[Draft] Self-Determination Accord

[Sciongrad]

OOC: !!! I didn't realize Tinfect's opinion on the issue held greater legal weight than the actual ruling.

OOC: Considering the inconsistent rulings in the past few years, yeah, pretty much.

But I definitely do agree with him on this:

Eh, fair enough. I'd still like to see another run-through the Mods on this, because frankly, as written, I can't really see how this isn't an ideological ban, even with that whole lot of Air that Ard posted a while back.

I mean, when you're ready to submit.

OOC: Sure! I'm not opposed to another legality check, if we decide it's necessary. Better safe than sorry, right?

[Araraukar]

Better safe than sorry, right?

OOC: Exactly.

[Tinfect]

OOC: Short answer? Sort of. The ultimate goal of this resolution is to provide national populations with self-determination.

OOC:
Which is going to be an extremely contentious concept no matter how you define it. As far as the Imperium is concerned, it established these colonies, they were, from the very moment of their existence, part of the Imperium, Self-Determination is a complete Non-Issue.

Of course, this is not an ideological ban

Okay, quick test, does it make certain forms of government entirely impossible without some serious -Wank that isn't going to be within the realm of reason for most Nations?
Yes?
Then it's an Ideological Ban no matter how you spin it. The fact that Moderation has, seemingly, decided that certain forms of Government aren't protected by the rules, is insane.

OOC: Think the PLO/PA/Fatah in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza. Both areas are composed of Palestinian Arabs bound by a common culture, but they're, for all intents and purposes, run by different Palestinian political structures. Your cultural homogenization might succeed but that is not the only consideration the WADB will make.

Oh, in that case, no, there is absolutely no difference in political structure between Colonies.

OOC: You're free to roleplay your nation however you want (and I do admire the detail you tend to go into), but I find it hard to believe that none of your territories can exist independently. I could be misunderstanding you behind the FT mumbo-jumbo, but if a state can exist by itself - which is not the same as self-sufficiency, which is not a condition for eligibility as a non-self governing territory - then the WADB may categorize it accordingly.

Again, theoretically, yes, it might be plausible, assuming the Imperium is going to let them steal Imperial infrastructure on their way out, which would never happen. They could set up Agricultural Systems on the available land, and, since the Imperium is going to dismantle/destroy anything it has time to before these traitors become "Independent", they might even have the resources to start building the basics of Civilization again in a few hundred years, after famines and resource wars have driven the vast majority of the Population to the grave.

Practically, no. There is absolutely no serious agriculture anywhere but the systems/planets specifically chosen for such usage by the Imperium, and none of them are Colonies, pretty much everything on every Imperial Colony was built by the Imperium, and if it wasn't, it probably pre-dates Colonization and the Civilization that built it no longer exists. The Government is just an extension of the Imperium, there's no such thing as local government beyond the Civil Oversight workers that keep the whole local deal running, but don't have any greater voice than the average citizen, in Civil Oversight as a whole. Internal Security is both a part of Military, and Civil, Oversight, and can be shuffled between Colonies, Active Military Deployment, Orbital Garrisons, or whatever Civil/Military Oversight wants/needs them to do. Besides the point, If the Imperium has reason to believe that any Colony is actually going to secede, it will quickly find itself removed of everything the Imperium has built there, like all of the Structures, and the Terraformers that keep the Atmosphere regulated, and all Resource and Supply caches, and all Imperial Military assets. At the end of the day, they probably wouldn't even remotely qualify.

Beyond that, I really don't know what your qualifications are here, whether or not they can exist independently really rather implies Self-Sufficiency, and if that's not a qualifier, I can't imagine what might be.

OOC: Sorry, I don't know with this means. Are your territories composed of conquered peoples or not?

Well, depending on the Colony, people might have lived there before the Imperium set up shop, but not since the Colonies went up. It's all Imperium born Humans all the time. And a few AIs, but its not as though you'd see them walking the Streets, most of them don't have independently mobile units they would be willing/capable of using.

OOC: Then the Imperium would be misunderstanding what a rebellion is. If the WA passes a resolution guaranteeing certain territories the right to self-determination and the Imperium chooses to remain in the WA, it cannot claim that legally recognized secession (which it implicitly agreed to by remaining in the WA) is rebellion.

Well, yes, it can, it just wouldn't have any real weight. And besides the point, this passing would, ICly, be justification for Military Oversight to pull 'National Security' and force Imperial withdrawal.

[Sciongrad]

Okay, quick test, does it make certain forms of government entirely impossible without some serious -Wank that isn't going to be within the realm of reason for most Nations?
Yes?
Then it's an Ideological Ban no matter how you spin it. The fact that Moderation has, seemingly, decided that certain forms of Government aren't protected by the rules, is insane.

OOC: No time to respond to the rest, but this is wrong. Quick test. Is every single anti-democratic form of government affected by this resolution? No? Then it's not an ideological ban. Only dictatorships, totaliatarian states, and authoritarian forms of governments with non-self governing territories (which is not to be confused with territories that don't have democracy) are subject to the provisions of this resolution. Thousands of dictatorships will continue to flourish despite this resolution. If a resolution makes some dictatorships impossible, but doesn't affect others, it cannot reasonably be called an ideological ban. Sorry.

EDIT: For clarity, just in case. Many authoritarian forms of government will be totally dismantled by this resolution. So will many democratic nations. Many authoritarian nations will not be affected by this resolution. The same goes for many democratic nations. In others words, this resolution does not have any blanket effect on any one type of ideology.

[Excidium Planetis]

"Why is being non-self governing a bad thing?" Blackbourne asks. "After all, suppose a territory, being self-governing, decided to adopt all those policies that are directly opposed to the standards of the World Assembly. It would surely be better that a WA nation enforce its own rule on that territory than let it continue to govern itself."

[Araraukar]

OOC: No time to respond to the rest, but this is wrong. Quick test. Is every single anti-democratic form of government affected by this resolution? No? Then it's not an ideological ban. Only dictatorships, totaliatarian states, and authoritarian forms of governments with non-self governing territories (which is not to be confused with territories that don't have democracy) are subject to the provisions of this resolution.

OOC: Except absolute monarchies and dictatorships... Are there any other kind of non-democratic authoritarian models that wouldn't be affected by this? Because if you have basically a one-person government, then the whole nation is "territory involuntarily under the distinct political control of another without a degree of self-autonomy or governance", with the "another" being a person rather than a territory.

Many authoritarian nations will not be affected by this resolution.

Name a non-democratic authoritarian nation model that won't be.

[Sciongrad]

OOC: No time to respond to the rest, but this is wrong. Quick test. Is every single anti-democratic form of government affected by this resolution? No? Then it's not an ideological ban. Only dictatorships, totaliatarian states, and authoritarian forms of governments with non-self governing territories (which is not to be confused with territories that don't have democracy) are subject to the provisions of this resolution.

OOC: Except absolute monarchies and dictatorships... Are there any other kind of non-democratic authoritarian models that wouldn't be affected by this? Because if you have basically a one-person government, then the whole nation is "territory involuntarily under the distinct political control of another without a degree of self-autonomy or governance", with the "another" being a person rather than a territory.

OOC: I thought I was clear last time. Only non-democratic governments with non-self governing territories are included. For reference, the real world UN uses a subtantively identical definition as this resolution, but it does not include North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, or other non-democratic governments under its definition. You are conflating non-self governing territory with nations or areas that lack democratic institutions.

Name a non-democratic authoritarian nation model that won't be.

OOC: Literally every non-democratic authoritarian nation model that does not have non-self governing territories is not included in this proposal.

[Araraukar]

Only non-democratic governments with non-self governing territories are included.
*snip*
You are conflating non-self governing territory with nations or areas that lack democratic institutions.

OOC: Since you don't define territory...

Wiktionary wrote:

Noun

territory ‎(plural territories)

1. A large extent or tract of land; a region; a country; a district.
3. A geographic area under control of a single governing entity such as state or municipality; an area whose borders are determined by the scope of political power rather than solely by natural features such as rivers and ridges.
7. A location or logical space which someone owns or controls.

Interestingly, none of the definitions given referenced a colony or anything not directly connected to the "mother nation".

Make your first preamble clause into an active clause definition and you'll bypass this argument.

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

Based on how The Greater Siriusian Domain, as a united confederacy of smaller space-faring nations, contains member-states that have colonial holdings on other planets that are allowed in accordance to membership treaties, I'm curious about how this will interact with our government structure (OOC: that reminds me, I need to write a factbook entry on TGSD's government structure). If the treaties are violated, those member-states could see this as casus belli for a civil war.

[Normlpeople]

OOC: Considering the inconsistent rulings in the past few years, yeah, pretty much.

But I definitely do agree with him on this:

I mean, when you're ready to submit.

OOC: Sure! I'm not opposed to another legality check, if we decide it's necessary. Better safe than sorry, right?

OOC: Even if its not an ideological ban, I really can't see how there isn't an element of forced roleplay here that goes beyond that of a 'regular' WA resolution.

[Sciongrad]

OOC: Sure! I'm not opposed to another legality check, if we decide it's necessary. Better safe than sorry, right?

OOC: Even if its not an ideological ban, I really can't see how there isn't an element of forced roleplay here that goes beyond that of a 'regular' WA resolution.

OOC: Come on, you guys are getting silly with these contrived legal issues. Forced roleplay? Really? It isn't forced roleplay when the WA makes it impossible for players to RP totalitarian dictatorships. It isn't forced roleplay when the WA requires players to recognize sapient non-humans and AI. Why is this issue more unusual than others? It isn't. If you guys are opposed, vote against it. Stop with the legal Hail Marys.

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC: Even if its not an ideological ban, I really can't see how there isn't an element of forced roleplay here that goes beyond that of a 'regular' WA resolution.

OOC: Come on, you guys are getting silly with these contrived legal issues. Forced roleplay? Really? It isn't forced roleplay when the WA makes it impossible for players to RP totalitarian dictatorships.

I believe the concern was probably more towards roleplaying colonies and imperial conquest. I don't really buy that as a forced roleplay thing, since we've outlawed nuking civilians (well, until recently) and blowing up unarmed humanitarian aid ships, and that wasn't forced RP.

It isn't RP when the WA requires players to recognize sapient non-humans and AI.

I'd just like to note that my resolution only requires recognition of sapient beings if they exist in the member nation, and thus human nations where humans are the only sapient beings in their roleplay don't have to recognize any other sapient beings. I can't speak for Sierra Lyricalia's resolution, but sapient AI is increasingly moving towards reality these days.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Come on, you guys are getting silly with these contrived legal issues. Forced roleplay? Really? It isn't forced roleplay when the WA makes it impossible for players to RP totalitarian dictatorships.

I believe the concern was probably more towards roleplaying colonies and imperial conquest. I don't really buy that as a forced roleplay thing, since we've outlawed nuking civilians (well, until recently) and blowing up unarmed humanitarian aid ships, and that wasn't forced RP.

OOC: The difference being that an unarmed humanitarian aid ship isn't part of a nation (knowing people on this forum, I'll have to add "of a regular planet's-land-area-based nation" ), and lobbing nukes at civilians tends to be restricted to war-time activities, not the normal governing of a nation (or so I hope!).

But this proposal aims to disrupt existing nations, and pretty much encourages nations or parts of nations to essentially rebel and break away from the rest of the nation. Which understandably annoys people who have nations that might potentially be affected.

Although, I'm wondering... Scion, would appointing a single person as a "regional government", but not actually giving them any powers in the national government, be enough to satisfy the self-government requirement?

[Sciongrad]

I'd just like to note that my resolution only requires recognition of sapient beings if they exist in the member nation, and thus human nations where humans are the only sapient beings in their roleplay don't have to recognize any other sapient beings. I can't speak for Sierra Lyricalia's resolution, but sapient AI is increasingly moving towards reality these days.

OOC: That doesn't matter because the World Assembly itself obviously recognizes the existence of multiple sapient species. It doesn't matter if a nation only has humans because it recognizes international law that recognizes more than just humans. But I don't want to get too bogged down in debating examples.

Although, I'm wondering... Scion, would appointing a single person as a "regional government", but not actually giving them any powers in the national government, be enough to satisfy the self-government requirement?

OOC: I said it before, but it's probably buried under new posts: the current definition of non-self governing territories will likely be replaced entirely by a committee and a set of guidelines. In short, though: no, a single person will not satisfy the self-government requirement. That may become clearer when I revise the draft.

[Araraukar]

OOC: In short, though: no, a single person will not satisfy the self-government requirement. That may become clearer when I revise the draft.

OOC: Then we're back to "how doesn't this affect single-ruler nations in their entirety?" But I'll wait for a new draft. Though I hope you're aware that people will dislike a WA committee deciding if bits of their nations can break off at will even more.

[Sciongrad]

OOC: In short, though: no, a single person will not satisfy the self-government requirement. That may become clearer when I revise the draft.

OOC: Then we're back to "how doesn't this affect single-ruler nations in their entirety?" But I'll wait for a new draft. Though I hope you're aware that people will dislike a WA committee deciding if bits of their nations can break off at will even more.

OOC: No, we aren't, because as I said, like, 10 times, democracy is not the determining factor in whether or not a territory is non-self governing. Hopefully, the next draft will clarify that.

[Bears Armed]

In short, though: no, a single person will not satisfy the self-government requirement.

OOC: In which case this is arguably an ideological ban on feudalism.

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC: Then we're back to "how doesn't this affect single-ruler nations in their entirety?" But I'll wait for a new draft. Though I hope you're aware that people will dislike a WA committee deciding if bits of their nations can break off at will even more.

OOC: No, we aren't, because as I said, like, 10 times, democracy is not the determining factor in whether or not a territory is non-self governing. Hopefully, the next draft will clarify that.

If a single person does not meet the requirement for self governing in a colonial territory, why would it meet the requirement for self governing in a dictatorship? In other words, you are saying a tyrannical empire which appoints sub-dictators over its colonies would need to allow those colonies to secede, but would not have to change its home government, despite having exactly identical forms of government.

Either dictators do not fulfill the self-governing requirement (and therefore this is a ban on all non-democratic governments) or dictators do fulfill the requirement, and thus empires merely need to appoint regional dictators.

[Sciongrad]

OOC: No, we aren't, because as I said, like, 10 times, democracy is not the determining factor in whether or not a territory is non-self governing. Hopefully, the next draft will clarify that.

If a single person does not meet the requirement for self governing in a colonial territory, why would it meet the requirement for self governing in a dictatorship?

"Because whether or not a state has democratic institutions is not the sole determining factor in whether or not a territory is non-self governing.

Ambassador Leveret asked if appointing a single, territorial governor will exclude a territory from non-self governing status. I said no, not because dictatorships qualify as self-governing territories but because whether or not a state has democratic institutions is not necessarily a determining factor. In other words, if the WADB determines that a state is a non-self governing territory, a member nation cannot simply obviate the legal obligations stipulated in this resolution by nominally decentralizing its authority. If the WADB determines that the territory in question has a population with a common linguistic, cultural, national identity, if it is dependent on central authority with asymmetrical power compared to other territories in the region, etc., it will be considered a non-self governing territory. Whether or not the government is anti-democratic does not matter."

In other words, you are saying a tyrannical empire which appoints sub-dictators over its colonies would need to allow those colonies to secede, but would not have to change its home government, despite having exactly identical forms of government.

"No, I am not saying a tyrannical empire which appoints sub-dictators over its colonies would need to allow those colonies to secede. That would only be the case of the sub-colonies are non-self governing territories which, again, is not determined based on the form of government the territory or central government has. Simply having a sub-dictator or a national dictator or whatever is not grounds for non-self governing status."

Either dictators do not fulfill the self-governing requirement (and therefore this is a ban on all non-democratic governments) or dictators do fulfill the requirement, and thus empires merely need to appoint regional dictators.

"That is a false dichotomy because, for the umpteenth time, territories with anti-democratic institutions are not, ipso facto, non-self governing territories."

[Tinfect]

If the WADB determines that the territory in question has a population with a common linguistic, cultural, national identity, if it is dependent on central authority with asymmetrical power compared to other territories in the region, etc., it will be considered a non-self governing territory. Whether or not the government is anti-democratic does not matter."

OOC:
I feel the need to point out that explanation of yours means that the predecessor state to the Imperium, the UTCS, which I believe I've mentioned here before, would have been considered to have multiple Non-Self Governing Territories, way back in its early days when it was still a somewhat loose Confederation. The Inland States were smaller, hardly industrialized, far poorer, and dependent on the Coastal States for necessary supplies. The way the UTCS was organized, the Coastal States had far more power over the laws of the UTCS than the Inland States, their general isolation from the Coastal States due to existing in the rather desolate inland areas, resulted in the Inland States holding on to Cultural Traditions that the more developed Coastal States had moved passed, spoke quite different dialects of the language, and had quite different political standards than the Coastal States.

The Imperium, is, according to this argument, completely unaffected, due to various Imperial policies that have resulted in very little practical differences between its Holdings.
Mind you, the UTCS was a Democratic and Egalitarian Government, with many of its early policies being directed towards the rapid modernization and resource-independence of the Inland States, and the establishment of systems and structures that provided advancement opportunities for the lower classes. All States involved were there by Sovereign agreement, and, at least up until it went Federal, could leave whenever they wanted.
The Imperium, on the other hand, is a Unitary Dictatorship, run in large part by its Military, known for Genocide, Isolationism, and generally not being a good thing for its neighbors. It's primary achievements include the development of weapons that can wipe out entire civilizations in days, stealing Technology from its allies, and slowly destroying its region of space with Technology it barely understands.

I just rather found that amusing.

[Excidium Planetis]

If the WADB determines that the territory in question has a population with a common linguistic, cultural, national identity, if it is dependent on central authority with asymmetrical power compared to other territories in the region, etc., it will be considered a non-self governing territory.

Then how is this not a ban on federal governments with proportionate representation? Such a country (like the United States) has territories with a common linguistic identity (English in nearly every territory), common cultural identities (Southern culture, for instance), and even national identity (Puerto Rican, Texan). These territories wield asymmetrical power compared to other territories (Puerto Rico wields less than any state, Louisiana wields less than New York, etc). In this case, virtually all US States and certainly Puerto Rico would be considered non-self governing.

If this resolution dismantles even such obvious real life nation examples as the US, how can it be supportable?

Whether or not the government is anti-democratic does not matter."

Then why is this in the Furtherment of Democracy category?

And then back to IC:

"I'll repeat my earlier query: why is being non-self governing a negative aspect that must be corrected?" Blackbourne states. "The WA has significant interest in nations enforcing WA law over as much territory as possible, and this resolution would release many territories which will not be subject to WA law. The prevention of genocide is more important than making sure territories decide their own government."

[Sciongrad]

If the WADB determines that the territory in question has a population with a common linguistic, cultural, national identity, if it is dependent on central authority with asymmetrical power compared to other territories in the region, etc., it will be considered a non-self governing territory.

Then how is this not a ban on federal governments with proportionate representation? Such a country (like the United States) has territories with a common linguistic identity (English in nearly every territory), common cultural identities (Southern culture, for instance), and even national identity (Puerto Rican, Texan). These territories wield asymmetrical power compared to other territories (Puerto Rico wields less than any state, Louisiana wields less than New York, etc). In this case, virtually all US States and certainly Puerto Rico would be considered non-self governing.

If this resolution dismantles even such obvious real life nation examples as the US, how can it be supportable?

OOC: You're using each standard as if it's a binary determination. If a territory has a distinct culture, it must be non-self governing, if there's an asymmetry of power, it must be self-governing, etc. Not that simple, my friend. WADB bureaucrats will make a determination on a case-by-case basis and will consider all factors. The real world UN actually has a list of non-self governing territories that use almost identical standards, and none of the American states are included. Neither is Puerto Rico.

I'll also note that to argue that the American South has such a distinct culture that it deserves non-self governing territory status is just absurd. I'm talking Kurds in Turkey, Syria, and Iraq, not a minority of whites in Alabama that collectively commiserate over their loss to northern aggressors or whatever.

Then why is this in the Furtherment of Democracy category?

OOC: Because it increases political freedom. Self-determination is the most basic from of political freedom.

"I'll repeat my earlier query: why is being non-self governing a negative aspect that must be corrected?" Blackbourne states. "The WA has significant interest in nations enforcing WA law over as much territory as possible, and this resolution would release many territories which will not be subject to WA law. The prevention of genocide is more important than making sure territories decide their own government."

"Firstly, her Excellency of Sierra Lyricalia has already proposed a change (which I have accepted but have not yet added) that requires non-self governing territories to conform to WA human rights legislation as a condition. So that argument is resolved. Regarding your question about why non-self governing territories are 'negative aspects': many states, including Sciongrad, believe in a concept national sovereignty. Non-self governing territories are incompatible with any nation's commitment to national sovereignty."

[Wallenburg]

Then how is this not a ban on federal governments with proportionate representation? Such a country (like the United States) has territories with a common linguistic identity (English in nearly every territory), common cultural identities (Southern culture, for instance), and even national identity (Puerto Rican, Texan). These territories wield asymmetrical power compared to other territories (Puerto Rico wields less than any state, Louisiana wields less than New York, etc). In this case, virtually all US States and certainly Puerto Rico would be considered non-self governing.

If this resolution dismantles even such obvious real life nation examples as the US, how can it be supportable?

OOC: You're using each standard as if it's a binary determination. If a territory has a distinct culture, it must be non-self governing, if there's an asymmetry of power, it must be self-governing, etc. Not that simple, my friend. WADB bureaucrats will make a determination on a case-by-case basis and will consider all factors. The real world UN actually has a list of non-self governing territories that use almost identical standards, and none of the American states are included. Neither is Puerto Rico.

OOC: In that case, the decisions of the WADB are highly unpredictable, and my ambassador will be far less willing to support the resolution.

[Sciongrad]

OOC: You're using each standard as if it's a binary determination. If a territory has a distinct culture, it must be non-self governing, if there's an asymmetry of power, it must be self-governing, etc. Not that simple, my friend. WADB bureaucrats will make a determination on a case-by-case basis and will consider all factors. The real world UN actually has a list of non-self governing territories that use almost identical standards, and none of the American states are included. Neither is Puerto Rico.

OOC: In that case, the decisions of the WADB are highly unpredictable, and my ambassador will be far less willing to support the resolution.

OOC: Unpredictable? Really? There are clearly defined conditions that the WADB will consider when making determinations. There will not be a clear cut definition or a simple binary determination, but that is by no means unpredictable. Again, this resolution is not substantively different from real world UN legislation on this topic.

[WA Kitty Kops]

OOC: Unpredictable? Really? There are clearly defined conditions that the WADB will consider when making determinations.

OOC: You yourself, the author of this damn thing, can't give real answers on given examples and how this whole thing wouldn't affect single ruler models, whether they're dictatorships or feudalistic versions, and instead have to resort to "the committee knows better [than me]". Well, the committee can't be reasoned with, it can't be negotiated with, it will just hand out decisions without input from the nation that its decisions will affect. Why should we trust your committee?

And yes, I know I should be doing this on Araraukar, but eh, you're stuck with the kitty flag for now.