NationStates

I've made a few changes - your criticism is most welcome.

I see little difference. I still suspect that the imposed democracy advocated in this proposal would amount to little more than this body forcing a form of government on a political subdivision of a sovereign nation.

As for your argument

I've already told you, imperialism is not an ideology covered by GAR#2. Furthermore, this has less to do with how a colony is governed and more to do with the conditions on which it was created and whether or not its inhabitants find it acceptable.

You are incorrect, just because you may not like or approve of a particular form of government does not mean it is not covered. That this body cannot force a type you prefer onto member nations is a bedrock principle of international law.

oocly:

as for the confusion, your previous statements have read like a snake eating it's own tail. I suggest simplicity.

Ainocra wrote:I see little difference. I still suspect that the imposed democracy advocated in this proposal would amount to little more than this body forcing a form of government on a political subdivision of a sovereign nation.

"The difference is that now, member nations are required to provide non-self governing territories with the right to self-determination, rather than just being urged. Those referenda are also observed by the OEA to ensure legitimacy."

You are incorrect, just because you may not like or approve of a particular form of government does not mean it is not covered.

"Imperialism is not a form of government, it describes an action and not a system of government. Either way, this is where you provide a rebuttal. I've already made my argument earlier, which has yet to be rebutted - simply saying I'm incorrect will not convince anyone."

oocly:

as for the confusion, your previous statements have read like a snake eating it's own tail. I suggest simplicity.

OOC: If this is the case, I apologize, and I'll try to be clearer, but you'll have to be more specific. What was confusing? Perhaps I could clarify it.

Imperialism is not a form of government?

Are you denying the existence of Empires and Emperors in general?
If so I can provide you with many well documented historical examples Ambassador.


oocly:

nah it's cool I got it, but this it the one that read like you were both agreeing and disagreeing with me.

"Obviously there are nuances in this situation, but colonies that enjoy the same political equality as other, native regions of the Ainocran empire would likely not be covered by this resolution. This would be true for almost all instance of land that was previously unsettled. Provided that settled land was integrated into your empire, the WABD would have to make a determination based on demographics, whether or not the territory and its people consented to the process, etc. But I don't think it's too unclear. The definition on its own may include things that it shouldn't and vice versa, but the WABD is empowered to prevent this by making certain exceptions based on guidelines provided in the proposal."

I read it a few minutes after you posted it, but took nearly a day and a half to reply

perhaps I just need more coffee. or less old age, or something

"You probably need a participle in Article 4 - hey, we need a clean-up in the kitchen area - such as 'assessing', 'overseeing', 'verifying', so as to read - onion rings are currently included in our jumbo offer - 'expanded to include assessing the legitimacy of'."

~ former Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer
Server, GnomeBurger

Ainocra wrote:Imperialism is not a form of government?

Are you denying the existence of Empires and Emperors in general?
If so I can provide you with many well documented historical examples Ambassador.

"My argument is not that empires don't exist - rather, that empires are not ideologies protected by the ideological ban rule. And, even if they were considered ideologies and were therefore protected, this resolution doesn't make imperialism impossible - nations can still have colonies and can expand. According to the secretariat, ideological bans must ban an ideology - making it extremely difficult for an ideology to exist is perfectly legal, however."

oocly:

nah it's cool I got it, but this it the one that read like you were both agreeing and disagreeing with me.

"Obviously there are nuances in this situation, but colonies that enjoy the same political equality as other, native regions of the Ainocran empire would likely not be covered by this resolution. This would be true for almost all instance of land that was previously unsettled. Provided that settled land was integrated into your empire, the WABD would have to make a determination based on demographics, whether or not the territory and its people consented to the process, etc. But I don't think it's too unclear. The definition on its own may include things that it shouldn't and vice versa, but the WABD is empowered to prevent this by making certain exceptions based on guidelines provided in the proposal."

I read it a few minutes after you posted it, but took nearly a day and a half to reply

"All I meant here is that you can settle into uninhabited territory and this resolution will almost certainly not affect your new colonies. This really comes into play in the event of forcibly expropriating land from others and forming colonies or where abuse or serious circumstances, like ethnic divisions or cultural heritage, come into play. In which case, the WABD will determine if the territory in question is a non-self governing territory. And even then, the territory must vote for self-determination through a referendum observed by the OEA. In a nutshell: this doesn't ban colonies, it gives certain colonies the right to choose whether or not they want to remain colonies."

The Dark Star Republic wrote:"You probably need a participle in Article 4 - hey, we need a clean-up in the kitchen area - such as 'assessing', 'overseeing', 'verifying', so as to read - onion rings are currently included in our jumbo offer - 'expanded to include assessing the legitimacy of'."

~ former Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer
Server, GnomeBurger

"Oops. Good catch. I'll change that now."

yes but I'm not declaring it to be an ideological ban, but rather it violates GA2 by attempting to deny a sovereign nation it's choice of government under article 1

Article 1 § Every WA Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

Ainocra wrote:Article 1 § Every WA Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

The World Assembly isn't a NationState.

Ainocra wrote:yes but I'm not declaring it to be an ideological ban ...

Normlpeople wrote:OOC: this borders on an ideological ban of empires ...

Ainocra wrote:We agree ...

... but rather it violates GA2 by attempting to deny a sovereign nation it's choice of government under article 1

Article 1 § Every WA Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

OOC: That's an RP representation of the ideological ban rule. And even so, this proposal still does not prevent nations from forming empires. It may make it more difficult, but that's never been illegal.

you're not trying to ban one type, you're trying to ban them all.

You're trying to tell a nation that it cannot govern it's territory in the manner it sees fit for no other reason than where it might be located.

I could under this proposal have 5 different colonies, one that was a democracy because the people there liked it that way, one a theocracy, because the people there were pious in the extreme, one a military base because security!

And they would all be illegal.

oocly:

no coffee yet this morning, but seriously there is no way to make this legal without repealing ga2.

Ainocra wrote:you're not trying to ban one type, you're trying to ban them all.

You're trying to tell a nation that it cannot govern it's territory in the manner it sees fit for no other reason than where it might be located.

I could under this proposal have 5 different colonies, one that was a democracy because the people there liked it that way, one a theocracy, because the people there were pious in the extreme, one a military base because security!

And they would all be illegal.

oocly:

no coffee yet this morning, but seriously there is no way to make this legal without repealing ga2.

OOC: You're misinterpreting GAR#2. The clause you're citing is literally an IC representation of the ideological ban rule, which is not violated by this resolution because it doesn't make any ideology impossible. GAR#2 has nothing to do with this at all, and even if I repealed GAR#2 (assuming you were right), the rule would still exist. Furthermore, colonies are not automatically illegal under this resolution. The only absolutely illegal action is expropriating territory from other people.

Ainocra wrote:you're not trying to ban one type, you're trying to ban them all.

You're trying to tell a nation that it cannot govern it's territory in the manner it sees fit for no other reason than where it might be located.

I could under this proposal have 5 different colonies, one that was a democracy because the people there liked it that way, one a theocracy, because the people there were pious in the extreme, one a military base because security!

And they would all be illegal.

oocly:

no coffee yet this morning, but seriously there is no way to make this legal without repealing ga2.

If the theocracy is popular then its fine. If the people do not want theocracy then it will be removed. Your policy on colonial governance is very modern and exactly what this proposal is making everyone else do.
As per the military base, as long as its a volunteer military, same thing.

OOC: You're misinterpreting GAR#2. The clause you're citing is literally an IC representation of the ideological ban rule, which is not violated by this resolution because it doesn't make any ideology impossible. GAR#2 has nothing to do with this at all, and even if I repealed GAR#2 (assuming you were right), the rule would still exist. Furthermore, colonies are not automatically illegal under this resolution. The only absolutely illegal action is expropriating territory from other people.

oocly:


say it with me, the law does what the law says.

While I don't deny your aim, I'm telling you that you are missing the mark as it is written.
This, as written would serve to impose a democratic vote on the colonies of sovereign nations,
regardless of how they came to be colonies and regardless of the nation's form of government.

in essence, forcing democracy onto parts of a nation.

Even if you force it into a narrow set of circumstances unless GA2 gets a repeal then this simply can't be legal.
both from an ooc and an ic perspective.

I suggest a different approach, if you want to prevent hostile annexation of territory then write something mandating the return of occupied territory once the war/unrest/disaster/(insert circumstance of choice here) is over, dealt with and stability restored.

Sorry I wasn't too clear earlier, I plead industrial lack of caffeine.

Ainocra wrote:

OOC: You're misinterpreting GAR#2. The clause you're citing is literally an IC representation of the ideological ban rule, which is not violated by this resolution because it doesn't make any ideology impossible. GAR#2 has nothing to do with this at all, and even if I repealed GAR#2 (assuming you were right), the rule would still exist. Furthermore, colonies are not automatically illegal under this resolution. The only absolutely illegal action is expropriating territory from other people.

oocly:


say it with me, the law does what the law says.

While I don't deny your aim, I'm telling you that you are missing the mark as it is written.
This, as written would serve to impose a democratic vote on the colonies of sovereign nations,
regardless of how they came to be colonies and regardless of the nation's form of government.

in essence, forcing democracy onto parts of a nation.

Even if you force it into a narrow set of circumstances unless GA2 gets a repeal then this simply can't be legal.
both from an ooc and an ic perspective.

I suggest a different approach, if you want to prevent hostile annexation of territory then write something mandating the return of occupied territory once the war/unrest/disaster/(insert circumstance of choice here) is over, dealt with and stability restored.

Sorry I wasn't too clear earlier, I plead industrial lack of caffeine.

OOC: No, you're missing the point of what GAR#2 is. The clause you're citing - the first operative clause of GAR# 2 - is, quite literally speaking, the ideological ban rule. All it does is put the actual game rules into RP terms. Permitting nations to vote in a referendum on the issue of self-determination exclusively is not an ideological ban by any stretch of the imagination. A nation, or even a colony, which is a fascist totalitarian dictatorship is not having its ideology banned by permitting its people to vote on the issue of self-determination. That's not what the ideological ban is, and if you still think that's the case, then you can go request a moderator ruling. As I said before, to break the ideological ban rule, the ideology must be made impossible, not just more difficult. If you want, I can provide you with the relevant ruling. I don't mean to sound harsh, because I want to address your concerns as best I can, but whatever rule violation of contradiction with GAR#2 you're citing is incorrect.

oocly:

No you are missing the point, just because it has an OOC application doesn't mean we get to ignore it IC.

From an IC point nations get to pick their form of government , it's fairly straightforward. forcing a form of governance onto them they didn't choose simply isn't allowed, even in small doses.

I do agree with you though, we should get a mod ruling on it.

Ainocra wrote:oocly:

No you are missing the point, just because it has an OOC application doesn't mean we get to ignore it IC.

From an IC point nations get to pick their form of government , it's fairly straightforward. forcing a form of governance onto them they didn't choose simply isn't allowed, even in small doses.

I do agree with you though, we should get a mod ruling on it.

OOC: The IC implication is exactly same as the OOC. It's the ideological ban rule. You're reading something that really isn't there. You can impose ideologies on member nations - this is a fact, and just looking through the annals of WA law can show you that - you should can't make any particular ideology impossible to follow. But don't worry, because I have a relevant ruling:

Ardchoille wrote:But if a series of resolutions seems to gradually make it more and more difficult to keep a nation on a particular [ideology], it's a player problem. There's plenty that can be done in-game about it and plenty of time to do it. It's not a one-proposal problem, it's not a one-proposal solution, and (again, IMHO) mods should keep our noses out of it. We're not supposed to play the game for you.

oocly:

I don't think that ruling would apply in this case, this (as currently written) doesn't chip away at, it would serve to bypass entirely a protection guaranteed to nations even if on a small scale.

I say kick over to the mods and see what they say.

Though honestly given the level of opposition this has already garnered you might be better off dropping the idea.

Unless of course you wanna keep arguing

Ainocra wrote:oocly:

I don't think that ruling would apply in this case, this (as currently written) doesn't chip away at, it would serve to bypass entirely a protection guaranteed to nations even if on a small scale.

I say kick over to the mods and see what they say.

Though honestly given the level of opposition this has already garnered you might be better off dropping the idea.

Unless of course you wanna keep arguing

OOC: To say that this makes any ideology impossible is simply wrong. Even if you argued that imperialism was an ideology in its own right, this wouldn't even make that impossible. So I won't be requesting a ruling because I don't want to waste my time or the moderators'. Now, you're free to ask - you may be right (although I'm fairly certain I am) - but I won't be. And I won't be dropping this either. It will be difficult, but I'm going to do some politicking before I give up.

The WA does not have the power to tell nations to abandon their ideology.

WA resolutions, however, do have the power to tell nations to stop doing something they want to continue doing. While GA#2 gives individual nations the right to be free from dictation "by any other NationState", it does not free them from the interference of the WA.

Being an empire is an action, not an ideology. The ideology behind the empire may be socialist, capitalist, monarchist, fascist, libertarian, democratic, theocratic, etc. 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.

---

That (*points up*) is the official ruling, in light of a legality challenge we received. However, here's a few other helpful suggestions or points for consideration/debate.

1) Check your phrasing – and remember that WA resolutions can only affect WA nations.
2) Does this proposal contradict other clauses within GA#2?
3) Is this proposal even needed, in light of the restrictions placed on WA member nations by GA#2? If so, how/why?
4) Are you more concerned with preventing the expansion of empires by WA nations? Or are you more wanting to work on having the WA help formerly colonized territory become capable of self-governance? (Narrowing the focus of your proposal may help some of the aforementioned concerns.)

Again, these last 4 items should in no way be construed as an official ruling, but perhaps more … food for thought.

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

We are very hesitant to support this legislation due to the makeup of the Kawaiian nation. Our people are a "stateless nation", existing in exile on lands borrowed or rented from other nation-states. As a result, the Kawaiian people are scattered about the world in what could be argued as tribal "colonies", each bound to the central Church authority.

We have worked long and hard to sustain the unity of Kawaiian nationhood through the enforcement of Church law in each tribal land. Can the Ambassador assure us that this resolution cannot be interpreted such that a tribe could declare independence from the mother Church, thus creating schism and threatening the integrity of Kawaiian culture?

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

We are very hesitant to support this legislation due to the makeup of the Kawaiian nation. Our people are a "stateless nation", existing in exile on lands borrowed or rented from other nation-states. As a result, the Kawaiian people are scattered about the world in what could be argued as tribal "colonies", each bound to the central Church authority.

We have worked long and hard to sustain the unity of Kawaiian nationhood through the enforcement of Church law in each tribal land. Can the Ambassador assure us that this resolution cannot be interpreted such that a tribe could declare independence from the mother Church, thus creating schism and threatening the integrity of Kawaiian culture?

"The WABD is responsible for making reasonable exceptions to the proposal, so even if individual tribes were considered non self governing territories (which I don't think they would be, given the definition), the WABD would certainly make a reasonable exception. I hope that assuages your Excellency's concerns."

The Fleet Marshal removes his flask from his pocket and takes a long pull from it.

The Empire of Jarish Inyo would have to oppose this resolution should it come to vote. The Empire doesn't return territory captured during a military conflict at the end of hostilities. These territories are granted all the rights that any other providence of the Empire.

OOC: This is a very well written draft and I appreciate your efforts in tackling this legislation.

IC: We are sternly opposed, as our fine nation is being torn apart by an illegitimate and violent separatist insurgency in our most eastward province and to initiate a process of self determination would cripple our economy.

OOC: I really, really like this proposal, but....
IC: The Enlightened Dominion of Mundiferrum does not want its Dominion to be challenged like this! Vehemently opposed.
Then again, the King often sucks up the will to have political freedoms from his domain, so aside from not being allowed to take over stuff anymore, we won't actually be harmed much by this proposal, so we'd actually probably vote FOR. However, *ahem*, there does seem to be a vast number of imperials in this Assembly that aren't as paradisal, so I do feel like pursuing this any further would only result in a rather stingy burn....