[PASSED] The Rule of Law

[Sciongrad]

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.

"I agree fundamentally with the sentiment you're expressing here, but I'm not sure how it would be reasonable to ensure that a resolution on the rule of law also somehow broadly secures fundamental rights to justice, human rights, etc. Your rewording seems to suggest that the rule of law should only apply to resolutions that conform to World Assembly legislation on human rights. I'm not sure what that would achieve."

[Sciongrad]

"Any other concerns? I'll be submitting this soon."

[Sciongrad]

"Last call! Speak now or forever hold your peace!"

[Imperium Anglorum]

Does Douria have anything to say?

[Goathland]

Who wants to go bone digging for me in the dusty basement housing all of those fossilized ancient resolutions we have to cite in order to write a new motion? I will pay handsomely for anyone bored enough to do it.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Who wants to go bone digging for me in the dusty basement housing all of those fossilized ancient resolutions we have to cite in order to write a new motion? I will pay handsomely for anyone bored enough to do it.

This isn't relevant to discussing this proposal.

[Sciongrad]

OOC: Looks like we're gonna reach quorum shortly. Thanks everyone!

[Araraukar]

"Last call! Speak now or forever hold your peace!"

OOC: I already spoke earlier, as you probably remember.
I'll get you a proper greenery post after it goes to vote.

[The Jain Casino]

The Jain Casino applauds this legislation and its drafters. This resolution is a fine example of the kinds of legislation the world should strive for, allowing nations around the globe to reference an easily exploitable loophole for generations of proposals to come!

[The Jain Casino]

We strongly encourage other nations to support this resolution once it arrives to Discussion.

[Tinfect]

The Jain Casino applauds this legislation and its drafters. This resolution is a fine example of the kinds of resolutions the world should strive for, allowing nations around the globe to reference an easily exploitable loophole for generations of proposals to come!

OOC:
Not sure what you think you're doing, but quoting your own posts for the sole purpose of bumping a thread is spam. Knock it off.

[Christian Democrats]

I plan to vote against.

This proposal is truistic: it is unlawful to do the unlawful. Also, I'm worried that it could make it more difficult for the state to grant necessary dispensations to citizens who are not governmental employees. Thomas Aquinas puts the point nicely:

Now it happens at times that a [legal] precept, which is conducive to the common weal as a general rule, is not good for a particular individual, or in some particular case, either because it would hinder some greater good, or because it would be the occasion of some evil. . . . Consequently he who is placed over a community is empowered to dispense in a human law that rests upon his authority, so that, when the law fails in its application to persons or circumstances, he may allow the precept of the law not to be observed. (Summa Theologica I-II, q. 97, a. 4, co.)

In other words, the ruler ought to have the authority to do away with laws in cases where they "hinder some greater good." Men do not exist to serve the law; the law exists to serve men.

[Tinfect]

This proposal is truistic: it is unlawful to do the unlawful.

"That is hardly grounds to oppose, Ambassador, and is, in any case, an incredibly simplistic view of the Proposal. It's purpose is to ensure that state personnel are not exempt from the law, except when necessary to perform their duties. Surely, it would not be reasonable to allow a local Governor to, quite literally, for this example, get away with murder, simply due to their status?"

Also, I'm worried that it could make it more difficult for the state to grant necessary dispensations to citizens who are not governmental employees. Thomas Aquinas puts the point nicely:

Now it happens at times that a [legal] precept, which is conducive to the common weal as a general rule, is not good for a particular individual, or in some particular case, either because it would hinder some greater good, or because it would be the occasion of some evil. . . . Consequently he who is placed over a community is empowered to dispense in a human law that rests upon his authority, so that, when the law fails in its application to persons or circumstances, he may allow the precept of the law not to be observed. (Summa Theologica I-II, q. 97, a. 4, co.)

In other words, the ruler ought to have the authority to do away with laws in cases where they "hinder some greater good." Men do not exist to serve the law; the law exists to serve men.

"Ambassador, besides your supposed quote being utterly nonsensical drivel, the Imperium questions how your government expects laws to be respected if your government allows them to be ignored outright, simply because someone doesn't feel as though it should apply to them."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

In other words, the ruler ought to have the authority to do away with laws in cases where they "hinder some greater good." Men do not exist to serve the law; the law exists to serve men.

"Experience hath shewn, I believe, that that standard is incredibly ripe for abuse and indeed has been used to justify precisely the worst cases of the law being twisted to serve some particular man's agenda, at the cost of (at times many thousands of) the lives of other men whom the law was supposed to serve. The exceptions in this resolution allow for pardons, amnesties, and other forms of bureaucratic flexibility (notwithstanding that phrase's oxymoronic nature) sufficient for our concerns about errors caused by the mechanistic and implacable qualities of law. Further watering down would render the resolution meaningless."

[New Dukaine]

AFTER THIS POST, THIS WILL BE DEBATE FOR THE AT VOTE PART.

I am personally for this resolution.

[Europe and Oceania]

I voted for this.

[Wallenburg]

This resolution is now at vote.

---

I have voted in favor.

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

As this resolution specifically asserts that no man is above the law which is in 100% direct agreement with The Confederacy's philosophical tenants, it is natural that the Greater Siriusian Domain supports it.

[Christian Democrats]

In other words, the ruler ought to have the authority to do away with laws in cases where they "hinder some greater good." Men do not exist to serve the law; the law exists to serve men.

"Experience hath shewn, I believe, that that standard is incredibly ripe for abuse and indeed has been used to justify precisely the worst cases of the law being twisted to serve some particular man's agenda, at the cost of (at times many thousands of) the lives of other men whom the law was supposed to serve. The exceptions in this resolution allow for pardons, amnesties, and other forms of bureaucratic flexibility (notwithstanding that phrase's oxymoronic nature) sufficient for our concerns about errors caused by the mechanistic and implacable qualities of law. Further watering down would render the resolution meaningless."

We believe that experience has shown that it can be greatly beneficial for a ruler to rise above the law in order to preserve and promote the common good of the community over which he wields authority (a state of exception). History is replete with examples, the best of which, we believe, is the nineteenth-century American president Abraham Lincoln.

(OOC: Note that our world history runs parallel to the real world until the 1940s. CD was established in Europe following the Second World War as the people returned to Catholicism, instead of extreme nationalism or radical invidualism, as the focal point of moral authority and certainty.)

[Louisistan]

"It is my extraordinary pleasure to vote in favour of this proposal on behalf of 10000 Islands."

[Erglis]

A middle aged man, dressed in attire well suited to a 17th century pirate, enters the debate flanked by two generic, corpulent businessmen on either side of him.

"As King of Erglis, I must be votin' against this resolution. Some men must be above the law, to make sure the nation develops the way it should be developin'. Exceptional men and women have to take unconventional approaches, at times. That's what seperates the exceptional from the serv..I mean, citizens. The Kingdom of Erglis votes Nay to this proposal."

[Imperium Anglorum]

A middle aged man, dressed in attire well suited to a 17th century pirate, enters the debate flanked by two generic, corpulent businessmen on either side of him.

"As King of Erglis, I must be votin' against this resolution. Some men must be above the law, to make sure the nation develops the way it should be developin'. Exceptional men and women have to take unconventional approaches, at times. That's what seperates the exceptional from the serv..I mean, citizens. The Kingdom of Erglis votes Nay to this proposal."

The last time this went to vote, the Democratic Empire voted against for that reason, i.e. the lack of crown immunity. This time, clause 2(a) has solved that problem since it guarantees 'some form of immunity is necessary to ensure that government employees or institutions may carry out essential functions that would not otherwise be possible without the guarantee of immunity'.

[Erglis]

The last time this went to vote, the Democratic Empire voted against for that reason, i.e. the lack of crown immunity. This time, clause 2(a) has solved that problem since it guarantees 'some form of immunity is necessary to ensure that government employees or institutions may carry out essential functions that would not otherwise be possible without the guarantee of immunity'.

"Erglis works very closely with out business partners in the private sector for the betterment of our nation. I feel that the aforementioned clause does not offer these citizens the necessary privileges that they require for our nation to continue as it currently functions, as they are not government employees. We still must vote against this resolution, despite the overwhelming support being shown for it by other member nations."

[Imperium Anglorum]

The last time this went to vote, the Democratic Empire voted against for that reason, i.e. the lack of crown immunity. This time, clause 2(a) has solved that problem since it guarantees 'some form of immunity is necessary to ensure that government employees or institutions may carry out essential functions that would not otherwise be possible without the guarantee of immunity'.

"Erglis works very closely with out business partners in the private sector for the betterment of our nation. I feel that the aforementioned clause does not offer these citizens the necessary privileges that they require for our nation to continue as it currently functions, as they are not government employees. We still must vote against this resolution, despite the overwhelming support being shown for it by other member nations."

What privileges are necessary?

[Separatist Peoples]

"The C.D.S.P. is proud to support this, being strong supporters of egalitarianism."