[DEFEATED] WA Peacekeeping Charter

[Kelssek]

I envision for them? Ambassador, WA personnel have jobs to do already, without me envisioning any jobs for them. The personnel of the GAO, for example, manage the General Fund. I don't imagine that the vast majority of WA personnel are away from WA property often enough that they would carry lethal weapons.

This is nowhere near as complicated as you're making it out to be. You said that peacekeepers wouldn't have guns, because the proposal would ban WA personnel from being armed. In fact, the text only bans WA personnel from being armed while on WA property. Furthermore, the activities you list for the peacekeepers will certainly take place in areas where there is a higher-than-usual chance of them being subject to or threatened with violence. It would in fact be quite unreasonable if they were not at least lightly armed in such circumstances.

The proposal as written makes it clear that the WA Peacekeepers are not a military force.

I may also assert that animals that quack are not ducks, but many of those animals would still be ducks.

[You may be able to find a few RL peacekeeping operations which did not involve any soldiers, but that would come as a surprise to me. And in more recent years they have tended to become more militarized, not less.]

and if not guns, what are they going to defend themselves with in a post-conflict zone?

"I hear pepper spray and stun guns work swell at deterring attackers."

Although those are not actually non-lethal weapons, I can safely say that you shouldn't expect any personnel contributions from my government if that is the plan.

So why are you authorizing WA personnel to use deadly force in protection of WA property and then wanting to ban WA personnel from possessing the weapons with which to exert such force?

1) Then this proposal would be illegal for doing nothing but duplicating GA#2.
2) This proposal would also be illegal as a category violation, as banning a WA military does absolutely nothing to reduce national security budgets.

To be charitable, this seems more specific and goes further than Resolution 2. And, earlier you brought up some other Global Disarmament resolutions which worked in a very diffuse way. Maybe that will work.

Banning a military does nothing to prohibit Peacekeepers.

Isn't the point of you defining the job of "WA peacekeepers" to block the passage of any other definitions? Otherwise what's all this peacekeeping stuff for, if you apparently aren't all that concerned about it and banning WA military actions and armed WA personnel is your primary goal? And if you think that is already accomplished by Resolution 2, then what's the value being added here?

Perhaps after all you do primarily intend to establish WA Peacekeeping with this resolution. That is fine, and in fact it would really help you clarify these problems. My government will then instruct me to oppose this resolution because they will see it as a WA Army with a pretty-sounding name, instead of me advising that we oppose it because it is badly thought-out.

[Excidium Planetis]

This is nowhere near as complicated as you're making it out to be.

"You're right. This is just not complicated at all. I already said I would remove the allows clause, so I will do so now and then we can discuss more important things."

You said that peacekeepers wouldn't have guns,

"I assure you, I have never said that. I asked you why you assumed the Peacekeepers would carry lethal weapons."

because the proposal would ban WA personnel from being armed.

"I never said that either. I said the prior clause prohibits them from carrying lethal weapons. Which is does."

In fact, the text only bans WA personnel from being armed while on WA property.

"This is true. But this being true does not mean that WA Peacekeepers will be carrying weapons. Here, I will clarify in the draft that this will be the case."

Furthermore, the activities you list for the peacekeepers will certainly take place in areas where there is a higher-than-usual chance of them being subject to or threatened with violence.

"Absolutely not. WA Peacekeepers are only to be deployed to member nations which request such assistance. Those nations are prohibited from attacking the WA personnel. So how are the Peacekeepers going to be subject to violence?"

It would in fact be quite unreasonable if they were not at least lightly armed in such circumstances.

"And yet humanitarian aid deployed to the same places at the same time cannot carry weapons without becoming valid military targets. Tell me, why must the WA Peacekeepers be armed when it is perfectly fine for other WA officials to be unarmed?"

I may also assert that animals that quack are not ducks, but many of those animals would still be ducks.

"Or they could be Takt'lek slaves, mimicking a robotic dog which is attempting to teach a child about Terran animals. Or rather, they wouldn't be slaves anymore, I suppose, but I fail to see what thus has to do with the proposal."

[You may be able to find a few RL peacekeeping operations which did not involve any soldiers, but that would come as a surprise to me. And in more recent years they have tended to become more militarized, not less.]

NS =/= Real life. Who cares if the UN uses a pool of national soldiers for its Peacekeeping operations? That is not to be the case here.

Although those are not actually non-lethal weapons,

Blackburn frowns. "I can assure you, Excidian stun guns are most certainly non-lethal weapons."

OOC:
Are you serious? When you look up "non-lethal weapon" in the encyclopedia, you literally get a picture of pepper spray.
Pepper spray and tasers are actually non-lethal weapons. The fact that you can kill people with them doesn't make them a lethal weapon, otherwise ballpoint pens would be lethal weapons.

I can safely say that you shouldn't expect any personnel contributions from my government if that is the plan.

"Why don't you ask the gnomes? I'm not the one who decides what weapons the Peacekeepers will be carrying, if any."

So why are you authorizing WA personnel to use deadly force in protection of WA property and then wanting to ban WA personnel from possessing the weapons with which to exert such force?

"Would you rather I ban them from using deadly force? I mean, I can, if you want. But I don't think they would like having to violate WA law just to protect themselves from terrorists."

To be charitable, this seems more specific and goes further than Resolution 2. And, earlier you brought up some other Global Disarmament resolutions which worked in a very diffuse way. Maybe that will work.

OOC:
Then why won't this proposal work as is? If making it nothing but a do nothing elaboration of GA#2's article 9 would still leave it legal (and I doubt it), why would calling a committee the WA Peacekeepers (which is not against the rules) make it illegal?

Banning a military does nothing to prohibit Peacekeepers.

Isn't the point of you defining the job of "WA peacekeepers" to block the passage of any other definitions?

Yes. But you really lost me here. I mean it, I'm not just saying it to make a point, I'm seriously confused as to what your point is here.

I said banning a military did not prohibit Peacekeepers. And then you asked if defining the goals of the Peacekeepers blocks the passage of other definitions [of their goals]. Both of these are true, but I don't see how they relate. Yes, I defined the roles of Peacekeepers to prevent further expansions of Peacekeeper missions, but that is because I specifically stated that nothing else could be done by them, and future resolutions therefore cannot expand the power of the Peacekeepers without running afoul of the Contradiction rule. The Contradiction rule doesn't relate to my earlier statement however.

Otherwise what's all this peacekeeping stuff for, if you apparently aren't all that concerned about it and banning WA military actions and armed WA personnel is your primary goal?

To make this a GD category resolution. The Peacekeeper stuff, who cares, really, but it needed to be a GD resolution and this is the only thing in GD I could think of that my nation would ICly support.

And if you think that is already accomplished by Resolution 2, then what's the value being added here?

Because I need to eliminate the concern that repealing GA#2 will open the door for a WA army. The only way to achieve that is to either double down on the WA Army ban, or use this as a replacement for GA#2, but I think the former is easier because replacements are always considered a risk (that they might not pass or even be submitted)

Perhaps after all you do primarily intend to establish WA Peacekeeping with this resolution. That is fine, and in fact it would really help you clarify these problems. My government will then instruct me to oppose this resolution because they will see it as a WA Army with a pretty-sounding name, instead of me advising that we oppose it because it is badly thought-out.

Wait, did you just switch back to IC to respond to my OOC comments?

Regardless, I see no further value in debating someone who has already decided to vote against no matter what I do.

[Kelssek]

because the proposal would ban WA personnel from being armed.

"I never said that either. I said the prior clause prohibits them from carrying lethal weapons. Which is does."

In fact, the text only bans WA personnel from being armed while on WA property.

"This is true. But this being true does not mean that WA Peacekeepers will be carrying weapons. Here, I will clarify in the draft that this will be the case."

I see that text changes have been made. But they still don't prohibit the peacekeepers from carrying lethal weapons, just that they won't be "required" to do so. Now I very much think any hypothetical force should be able to be armed, but I am pointing out that your proposal doesn't say what you think it does in this particular aspect.

"Absolutely not. WA Peacekeepers are only to be deployed to member nations which request such assistance. Those nations are prohibited from attacking the WA personnel. So how are the Peacekeepers going to be subject to violence?"

"Would you rather I ban them from using deadly force? I mean, I can, if you want. But I don't think they would like having to violate WA law just to protect themselves from terrorists."

You may have inadvertently answered your own question. Non-state spoilers are an obvious possibility.

NS =/= Real life. Who cares if the UN uses a pool of national soldiers for its Peacekeeping operations? That is not to be the case here.

The point there is that "peacekeeping" almost necessarily means a military operation. This is the problem with using that word while insisting it's non-military. [And if you want to play this game, the photo on Wikipedia for "peacekeeping" is quite excellent. All soldiers should be trained in that.]

OOC:
Are you serious? When you look up "non-lethal weapon" in the encyclopedia, you literally get a picture of pepper spray.
Pepper spray and tasers are actually non-lethal weapons. The fact that you can kill people with them doesn't make them a lethal weapon, otherwise ballpoint pens would be lethal weapons.

[Yes, I am serious. This is not a binary distinction despite what the manufacturers of pepper spray and especially stun guns wish to promote. Being shot by a gun doesn't necessarily kill you, that doesn't mean it's a non-lethal weapon either. But this isn't really relevant anymore.]

[States of Glory WA Office]

"The word peacekeeping does not strongly imply that to me, but even if it does so to others it does not matter. The proposal as written makes it clear that the WA Peacekeepers are not a military force."

Neville: You're assuming that most people actually read the proposal. You know that quite a few people are going to look at the title, think that this creates a WA army and vote against for that reason. Yes, creating such an army would violate GA #2, but banning abortions would violate Reproductive Freedoms, which didn't stop the lemmings from voting against Protection for the Partially Born for that reason.

OOC: Also, don't a lot of delegates hate proposals that begin with the word 'On'?

Those nations are prohibited from attacking the WA personnel. So how are the Peacekeepers going to be subject to violence?"

OOC: They may be prohibited from attacking WA personnel, but haven't you been arguing for the past two weeks or so that non-compliance should be considered acceptable? Put your money where your mouth is and either create a compliance mechanism or accept that some nations are going to attack WA Peacekeepers.

[Excidium Planetis]

snip

OOC:

Regardless, I see no further value in debating someone who has already decided to vote against no matter what I do.

Yes, I am serious. This is not a binary distinction despite what the manufacturers of pepper spray and especially stun guns wish to promote. Being shot by a gun doesn't necessarily kill you, that doesn't mean it's a non-lethal weapon either.

Exactly. Being shot with a gun doesn't necessarily kill you, but guns are still lethal weapons rather than non-lethal weapons, for the same reason pepper spray and tasers are still non-lethal weapons even if they kill you. What makes a weapon lethal or non-lethal is the result when used as intended. As intended to be used, guns kill or seriously wound people. As intended to be used, pepper spray burns your eyes for a short period of time. One of them is clearly a lethal weapon, and the other is not.

Neville: You're assuming that most people actually read the proposal. You know that quite a few people are going to look at the title, think that this creates a WA army and vote against for that reason. Yes, creating such an army would violate GA #2, but banning abortions would violate Reproductive Freedoms, which didn't stop the lemmings from voting against Protection for the Partially Born for that reason.

"Unlike that unfortunate proposal, I actually count on that phenomenon assisting this proposal."

OOC: Also, don't a lot of delegates hate proposals that begin with the word 'On'?

I've heard that, but I've never seen it in action.

OOC: They may be prohibited from attacking WA personnel, but haven't you been arguing for the past two weeks or so that non-compliance should be considered acceptable? Put your money where your mouth is and either create a compliance mechanism or accept that some nations are going to attack WA Peacekeepers.

I highly doubt nations would request that WA Peacekeepers show up to monitor their nation, only to then attack those same Peacekeepers. Especially since at least one other nation is involved, which may invoke the attack on Peacekeepers as an excuse to resume hostilities.

Also, my argument wasn't that the Peacekeepers faced no danger, but that they faced no more danger than other WA personnel. The gnomes have a long history of being shot at.

Also, the fact that Peacekeepers could defend themselves from harm was the compliance mechanism.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Neville: You're assuming that most people actually read the proposal. You know that quite a few people are going to look at the title, think that this creates a WA army and vote against for that reason. Yes, creating such an army would violate GA #2, but banning abortions would violate Reproductive Freedoms, which didn't stop the lemmings from voting against Protection for the Partially Born for that reason.

"Unlike that unfortunate proposal, I actually count on that phenomenon assisting this proposal."

Neville: I'm not convinced. Could you perhaps provide an explanation?

OOC: Also, don't a lot of delegates hate proposals that begin with the word 'On'?

I've heard that, but I've never seen it in action.

OOC: Neither have I, to be honest, but I've heard it being said nearly every time. Personally, it seems like such a petty reason to vote against a proposal, especially if it's a high-endorsement delegate who does so.

OOC: They may be prohibited from attacking WA personnel, but haven't you been arguing for the past two weeks or so that non-compliance should be considered acceptable? Put your money where your mouth is and either create a compliance mechanism or accept that some nations are going to attack WA Peacekeepers.

I highly doubt nations would request that WA Peacekeepers show up to monitor their nation, only to then attack those same Peacekeepers. Especially since at least one other nation is involved, which may invoke the attack on Peacekeepers as an excuse to resume hostilities.

Neville: Perhaps the nation requested WA Peacekeepers in bad faith, which there is no compliance mechanism for, and proceeded to attack them when they didn't entertain the nation's demands?

Also, what if the other nation doesn't view this as a casus belli? After reading this debate transcript, I have no idea if WA Peacekeepers are allowed to carry weapons or not. I also have no idea what weapons they are allowed to carry. Could you please clarify this point?

[Excidium Planetis]

"Unlike that unfortunate proposal, I actually count on that phenomenon assisting this proposal."

Neville: I'm not convinced. Could you perhaps provide an explanation?

"I believe the number of nations that would vote for because they mistakenly believe it to create a WA Army would be higher than the number of nations that vote against for that reason."

I highly doubt nations would request that WA Peacekeepers show up to monitor their nation, only to then attack those same Peacekeepers. Especially since at least one other nation is involved, which may invoke the attack on Peacekeepers as an excuse to resume hostilities.

Neville: Perhaps the nation requested WA Peacekeepers in bad faith, which there is no compliance mechanism for, and proceeded to attack them when they didn't entertain the nation's demands?

That was OOC.
Again, then it opens the door for resumed hostilities with the other member nations involved in the peacekeeping effort. Also, they can defend themselves.

Also, what if the other nation doesn't view this as a casus belli?

Well, that sucks for the Peacekeepers, I guess. I think they will be reluctant to be deployed to such nations in the future.

After reading this debate transcript, I have no idea if WA Peacekeepers are allowed to carry weapons or not. I also have no idea what weapons they are allowed to carry. Could you please clarify this point?

WA Personnel are prohibited from carrying lethal weapons on WA property, and shall not be required to carry lethal weapons anywhere. Outside of that, it is up to the gnomes.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Neville: I'm not convinced. Could you perhaps provide an explanation?

"I believe the number of nations that would vote for because they mistakenly believe it to create a WA Army would be higher than the number of nations that vote against for that reason."

Neville: Fair enough. It's a bit of a cynical tactic, relying on the fact that most people would be unaware that a WA army is illegal, but I'm not going to hold that against you.

Neville: Perhaps the nation requested WA Peacekeepers in bad faith, which there is no compliance mechanism for, and proceeded to attack them when they didn't entertain the nation's demands?

That was OOC.

OOC: Dang it, not again. It's been you both times as well. Damn.

Also, what if the other nation doesn't view this as a casus belli?

Well, that sucks for the Peacekeepers, I guess. I think they will be reluctant to be deployed to such nations in the future.

I don't think that the proposal allows WA Peacekeepers to refuse to go to a member nation. Perhaps you should add that?

After reading this debate transcript, I have no idea if WA Peacekeepers are allowed to carry weapons or not. I also have no idea what weapons they are allowed to carry. Could you please clarify this point?

WA Personnel are prohibited from carrying lethal weapons on WA property, and shall not be required to carry lethal weapons anywhere. Outside of that, it is up to the gnomes.

I see. What about non-lethal weapons?

[Excidium Planetis]

I don't think that the proposal allows WA Peacekeepers to refuse to go to a member nation. Perhaps you should add that?

OOC:
Neither is it mentioned that they can't do so. I'd rather leave it up to the gnomes rather than micromanage the Peacekeepers.

I see. What about non-lethal weapons?

Up to the gnomes.

[States of Glory WA Office]

I don't think that the proposal allows WA Peacekeepers to refuse to go to a member nation. Perhaps you should add that?

OOC:
Neither is it mentioned that they can't do so. I'd rather leave it up to the gnomes rather than micromanage the Peacekeepers.

I see. What about non-lethal weapons?

Up to the gnomes.

OOC: Right, thank you for that.

IC: Neville: Well, I see nothing objectionable in this proposal. It only took you...TEN DRAFTS?!

Rowan: A blatant and flagrant waste of paper which is being used to forward a despicable aim. Against.

Neville: Thankfully, I'm the one with the voting privileges. Consider this a 'For' vote.

[Excidium Planetis]

IC: Neville: Well, I see nothing objectionable in this proposal. It only took you...TEN DRAFTS?!

Rowan: A blatant and flagrant waste of paper which is being used to forward a despicable aim. Against.

Neville: Thankfully, I'm the one with the voting privileges. Consider this a 'For' vote.

"If I may, I inquire as to what exactly the purpose is of Ambassador Souldream being present in these august halls." Blackbourne asks.

[States of Glory WA Office]

IC: Neville: Well, I see nothing objectionable in this proposal. It only took you...TEN DRAFTS?!

Rowan: A blatant and flagrant waste of paper which is being used to forward a despicable aim. Against.

Neville: Thankfully, I'm the one with the voting privileges. Consider this a 'For' vote.

"If I may, I inquire as to what exactly the purpose is of Ambassador Souldream being present in these august halls." Blackbourne asks.

Neville: It's a legal fiction. Rowan was elected Ambassador and there's nothing we can do about that, but we can make it so that the Ambassador has little de facto power. If someone more sane gets elected, I suspect that the legislature will change the current policy via a vote.

Rowan: I'm right here, you know. I refuse to believe that I have little power. I've got the fancy title, man.

Neville: I really hate my job sometimes.

OOC: That's the Watsonian explanation anyway. The Doylist explanation would be that I just find it more fun to write Fairburn and Rowan than I do Neville, although Neville is basically a caricature of myself.

[Sandaoguo]

Honestly, it would be a huge mistake to pass this resolution. You can't discuss even basic point of DDR/DDRRR in 5 bullet points comprising only 34 words. Peacekeeping is a whole category unto itself, rather than something to be addressed at one fell swoop.

Peacekeeping historically started with ceasefire observers, and evolved over decades. Why not start simple with one specific thing?

[Excidium Planetis]

Honestly, it would be a huge mistake to pass this resolution. You can't discuss even basic point of DDR/DDRRR in 5 bullet points comprising only 34 words. Peacekeeping is a whole category unto itself, rather than something to be addressed at one fell swoop.

Peacekeeping historically started with ceasefire observers, and evolved over decades. Why not start simple with one specific thing?

OOC?

You know, I could have sworn I modified one of the clauses to allow further resolutions expanding on the outlined duties of Peacekeepers, but I guess that isn't the case.

How about:
"Nothing in this resolution prohibits further resolutions from expanding on the duties of the Peacekeepers as outlined above."

[Imperium Anglorum]

"Nothing in this resolution prohibits further resolutions from expanding on the duties of the Peacekeepers as outlined above."

Duplication-contradiction? Would spawn quite the legality challenge.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Nothing in this resolution prohibits further resolutions from expanding on the duties of the Peacekeepers as outlined above."

Duplication-contradiction? Would spawn quite the legality challenge.

OOC: Expanding, as opposed to reducing, wouldn't provide more than mild Duplication, which has always been acceptable in the interest of clarifying or diversifying duties.


That said, I have to agree with G-R entirely: this is such a complex dance between legislative jiggerypokery and geopolitical balance that incremental steps are likely to go over better than a revolutionary resolution.

Say that five times fast... Revolutionary Resolution, Revolutionary Revolution, Resolutonary Revolution...

[Auralia]

I'm sorry, but I don't see how a proposal of this nature is workable absent a repeal of GAR #2.

The unfortunate reality is that any peacekeeping forces established by the World Assembly will likely be unable to use force under any circumstances -- even in cases of immediate self-defense -- out of fear that such actions constitute "participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner". They probably won't even be allowed to carry weapons. In fact, the author acknowledges this when you state that the peacekeepers "are not a military force, nor are they ever to be used as such, nor shall they be required to carry arms."

History has shown that this is a recipe for disaster; you cannot send peacekeepers into unstable former conflict zones without giving them the right and ability to defend themselves. I strongly urge the author to hold off on submitting any proposal of this nature until GAR #2 is repealed.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: Say that five times fast... Revolutionary Resolution, Revolutionary Revolution, Resolutonary Revolution...

OOC: You know, if you want to summon Revolutionary Resolution, all you have to do is say its name three times in front of a mirror.

IC: Surely, we wouldn't even need Peacekeepers if war was banned, right? There's some food for thought.

[Imperium Anglorum]

IC: Surely, we wouldn't even need Peacekeepers if war was banned, right? There's some food for thought.

PARSONS: I hear Allemania is sending peacekeepers into Gaul. They are totally not invading Gaul.

[Sciongrad]

... if war was banned, right? There's some food for thought.

Ricardo looks up quickly with a wry grin. "Hmmm, that gives me an idea for a resolution..."

[Imperium Anglorum]

... if war was banned, right? There's some food for thought.

Ricardo looks up quickly with a wry grin. "Hmmm, that gives me an idea for a resolution..."

PARSONS: To quote a friend of mine, mass duelling will be a thing.

[States of Glory WA Office]

IC: Surely, we wouldn't even need Peacekeepers if war was banned, right? There's some food for thought.

PARSONS: I hear Allemania is sending peacekeepers into Gaul. They are totally not invading Gaul.

They may not be invading, but what's the point of keeping the peace if peace is already required? It's a waste of resources, man.

[Imperium Anglorum]

PARSONS: I hear Allemania is sending peacekeepers into Gaul. They are totally not invading Gaul.

They may not be invading, but what's the point of keeping the peace if peace is already required? It's a waste of resources, man.

It's a preemptive peacekeeping mission to prevent Gallic aggression into Allemania. (cries a river) We are just defending ourselves! Are you going to say we do not have a right to protect our families and nation from enemy attack?!

[Sandaoguo]

You know, I could have sworn I modified one of the clauses to allow further resolutions expanding on the outlined duties of Peacekeepers, but I guess that isn't the case.

That's not really the point I was trying to make. This resolution doesn't do much, because everything is left between the lines. How are the "WA Peacekeepers" going to do DDRRR? What the rules for ceasefire observance? How will the WA Peacekeepers maintain an image of neutrality? How much authority will they have? What happens with the arms they collect during disarmament? How far can they go in reorganizing a government-- can they set up a transitional administration themselves? Is democracy required? All of these things can have their own resolutions.

But when you decide to cover them all vaguely in one proposal, there's the high likelihood that future proposals will be mired in legality challenges, or have the fight against the "haven't we already done this?" crowd. This has happened every other time the GA passed an omnibus resolution.

What I encourage is picking one specific part of peacekeeping, researching the hell out of it, and then writing a resolution about that one specific part. We'd get a much higher quality resolution out of that.

[Excidium Planetis]

You know, I could have sworn I modified one of the clauses to allow further resolutions expanding on the outlined duties of Peacekeepers, but I guess that isn't the case.

That's not really the point I was trying to make. This resolution doesn't do much, because everything is left between the lines.

"Prohibiting offensive military action is not between the lines." Schultz, surprisingly, answers.

Blackbourne seems to be absent right now.

How are the "WA Peacekeepers" going to do DDRRR?

"How does the GAO assess member nation contributions?" Schultz asks.

What the rules for ceasefire observance?

"I imagine they have to be in compliance with Convention on Ceasefires."

How will the WA Peacekeepers maintain an image of neutrality?

"Gnomes are incorruptible."

How much authority will they have?

"The authority needed to carry out their duties while not conflicting with other WA resolutions, presumably. Perhaps this point could be clarified, however."

What happens with the arms they collect during disarmament?

"Where do your funds go when they get contributed to the General Fund?"

How far can they go in reorganizing a government-- can they set up a transitional administration themselves?

"Wouldn't that conflict with GA#2?"

Is democracy required?

"No. I'm not even sure how one could argue that from the text."

All of these things can have their own resolutions.

"Indeed they can. And if you think it is necessary to micromanage how they do their job, then you can write one of those resolutions."

But when you decide to cover them all vaguely in one proposal, there's the high likelihood that future proposals will be mired in legality challenges, or have the fight against the "haven't we already done this?" crowd. This has happened every other time the GA passed an omnibus resolution.

"And yet the GA has passed many such resolutions."

What I encourage is picking one specific part of peacekeeping, researching the hell out of it, and then writing a resolution about that one specific part. We'd get a much higher quality resolution out of that.

"But that requires the Peacekeepers to either be permanently stuck with one job, and a new committee to be created for each action, or for the Peacekeepers to be allowed to be given new duties not listed here, which opens the door for roles that are military in nature. It needs to be a blocker. It can't unless it already lists all their roles and says they can't perform anything else except those."