[DEFEATED] Repeal "Rights and Duties of WA States"

[Separatist Peoples]

Bottom line: this repeal passes, I'm submitting a blocker. Just try and force your "compliance" or "peacekeeping" views down my throat; you'll have a much rougher time at it than Quelesh and double jeopardy! (Image)

I'd be a fan of creating something like parliamentary sovereignty, a law which blocks all blockers and makes illegal the use of a blocker.

OOC: That's literally not possible thanks to the game rules. Which the Mods already refuse to adjust.

[Defwa]

I'd be a fan of creating something like parliamentary sovereignty, a law which blocks all blockers and makes illegal the use of a blocker.

OOC: That's literally not possible thanks to the game rules. Which the Mods already refuse to adjust.

OOC: Its also absolutely untenable

[Glen-Rhodes]

I'd be a fan of creating something like parliamentary sovereignty, a law which blocks all blockers and makes illegal the use of a blocker.

OOC: That's literally not possible thanks to the game rules. Which the Mods already refuse to adjust.

A law that blocks all blockers is not against the rules. "The remit of the World Assembly shall not be limited, except where currently active resolutions do so." Game rules/mechanics already give the WA virtually unlimited power.

I think Auralia and Kenny should reach a gentlemen's agreement that he will not submit a replacement that deals with peacekeeping or compliance, and Kenny will not submit his own ideological replacement. Then we can be rid of WAR#2, and all you guys can deal with sovereignty-related issues as they come up in normal proposal drafting.

This assumes that mods would even allow a replacement, which is doubtful given their statements the last time around.

[Frustrated Franciscans]

A law that blocks all blockers is not against the rules.

Oh I'm pretty sure it would be ... unless it did something else ... what would be the category / strength?

I'm seeing a category/strength violation for any such resolution right off the bat.

WA Resolutions can't just do anything ... because of the problem of category/strength.

[The Dark Star Republic]

This assumes that mods would even allow a replacement, which is doubtful given their statements the last time around.

Since then, two of the biggest opponents have been appointed as mods. Yeah, I think it's fair to say they're going to be even less receptive this time around.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

They're opposed to the replacement, or just the repeal? Perhaps apart from the world "collectively" in terms of military response (and I don't know about the language on compliance) the replacement seems entirely legal.

[The Dark Star Republic]

They're opposed to the replacement, or just the repeal?

Both, seemingly.

[Railana]

I think Auralia and Kenny should reach a gentlemen's agreement that he will not submit a replacement that deals with peacekeeping or compliance, and Kenny will not submit his own ideological replacement.

I would definitely be willing to refrain from submitting a replacement in exchange for Kenny's support of the repeal.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Really? I had no idea my support was so valuable!

Yes, I will support the repeal if the author pledges not to submit the replacement in its current form. I'd be perfectly happy with a modified version.

[Mallorea and Riva]

They're opposed to the replacement, or just the repeal?

Both, seemingly.

I'm ooc open to changing the "no army" rule, so don't take my ic statements as mod policy. Especially if they're from my premod days. Also the law does what the law says, stop telling people otherwise. If you have questions on that or anything else fire in a ghr and I'll get back to you Monday.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Both, seemingly.

I'm ooc open to changing the "no army" rule, so don't take my ic statements as mod policy.

There's no way that post was in-character.

Mallorea requested here that I submit a GHR: viewtopic.php?p=23329991#p23329991

The argument concerns the notion of "the law means what the law says" in the WA. To avoid getting lost in vagueness, let's take one specific example. Does The Pirisoners of War Accord contain any requirement that people who violate POW rights be prosecuted? No, not as written. Yet two separate rulings seem to have claimed that it does. If that is the case, then no, the law does not mean what it says, it also means a bunch of other stuff contain in magic invisible clauses.

I've previously explained my confusion here: viewtopic.php?p=22882227#p22882227 and if there is a response, then that thread would probably be more suitable than Railana's (that separate to the "all nations" question, which I also remain hopeful of receiving a response on, but isn't the subject of this GHR).

Thanks.

[Mousebumples]

I'm ooc open to changing the "no army" rule, so don't take my ic statements as mod policy.

There's no way that post was in-character.

Mallorea requested here that I submit a GHR: viewtopic.php?p=23329991#p23329991

The argument concerns the notion of "the law means what the law says" in the WA. To avoid getting lost in vagueness, let's take one specific example. Does The Pirisoners of War Accord contain any requirement that people who violate POW rights be prosecuted? No, not as written. Yet two separate rulings seem to have claimed that it does. If that is the case, then no, the law does not mean what it says, it also means a bunch of other stuff contain in magic invisible clauses.

I've previously explained my confusion here: viewtopic.php?p=22882227#p22882227 and if there is a response, then that thread would probably be more suitable than Railana's (that separate to the "all nations" question, which I also remain hopeful of receiving a response on, but isn't the subject of this GHR).

Thanks.

No, but the post in question was made a good 6-7 months before Mall was modded, so I don't know how much his IC or OOC statements made at that time should be taken as Mod Policy either.

Anyhow, not to take Auralia's thread OT, but consider your request filed - we're haggling over it, as I type this.

[The Dark Star Republic]

No, but the post in question was made a good 6-7 months before Mall was modded, so I don't know how much his IC or OOC statements made at that time should be taken as Mod Policy either.

It's easy to tell the difference between the opinions of Ardchoille and Ardchoilleans, of Kryozerkia and Meekinos/Three Weasels, even of the always out of character Frisbeeteria and The Most Glorious Hack, and the always in character MJ Donovan CEO and Doctor Leary/Vermithrax. You two, not so much.

Anyhow, not to take Auralia's thread OT, but consider your request filed - we're haggling over it, as I type this.

Thanks.

And with that, Railana can have their thread back.

[Unibot III]

i'm glad to see some kind of gentlemen's agreement arise here. The focus should have always been repealing this rubbish. Railana, feel free to use my wording if you like.

[Railana]

((OOC: I'd like to renew discussion on this project. I'd like to note a few things first, though:

1. In general, I agree with the notion that international law should focus on discrete topics. As such, I've removed Article III (International Peace and Security) from the replacement. The Charter now covers only the minimum necessary for it to function: what the World Assembly is, and how member states relate to it on a fundamental level.

2. I'm not really sure why people are so concerned about the notion of a World Assembly army. First of all, neither the repeal nor the replacement establishes such an army. Second, it's still currently illegal under the current ruleset. Third, even if a World Assembly army was legal, it could only be used when the government of a member state consented to the intervention. Remember that the World Assembly cannot affect non-member states, and so a member state that wished to avoid such intervention could simply resign. It certainly could not be used for resolution enforcement. When I talk about repealing the "no army" rule, I'm really talking about expanding the committee rule to allow the World Assembly to create an international military force for peacekeeping between two World Assembly member states or peacemaking within a member state against rebel or paramilitary groups. In both cases, the member state involved would have to agree to the intervention.))

[Railana]

I would be seriously concerned with moving away from "the law does what it says". Conflating the preambulatory clauses with the operative clauses and using them as an interpretative mechanism seems to give an easy out for poor authors, IE if they can set out what the problem they're trying to solve is, they should also be able to set out properly and in a legally sound fashion how they're going to solve it. Plus arguments around creative compliance and interpretation of resolutions are half the fun.

((OOC: Personally, I don't find it entertaining when certain nations seriously argue that a reference to "agreements" in a resolution about trade talks does not, in fact, refer to trade agreements or that a resolution requires a physical building - as opposed to a committee - to carry out a resolution's mandate.

In real life, nobody engages in this kind of strict constructionism. Even supporters of textualism - and I'm one of them - believe that you need to take into account not just the terms of the law as an ordinary person would read them, but also the context in which the terms were used and the object and purpose of the law, as stated in the preamble. It's also the way international law is interpreted in real life; see Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.))

I'm also not at all fond of the last section. It's definitely moving towards an interventionist policy rather than the current deliberative assembly we enjoy. And how exactly could the WA "individually and collectively address violations of human rights and threats to international peace and security, including through the use of force if and when necessary"?

I will point out that I don't think there should be a replacement. I think sovereignty shouldn't be discussed in the abstract by the WA (partly because we conceive of it in problematic terms), plus war and human rights intervention are their own separate topics which should be played out with a series of proposals .

A new "grand" document like GA#2 will be a failed project on arrival and it'll be more useful for players to discuss issues of war and human rights with a system of legislative projects, not one overarching catch-all proposal.

(Plus grand documents are difficult to change - GA#2 is practically indestructible, despite being highly flawed. If we had covered these issues over several proposals, none of them would have "special status" right now).

I agree. As a general rule, international legislation should focus on discrete topics.

These concerns are addressed in my previous post.

Really? I had no idea my support was so valuable!

Yes, I will support the repeal if the author pledges not to submit the replacement in its current form. I'd be perfectly happy with a modified version.

As stated above, I've removed Article III from the replacement, though I imagine you probably still have concerns about the interpretation language.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

[Frustrated Franciscans]

I've never understood the near paranoia over this issue. I mean it's not like II has ever recognized the WA in the first place.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC:

Alarmed that the target resolution's requirement that resolutions be implemented in "good faith" is sufficiently vague as to permit the effective circumvention of resolutions through sincere yet invalid interpretations of resolutions, while prohibiting the World Assembly from passing a separate resolution governing the legitimate interpretation of resolutions,

Until the mods clarify their stance on magical invisible clauses, I'm not sure this argument holds so much weight. "The law means what the law says" doesn't seem to hold so much weight anymore, which might render this concern moot.

Concerned that the target resolution prevents the World Assembly from taking or supporting any military action whatsoever, even in circumstances where the target member state consents to such intervention, as in the case of peacekeeping,

This is a perfectly sensible argument that wins you absolutely no favours and seemed to inspire most of the more ferocious opposition last time around. Is there really any point keeping it in?

[Railana]

Concerned that the target resolution prevents the World Assembly from taking or supporting any military action whatsoever, even in circumstances where the target member state consents to such intervention, as in the case of peacekeeping,

This is a perfectly sensible argument that wins you absolutely no favours and seemed to inspire most of the more ferocious opposition last time around. Is there really any point keeping it in?

Well, that bit about consensual intervention and peacekeeping wasn't there last time; I'm kind of hoping that might make it clearer that this is not about resolution enforcement using military force.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

[Sudarium]

I do think Kenny might have a point that this draft focuses a bit too much on peacemaking (although that's a big issue).

Here's a redraft that I'd suggest...

The General Assembly,

ACKNOWLEDGING a myriad of issues of enforcement with "Rights and Duties of WA States" with regards to several key areas, such as:

Sovereignty

• Only WA member nations are recognised as having a right to sovereignty and independence, although non-WA nations are given a limited right to non-aggression;
• Section 1.1 prohibits other nations from influencing their form of government in WA member nations, enshrining a “right” to such independence, although other international organisations other than the World Assembly may wish to dictate conditions of governance to its voluntary member-states;
• It is unclear whether any form of colonisation or decolonisation is permissible under Section 1.1, because on one hand, the wording describes a status of independent statehood, but on the other hand, prohibits the World Assembly from interfering in such areas as national jurisdiction;
• Section 1.3 forbids nations from any unrequested intervention in the sovereign affairs of other nations, regardless of whether such intervention is justified, as in the case of peacemaking operations and humanitarian intervention;

Definition of War

• It is left unstated what ‘self-defence’ involves (e.g., whether that includes first-strike policies) and furthermore, what ‘individual’ and ‘collective self-defence’ refers to;
• Non-WA member nations under Section 2.5 are not allowed to intercede declarations of war for demilitarised nations under the provided definition of ‘war’;
• Section 2.5 forbids military activity necessary for international security and the protection of human rights, such as peacemaking operations and humanitarian interventions, because not all parties consent to the conflict;

International Law

• Section 3.9-3.11 requires that WA member nations comply with all international law, not simply the World Assembly’s international law – although (1) the World Assembly’s laws may contradict other international laws, (2) compliance with some international law outside of the World Assembly may jeopardise the protection of human rights, (3) it is the responsibility of other international organisations to dictate the terms of compliance for their laws;
• The World Assembly is barred from participating in war 'under the WA banner' - but this does not preclude the use of false flags operations;
• Section 3.9’s use of “good faith” is sufficiently vague as to permit the effective circumvention of resolutions through sincere yet invalid interpretations of resolutions, while prohibiting the World Assembly from passing a separate resolution governing the legitimate interpretation of resolutions;
• The World Assembly often expresses an opinion on civil and international strife, especially war crimes and human rights violations,

REGARDING "Rights and Duties of WA States" as a very flawed piece of legislation due to its ambiguity, unenforceability and its troubled relationship with non-WA nations, other sources of international law, and the preservation and protection of human rights abroad;

Hereby,

REPEALS GAR #2, "Rights and Duties of WA States".

This version is good enough to deserve it's own thread; honestly. So I'll make one for it. I want to see what people have to comment on it and their reasoning.

[Railana]

((OOC: Just bumping this for further consideration.))

[Railana]

((OOC: Bump. Let's try this again.))

[Tinfect]

((OOC: Bump. Let's try this again.))

OOC:
Should have waited 'till the 31st. Could've said it went a whole year without replies.

IC:

Condemning the target resolution's morally repugnant conception of war, which is that war is permissible so long as it is consensual,

"The Imperium sees no reason this is in any way 'repugnant'. While it is an extremely weak and simplistic definition, it is in no way reprehensible. Warfare is going to happen, regardless of whether or not your Government permits it to take place."

Shocked that this conception of war effectively legalizes armed conflict between two or more mutual aggressors, in which each party wishes to take control over the others’ territory, population or resources, because such a war is technically consensual,

"Again, the Imperium sees absolutely nothing shocking about it. One cannot simply ban warfare, and in the situation of Mutual Aggression, it is clear that Warfare is the only way to resolve the situation. Either one aggressor is destroyed entirely, or both smash pointlessly against the others defenses until they can do so no longer."

Appalled that this conception of war also forbids military activity necessary for the maintenance of international security and the protection of human rights, such as peacemaking operations and humanitarian interventions, because not all parties consent to the conflict,

"The Resolution does no such thing, it merely defines a war for the purposes of the resolution. There is no clause which states that warfare cannot be committed without the consent of all involved Nations. In any case, Diplomatic and Humanitarian Intervention is by no means the same as Military Intervention, do not confuse them.

We do not consider the arguments within this Draft sufficiently sound, or sufficiently numerous so as to warrant the repeal of such critical legislation as this. At this time, the Imperium is opposed."

[Railana]

Should have waited 'till the 31st. Could've said it went a whole year without replies.

((OOC: Very true. Ah, well.))

Condemning the target resolution's morally repugnant conception of war, which is that war is permissible so long as it is consensual,

"The Imperium sees no reason this is in any way 'repugnant'. While it is an extremely weak and simplistic definition, it is in no way reprehensible. Warfare is going to happen, regardless of whether or not your Government permits it to take place."

We simply don't share this rather cynical view. A consensual war is not necessarily a just war, and should not be permitted by the World Assembly, regardless of whether they would happen anyway.

Appalled that this conception of war also forbids military activity necessary for the maintenance of international security and the protection of human rights, such as peacemaking operations and humanitarian interventions, because not all parties consent to the conflict,

"The Resolution does no such thing, it merely defines a war for the purposes of the resolution. There is no clause which states that warfare cannot be committed without the consent of all involved Nations. In any case, Diplomatic and Humanitarian Intervention is by no means the same as Military Intervention, do not confuse them.

((OOC: No, it actually defines war for the purposes of the "world of NationStates". It makes a lot more sense if you think of the resolution as a semi-IC codificiation of the OOC rules. It's clear that the definition was meant to capture the fact that any kind of "war" that takes place on the NationStates website must be roleplayed and thus must be consensual. Of course, this makes absolutely no sense in the GA IC context, which is why GAR #2 should be repealed.))

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

[Railana]

((OOC: By the way, for those of you who don't know, practically the entire text of Rights and Duties of WA States was blatantly lifted from the 1949 Draft Declaration on Rights and Duties of States. What makes this even worse is that GAR #2 was written by a moderator, Frisbeeteria, who is now a senior game moderator and was never punished for this plagiarism even after the other moderators were made aware of it.

Here are some examples of the plagiarism:

---

Every WA Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

Every State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other State, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

---

Every WA Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

Every State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and
things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

---

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.

Every State has the duty to refrain from intervention in the internal or external affairs of any other State.

---

Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from fomenting civil strife in the territory of another NationState, and to prevent the organization within its territory of activities calculated to foment such civil strife.

Every State has the duty to refrain from fomenting civil strife in the territory of another State, and to prevent the organization within its territory of activities calculated to foment such civil strife.

---

Every WA Member State has the right to equality in law with every other WA Member State.

Every State has the right to equality in law with every other State.

---

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

Every State has the right of individual or collective self-defence against armed attack.

---

Every WA Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, including this World Assembly, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty.

Every State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse
for failure to perform this duty.

---

Every WA Member State has the duty to conduct its relations with other NationStates in accordance with international law and with the principle that the sovereignty of each WA Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law.

Every State has the duty to conduct its relations with other States in accordance with international law and with the principle that the sovereignty of each State is subject to the supremacy of
international law.

---

So even if you think that GAR #2 is a fantastic piece of legislation, you should really be thanking the International Law Commission instead of Frisbeeteria, and you should still support its repeal.))