[PASSED] The Rule of Law

[Frustrated Franciscans]

I plan to vote against.

This is interesting. That's two strikes in my book.

Sciongrad:
I'm curious to know why you think such a law is necessary.
I'm curious to know why you think this is something the WA should address.

But the imposition of a universal rule of law only impacts the despot. I see no reason to oppose this resolution at this time.

[Wallenburg]

I plan to vote against.

This is interesting. That's two strikes in my book.

"You consider another Ambassador's opinion reason enough to sway your vote?"

Sciongrad:
I'm curious to know why you think such a law is necessary.
I'm curious to know why you think this is something the WA should address.
But the imposition of a universal rule of law only impacts the despot. I see no reason to oppose this resolution at this time.

"I believe the entire idea of egalitarian policy is to reduce despotic corruption, Ambassador."

[Frustrated Franciscans]

"You consider another Ambassador's opinion reason enough to sway your vote?"

NO, just the random musings of a representative to his REGIONAL DELEGATE.

(The first strike, by the way, was my strong objections to his repeal argument in Repeal "Convention on Execution")

[Wallenburg]

"You consider another Ambassador's opinion reason enough to sway your vote?"

NO, just the random musings of a representative to his REGIONAL DELEGATE.

(The first strike, by the way, was my strong objections to his repeal argument in Repeal "Convention on Execution")

"So you are voting against because of the author as well? Ambassador, you are truly fascinating."

[Frustrated Franciscans]

"So you are voting against because of the author as well? Ambassador, you are truly fascinating."

Now why, If I disagree with my delegate (who has voted against) would I vote against? I have voted FOR the resolution, actually.

[Wallenburg]

"So you are voting against because of the author as well? Ambassador, you are truly fascinating."

Now why, If I disagree with my delegate (who has voted against) would I vote against? I have voted FOR the resolution, actually.

OOC: ...

I am so confused.

[Europe and Oceania]

Now why, If I disagree with my delegate (who has voted against) would I vote against? I have voted FOR the resolution, actually.

OOC: ...

I am so confused.

lol.

[Normlpeople]

Coco stood up, timidly addressing the gathered delegates "I see no reason to oppose this. The Princess and her council of advisors would continue to be immune, and the rest of the citizens should be treated fairly when it comes to applying law. On behalf of Ambassador Clover, I cast the kingdom's vote FOR"

[Yourolandia]

Didn't think this needs to be a GA resolution if anything really.

Voted "For" just for completeness sake.

[Erglis]

What privileges are necessary?

"During crucial times for our economic growth, it may be necessary to grant the private sectro immunity to things such as violations of labor laws, legal penalties and fines for working in violation of established workplace safety laws, and the like. IF our economy were to go into recession because we were bound to hold executives to the same laws as the common people. However, as this resolution will be passing, I must examine our current private sector workplace protection laws, to see how we can repeal or abolish them while still being compliant with Assembly resolutions."

[The Dourian Embassy]

Lack of definition has really hurt you here (though not at the vote apparently). Let's examine the phrase "held accountable under the... ...law."

For someone to be "held accountable under the law" would not require that you punish them (we must simply recognize that they've committed a crime, which is what the idiom "hold accountable" actually means). GAR#35 would normally help you with this, but unless we interpret that resolution to enforce mandatory minimums (which we can all agree it does not) having sentencing be between "verbal warning" and "the death penalty" for any crime generally covers your ass here. Most democracies wouldn't have such extreme sentencing guidelines, but it's par for the course in Douria. I imagine other longtime dictatorships would have similar legal codes. And if they don't, they will going forward.

What this does, in tandem with GAR#35, is require me to recognize law breaking regardless of who has committed it. What it does not do, however, is force me to punish lawbreakers in any particular way. Douria has allowed normal citizens to be simply warned for treasonous actions (with my blessing of course), and I have in the past allowed the execution of Dourian elites for relatively minor crimes. These are all possible sentences for those crimes. And therefore within the realm of this supposed Rule of Law.

I could even argue that this doesn't require me to do any of those things either, since there's enough loopholes here to drive a legislature through. But even if I accept the premise and spirit of this law, it's still ineffective in accomplishing what it sets out to do. Ultimately this doesn't do nothing. But it does so little as to be meaningless.

[Vasic]

While there are many valid points here, and my own form of government reflects the ideals herein; the one point that's missed is that said restrictions shall be imposed from without.
Therefore, for reasons of personal liberty and the freedom for my nation to flourish as we see fit,NOT BY OTHERS! The vasic confederacy must vote no.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Next, you should pass a resolution called 'prohibition on the killing of kittens'. that title will be just about as good as this one

[Sciongrad]

Silliness

"I respect you too much to believe that you actually buy anything you just said. But in the astonishing event you have really been reduced to willful misinterpretation and semantic gymnastics, I will address the argument you've made.

Accountability in this context is not used in the colloquial idiomatic sense - it has a very particular legal meaning. Accountability to the law necessarily means violators must be held culpable. Failing to punish individuals who violate the law would be a flagrant violation of both this resolution and GAR#2, which requires that member nations interpret the law in good faith. Willfully refusing to prosecute people that violate the law because you think you're clever and deliberately misinterpret what is otherwise a very clear instruction is not good faith compliance. Furthermore, disparity in the degree of punishment on arbitrary grounds is also proscribed by GAR#35. In other words, Douria is free to punish those convicted of treason with a slap on the wrist but only if all individuals who are convicted of treason are similarly punished. Arbitrarily sentencing individuals is a violation of extant legislation but even if it wasn't, this resolution does not seek to address fair sentencing.

So please, don't reduce yourself to arguing semantics. If you oppose the rule of law (which, if the examples of punishment in your nation you've provided here are any indication, you do), say so. But spare me the silliness."

[Erglis]

"I respect you too much to believe that you actually buy anything you just said. But in the astonishing event you have really been reduced to willful misinterpretation and semantic gymnastics, I will address the argument you've made.

Accountability in this context is not used in the colloquial idiomatic sense - it has a very particular legal meaning. Accountability to the law necessarily means violators must be held culpable. Failing to punish individuals who violate the law would be a flagrant violation of both this resolution and GAR#2, which requires that member nations interpret the law in good faith. Willfully refusing to prosecute people that violate the law because you think you're clever and deliberately misinterpret what is otherwise a very clear instruction is not good faith compliance. Furthermore, disparity in the degree of punishment on arbitrary grounds is also proscribed by GAR#35. In other words, Douria is free to punish those convicted of treason with a slap on the wrist but only if all individuals who are convicted of treason are similarly punished. Arbitrarily sentencing individuals is a violation of extant legislation but even if it wasn't, this resolution does not seek to address fair sentencing.

So please, don't reduce yourself to arguing semantics. If you oppose the rule of law (which, if the examples of punishment in your nation you've provided here are any indication, you do), say so. But spare me the silliness."

"This resolution will fail to prohibit my Kingdom from ruling its subjects in any different manner than I already do, despite your good intentions. As King of Erglis, I have given each major business owner and corporate board the legal status of government institutions, therefore, under section 2(a) of this resolution, I now declare that any actions that these individuals take to stimulate our economy and ensure growth, that may violate our current laws to be "essential functions that would not otherwise be possible without the guarantee of immunity."

[Wallenburg]

"This resolution will fail to prohibit my Kingdom from ruling its subjects in any different manner than I already do, despite your good intentions. As King of Erglis, I have given each major business owner and corporate board the legal status of government institutions, therefore, under section 2(a) of this resolution, I now declare that any actions that these individuals take to stimulate our economy and ensure growth, that may violate our current laws to be "essential functions that would not otherwise be possible without the guarantee of immunity."

"So in order to avoid the requirements of international labor laws and other legislation, you have nationalized all major businesses?

"Something tells me that most businesses will not appreciate that."

[Erglis]

"So in order to avoid the requirements of international labor laws and other legislation, you have nationalized all major businesses?

"Something tells me that most businesses will not appreciate that."

"A nominal change does not change how a business is run, no more than calling someone "Frank" when their true name is "Paul" changes who they are. Their legal status is government institution; their way of doing business has not, and in fact, may now have grown more convenient under World Assembly law."

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

Next, you should pass a resolution called 'prohibition on the killing of kittens'. that title will be just about as good as this one

The Confederacy seconds this notion.

[Imperium Anglorum]

"I respect you too much to believe that you actually buy anything you just said. But in the astonishing event you have really been reduced to willful misinterpretation and semantic gymnastics, I will address the argument you've made.

Accountability in this context is not used in the colloquial idiomatic sense - it has a very particular legal meaning. Accountability to the law necessarily means violators must be held culpable. Failing to punish individuals who violate the law would be a flagrant violation of both this resolution and GAR#2, which requires that member nations interpret the law in good faith. Willfully refusing to prosecute people that violate the law because you think you're clever and deliberately misinterpret what is otherwise a very clear instruction is not good faith compliance. Furthermore, disparity in the degree of punishment on arbitrary grounds is also proscribed by GAR#35. In other words, Douria is free to punish those convicted of treason with a slap on the wrist but only if all individuals who are convicted of treason are similarly punished. Arbitrarily sentencing individuals is a violation of extant legislation but even if it wasn't, this resolution does not seek to address fair sentencing.

So please, don't reduce yourself to arguing semantics. If you oppose the rule of law (which, if the examples of punishment in your nation you've provided here are any indication, you do), say so. But spare me the silliness."

"This resolution will fail to prohibit my Kingdom from ruling its subjects in any different manner than I already do, despite your good intentions. As King of Erglis, I have given each major business owner and corporate board the legal status of government institutions, therefore, under section 2(a) of this resolution, I now declare that any actions that these individuals take to stimulate our economy and ensure growth, that may violate our current laws to be "essential functions that would not otherwise be possible without the guarantee of immunity."

For fucks sake, you realise that you can solve this idiotic wanked-up problem by just ... changing the laws.

[Redneck Nation of America]

not clear enough go back and make it straight forward and add more detail

[Wallenburg]

not clear enough go back and make it straight forward and add more detail

The irony of this post...

[Datluf]

How would this be enfoirced on all nations? It would be a nightmare. Imagine a super KKK-like alliance, it would cause severe backlash for those in countries againist the ruling.

[Separatist Peoples]

How would this be enfoirced on all nations? It would be a nightmare. Imagine a super KKK-like alliance, it would cause severe backlash for those in countries againist the ruling.

"I can't even understand your second point, but the WA Compliance Comission is tasked with ensuring compliance. That is covered. The rest of your comment is unintelligible."

[Erglis]

For fucks sake, you realise that you can solve this idiotic wanked-up problem by just ... changing the laws.

"Your unwarranted hostility has been noted. "

[Separatist Peoples]

For fucks sake, you realise that you can solve this idiotic wanked-up problem by just ... changing the laws.

"Your unwarranted hostility has been noted. "

"If you're going to hype up problems that don't actually exist, get used to your fellow diplomats calling you out. If you think that's hostile, you ain't seen nothing, yet."