[Draft] Ban on Wars

[Dark Fire]

Ok... In its current form, are there any legality concerns left?

[Wrapper]

Forbids all member states to encourage or force states to begin wars against member states.

That looks duplicative of the "war is consensual" clause in GAR#2. No one can force anyone else to begin a war under GAR#2.

[Dark Fire]

Forbids all member states to encourage or force states to begin wars against member states.

That looks duplicative of the "war is consensual" clause in GAR#2. No one can force anyone else to begin a war under GAR#2.

Um. Yep. Removed.

[Normlpeople]

OOC: The whole thing seems to duplicate or contradict GAR #2. I agree with DSR here. I would suggest, as a new ambassador here, participating in existing debates for awhile, to get a feel for the process. A read of the rules/FAQ and passed resolution thread stickies wouldn't be a bad idea either.

IC: "Oh look, another idealistic nation attempting to cram liberal garbage into international law. If two sides wish to battle one another, then they have made the choice and satisfied existing legislation on the issue. This laughable proposal would cause serious issues to existing treaties and regional charters as well.

Thankfully, it is not legal, bloody stupid if nothing else, and will not reach vote."

[District XIV]

“What the hell is this garbage? I'm gonna return to watching Frelsia kick some fascist ass, thank you very much, and the World Assembly isn't gonna take that away from my country.”

[The Dark Star Republic]

WA Member States may, at their discretion, intercede against declarations of war on behalf of NationStates who wish to avoid war.

That statement gives individual member nations (but not the WA as a whole) the right to take part in such a war "at their discretion".

Not what that clause means. It's a reference to players informing other players that the recipient of a declaration of war is ignoring them. Thus illustrating one of the (many) problems of trying to force OOC stuff into IC law. It's notable that the few clauses not plagiarised in that resolution are the ones that cause the most problems.

Anyway, on topic, the proposal as written still seems to rub up against Rights & Duties. If war is a truly a consensual act, then there's no reason why two WA members can't consent to it.

[Kesatria 12]

The war will breaks the international freedom

[Dark Fire]

[...]

Anyway, on topic, the proposal as written still seems to rub up against Rights & Duties. If war is a truly a consensual act, then there's no reason why two WA members can't consent to it.

You can do everything you consent to?

[Chester Pearson]

[...]

Anyway, on topic, the proposal as written still seems to rub up against Rights & Duties. If war is a truly a consensual act, then there's no reason why two WA members can't consent to it.

You can do everything you consent to?

Only if the other party consents as well....

[Separatist Peoples]

Well, no? Those who wish to avoid war must be targeted by nonmember states- member states cannot declare war against nation states who don't consent. And declaring war against nonmember states is, well, not prohibited under this proposal.

"Which will be a nonstarter. There are plenty of just reasons to start a war."

[The Dark Star Republic]

You can do everything you consent to?

*Shrugs* That's my interpretation of the rulings in the past, yes. I couldn't say for sure: that's up to the moderators to determine (I have no idea why they brushed you off to get player feedback; their rulings with regards to Rights & Duties have always been too opaque for players to guess at).

There's also another issue that makes the proposal a bit flawed: proxy wars. I don't see any reason why a member state couldn't ally with a non-member, convince that non-member to declare war on another member state, then join the war once it had started. Neither side would be "beginning" the war, yet both would be involved.

FWIW, though, this proposal does have some RL grounding. The Kellogg Briand pact, signed after the First And Only World War, was hugely successful, and meant that Hitler never invaded Poland, Japan never invaded Manchuria, and there's never been any war since. They all lived happily ever after. At least, I think that's what happened...

[Dark Fire]

You can do everything you consent to?

*Shrugs* That's my interpretation of the rulings in the past, yes. I couldn't say for sure: that's up to the moderators to determine (I have no idea why they brushed you off to get player feedback; their rulings with regards to Rights & Duties have always been too opaque for players to guess at).

There's also another issue that makes the proposal a bit flawed: proxy wars. I don't see any reason why a member state couldn't ally with a non-member, convince that non-member to declare war on another member state, then join the war once it had started. Neither side would be "beginning" the war, yet both would be involved.

FWIW, though, this proposal does have some RL grounding. The Kellogg Briand pact, signed after the First And Only World War, was hugely successful, and meant that Hitler never invaded Poland, Japan never invaded Manchuria, and there's never been any war since. They all lived happily ever after. At least, I think that's what happened...

:

Article 5 § War in the World of NationStates is defined as a consensual act between two or more NationStates.

I read this again... War is a consensual act between two or more nation states. And? If the World Assembly forbids war, they are not consenting by simply being in the World Assembly. This is just a definition, not a mandate.

We cannot force peace on nonmember nations.

[The Dark Star Republic]

I read this again... War is a consensual act between two or more nation states. And? If the World Assembly forbids war, they are not consenting by simply being in the World Assembly. This is just a definition, not a mandate.

We cannot force peace on nonmember nations.

What I'm drawing on here is this ruling. As I see it, forbidding nations from consenting to go to war is repealing-without-a-repeal: it's retroactively trying to rewrite the definition of war and right to collective self-defence included in the previous resolution out of existence. It's going to have to come down to a mod decision, though, and I obviously couldn't tell you what that will be.

[Dark Fire]

I read this again... War is a consensual act between two or more nation states. And? If the World Assembly forbids war, they are not consenting by simply being in the World Assembly. This is just a definition, not a mandate.

We cannot force peace on nonmember nations.

What I'm drawing on here is this ruling. As I see it, forbidding nations from consenting to go to war is repealing-without-a-repeal: it's retroactively trying to rewrite the definition of war and right to collective self-defence included in the previous resolution out of existence. It's going to have to come down to a mod decision, though, and I obviously couldn't tell you what that will be.

Please explain why my proposal would rewrite the definition of war(I was sure it wouldn't)
And please explain why this proposal would rewrite the right to collective self-defense.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Because Rights & Duties defines war as inherently consensual, whereas your resolution would define it as something to which nations cannot consent.

I have made my argument as best I can and cited what I believe to be the prevailing sense of the rulings, while acknowledging that my opinion is unofficial and fallible. You have also not responded to other legality concerns, namely the fact the category is completely wrong. And you have not responded to the points, separate to the legality discussion, about the political realities of the idea. Your strategy appears to just be to make incremental adjustments to your draft and then continue to protest the same rehashed points over and over without providing a rebuttal. It's time for other players to weigh in; this isn't going anywhere between the two of us.

[Dark Fire]

Because Rights & Duties defines war as inherently consensual, whereas your resolution would define it as something to which nations cannot consent.

I have made my argument as best I can and cited what I believe to be the prevailing sense of the rulings, while acknowledging that my opinion is unofficial and fallible. You have also not responded to other legality concerns, namely the fact the category is completely wrong. And you have not responded to the points, separate to the legality discussion, about the political realities of the idea. Your strategy appears to just be to make incremental adjustments to your draft and then continue to protest the same rehashed points over and over without providing a rebuttal. It's time for other players to weigh in; this isn't going anywhere between the two of us.

I cannot find any previous concerns about the category- what is wrong with it?
My resolution does not prohibit others to consent. Good, war is a consensual act between two nation states. That is it.It is a definition. The resolution doesn't tell me:" Nation states may decide for themselves when they enter a war"if all other partipiciating Nation States consent". Also, by being in the World Assembly, nations consent to abide all existing resolutions- including this one.
About the political realities... you surely don't want to tell me that all World Assembly members are evil war-loving nations, right?

[The Dark Star Republic]

I cannot find any previous concerns about the category- what is wrong with it?

I'm sorry, I thought I had mentioned it before, but looking back I haven't. My fault and I apologise. Anyway, Social Justice is a category for regulating economic freedoms and requiring social welfare spending. The category you want would (probably) be Global Disarmament.

About the political realities... you surely don't want to tell me that all World Assembly members are evil war-loving nations, right?

I don't know about "evil", probably "naive" is more accurate, but yes, absolutely. The WA has resisted virtually all efforts to regulate war.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Rule of Acquisition 34 clearly states that "War is good for business.", and few nations are willing to pass up something so potentially profitable."

[Gruenberg]

"Rule of Acquisition 34 clearly states that "War is good for business.", and few nations are willing to pass up something so potentially profitable."

Ah, but Rule 35 says that Peace is good for business...

[Wrapper]

"Rule of Acquisition 34 35 clearly states that "War Peace is good for business.", and few nations are willing to pass up something so potentially profitable."

Fixed that for you. Again.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Ah, but the 62nd rule states "The riskier the road, the greater the profit," and what's riskier than open warfare?"

OOC: I love how many Trekkies we have here!

[Wrapper]

"Ah, but the 62nd rule states "The riskier the road, the greater the profit," and what's riskier than open warfare?"

Ummm... peace?

[Separatist Peoples]

"Ah, but the 62nd rule states "The riskier the road, the greater the profit," and what's riskier than open warfare?"

Ummm... peace?

"Clearly then, ambassador, nobody has ever shot at you!"

[Dark Fire]

"Ah, but the 62nd rule states "The riskier the road, the greater the profit," and what's riskier than open warfare?"

OOC: I love how many Trekkies we have here!

Lets see... war means spending a lot of resources, having traumatized partipiciants, destroyed land- that doesn`t sound positive.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"Ah, but the 62nd rule states "The riskier the road, the greater the profit," and what's riskier than open warfare?"

...

Lets see... war means spending a lot of resources, having traumatized partipiciants, destroyed land- that doesn`t sound positive.

And yet... people do so damned much of it! Funny how that works.

Anyway, Ambassador, others have gone to some length to try to explain why your proposal wouldn't be a legal one... I'll reiterate the point of several of them who also added that it would be a dismally unpopular one. Until every sapient being is part of a hive mind, there will always be some level of crime and warfare; forbidding it via the terrible power of the WA gnomes is unbecoming of a civilization made up of individual people. Resisting this conclusion is, well... futile.