[DRAFT] World Assembly Charter

[Railana]

The second component of a proposed repeal and replace of GAR #2. An essay explaining the repeal's arguments and the benefits of the new charter in further detail is available here. A previous debate about this proposal is available here.

World Assembly Charter
Category: Political Stability | Strength: Mild

We, the assembled member states of the World Assembly, in order to maintain international peace and security, to promote respect for fundamental rights and freedoms, and to further cooperation between all states in addressing social, economic, cultural, environmental and humanitarian problems, hereby establish the following World Assembly charter:

Article I: National Sovereignty

Section 1. All member states of the World Assembly are equal sovereign states and possess all of the rights and duties of governance, including the right to choose their own form of government and to exercise jurisdiction over their territory and everything therein, without interference from any other member state, in accordance with World Assembly law.

Section 2. All member states shall refrain from unjustified intervention in the internal and external affairs of other states, in accordance with World Assembly law.

Article II: Principles of the World Assembly

Section 1. All member states shall endeavour to maintain international peace and security, to promote respect for fundamental rights and freedoms, to cooperate with all other states in addressing social, economic, cultural, environmental and humanitarian problems, and to promote the use of the World Assembly as a centre of cooperation to achieve those common goals.

Section 2. All member states shall fulfill in good faith all obligations arising from World Assembly law and refrain from imposing any law or practice in violation thereof.

Section 3. All member states shall interpret World Assembly law in accordance with the ordinary meaning given to the terms of each law, in the context in which they are used, in light of the object and purpose of each law and without prejudice to any special meaning given to a term as defined in each law.

Section 4. All member states have the right to equality under the law with all other member states. The World Assembly shall not engage in unjust discrimination between member states.

Section 5. World Assembly membership is optional. All states that are not members of the World Assembly are not subject to its jurisdiction. The World Assembly shall not directly intervene in the internal and external affairs of non-member states.

Co-authored by: [nation=short]Glen-Rhodes[/nation].

[Imperium Anglorum]

Could we please dispense with the cliché of using the 'We the [x] of [x], in order to [goals]' phrase lifted from the American constitution? It seems everything uses it, because it sounds all officially or something. Can we at least paraphrase something more obscure to avoid this, in my opinion, overused cliché (that's an overused overused trope, if you substitute the definition of cliché).

OOC: Will examine in depth later.

[Ainocra]

Without a prohibition on the WA raising an army or a police force I cannot support this draft. The Star Empire will not be held hostage under threat of arms to this assembly.

[Tinfect]

OOC: You seem dead-set on repealing GAR#2, so while I highly doubt that repeal will even make it to Quorum, I might as well tear this apart while it is here.

...
Section 3. All member states shall refrain from the unjustified threat or use of force against other states, in accordance with World Assembly law. No member state shall engage in a war of aggression with another state, and member states shall not recognize any territorial acquisitions thereof.
...

IC:
"Now, we start to have problems. Why are we protecting Non-Member States here? I see no reason why they should be protected from attack, if they refuse to join the Assembly."
OOC:
No, no, no, and NO.
This would make keeping within WA Law when RPing much harder, especially for Militaristic Nations. Drop this bit, and this would certainly have my support if you somehow manage to take down GAR#2.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: You seem dead-set on repealing GAR#2, so while I highly doubt that repeal will even make it to Quorum, I might as well tear this apart while it is here.

It made it past quorum last time ... and even got 8000 votes before it was discarded on technicality.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: You seem dead-set on repealing GAR#2, so while I highly doubt that repeal will even make it to Quorum, I might as well tear this apart while it is here.

It made it past quorum last time ... and even got 8000 votes before it was discarded on technicality.

OOC: There was a blitzkrieg campaign and a lot of surprise involved that made a counter-campaign difficult. The more die-hard opposition to a repeal will be a little more ready for it this time, I expect.

Without a prohibition on the WA raising an army or a police force I cannot support this draft. The Star Empire will not be held hostage under threat of arms to this assembly.

"I must concur with the Fleet Marshal on this point. Encouraging WA members to act on their own initiative is one thing, but having the World Assembly direct forces isn't acceptable to my delegation or my nation. I imagine that it will be much harder for a bullying coalition to form without the legal backing of the World Assembly."

[Frustrated Franciscans]

I'm sure that many will be shocked at this, but we actually support this resolution as written should GAR#2 be repealed.

[Jarish Inyo]

While well written and the government of Jarish Inyo is in agreement with most of the proposal replacement. We can not support it. We do not agree with Article 3 section 3.

[Railana]

Could we please dispense with the cliché of using the 'We the [x] of [x], in order to [goals]' phrase lifted from the American constitution? It seems everything uses it, because it sounds all officially or something. Can we at least paraphrase something more obscure to avoid this, in my opinion, overused cliché (that's an overused overused trope, if you substitute the definition of cliché).

I'm afraid I can't really think of a better way to put it. Do you have any suggestions?

Without a prohibition on the WA raising an army or a police force I cannot support this draft. The Star Empire will not be held hostage under threat of arms to this assembly.

I'm not sure why that's necessary or appropriate. The extent to which the World Assembly is involved in military intervention can be addressed in a separate resolution.

((OOC: It's important to note that a World Assembly military is still illegal under the current rule set. Furthermore, even if it were possible to create such a military, in practice it could only ever be used for peacekeeping between two World Assembly member states, peacemaking within a member state against rebel or paramilitary groups, and the like; basically, only 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.

As such, I don't think you'll ever have to worry about being "hostage under threat of arms to this assembly", regardless of what this particular proposal says.))

IC:
"Now, we start to have problems. Why are we protecting Non-Member States here? I see no reason why they should be protected from attack, if they refuse to join the Assembly."

Well, with all due respect, our delegation does see a reason. We believe that every person possesses certain fundamental rights and freedoms that must be respected, regardless of that person's World Assembly membership status.

OOC:
No, no, no, and NO.
This would make keeping within WA Law when RPing much harder, especially for Militaristic Nations. Drop this bit, and this would certainly have my support if you somehow manage to take down GAR#2.

((OOC: I'm a strong supporter of realism in the World Assembly game, and the reality is that modern-day international institutions have rejected the notion that war is a legitimate tool of international relations. I don't think it makes sense to grant militaristic nations cover under World Assembly law when they roleplay immoral or illegal actions.))

"I must concur with the Fleet Marshal on this point. Encouraging WA members to act on their own initiative is one thing, but having the World Assembly direct forces isn't acceptable to my delegation or my nation. I imagine that it will be much harder for a bullying coalition to form without the legal backing of the World Assembly."

As mentioned earlier, this draft does not comment on the potential creation or use of a World Assembly military force.

While well written and the government of Jarish Inyo is in agreement with most of the proposal replacement. We can not support it. We do not agree with Article 3 section 3.

Would you mind explaining your objection further? That clause merely outlines a well-recognized norm for interpreting international law. ((OOC: This norm exists in real life as well; see Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.))

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

[Separatist Peoples]

As mentioned earlier, this draft does not comment on the potential creation or use of a World Assembly military force.

"Thus the problem. I'd like to see it mentioned, specifically with the intention of universally preventing it."

[The Dark Star Republic]

As mentioned earlier, this draft does not comment on the potential creation or use of a World Assembly military force.

"Thus the problem. I'd like to see it mentioned, specifically with the intention of universally preventing it."

"Why? Should the draft also ensure the legality of abortion, or prevent the WA from levying taxes on citizens, or include a nuclear weapons ban blocker?

"This proposal is doing one thing. Opposing it because it doesn't also do some other completely separate thing is pointless. It doesn't block such a proposal, and that could easily be drafted as a separate resolution. One of the exact problems with Rights & Duties is it tries to do too much: the stuff on international law is okay, but the clauses on war are problematic. Repeating that folly would be a mistake."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[Railana]

One of the exact problems with Rights & Duties is it tries to do too much: the stuff on international law is okay, but the clauses on war are problematic. Repeating that folly would be a mistake."

That's a fair point. I suppose the Charter should be more about the Assembly itself and the relationship between nations and the Assembly than international peace and security. I'd be willing to remove Article III in favour of implementing its provisions through separate resolutions on the laws of war.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

[The Dark Star Republic]

"That would be my preference, but it might not be politically expeditious. I doubt the Orcish voting tendencies of the WA would pass such a separate resolution.

"To be honest, our delegation still doesn't really favour any replacement of Rights & Duties, so our advice might not be particularly valid here."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[Separatist Peoples]

"Thus the problem. I'd like to see it mentioned, specifically with the intention of universally preventing it."

"Why? Should the draft also ensure the legality of abortion, or prevent the WA from levying taxes on citizens, or include a nuclear weapons ban blocker?

"This proposal is doing one thing. Opposing it because it doesn't also do some other completely separate thing is pointless. It doesn't block such a proposal, and that could easily be drafted as a separate resolution. One of the exact problems with Rights & Duties is it tries to do too much: the stuff on international law is okay, but the clauses on war are problematic. Repeating that folly would be a mistake."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

"I see it fitting quite naturally under the National sovereignty section. I don't view it as separate: the limitation of an unspecified, but potentially significant, power that the World Assembly could have has no better place then within the Charter of it's central tenants."

[The Dark Star Republic]

"I see it fitting quite naturally under the National sovereignty section. I don't view it as separate: the limitation of an unspecified, but potentially significant, power that the World Assembly could have has no better place then within the Charter of it's central tenants."

"Banning abortion, or taxing individual citizens, or banning nuclear weapons, would all be "significant powers" the WA could exercise that would corrode national sovereignty. This document is laying out the basic premises of international law, not creating specific limits on WA power that belong in separate resolutions."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"I see it fitting quite naturally under the National sovereignty section. I don't view it as separate: the limitation of an unspecified, but potentially significant, power that the World Assembly could have has no better place then within the Charter of it's central tenants."

"Banning abortion, or taxing individual citizens, or banning nuclear weapons, would all be "significant powers" the WA could exercise that would corrode national sovereignty. This document is laying out the basic premises of international law, not creating specific limits on WA power that belong in separate resolutions."

I don't have a horse in this race, but as to the weight and importance issue I have to agree with the CDSP and Ainocran representatives: while indeed it's the very business of the WA to corrode national sovereignty for the betterment of all persons, asserting WA war powers would be asserting that the WA may at times destroy sovereignty entirely.

I don't think that's necessarily a serious danger (not least because of what you just described as "Orcish" voting tendencies, Ms. C.), but I sympathize with those who want that issue spelled out explicitly. While we're describing "basic premises" of international law, not the least of those is how far the WA has the power to go in enforcing said law, no? I appreciate that holding to that makes the drafting job more difficult.

[Glen-Rhodes]

A separate resolution could always be written that prohibits the WA from engaging directly in military affairs, which I'm sure would pass with flying colors.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

It didn't the last time.

...or were you being sarcastic?

[Ikania]

Ikania,

REALIZING that this charter doesn't use the format in which this statement is written,

PLANNING to vote for it just because of that,

HOPING it will win because format-breaking proposals never do,

HEREBY SUPPORTS the World Assembly Charter.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: I've always presumed that when we OOC press the button to join the WA our nations IC are ratifying a Charter that already exists. Otherwise, after all, there isn't even a basis in WA law itself for [e.g.] the voting system or the role of the Secretariat or -- although GAR#2 states a requirement that member nations must comply in good faith with resolutions -- for required compliance with GAR#2.

[Unibot III]

Well, it's a damn sight better than the original. I would use the word, 'use' instead of 'utilization'.

[Frustrated Franciscans]

OOC: I've always presumed that when we OOC press the button to join the WA our nations IC are ratifying a Charter that already exists.

ALL OOC

This has always been a gray area and that is mostly due to technical inconsistencies between what we would like the universe to be and what the game actually does.

From a technical point of view, membership in the WA binds the nation to the stat wank effects of all future resolutions or all future repeals (a repeal is an anti-resolution which is of lesser strength than a resolution, if I remember correctly).

Now if the ideal notion of how we would like to view the WA (and the model we use for WA role play, which is different from role play role play because the role play forums like II doesn't recognize either the WA or stats in general) then joining the WA would cause every single resolution in effect to stat wank your nation, but it doesn't.

More over, there is nothing that limits daily issue choices based on passed WA resolutions.

So the notion of IC ratification (really whose IC is it anyway?) is almost impossible to define and equally impossible to enforce.

[Ainocra]

I'm not sure why that's necessary or appropriate. The extent to which the World Assembly is involved in military intervention can be addressed in a separate resolution.

((OOC: It's important to note that a World Assembly military is still illegal under the current rule set. Furthermore, even if it were possible to create such a military, in practice it could only ever be used for peacekeeping between two World Assembly member states, peacemaking within a member state against rebel or paramilitary groups, and the like; basically, only 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.

As such, I don't think you'll ever have to worry about being "hostage under threat of arms to this assembly", regardless of what this particular proposal says.))

As it is a founding principle of the Assembly I feel it should be included. This is a replacement for GA 2, then it should include all the same provisions of GA 2.

ooc:
rules may be rules, but the original ga2 was meant to put those rules into an IC context, this document should do the same. else it fails the test of a superior replacement

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

I thought you said you'd be willing to modify the "compliance" language in Section 3 if certain people supported your repeal? You'd be killing half the fun many of us have in this game - delving through the intricacies of WA law to figure out where the weaknesses are -- which serves just as much to improve resolutions before they become law, as it does to wriggle around enforcing them afterward.

[Railana]

I thought you said you'd be willing to modify the "compliance" language in Section 3 if certain people supported your repeal? You'd be killing half the fun many of us have in this game - delving through the intricacies of WA law to figure out where the weaknesses are -- which serves just as much to improve resolutions before they become law, as it does to wriggle around enforcing them afterward.

((OOC: Kenny, I'm all for finding weaknesses in World Assembly law, but I think it's much more satisfying when the problems and loopholes exist under a reasonable interpretation of a resolution. I don't think that there's anything wrong with "creative compliance" when an author genuinely missed something. (I'm not sure if you're following King v. Burwell, but I would consider that a classic example of what I'm talking about.)

All Article II, Section 3 mandates is that we read resolutions reasonably; it's almost identical to the language used in real-life treaties governing the interpretation of international law.))