NationStates

Let's just get this out in plain text, then, shall we?

The big issue at first seems to be the question of the "strong" vs "weak" framework. In a "strong" framework, everybody would agree ahead of time to abide by any votes on the passage of a new law or resolution, and would have to abide by the result of the vote even if it didn't match theirs. The "weak" framework would not involve voting, necessarily; countries would only be bound by resolutions that they agreed to be bound by, regardless of how any voting went down.

Aurinsula's agenda in the meeting is as follows:

- Create the "weak" framework
- Get the others to adopt a Chon Minorities Resolution, where any province that wanted to secede from Chonburi would be permitted to if they won a majority vote.
- Create a strong framework of international law to strengthen the idea of arbitration.

Ironically Defese's framework is a hybrid of strong and weak. Legalism and honouring treaties are extremely important to Defesians, who still feel deeply offended at perceived Seglandic violations during the recent Seglandic-Defesian war. The Assembly would try to be pushed into a route that establishes and enforces rules of diplomacy and international law.

Where the Assembly attempts to establish 'human rights' or 'liberal societies' would be fought tooth and nail by the delegates. Having a strong Assembly dictate how a nation can handle its internal affairs would breach the dominant Imperial policy of Sovereignty, and put it in the awkward position of trying to satisfy both philosophies of Sovereignty and honour of the law. I mean, they're going to violate quite a few, but they'd time they'd have to spend more effort to keep quiet about it.

Well, Def, that's the key. How much of your sovereignty do you want to give up? Obviously, there are trade-offs in both directions.

For Aurinsula, the correct answer is 'as little as possible' - not because we value it overmuch ourselves, but rather because there will be fewer reason for anyone to get frustrated with it and leave it all together. The fewer functions it has, the less likely those functions will be abbreviated. That's why I support the weak framework - each country's signature, freely-given, is mandatory before they are compelled to do anything.

Weak framework is my preferred option too.

Personally I would favor at least a Security Council & elected Secretary-General, if that's the weak framework approach we want to take.

Demphor wrote:Personally I would favor at least a Security Council & elected Secretary-General, if that's the weak framework approach we want to take.

What would a Security Council entail, though, in our context?

I'm for the weak framework.

I'd prefer a weak framework.

Aurinsula wrote:

Demphor wrote:Personally I would favor at least a Security Council & elected Secretary-General, if that's the weak framework approach we want to take.

What would a Security Council entail, though, in our context?

Really one that comes together passing resolutions to protest, create foreign aid missions, all that good stuff, but ensure a VETO power kind of system so that the Aenean Assembly really doesn't get much done

Demphor wrote:

Aurinsula wrote:
What would a Security Council entail, though, in our context?

Really one that comes together passing resolutions to protest, create foreign aid missions, all that good stuff, but ensure a VETO power kind of system so that the Aenean Assembly really doesn't get much done

Would the SC also have the power to do peacekeeping/peacemaking missions? How much 'teeth' do we want to give the AN?

North Defese wrote:

Demphor wrote:
Really one that comes together passing resolutions to protest, create foreign aid missions, all that good stuff, but ensure a VETO power kind of system so that the Aenean Assembly really doesn't get much done

Would the SC also have the power to do peacekeeping/peacemaking missions? How much 'teeth' do we want to give the AN?

Up to the others

Demphor wrote:

North Defese wrote:
Would the SC also have the power to do peacekeeping/peacemaking missions? How much 'teeth' do we want to give the AN?

Up to the others

As little as possible, please. That's why I want the weak framework. No Security Council for me.

Hey y'all, I wrote this dispatch as a resolution for us:

http://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=348786

Tell me your thoughts.

Allow me please to make my case for the Weak Framework.

First, when I say "the weak framework," this is explicitly what I mean:
Representation in the Aenean assembly shall consist of a fully-credentialed ambassador, representing in his or her own person the head of state of the nation in question and having all the plenipotentiary powers of a fully-credentialed ambassador. Membership will not be contingent on any factor except the recognition by the founding members of independent statehood. There shall be no standard of adherence required for admission. No nation will be bound by any agreement absent their signature on it, and no nation will be bound by any vote, measure, or arbitration unless they agree, prior to voting, to abide by the results of a vote or any other mechanism for the specific agreement in question.

Why do I think this is a good idea? Three reasons.

1) It is non-coercive. The weak framework does not possess, nor is intended to possess, any means to compel a nation against the wishes of its representatives or its leadership. Because participating in the Assembly does not require adherence to any baseline agreement, there is no reason for any nation to withhold a representative or to not participate.

2) It provides for meaningful arbitration. Arbitration is only meaningful if it is freely sought; otherwise it becomes coercive and can become oppressive to nations. Only a truly impartial system, without either the power or the pretension of gaol and gallow, can provide the sense of safety required to make arbitration - the only fair and just tool of resolving disputes among equals - a viable and meaningful solution.

3) It does not over-reach. There is no one Aenean power that has the resources or the onus to make itself a regional police force. Any attempts to actually use violence to force one nation to adhere to an agreement against the wishes of its people and its leadership is destined to fail, and it's better that we side-step the question entirely.

4) It provides all of the benefits of the strong framework. If, for instance, a nation's crimes are so heinous that all other nations must take sanction against them - or even declare war against them - them the weak framework provides for a methodology to do this quickly and simply. There is nothing stopping the Aenean Assembly from universally agreeing to enforce a course of action, without binding other nations to participate in enforcing it.

Those are my arguments. I welcome comments and dissenting views.

Aurinsula wrote:Allow me please to make my case for the Weak Framework.

First, when I say "the weak framework," this is explicitly what I mean:
Representation in the Aenean assembly shall consist of a fully-credentialed ambassador, representing in his or her own person the head of state of the nation in question and having all the plenipotentiary powers of a fully-credentialed ambassador. Membership will not be contingent on any factor except the recognition by the founding members of independent statehood. There shall be no standard of adherence required for admission. No nation will be bound by any agreement absent their signature on it, and no nation will be bound by any vote, measure, or arbitration unless they agree, prior to voting, to abide by the results of a vote or any other mechanism for the specific agreement in question.

Why do I think this is a good idea? Three reasons.

1) It is non-coercive. The weak framework does not possess, nor is intended to possess, any means to compel a nation against the wishes of its representatives or its leadership. Because participating in the Assembly does not require adherence to any baseline agreement, there is no reason for any nation to withhold a representative or to not participate.

2) It provides for meaningful arbitration. Arbitration is only meaningful if it is freely sought; otherwise it becomes coercive and can become oppressive to nations. Only a truly impartial system, without either the power or the pretension of gaol and gallow, can provide the sense of safety required to make arbitration - the only fair and just tool of resolving disputes among equals - a viable and meaningful solution.

3) It does not over-reach. There is no one Aenean power that has the resources or the onus to make itself a regional police force. Any attempts to actually use violence to force one nation to adhere to an agreement against the wishes of its people and its leadership is destined to fail, and it's better that we side-step the question entirely.

4) It provides all of the benefits of the strong framework. If, for instance, a nation's crimes are so heinous that all other nations must take sanction against them - or even declare war against them - them the weak framework provides for a methodology to do this quickly and simply. There is nothing stopping the Aenean Assembly from universally agreeing to enforce a course of action, without binding other nations to participate in enforcing it.

Those are my arguments. I welcome comments and dissenting views.

Despite saying three and listing four, I overall agree with the concept of this framework for an Aenean assembly.

I'm all for a weak framework, but won't be joining the Assembly if it continues to support the illegal occupation of Chonburi.

Moving from the RMB.

I think we've been using the wrong analogies - rather than an Aeneas United Nations, it would be more akin to the pre-WWI "Concert of Europe".

The strong framework would create the inter-regional laws that all nations were expected to abide by. Failure to heed them would see response in the form of sanctions, diplomatic pressure, or in extreme cases a joint-regional intervention. In times of regular diplomatic disputes (trade, territory, etc) the Assembly would be where those involved go to to work out a compromise and are expected to abide by it.

A weak framework would have a lot of this gutted. In my view it would be an 'optional' way for people to work out disputes, but inter-regional law would continue to be what we all individually define it as.

IC'ly, the Defese-Seglandic war breaking down into the shelling of civilian areas and mutual arrests of each other's embassy staff along with the messy, complicated way it started (with no declaration of war until after the fighting) should have a little sway in governments considering the weak or strong framework. Even the Demphor crisis could be resolved through a strong Assembly, and war is averted only by Albion swooping in because he has specific interests in the peace in the area.