[Draft]Repeal Rights and Duties of WA States

[Dark Fire]

Noticing that GAR#2 article 3 forbids member states, and member states only, to interfere in other states.
Noting that nonmember states are not bound by this law
Alarmed by the ability those nonmember states to disrupt WA member states while having protection from that clause
Noting that clause 4 only allows self defense against armed attacks, and not other forms of aggression
Wishing to protect its member states
The World Assembly
Repeals GAR#2, Rights and Duties of WA states.

Repeal, obviously.
I just made it. It is most likely not finished.

I've come to the conclusion that my opponents arguments are convincing(This is not going to be submitted)

[Wrapper]

OOC: Well... technically non-member states are bound by the "war is consensual" rule, it's a site RP rule that's been codified by a mod as a WA resolution. I'm sure someone else can provide the details (wasn't a WA nation back then), but that's the gist of it as I understand it.

[Dark Fire]

OOC: Well... technically non-member states are bound by the "war is consensual" rule, it's a site RP rule that's been codified by a mod as a WA resolution. I'm sure someone else can provide the details (wasn't a WA nation back then), but that's the gist of it as I understand it.

Please note that GAR#2 defines war as a consensual act. That means that everything else is simply not war. That does NOT mean that unconsensual disruptions are illegal. That is being noted down in clause 3, and that only affects member states. And WA legislation does not apply to nonmember states.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: Well... technically non-member states are bound by the "war is consensual" rule, it's a site RP rule that's been codified by a mod as a WA resolution.

Yep:

No matter what we do, it's essentially sophistry. I'm using my status as the original author and position as a Game Mod to push through a one-time-only acknowledgment of an existing metagame rule.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Seeing as your intention in you last attempt was to essentially ban war, or come as close as possible to that, I find a sudden reversal in policy to be...well, disingenuous. I do believe the Dark Fire representative has the opposite intentions that this draft suggests...while I would support a repeal and replace effort for GAR#2, I can't say I'd support this.

In the interests of diplomacy, though, I might point out that you'd be better off paraphrasing GAR#2 then directly quoting it in your draft."

[Dark Fire]

"Seeing as your intention in you last attempt was to essentially ban war, or come as close as possible to that, I find a sudden reversal in policy to be...well, disingenuous. I do believe the Dark Fire representative has the opposite intentions that this draft suggests...while I would support a repeal and replace effort for GAR#2, I can't say I'd support this.

In the interests of diplomacy, though, I might point out that you'd be better off paraphrasing GAR#2 then directly quoting it in your draft."

My intention never was to remove the ability of member states to defend themselves against hostile activities.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Seeing as your intention in you last attempt was to essentially ban war, or come as close as possible to that, I find a sudden reversal in policy to be...well, disingenuous. I do believe the Dark Fire representative has the opposite intentions that this draft suggests...while I would support a repeal and replace effort for GAR#2, I can't say I'd support this.

In the interests of diplomacy, though, I might point out that you'd be better off paraphrasing GAR#2 then directly quoting it in your draft."

My intention never was to remove the ability of member states to defend themselves against hostile activities.

"Just criminalize perfectly justifiable examples of armed aggression. I'm hardly convinced, ambassador, and I have no intention of allowing the end-goal here to be obscured or ignored."

[Dark Fire]

My intention never was to remove the ability of member states to defend themselves against hostile activities.

"Just criminalize perfectly justifiable examples of armed aggression. I'm hardly convinced, ambassador, and I have no intention of allowing the end-goal here to be obscured or ignored."

Armed activities are not a problem, actually. Unarmed activities are.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Just criminalize perfectly justifiable examples of armed aggression. I'm hardly convinced, ambassador, and I have no intention of allowing the end-goal here to be obscured or ignored."

Armed activities are not a problem, actually. Unarmed activities are.

"...roving armies of brawlers are a problem? I kid. But in all seriousness, I don't think you fully understand GAR#2's implications. Interference from foreign powers is an action that merits self defense and wouldn't be barred from response. Additionally, that Rights and Duties doesn't specify retaliation to such interference doesn't indicate that it is banned, but that it is unregulated by GAR#2."

[Dark Fire]

Armed activities are not a problem, actually. Unarmed activities are.

"...roving armies of brawlers are a problem? I kid. But in all seriousness, I don't think you fully understand GAR#2's implications. Interference from foreign powers is an action that merits self defense and wouldn't be barred from response. Additionally, that Rights and Duties doesn't specify retaliation to such interference doesn't indicate that it is banned, but that it is unregulated by GAR#2."

Well...

Article 3 § Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

that applies to all WA member states, including those who are harmed by exactly those actions by nonmember states.
and this:

Article 4 § Every WA Member State has the right of individual or collective self-defense against armed attack.

only allows defense against armed attack.

[Hirota]

Noting that nonmember states are not bound by this law

Well yeah, but thats the same for every other resolution on the books.

Noting that clause 4 only allows self defense against armed attacks, and not other forms of aggression

what other forms of agression should we be concerned about?

[Wrapper]

Noting that clause 4 only allows self defense against armed attacks, and not other forms of aggression

what other forms of agression should we be concerned about?

'Roid rage? Pie fights? Psionic attacks? We really should have WA legislation outlawing psionics....

[Sierra Lyricalia]

what other forms of agression should we be concerned about?

'Roid rage? Pie fights? Psionic attacks? We really should have WA legislation outlawing psionics....

I fail to see how these other forms of attack wouldn't constitute unrequested intervention under Article 3. Well, except pie fights - those constitute foreign aid (especially pumpkin chiffon).

[Dark Fire]

'Roid rage? Pie fights? Psionic attacks? We really should have WA legislation outlawing psionics....

I fail to see how these other forms of attack wouldn't constitute unrequested intervention under Article 3. Well, except pie fights - those constitute foreign aid (especially pumpkin chiffon).

They do- which is the problem. Article 3 applies to member states behaviour only.
This means that any nonmember state can do that to you, while you cannot do that to them.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I fail to see how these other forms of attack wouldn't constitute unrequested intervention under Article 3. Well, except pie fights - those constitute foreign aid (especially pumpkin chiffon).

They do- which is the problem. Article 3 applies to member states behaviour only.
This means that any nonmember state can do that to you, while you cannot do that to them.

So what exactly is your overarching vision, Ambassador? Shall we prohibit armed conflict entirely and then when politics and diplomacy fail, conduct a massive secret campaign of assassination by strangling and poisoning? Do you intend (very ill-advisedly) to try to enact law upon non-members? Should we let slip the full cold war range of interventions-short-of-declared-war that Articles 3 and 5 keep in check? It would help your repeal to know more precisely what you think the problem is, and how you would go about fixing it.

[Tinfect]

They do- which is the problem. Article 3 applies to member states behaviour only.
This means that any nonmember state can do that to you, while you cannot do that to them.

Well of course it only affects Member States, we are not capable of forcing Non-Member States to do anything.
Your whole argument against GAR #2, seems to be that it does not affect member states, which falls apart when you realize that the WA cannot direct the actions of non-member states.

[The Two Jerseys]

Noting that nonmember states are not bound by this law

Well yeah, but thats the same for every other resolution on the books.

Noting that clause 4 only allows self defense against armed attacks, and not other forms of aggression

what other forms of agression should we be concerned about?

Other countries calling you a poopyhead. Gotta nuke their asses for that!

[Ainocra]

Fleet Marshal Enta leans forward.

"GA #2 is a comprehensive part of the entire basis of WA law so without a very good reason I cannot support repealing it, and even then without an equally good replacement I still could not support a repeal."

"Your argument that member states are in danger holds no water as under GA#2 war is consensual."

"Opposed"

[Normlpeople]

OOC: In all honesty, far better and more experienced players than yourself have tried this without success. While your 'love and peace' agenda is admirable, perhaps you should participate in other debates and learn how things work here before throwing out stuff like this. All this will do is set yourself up for failure and discouragement.

[Separatist Peoples]

"The phrase "subject to the immunities recognized by international law" allow for response to threats. It's listed as an immunity and recognized by international law as "self defense". Self defense is not just waiting to be nuked to attack."

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Actually, "subject to immunities recognized by international law" is code-language for the WA reserving the right to modify the clause through future legislation. Where this usually gets newer members is the national sovereignty language, which is often interpreted as an absolute right to govern without WA interference. The part they skip is "...subject to immunities recognized by international law," which of course means the WA reserves the right to revoke that sovereignty, at any time, through any passed resolution.

[Dark Fire]

"The phrase "subject to the immunities recognized by international law" allow for response to threats. It's listed as an immunity and recognized by international law as "self defense". Self defense is not just waiting to be nuked to attack."

It is listed as self defense against an armed attack/in clause 4 of the same resolution). But not against anything else- which means that nonmember states are free to harm member states in any other way without the fear of retalitation. And that is bad.

[Separatist Peoples]

"The phrase "subject to the immunities recognized by international law" allow for response to threats. It's listed as an immunity and recognized by international law as "self defense". Self defense is not just waiting to be nuked to attack."

It is listed as self defense against an armed attack/in clause 4 of the same resolution). But not against anything else- which means that nonmember states are free to harm member states in any other way without the fear of retalitation. And that is bad.

"Then write a resolution to address those instances, instead. Repealing GAR#2 won't change that. However, as I keep pointing out, the voter atmosphere will not support such a measure."

[Three Weasels]

Noticing that GAR#2 article 3 forbids member states, and member states only, to interfere in other states.
Noting that nonmember states are not bound by this law
Alarmed by the ability those nonmember states to disrupt WA member states while having protection from that clause
Noting that clause 4 only allows self defense against armed attacks, and not other forms of aggression
Wishing to protect its member states
The World Assembly
Repeals GAR#2, Rights and Duties of WA states.

Repeal, obviously.
I just made it. It is most likely not finished.

Article 3 doesn't prohibit all intervention. It forbids the non-consensual variety. With exceptions granted by other resolutions.

Article 4 grants the right to self-defense against "armed attacks", however, it doesn't inherently nor explicitly forbid self-defense against other attacks. It's merely an explicit right as opposed to implicit. In conjunction with article 10, it's clear that member nations can still protect themselves and can go to war.

As it stands, there's no reason to back repeal. It's reasoning is weak as is your logic, ambassador. The only use we see for this paper is to spread it to make our nests.

[Dark Fire]

Repeal, obviously.
I just made it. It is most likely not finished.

Article 3 doesn't prohibit all intervention. It forbids the non-consensual variety. With exceptions granted by other resolutions.

Article 4 grants the right to self-defense against "armed attacks", however, it doesn't inherently nor explicitly forbid self-defense against other attacks. It's merely an explicit right as opposed to implicit. In conjunction with article 10, it's clear that member nations can still protect themselves and can go to war.

As it stands, there's no reason to back repeal. It's reasoning is weak as is your logic, ambassador. The only use we see for this paper is to spread it to make our nests.

Example:
A Nonmember state harms a member state by interfering in its affairs. This interfering in its affairs is an external affair, and if the nonmember state does not request the member state to do something about that, the member state has to allow that.
Am I doing something wrong or is this really as bad as I described it?