[PASSED] The Rule of Law

[Araraukar]

*snip*

OOC: I disagree it would change much, as rational nation theory suggests that most nations would already have that system in effect, but I don't disagree enough to challenge its legality via GHR.

[Sciongrad]

*snip*

OOC: I disagree it would change much, as rational nation theory suggests that most nations would already have that system in effect, but I don't disagree enough to challenge its legality via GHR.

OOC: Reasonable nation theory does not cover the rule of law. Simply because a legal concept may seem intuitive to those of us who live in the West does not mean it is unreasonable for nations to behave differently. Reasonable nation theory is meant to protect authors from having to account for actions or behavior that reasonable nations would not engage in; it does not, however, cover actions or behavior that Westerners find "normal." There are dozens of countries in the real world that do not respect the rule of law. Are they violating fundamental rights? Yes. Are they acting unreasonably? No, not necessarily.

[Araraukar]

*snip*

OOC: As I said, I disagree, but not strongly enough to challenge the legality on that alone.

[Sciongrad]

*snip*

OOC: As I said, I disagree, but not strongly enough to challenge the legality on that alone.

OOC: Fair enough.

IC: "Any last minute concerns? Otherwise, I will submit this within the next week."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"Only my ongoing jihad against the word 'demands' in operative clauses. Can you not make it a mandate or a requirement or something? A demand is the statement a child makes to her parents when she's throwing a tantrum; or that a terrorist makes to the government security forces that are guaranteed to not only flagrantly ignore it, but storm in and shoot his ass if they can do it without too many hostages getting hurt. It is not a commandment with the force of law."

"Other than that, this seems pretty solid."

[Wallenburg]

"I don't see this as very 'strong', given the exceptions to the one mandate this proposal creates."

[Sciongrad]

"I don't see this as very 'strong', given the exceptions to the one mandate this proposal creates."

"Those are not necessarily exceptions to the rule of law. Clause two accounts for instances that would be prohibited by clause one but do not violate the principles underlying the rule of law. They're exceptions insofar as they would otherwise be covered by clause one - they are, however, wholly compatible with the rule of law."

"Only my ongoing jihad against the word 'demands' in operative clauses. Can you not make it a mandate or a requirement or something? A demand is the statement a child makes to her parents when she's throwing a tantrum; or that a terrorist makes to the government security forces that are guaranteed to not only flagrantly ignore it, but storm in and shoot his ass if they can do it without too many hostages getting hurt. It is not a commandment with the force of law."

"I can certainly make that change. Although I wouldn't be so quick to assume there aren't terrorists at work around here."

"Other than that, this seems pretty solid."

"I am not worthy of your support. Many thanks, ambassador."

[Wallenburg]

"I don't see this as very 'strong', given the exceptions to the one mandate this proposal creates."

"Those are not necessarily exceptions to the rule of law. Clause two accounts for instances that would be prohibited by clause one but do not violate the principles underlying the rule of law. They're exceptions insofar as they would otherwise be covered by clause one - they are, however, wholly compatible with the rule of law."

"Ambassador...your own proposal calls them 'reasonable, good faith exceptions'. I'm nor saying they are incompatible with the theory of rule by law, but they most certainly are exceptions."

[Sciongrad]

"Those are not necessarily exceptions to the rule of law. Clause two accounts for instances that would be prohibited by clause one but do not violate the principles underlying the rule of law. They're exceptions insofar as they would otherwise be covered by clause one - they are, however, wholly compatible with the rule of law."

"Ambassador...your own proposal calls them 'reasonable, good faith exceptions'. I'm nor saying they are incompatible with the theory of rule by law, but they most certainly are exceptions."

"I never denied that the proposal does contain a section for exception, I merely said they weren't exceptions to the principle of the rule of law. Simply having exceptions does not preclude categorization as strong, however. GAR#23 and GAR#112 - both strong human rights resolutions - contain sections that make reasonable exceptions. This proposal is no different."

[Wallenburg]

"Ambassador...your own proposal calls them 'reasonable, good faith exceptions'. I'm nor saying they are incompatible with the theory of rule by law, but they most certainly are exceptions."

"I never denied that the proposal does contain a section for exception, I merely said they weren't exceptions to the principle of the rule of law.

"Then we are in agreement."

Simply having exceptions does not preclude categorization as strong, however. GAR#23 and GAR#112 - both strong human rights resolutions - contain sections that make reasonable exceptions. This proposal is no different."

"I know that. The thing is, this resolution also has only one mandate."

[Sciongrad]

"I know that. The thing is, this resolution also has only one mandate."

"I don't know why that should affect its strength. The number of clauses often has nothing to do with the strength or scope of a proposal. As a matter of fact, resolutions with a single mandate and an exception clause have been categorized as strong legally in the past."

[Wallenburg]

"I know that. The thing is, this resolution also has only one mandate."

"I don't know why that should affect its strength. The number of clauses often has nothing to do with the strength or scope of a proposal. As a matter of fact, resolutions with a single mandate and an exception clause have been categorized as strong legally in the past."

"I'm sorry, Ambassador, but I do not consider defeated resolutions legal precedent."

[Sciongrad]

"I don't know why that should affect its strength. The number of clauses often has nothing to do with the strength or scope of a proposal. As a matter of fact, resolutions with a single mandate and an exception clause have been categorized as strong legally in the past."

"I'm sorry, Ambassador, but I do not consider defeated resolutions legal precedent."

"That is not really a reasoned argument, seeing as that resolution was legally submitted. Precedent in the General Assembly is decidedly not limited to rulings made regarding extant legislation. Limiting precedent to passed resolutions is both arbitrary and defies how discussions of legality have been conducted in the past. However, I'll gladly oblige you. GAR#27 is categorized as strong, and has two (arguably non-discrete) mandates and an exception. Although again, I reject the notion that the number of clauses a resolution has correlates to its strength or scope."

[Sciongrad]

"Sciongrad intends to submit this proposal tomorrow. Any last minute comments?"

[John Turner]

"Sciongrad intends to submit this proposal tomorrow. Any last minute comments?"

After two bloody years, if anyone has anything to say that hasn't already been said can just keep their mouths shut at this point.

Good luck Ambassador.

[Louisistan]

Ambassador Max Becker: Lemon Curry?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Ambassador Max Becker: Lemon Curry?

Parsons: Orange Julius? Though, do you happen to have relations to Jacques Necker?

[Louisistan]

Ambassador Max Becker: Lemon Curry?

Parsons: Orange Julius? Though, do you happen to have relations to Jacques Necker?

Becker: Can't say I ever met the gentleman. I just wanted to be on the Debate transcript after Mr. Turner's rant about keeping one's mouth shut.

[Sciongrad]

1. All persons, entities, both public and private, and institutions, including the state, political subdivisions thereof, and its officials, shall be held equally accountable under the established statutory laws, judicial precedents, and/or any other principles or guidelines with the equivalent force of law of a relevant member nation.

What about minors? Or the mentally ill? Some nations also might be flexible to the enforcement of laws related to poverty to avoid starvation or the criminalisation of poverty. Other nations may try some people in a separate cultural-legal system that's more sensitive to their needs as a cultural (and potentially disadvantaged) minority.

"I was going to submit this yesterday, but this response has delayed me. What do you all think of this objection? Comments would be appreciated."

[Louisistan]

Becker: "Aren't exceptions like the one pointed out by the Delegation from Unibot usually covered by laws? I.e. if a nation believes (as well it should) that mental illness is grounds for what is commonly, yet inaccurately, referred to as an 'insanity plea', that is usually established in statutory laws or judicial precedent. Thus, it would not constitute a breach of the Rule of Law, neither as a general principle, nor as formulated in your proposal, Ambassador Santos."

[Wallenburg]

Becker: "Aren't exceptions like the one pointed out by the Delegation from Unibot usually covered by laws? I.e. if a nation believes (as well it should) that mental illness is grounds for what is commonly, yet inaccurately, referred to as an 'insanity plea', that is usually established in statutory laws or judicial precedent. Thus, it would not constitute a breach of the Rule of Law, neither as a general principle, nor as formulated in your proposal, Ambassador Santos."

"Certainly some nations do. However, I am equally certain that some do not, and would be more than happy to imprison children until they die for minor infractions. I second the suggestion from the Unibot delegation."

[Sciongrad]

"I've removed the word 'equally' in clause 1 because I believe it is extraneous and may be interpreted in the way the Unibotian delegation has suggested. This means that the only expectation of equality this proposal requires is that established under CoCR. This resolution is only meant to ensure that everyone is accountable to the law and I worry that requiring everyone be 'equally accountable' may be erroneously interpreted by some as interfering with positive discrimination or legitimate exceptions. Any objections?

As something to note: this proposal does not demand or even expect laws will be just or fair - only that everyone will be held accountable under them."

[Louisistan]

The Louisistanian Delegation can be seen with their associate counsel. After a short talk, Ambassador Becker returns their verdict: "No objections on our behalf."

[Unibot III]

I'm not sure if I mention this two years ago, but "of a relevant member nation." seems like unclear wording to me since it's only required to be a member nation relevant to the law, not the specific member nation whose laws are to be upheld.

Some sort of rewording of the pivotal clause like "laws of a given nation" might be more clear, but I worry if this legislation may be operating in a statist tunnel vision, forgetting its implications for unconventional sources of law: international law, corporate policy etc. The resolution should be clear this about a very traditional notion of rule of law.

[Unibot III]

I'm also wondering if you should take the time to consider whether a rule of law resolution really shouldn't consider the fairness of laws, questions of fundemental justice, human rights etc. It just seems, I dunno, contrary the WA's values and tone to pass a resolution without explicit protection of those who could otherwise be put at risk. In other words I'm talking about the possibility of a catch-all third exemption that says, you know, the typical spiel: "nothing in the resolution should be assumed" to apply to laws that could reasonably be regarded as contradicting WA law and its civil rights legislation.