[Draft] Self-Determination Accord

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Shoreham examines the draft intently, nodding with approval during various bits. On towards the bottom, he frowns.

"Overall I can say we'd very likely support this draft, Ambassador Santos. One red flag that pops up for me, though, is 6b. Well, not so much a flag as a gap. My concern is with regions held by WA members, where if those regions succeed in gaining self-governance, they would immediately be likely to legislate or behave in direct contravention of existing WA law."

"Unfortunately, I can think of several parts of S.L. itself that... well, let's just call them 'backward' and leave it at that. Anti-government sentiment - uh, I mean the right-wing-coup kind, not the healthy anarchist or Fanonist type - is still relatively strong there, they've got longstanding cultural and geographic ties to the theocratic Republic - a vigorous non-WA member - and while we're not concerned about any of these areas actually rejoining the Republic, we'd very much like to keep them honest about things like CoCR, On Abortion, Workplace Safety Standards, Banning Extrajudicial Transfer... lots of others, too."

"So off the top of my head, I'd recommend adding something explicit to that clause, stating that the WABD will not list districts likely to contravene WA law if made independent as 'non-self governing territories.' Clause 5 appears sort of designed to address this, but I don't really think that wording is quite adequate."

"I'm aware that nothing we can do would prevent a newly independent territory from leaving the WA and doing as it wantonly, horrifically pleases; and in the aggregate we do support the secession and independence of those territories that actually are the victims of colonization and oppression. But where independence would lead to oppression, it must be opposed."

[Tinfect]

Recognizing that member nations may possess non-self governing territories and other regions that may be considered "colonized,"

"All territories of the Imperium beyond New Harron could be considered Colonies, Ambassador."

Mindful that maintaining such non-self governing territories through undemocratic or coercive means often engenders conflict and violence,
Reaffirming its extant commitment to global peace and goodwill among people,

"The Imperium is a non-democratic Government, Ambassador. There has been little internal conflict against the Imperium. In any case, we object entirely to your implications."

1. Defines "non-self governing territory" as any territory involuntarily under the distinct political control of another without a degree of self-autonomy or governance, unless the region is determined to be unable to exist independently by the World Assembly Bureau of Decolonization (hereafter referred to as the WABD) or if extenuating circumstances compel the WABD to consider other territories that do not fall under this definition to be non-self governing territories;

"The Imperium has been a Unitary State for well over a century. All Imperial Worlds had their local governments dismantled during this transition, they did not have a choice in this matter, and there was conflict at the time between Imperial and Separatist Forces. This definition would include almost all Imperial worlds."

2. Forbids member nations from establishing or acquiring non-self governing territories for any reason;

3. Requires member nations currently maintaining non-self governing territories to do everything necessary and practical to initiate the process of self-determination, when such a process is legitimately requested by the relevant non-self governing territory through means of democratic referendum, with assistance from the WABD when necessary;

"The former clause is illegal before the secretariat, as they have standing rulings on 'ideological bans'. Imperialism is such a thing, regardless of how distasteful you may find it. Further, the latter clause would allow temporarily discontented citizens and separatist forces to damage the Imperium, this is entirely unacceptable.

In any case, and perhaps needless to say, the Imperium is opposed. We will not allow terrorists and their followers to dismantle the Imperium."

[Sciongrad]

Recognizing that member nations may possess non-self governing territories and other regions that may be considered "colonized,"

"All territories of the Imperium beyond New Harron could be considered Colonies, Ambassador."

Mindful that maintaining such non-self governing territories through undemocratic or coercive means often engenders conflict and violence,
Reaffirming its extant commitment to global peace and goodwill among people,

"The Imperium is a non-democratic Government, Ambassador. There has been little internal conflict against the Imperium. In any case, we object entirely to your implications."

1. Defines "non-self governing territory" as any territory involuntarily under the distinct political control of another without a degree of self-autonomy or governance, unless the region is determined to be unable to exist independently by the World Assembly Bureau of Decolonization (hereafter referred to as the WABD) or if extenuating circumstances compel the WABD to consider other territories that do not fall under this definition to be non-self governing territories;

"The Imperium has been a Unitary State for well over a century. All Imperial Worlds had their local governments dismantled during this transition, they did not have a choice in this matter, and there was conflict at the time between Imperial and Separatist Forces. This definition would include almost all Imperial worlds."

2. Forbids member nations from establishing or acquiring non-self governing territories for any reason;

3. Requires member nations currently maintaining non-self governing territories to do everything necessary and practical to initiate the process of self-determination, when such a process is legitimately requested by the relevant non-self governing territory through means of democratic referendum, with assistance from the WABD when necessary;

"The former clause is illegal before the secretariat, as they have standing rulings on 'ideological bans'. Imperialism is such a thing, regardless of how distasteful you may find it. Further, the latter clause would allow temporarily discontented citizens and separatist forces to damage the Imperium, this is entirely unacceptable.

In any case, and perhaps needless to say, the Imperium is opposed. We will not allow terrorists and their followers to dismantle the Imperium."

OOC: I will respond to your post more substantively when I'm near a computer, but in the meantime, I'll note again that the secretariat have explicitly ruled that this proposal does not violate the ideological ban rule. If you disagree, take that up with them.

[Tinfect]

"All territories of the Imperium beyond New Harron could be considered Colonies, Ambassador."



"The Imperium is a non-democratic Government, Ambassador. There has been little internal conflict against the Imperium. In any case, we object entirely to your implications."



"The Imperium has been a Unitary State for well over a century. All Imperial Worlds had their local governments dismantled during this transition, they did not have a choice in this matter, and there was conflict at the time between Imperial and Separatist Forces. This definition would include almost all Imperial worlds."



"The former clause is illegal before the secretariat, as they have standing rulings on 'ideological bans'. Imperialism is such a thing, regardless of how distasteful you may find it. Further, the latter clause would allow temporarily discontented citizens and separatist forces to damage the Imperium, this is entirely unacceptable.

In any case, and perhaps needless to say, the Imperium is opposed. We will not allow terrorists and their followers to dismantle the Imperium."

OOC: I will respond to your post more substantively when I'm near a computer, but in the meantime, I'll note again that the secretariat have explicitly ruled that this proposal does not violate the ideological ban rule. If you disagree, take that up with them.

OOC:
I can't imagine how the hell they reached that conclusion, but could you point me to the ruling?

[Wallenburg]

OOC: I will respond to your post more substantively when I'm near a computer, but in the meantime, I'll note again that the secretariat have explicitly ruled that this proposal does not violate the ideological ban rule. If you disagree, take that up with them.

OOC:
I can't imagine how the hell they reached that conclusion, but could you point me to the ruling?

viewtopic.php?p=19950610#p19950610

[Imperium Anglorum]

It's the act of taking over -- whether it's of an independent state or of an empty area -- that makes the empire. So, under GA#2/1, the WA does have the power to tell them to change their government's actions: in this case, to stop taking over nations that do not want to be taken over, and to free those that have been taken over, if they did not request it.

Parsons: I would take this to mean that the Brave New World and Democratic Empire of Imperium Anglorum is in the clear. Nations within our empire want to be taken over because they choose to be in the Empire. Naturally, there is a big stick on the other fork in the road, but that is no matter.

[Excidium Planetis]

"Strike out Clause 2 completely, and I will support." Cornelia Schultz says. "Otherwise, firmly against."

[Sciongrad]

Shoreham examines the draft intently, nodding with approval during various bits. On towards the bottom, he frowns.

"Overall I can say we'd very likely support this draft, Ambassador Santos. One red flag that pops up for me, though, is 6b. Well, not so much a flag as a gap. My concern is with regions held by WA members, where if those regions succeed in gaining self-governance, they would immediately be likely to legislate or behave in direct contravention of existing WA law."

"Unfortunately, I can think of several parts of S.L. itself that... well, let's just call them 'backward' and leave it at that. Anti-government sentiment - uh, I mean the right-wing-coup kind, not the healthy anarchist or Fanonist type - is still relatively strong there, they've got longstanding cultural and geographic ties to the theocratic Republic - a vigorous non-WA member - and while we're not concerned about any of these areas actually rejoining the Republic, we'd very much like to keep them honest about things like CoCR, On Abortion, Workplace Safety Standards, Banning Extrajudicial Transfer... lots of others, too."

"So off the top of my head, I'd recommend adding something explicit to that clause, stating that the WABD will not list districts likely to contravene WA law if made independent as 'non-self governing territories.' Clause 5 appears sort of designed to address this, but I don't really think that wording is quite adequate."

"I'm aware that nothing we can do would prevent a newly independent territory from leaving the WA and doing as it wantonly, horrifically pleases; and in the aggregate we do support the secession and independence of those territories that actually are the victims of colonization and oppression. But where independence would lead to oppression, it must be opposed."

"I'll see what I can do here. I agree with the concerns you've raised, but I wonder how this would be legally feasible. Requiring would-be nations to abide by World Assembly legislation seems like it would push the boundaries of World Assembly authority. I also wonder how useful that would be, as the nascent nations could simply resign from the World Assembly immediately. If we can determine the legality of these changes, I'll gladly accommodate them, but until them, I'm hesitant to make any changes."

"Strike out Clause 2 completely, and I will support." Cornelia Schultz says. "Otherwise, firmly against."

"You know I'd love to enlist the support of your esteemed delegation, but this is a principle I'm unlikely to compromise on. If it's any comfort, political realities may force me to do so, but until I determine whether that clause a poison pill, I plan on keeping it.

[Excidium Planetis]

"Strike out Clause 2 completely, and I will support." Cornelia Schultz says. "Otherwise, firmly against."

"You know I'd love to enlist the support of your esteemed delegation, but this is a principle I'm unlikely to compromise on. If it's any comfort, political realities may force me to do so, but until I determine whether that clause a poison pill, I plan on keeping it.

"Clause 2 essentially forbids the acqusuition of any populated territory without express democratic vote from the native population. You can't buy it from nations which own it, you can't colonize a planet without risking the colony immediately proclaiming independence, you can't even capture territory from an enemy nation. It essentially permanently restricts WA nations to the territory they have right now."

[Sciongrad]

"You know I'd love to enlist the support of your esteemed delegation, but this is a principle I'm unlikely to compromise on. If it's any comfort, political realities may force me to do so, but until I determine whether that clause a poison pill, I plan on keeping it.

"Clause 2 essentially forbids the acqusuition of any populated territory without express democratic vote from the native population. You can't buy it from nations which own it, you can't colonize a planet without risking the colony immediately proclaiming independence, you can't even capture territory from an enemy nation. It essentially permanently restricts WA nations to the territory they have right now."

"That is almost exactly what that clause does, yes. Anything less would violate basic principles of national sovereignty and self-determination."

[Sciongrad]

"All territories of the Imperium beyond New Harron could be considered Colonies, Ambassador."

"While the logistics involved in managing so many referenda may be challenging, there is not a shred of doubt in my mind that the OED and WABD will be able to fulfill their duties with the highest level of competence."

"The Imperium is a non-democratic Government, Ambassador. There has been little internal conflict against the Imperium. In any case, we object entirely to your implications."

"Your objection is noted."

"The Imperium has been a Unitary State for well over a century. All Imperial Worlds had their local governments dismantled during this transition, they did not have a choice in this matter, and there was conflict at the time between Imperial and Separatist Forces. This definition would include almost all Imperial worlds."

"I'm not sure if you intended for this to be interpreted as an argument against this proposal, but I certainly did not read it that way."

"Further, the latter clause would allow temporarily discontented citizens and separatist forces to damage the Imperium, this is entirely unacceptable."

"That is simply not true. The threshold to qualify as a 'non-self governing territory' includes significantly more than discontentment and separatist sentiment."

[Tinfect]

"While the logistics involved in managing so many referenda may be challenging, there is not a shred of doubt in my mind that the OED and WABD will be able to fulfill their duties with the highest level of competence."

"The Imperium would rather see New Harron burned again than allow the World Assembly to dismantle centuries of progress for the benefit of anarchists and tyrants. The World Assembly has no right to dismantle Unitary States on the sheer reason of their size."

"Your objection is noted."

"Then alter the draft to reflect that."

"I'm not sure if you intended for this to be interpreted as an argument against this proposal, but I certainly did not read it that way."

"Your failure to understand is noted. The Imperium is a unitary state, and despite early conflict, there has been little issue with this. The Imperium is stronger for it, and it has been solely beneficial to its people. To allow separatists forces to dismantle this progress, due to your thoughtless dogmatism is unacceptable."

"That is simply not true. The threshold to qualify as a 'non-self governing territory' includes significantly more than discontentment and separatist sentiment."

"Hardly. It is all that is needed to allow for a referendum to dismantle the Imperium.
Your absolute failure to account for Unitary States and is troubling. Your support of the dissolution of such states is absolutely reprehensible, and flies in the face of the goals of the World Assembly."

[Sciongrad]

"The Imperium would rather see New Harron burned again than allow the World Assembly to dismantle centuries of progress for the benefit of anarchists and tyrants. The World Assembly has no right to dismantle Unitary States on the sheer reason of their size."

"Sciongrad believes the Imperium, or any nation for that matter, has no right to possess non-self governing territories."

"Then alter the draft to reflect that."

"Sciongrad notes your objection. It does not agree with it."

"Your failure to understand is noted.

"I was being facetious to subtly point out that you're talking to yourself. Your observation could only be an effective argument if your audience disagreed with the definition provided in clause one. Pointing out that all of your territory besides New Harron falls comfortably within the definition of non-self governing territory that I've provided is not an effective argument if I'm your intended audience."

"Hardly. It is all that is needed to allow for a referendum to dismantle the Imperium.

"Again, that is simply incorrect. That is not what the proposal says. This may be the case specifically in the Imperium because the nature of its political framework would have almost all of its territory fall under the definition of 'non-self governing territory,' but discontentment and separatist sentiment alone are not enough for a region to qualify as non-self governing territory."

Your absolute failure to account for Unitary States and is troubling.

"We have accounted for 'Unitary States' (assuming you're using that term to refer to nations with political frameworks similar to the Imperium's). They are a target of this proposal."

Your support of the dissolution of such states is absolutely reprehensible, and flies in the face of the goals of the World Assembly."

"The World Assembly has a long and commendable history of working to preserve national sovereignty. If anything, the continue existence of institutions that inherently limit national sovereignty 'flies in the face of the goals of the World Assembly.'"

[Wallenburg]

Your absolute failure to account for Unitary States and is troubling.

"We have taken account for Unitary States. They are a target of this proposal."

Ogenbond stares at the Ambassador coldly. "Excuse me, ma'am?"

[Sciongrad]

"We have taken account for Unitary States. They are a target of this proposal."

Ogenbond stares at the Ambassador coldly. "Excuse me, ma'am?"

"States that build their political framework around subjugation are obviously the target of a resolution on self-determination. That should be axiomatic. Perhaps the confusion is over Markhov's liberal use of the term 'unitary state.' In that particular remark, I was using it to refer to nations with political framework's similar to the Imperium's."

[Tinfect]

Ogenbond stares at the Ambassador coldly. "Excuse me, ma'am?"

"States that build their political framework around subjugation are obviously the target of a resolution on self-determination. That should be axiomatic. Perhaps the confusion is over Markhov's liberal use of the term 'unitary state.' In that particular remark, I was using it to refer to nations with political framework's similar to the Imperium's."

"Of course, what the Ambassador of Sciongrad means to say is, that any non-democratic unitary states ought to be dissolved."

[Wallenburg]

Ogenbond stares at the Ambassador coldly. "Excuse me, ma'am?"

"States that build their political framework around subjugation are obviously the target of a resolution on self-determination. That should be axiomatic. Perhaps the confusion is over Markhov's liberal use of the term 'unitary state.' In that particular remark, I was using it to refer to nations with political framework's similar to the Imperium's."

"In that case, I advise you not to mischaracterize all unitary states as imperialistic or undemocratic. The gentleman from Tinfect used that term as it is intended."

"States that build their political framework around subjugation are obviously the target of a resolution on self-determination. That should be axiomatic. Perhaps the confusion is over Markhov's liberal use of the term 'unitary state.' In that particular remark, I was using it to refer to nations with political framework's similar to the Imperium's."

"Of course, what the Ambassador of Sciongrad means to say is, that any non-democratic unitary states ought to be dissolved."

"On that I will make no comment."

[Sciongrad]

"Of course, what the Ambassador of Sciongrad means to say is, that any non-democratic unitary states ought to be dissolved."

"Tone down the hyperbole, your Excellency. Sciongrad does not believe in the dissolution of any state. It believes in the right of self-determination. We obviously oppose anti-democratic political frameworks ideologically, but will not (and indeed, we cannot) take action on that front. But this proposal does not focus on non-democratic states. Democratic states can have non-self governing territories and non-democratic states might not have non-self governing territories. While I'm sure the argument becomes easier to spin by painting me and my delegation as feral pro-democracy radicals foaming at the mouth, waiting eagerly for our next opportunity to dissolve another non-democratic polity, it's obviously not that simple. But I'm sure you know that."

"In that case, I advise you not to mischaracterize all unitary states as imperialistic or undemocratic. The gentleman from Tinfect used that term as it is intended."

"I did not use that word to mischaracterize unitary states. Ambassador Markhov referred to states with political frameworks similar to his own nation's as 'unitary states,' and I responded using the same word. Although I'd rather not get bogged down in semantics. For clarity, in the future, I will not use the term 'unitary state."

[Tinfect]

"Tone down the hyperbole, your Excellency."

"We have merely removed the attempted occlusion of the true meaning of your statement."

"Sciongrad does not believe in the dissolution of any state."

"Your continued drafting of this Proposal confirms this statement to be, in its entirety, a lie."

"It believes in the right of self-determination."

"So long as that state does not consolidate its power, or does not allow the democratic election of its government, or attempt to expand its territory, or conflict in any way with the thoughtless dogmatism expressed by your Government."

" While I'm sure the argument becomes easier to spin by painting me and my delegation as feral pro-democracy radicals foaming at the mouth, waiting eagerly for our next opportunity to dissolve another non-democratic polity, it's obviously not that simple. But I'm sure you know that."

"You may paint yourself in any manner you so desire. The Imperium will continue to provide the true meaning of your arguments."

"I did not use that word to mischaracterize unitary states. Ambassador Markhov referred to states with political frameworks similar to his own nation's as 'unitary states,' and I responded using the same word. Although I'd rather not get bogged down in semantics. For clarity, in the future, I will not use the term 'unitary state."

"Ambassador, is, or is not, a Unitary State defined as any state with a central and supreme authority over any decisions made by any subdivisions of the state?"

[Sciongrad]

Snippity

"I have no intention of continuing this discourse if you have no intention of responding substantively."

"Ambassador, is, or is not, a Unitary State defined as any state with a central and supreme authority over any decisions made by any subdivisions of the state?"

"Yes, but not all unitary states must necessarily deny their territory some form of local autonomy."

OOC: I don't like to make arguments OOC, but for the sake of clarity, I'll provide a couple of RL examples. France is a unitary state. France's 36,681 commune's have some degree of self-governance, even though it exists at the sufferance of the state and even though they're all subordinate to the central authority. None of these communes would be considered non-self governing territories (as far that this particular aspects of the definition is concerned). The democratic component of these communes certainly isn't necessary for them to be considered non-self governing. I'm not opposed to refining the definition of non-self governing territory, but you've gotta level with me here.

[Christian Democrats]

Some territories forfeit their authority to govern themselves and call for external control, at least temporarily. This proposal does not account for such exigencies, so our delegation must oppose it as it is currently written.

OOC: Consider, for example, the occupation of Germany following the Second World War.

[Sciongrad]

Some territories forfeit their authority to govern themselves and call for external control, at least temporarily. This proposal does not account for such exigencies, so our delegation must oppose it as it is currently written.

"That is a fair point. We'll make appropriate modifications in the next draft."

[Tinfect]

I don't like to make arguments OOC, but for the sake of clarity, I'll provide a couple of RL examples. France is a unitary state. France's 36,681 commune's have some degree of self-governance, even though it exists at the sufferance of the state and even though they're all subordinate to the central authority. None of these communes would be considered non-self governing territories (as far that this particular aspects of the definition is concerned). The democratic component of these communes certainly isn't necessary for them to be considered non-self governing. I'm not opposed to refining the definition of non-self governing territory, but you've gotta level with me here.

OOC: [Re-Writing a post that took me an hour to write because my computer restarted, as some dumbfuck thought it'd be great if the Spacebar doubled as consent for whatever fucking update notification that force-restarts your computer. Fucking Hooray.]
I'm not really sure what you want from me here, but since I'm coming back at this OOC, I'll see what I can do.

First of all, France isn't really what Markhov is talking about, and, that, coming back at this with a better head, is rather understandably confusing. The Imperium is the sort of Unitary State that doesn't have any territorial subdivisions, and that's rather the problem, as you well know. The idea of Local Government rather conflicts with the overall ideology of the Imperium, that being, as I don't really have a name for it, that the State must be, at once, overwhelmingly powerful, efficient, free from corruption, and above totalitarianism. I'll not get into how that works out here*, as it's not really relevant.

Anyway, large local governments can cause Regionalism, which can cause corruption, and is something that the Imperium is absolutely terrified of, due to it resulting in the destruction of their predecessor, and the initial destruction of New Harron, (Which is how it got the "New" by the way, its still the same planet.) and is a bureaucratic nightmare in general. Small local Governments don't do very much of anything but waste Imperial Resources, and create another level of needless bureaucracy. Democracy is seen as even worse, a near certain way to get a Corrupt and Ineffective Government, though, it does nicely avoid totalitarianism, unless you get Nationalism. So, neither of those are really seen as options for the Imperium.

Further, it can't be really called a self-governing territory if the local government has almost no power, or isn't democratically elected. As the former has fairly obvious issues, and the latter, means that the local government is just some State-Appointees making decisions for the Planet, without their consent, and nothing's really changed at all, so that isn't an option either. And, given the existence of clause 6C, wouldn't work anyway.

Now, as for the definitions, when Markhov said that all territory of the Imperium beyond New Harron could be considered 'colonized', he wasn't exaggerating, and this is where the whole Interstellar Empire bit starts to cause problems; There are colonies, specifically, most of the Core Worlds, and a few others, that the Imperium has held for several hundred years, before the advent of Subspace Technologies, which includes (better) FTL, actual FTL Communication, and all that nice Sci-Fi Techwank that keeps the Imperium functional, that would be the worlds that were mentioned to have their local governments dismantled when the Imperium gained a practical way to actually become a Unitary State. The Imperium founded, built, supplied, populated, defended, and generally controlled these Colonies for the entirety of their existence, the only reason the Local Governments existed in the first place, was because the Imperium didn't actually have a practical method to communicate with them on the level necessary to have a strong central Government.

Under this proposal, those Colonies, that have never not been part of the Imperium, and merely had minor separatist movements during a transition in the system of Government, would be free to secede from the Imperium for any reason, and all secessionists have to do is pass around a sheet of paper until X-amount of people have signed it. This, would effectively mean that if there is any perceived slight, (For example, the fiasco over at Balder if you've been reading my signature.), towards the populace that they can severely destabilize the Imperium. Again, with Balder is an example, it is the single oldest Imperial Colony, it holds key Military Facilities, some of the best educational facilities in the Imperium, and is the single most populated world in the Imperium, beating out even New Harron. Losing that world, would be absolutely devastating, and its loss would only inspire yet more secessionist movements, which means more instability.

And that's not forgetting that it effectively destroys Imperial Border Policy, and ruins a 70 year old defense strategy that has, so far, proven successful in all cases. As there is now a foreign power inside the Interior Territories, which is usually cause to deploy the Fourth Fleet and destroy it, or whatever its sent to the Interior Territories, and is, in all situations, an act of War against the Imperium. But the Imperium can't take back Balder, because this proposal "Forbids member nations from establishing or acquiring non-self governing territories for any reason", which means that the Imperium can never take back its territory. Which means that the Imperium is permanently crippled, and that Balder will become a permanently dystopian hell-hole, locked in an endless war with a Power that they cannot hope to defend themselves against, but can't actually surrender to, because the World Assembly won't let the Imperium bring Balder back into the fold unless the Imperium violates the Ideology that has kept it stable for over 500 years.

And before you say anything, no, peace, is not an option. When a foreign power is within the Subspace Barrier without prior authorization from Civil, Military, and Diplomatic Oversight, it is considered an act of War, and the Imperium solves that with full-scale invasion of the offending state. Markhov might be willing to give it a chance, he's the Diplomatic Overseer after all, Civil Overseer Saar won't, because he has no sympathy for those that would see the Imperium damaged, and the Military Overseer is a hard-line isolationist, imperialist, and generally not the diplomatic sort. And the Praetor is an Ex Imperial Intelligence Agent, and she'd would be more likely to order Balder hit with a Planetcracker than offer leniency.

Point is, that this proposal more or less is a death-sentence for states like the Imperium. Either they are irreparably damaged, or are forced to withdraw from the World Assembly simply to remain in existence.
It would turn the World Assembly into an exclusive club of Liberal Democratic Federations, or states that are very much the same as that, and, unless there is something I am missing, skirt around the Ideological Ban rule by not actually banning any Ideologies. It would force out anyone that doesn't RP similarly to you, assuming they actually RP Compliance, or are not just here for R&D Nonsense.

The whole thing just reads like an attempt to gut RP that doesn't center around the GA. And I happen to think that is a problem. GA RP should not be mutually exclusive with other forms of RP. You shouldn't have to be a Liberal Democracy to run in the GA. You shouldn't be forced to run a "Unitary" state with an incredibly weak central government to run in the GA.

This thing is the holy grail of unethical ways to write a proposal. Nice, feel-good name that only vaguely relates to the contents, implications that only ideology X can ever be good, using odd language to describe quite simple things so that people who just skim through the thing don't get any real sense of what exactly it does, and shoves all the feel-good language to the forefront so that people feel even better about voting for it. It makes convenient callbacks to GA2 to make it look like its an all-good thing, and then skirts around both it, and GA Rules to impose a set of approved ideologies and RP Themes on Member States, without ever actually making it illegal to be anything else, just impossible.

*I am aware that I need to fix up my factbooks one of these days, I just need to translate it from notes and disjointed paragraphs to a readable format. And update the map of the Interior Territories because it so far out of date its not even funny.

[Sciongrad]

I'm not really sure what you want from me here, but since I'm coming back at this OOC, I'll see what I can do.

OOC: Thank you for taking the time to respond. I'll try to address your concerns as best I can.

First of all, France isn't really what Markhov is talking about, and, that, coming back at this with a better head, is rather understandably confusing. The Imperium is the sort of Unitary State that doesn't have any territorial subdivisions, and that's rather the problem, as you well know. The idea of Local Government rather conflicts with the overall ideology of the Imperium, that being, as I don't really have a name for it, that the State must be, at once, overwhelmingly powerful, efficient, free from corruption, and above totalitarianism. I'll not get into how that works out here*, as it's not really relevant.

I see what you mean, and that type of state obviously isn't the target of the resolution like I (foolishly) implied earlier. My goal here is not to force member nations to introduce local self-governance per se, but determining what constitutes a colony or dependency is quite difficult. Rest assured that the definition is not meant to dissolve states like the Imperium. Although I'll note that this resolution would still likely do serious damage to states that form their nation by conquering other, previously sovereign states. So while I'm open to changing the definition so that it doesn't target nations with certain political frameworks, Sciongrad IC is very committed to decolonization and likely has no interest in whether or not states it considers conquerors or warmongers are dissolved in the process.

Further, it can't be really called a self-governing territory if the local government has almost no power, or isn't democratically elected. As the former has fairly obvious issues, and the latter, means that the local government is just some State-Appointees making decisions for the Planet, without their consent, and nothing's really changed at all, so that isn't an option either. And, given the existence of clause 6C, wouldn't work anyway.

Again, this is probably a result of a very inexact definition. With useful commentary, I'll do my best to refine the definition to include roughly what we understand as colonies.

Now, as for the definitions, when Markhov said that all territory of the Imperium beyond New Harron could be considered 'colonized', he wasn't exaggerating, and this is where the whole Interstellar Empire bit starts to cause problems; There are colonies, specifically, most of the Core Worlds, and a few others, that the Imperium has held for several hundred years, before the advent of Subspace Technologies, which includes (better) FTL, actual FTL Communication, and all that nice Sci-Fi Techwank that keeps the Imperium functional, that would be the worlds that were mentioned to have their local governments dismantled when the Imperium gained a practical way to actually become a Unitary State. The Imperium founded, built, supplied, populated, defended, and generally controlled these Colonies for the entirety of their existence, the only reason the Local Governments existed in the first place, was because the Imperium didn't actually have a practical method to communicate with them on the level necessary to have a strong central Government.

This is where we run into what is probably an irreconcilable difference of IC opinion. I roleplay Sciongrad as an ideologically uncompromising pacifist state committed to political freedom and sovereignty. All that hippy RL UN jazz. Obviously I respect you and your IC choices, but Sciongrad the nation does not necessarily, and as I've indicated IC, arguing that the existence of your nation hangs in the balance will not convince ambassador Santos on its own.

Under this proposal, those Colonies, that have never not been part of the Imperium, and merely had minor separatist movements during a transition in the system of Government, would be free to secede from the Imperium for any reason, and all secessionists have to do is pass around a sheet of paper until X-amount of people have signed it. This, would effectively mean that if there is any perceived slight, (For example, the fiasco over at Balder if you've been reading my signature.), towards the populace that they can severely destabilize the Imperium. Again, with Balder is an example, it is the single oldest Imperial Colony, it holds key Military Facilities, some of the best educational facilities in the Imperium, and is the single most populated world in the Imperium, beating out even New Harron. Losing that world, would be absolutely devastating, and its loss would only inspire yet more secessionist movements, which means more instability.

Again, from an IC perspective, Santos would see that as the natural consequence of self-determination in practice. If a majority of people on Balder support political independence, Sciongrad believes that's their choice.

Point is, that this proposal more or less is a death-sentence for states like the Imperium. Either they are irreparably damaged, or are forced to withdraw from the World Assembly simply to remain in existence.
It would turn the World Assembly into an exclusive club of Liberal Democratic Federations, or states that are very much the same as that, and, unless there is something I am missing, skirt around the Ideological Ban rule by not actually banning any Ideologies. It would force out anyone that doesn't RP similarly to you, assuming they actually RP Compliance, or are not just here for R&D Nonsense.

The whole thing just reads like an attempt to gut RP that doesn't center around the GA. And I happen to think that is a problem. GA RP should not be mutually exclusive with other forms of RP. You shouldn't have to be a Liberal Democracy to run in the GA. You shouldn't be forced to run a "Unitary" state with an incredibly weak central government to run in the GA.

Like I indicated IC, that is not the objective of this proposal. Ideally, this would be able to accommodate states across the ideological spectrum. I'm in absolutely no rush to get this through, so I'll experiment with definition to be less biased towards liberal democracies.

This thing is the holy grail of unethical ways to write a proposal. Nice, feel-good name that only vaguely relates to the contents, implications that only ideology X can ever be good, using odd language to describe quite simple things so that people who just skim through the thing don't get any real sense of what exactly it does, and shoves all the feel-good language to the forefront so that people feel even better about voting for it. It makes convenient callbacks to GA2 to make it look like its an all-good thing, and then skirts around both it, and GA Rules to impose a set of approved ideologies and RP Themes on Member States, without ever actually making it illegal to be anything else, just impossible.

I disagree with this. The title definitely reflects what the proposal does. I don't think anyone could reasonably argue that this doesn't deal almost exclusively with self-determination. Furthermore, this proposal, while ideological, doesn't single out one good ideology. Ideally, it would only limit imperialism, which is really not an ideology. If it reads as pro-democracy, it might be because the nature of self-determination bends that way and because the definition is imperfect, but this by no means is meant to endorse liberal democracy. And this proposal does not skirt around either GA#2 or the rules. This proposal is perfectly legal, and not because of any legal contortionism. Anyway, my point here is that this proposal is intended to be straightforward. It is not meant to be deceptive (indeed, I don't think it is), it is not meant to promote a single method of roleplaying (unless you consider anti-imperialism a single type of roleplaying), and it is not against the rules. I will gladly make any IC modifications I can (within reason, considering Sciongrad's objective) to accommodate you and nations with similar political frameworks, but you can't expect me to drop this because it interferes with your roleplay. I'm sure there are many theocracies that were annoyed when Reproductive Freedoms Passed, and many totalitarian states that were annoyed when Freedom of Assembly and Freedom of Expression passed. I won't start a precedent where authors are expected to drop proposal ideas simply because they interfere with a certain political framework. So please, work with me and I'll do my best to ensure this proposal satisfies its objectives and allows Tinfect and similar states to continue to exist.

[Excidium Planetis]

"Clause 2 essentially forbids the acqusuition of any populated territory without express democratic vote from the native population. You can't buy it from nations which own it, you can't colonize a planet without risking the colony immediately proclaiming independence, you can't even capture territory from an enemy nation. It essentially permanently restricts WA nations to the territory they have right now."

"That is almost exactly what that clause does, yes. Anything less would violate basic principles of national sovereignty and self-determination."

"You see, that's the problem. Perhaps I can forgive you for being unaware of our situation, but Excidium Planetis does not have any self-governing territory right now, nor have we ever had any in the history of our nation. This resolution would render us essentially unable to ever gain any territory. As stated, and you agreed, we can't buy it, we can't steal it, and we can't even colonize an uninhabited planet without risking losing it immediately."