse finding against it, the committee may impose the fine. It makes no mention of fining countries not in compliance with the terms of that resolution, merely if they do not abide the unspecified ruling of the committee.

GA#198 prohibits governments from "circumventing" the resolution.

That’s not a compliance issue. And once again it does not mention anything about a remedy etc. Many resolutions have a clause like that saying that a state can’t circumvent the resolution through funny means.

GA#194 gives prisoners the right to sue the prison (a government actor) if it is violating their rights under the resolution.

That seems to be a rather fuzzy clause. It doesn’t give a right to sue, rather the right to appeal to a oversight institution. It mentions nothing about non-compliance or remedies and appears to be only a dispute resolution mechanism, IE the prisoner says that, say, the leaving space isn’t sufficient and appropriate, the jail says it is, so the oversight institution steps in and decides. It all seems to be dealing with non-state actors.

GA#183 gives courts the power to block government prosecutions that violate the right to self-defense.

That’s actually a terrible resolution that should be repealed. How can the judiciary decide whether or not reasonable force was used unless the person using it is prosecuted in the first place? It seems that it’s impossible for a state to be in compliance with that resolution.

It doesn't implement a new, differing method of compliance. It commits to domestic courts the authority to interpret this resolution given that there will naturally be differing views within nations of what counts as a good-faith effort toward equality.

Yes it does. None of these resolutions you’ve listed provide a remedy for a person harmed by a potential non-compliance by the state.

Apparently, you didn't read the line in that four-year-old post that says that players are allowed to "[take] existing game mechanics and [give] them an RP flavour." This proposal does not assume noncompliance; it assumes different views of good-faith efforts and equality and gives domestic courts the jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes between such competing views OF COMPLIANCE.

The government says it's doing enough to comply, but disability rights advocates think it should do more. Hence, they sue.

Also, that ruling deals with a stand-alone proposal that tried to deal with noncompliance in roleplay, thus breaking the fourth wall.

Apparently you didn’t cop that RP flavour thing is only referring to Rights and Duties. Apparently you also didn’t read the line that “you can roleplay outside the text of the proposal that you have done so (or, rather, their RP equivalents, as seen in WA#2), but you can't do it in [emphasis by the original author] the proposal.

I fundamentally disagree with your interpretation of your proposal. It specifically states that a person has a remedy available “if the government does not meet its obligations under this resolution”. No other resolution has such an explicit reference to non-compliance by the government/state.

Your claim doesn't fit within any recognized violation named in the General Assembly Rules. Nothing prevents proposals from establishing mechanisms for deciding between competing views of compliance. It's the same as a committee.

It’s not the same as a committee. EG #208 talks all about disputes between countries and the committee resolving it and having the power to resolve it. Your proposal gives an immediate out. Plus given that there’s no WA guarantee of independent domestic judiciary, who is to say that “if the government does not meet its obligations under this resolution” the potentially non-independent judiciary would even grant appropriate remedy? There’s a big difference between a guaranteed independent WA committee and a tin pot domestic judiciary.

Also, is Resolution 301 illegal because it allows nations to be noncompliant for one year?

How would that be the case? A nation is given that timeframe to comply with the varying requirements. Obviously within that year they are compliant.

How about all of the international tribunal proposals right now? Do they not assume that some member states will violate the human rights protected by international law, thus warranting trials of their leaders?

It’s impossible for any of these to try governments as any government, in line with current WA precedent and practice, are automatically compliant. These tribunals are concerned with individuals not governments.

I’d be pleased if you could point any other resolution which establishes a right to a remedy for an individual who has been harmed by a government’s non-compliance.

Re: #208, that’s all about two countries at loggerheads and not a citizen against their government. In any case given that all nations are automatically in compliance with WA law, it’s hard to see how that committee has any work to do at all. It seems to be a fundamental game changer if we move away from this opt repeated mantra about mandatory and automatic compliance to this new situation you propose where governments could wilfully ignore resolutions and hope that their oen domestic courts don’t find against them.

[Christian Democrats]

OOC: it's always been my understanding that nations cannot systematically be in noncompliance, but individuals are as capable of breaking WA law as they are of breaking national law. Enforcing WA law is part of the contract. /$.02

I agree. Systematic noncompliance is not allowed. Creative noncompliance is allowed.

This proposal, without talking about compliance explicitly (as more than 20 past resolutions have done), gives disabled citizens the right to sue if the government is engaging in creative noncompliance or if it is complying only half-heartedly.

Domestic courts will be needed to interpret such terms as "impairment," "intelligence," "good faith," "appropriate accommodations," and "equal basis." Such interpretations can occur best only in settings with adverse parties (i.e., lawsuits).

The lawsuit clause gives "RP flavour" (Ardchoille) to the proposal without assuming or giving nations a right not to comply. (It should also be noted that I was the first person to challenge the legality of "Reduction of Noncompliance" and that Ard gave Astrolinium advice two posts after her ruling on how he might revise his draft so that he could be able to submit it at a future time.)

Furthermore, Bananaistan has not said what rule this proposal violates in his opinion.

Finally, only one GA proposal has been removed while it was at vote as far as I remember. It was a joke proposal that accidentally reached quorum on April Fools' Day. With that extraordinary exception, moderators allow proposals once they reach the floor. Changing that policy now would be absurd given that there are not any glaring errors in this proposal, only an enforcement / interpretation / mediation mechanism not dissimilar from those that have been placed in many past resolutions.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Finally, only one GA proposal has been removed while it was at vote as far as I remember. It was a joke proposal that accidentally reached quorum on April Fools' Day. With that extraordinary exception, moderators allow proposals once they reach the floor. Changing that policy now would be absurd given that there are not any glaring errors in this proposal, only an enforcement / interpretation / mediation mechanism not dissimilar from those that have been placed in many past resolutions.

You don't remember Repeal Rights & Duties?

[Hirota]

Furthermore, Bananaistan has not said what rule this proposal violates in his opinion.

He's grasping at straws.