[ABANDONED] Affirmative Action Accord

[States of Glory WA Office]

Affirmative Action Accord
Category: Advancement of Industry | Area of Effect: Labor Deregulation

The World Assembly,

NOTING that previous resolutions passed by this august organisation champion the cause of equal opportunity,

ACKNOWLEDGING that legitimate disagreement may exist on whether affirmative action, including the use of quota systems, furthers this cause or hinders this cause,

BELIEVING, therefore, that member states should not be prevented from deciding on how best to respond to this controversy, so long as the spirit of equal opportunity is maintained,

HEREBY:

1. DEFINES affirmative action, for the purposes of this resolution, as the favouring of an individual in employment or in education based on an innate characteristic in cases where individuals with said characteristic are considered in good faith to be at a societal disadvantage,
   
   
2. DEFINES a quota system, for the purposes of this resolution, as a method of achieving affirmative action in which a fixed percentage of places in a work or educational centre is allocated to individuals based on an innate characteristic in cases where individuals with said characteristic are considered in good faith to be at a societal disadvantage,
   
   
3. AFFIRMS that member states retain the absolute right to decide for themselves whether to pursue affirmative action, including any quota systems, in state education and/or employment, except for any restrictions placed by this resolution and by prior unrepealed WA legislation,
   
   
4. AFFIRMS that member states retain the absolute right to decide for themselves whether to compel private businesses and/or educational centres to pursue affirmative action, including any quota systems, except for any restrictions placed by this resolution and by prior unrepealed WA legislation,
   
   
5. REQUIRES that those member states that pursue affirmative action, including any quota systems, must end the practice for individuals with a particular innate characteristic once said individuals are no longer considered in good faith to be at a societal disadvantage,
   
   
6. REQUIRES that those member states that compel private businesses and/or educational centres to pursue affirmative action, including any quota systems, must compel private businesses and/or educational centres to end the practice for individuals with a particular innate characteristic once said individuals are no longer considered in good faith to be at a societal disadvantage,
   
   
7. PROHIBITS member states from implementing or from compelling private businesses and/or educational centres to implement a quota system in which at least ten percent more places are allocated to individuals with an innate characteristic than is representative of the total population of that member state.

OOC: OK, let's deal with the elephant in the room. Does this proposal duplicate and/or contradict GA #35 a.k.a The Charter of Civil Rights?

On a further note, I am unsure of which category fits this best, though my instinct is to go with Human Rights.

Also, in case you're wondering, I do plan on submitting this proposal if it is found to be legal. In my opinion, a blocker is the only acceptable way for the World Assembly to deal with the matter of affirmative action.

Affirmative Action Accord
Category: Human Rights (Moral Decency?) | Strength: Mild

The World Assembly,

NOTING that previous resolutions passed by this august organisation champion the cause of equal opportunity,

ACKNOWLEDGING that legitimate disagreement may exist on whether affirmative action furthers this cause or hinders this cause,

BELIEVING, therefore, that member states should not be prevented from deciding on how best to respond to this controversy,

HEREBY:

1) DEFINES affirmative action, for the purposes of this resolution, as the favouring of a sapient being in employment or in education based on an innate characteristic in cases where beings with said characteristic are considered in good faith to be at a societal disadvantage,

2) GRANTS member states the absolute right to decide for themselves whether to pursue affirmative action, except for any restrictions placed by this resolution and by extant WA legislation,

3) REQUIRES member states that utilise affirmative action to end the practice for sapient beings with a particular innate characteristic once said beings are no longer considered in good faith to be at a societal disadvantage.

Affirmative Action Accord
Category: Human Rights (Moral Decency?) | Strength: Mild

The World Assembly,

NOTING that previous resolutions passed by this august organisation champion the cause of equal opportunity,

ACKNOWLEDGING that legitimate disagreement may exist on whether affirmative action furthers this cause or hinders this cause,

BELIEVING, therefore, that member states should not be prevented from deciding on how best to respond to this controversy,

HEREBY:

1) DEFINES affirmative action, for the purposes of this resolution, as the favouring of an individual in education or in employment based on an innate characteristic in cases where individuals with said characteristic are considered in good faith to be at a societal disadvantage,

2) GRANTS member states the absolute right to decide for themselves whether to pursue affirmative action in state education and/or employment, except for any restrictions placed by this resolution and by extant WA legislation,

3) GRANTS member states the absolute right to decide for themselves whether to compel private businesses and/or educational centres to pursue affirmative action, except for any restrictions placed by this resolution and by extant WA legislation,

4) REQUIRES that those member states which pursue affirmative action must end the practice for individuals with a particular innate characteristic once said individuals are no longer considered in good faith to be at a societal disadvantage,

5) REQUIRES that those member states which compel private businesses and/or educational centres to pursue affirmative action must compel private businesses and/or educational centres to end the practice for individuals with a particular innate characteristic once said individuals are no longer considered in good faith to be at a societal disadvantage.

Affirmative Action Accord
Category: Advancement of Industry | Area of Effect: Labor Deregulation

The World Assembly,

NOTING that previous resolutions passed by this august organisation champion the cause of equal opportunity,

ACKNOWLEDGING that legitimate disagreement may exist on whether affirmative action, including the use of quota systems, furthers this cause or hinders this cause,

BELIEVING, therefore, that member states should not be prevented from deciding on how best to respond to this controversy, so long as the spirit of equal opportunity is maintained,

HEREBY:

1. DEFINES affirmative action, for the purposes of this resolution, as the favouring of an individual in employment or in education based on an innate characteristic in cases where individuals with said characteristic are considered in good faith to be at a societal disadvantage,
   
   
2. DEFINES a quota system, for the purposes of this resolution, as a method of achieving affirmative action in which a fixed percentage of places in a work or educational centre is allocated to individuals based on an innate characteristic in cases where individuals with said characteristic are considered in good faith to be at a societal disadvantage,
   
   
3. GRANTS member states the absolute right to decide for themselves whether to pursue affirmative action, including any quota systems, in state education and/or employment, except for any restrictions placed by this resolution and by extant WA legislation,
   
   
4. GRANTS member states the absolute right to decide for themselves whether to compel private businesses and/or educational centres to pursue affirmative action, including any quota systems, except for any restrictions placed by this resolution and by extant WA legislation,
   
   
5. REQUIRES that those member states that pursue affirmative action, including any quota systems, must end the practice for individuals with a particular innate characteristic once said individuals are no longer considered in good faith to be at a societal disadvantage,
   
   
6. REQUIRES that those member states that compel private businesses and/or educational centres to pursue affirmative action, including any quota systems, must compel private businesses and/or educational centres to end the practice for individuals with a particular innate characteristic once said individuals are no longer considered in good faith to be at a societal disadvantage,
   
   
7. PROHIBITS member states from implementing or from compelling private businesses and/or educational centres to implement a quota system in which at least ten percent more places are allocated to individuals with an innate characteristic than is representative of the total population.

[Wallenburg]

"As written, this applies only to prospective government employees. Is this intended?"

[States of Glory WA Office]

"As written, this applies only to prospective government employees. Is this intended?"

Neville: Yes.
Fairburn: (at the same time) No.

...

Fairburn: Yes.
Neville: (at the same time) No.

...

[Sciongrad]

"Sciongrad does not believe affirmative action constitutes a violation of GAR#35, but we also struggle to understand why this resolution is necessary. Affirmative action that favors a group that is not underrepresented or underprivileged would be a violation of CoCR because such discrimination would a) lack a "compelling practical purposes," and b), would be based on reductive categorization. In other words, the only thing this resolution seems to do, besides blocking future legislation on affirmative action, is already covered by CoCR itself.

Unless I've missed something, in which case, please correct me."

OOC: Also, I understand why you used it, but the phrase "sapient being" is just such an awkward construction. I feel like "individual" would work just as well.

[States of Glory WA Office]

"Sciongrad does not believe affirmative action constitutes a violation of GAR#35, but we also struggle to understand why this resolution is necessary. Affirmative action that favors a group that is not underrepresented or underprivileged would be a violation of CoCR because such discrimination would a) lack a "compelling practical purposes," and b), would be based on reductive categorization. In other words, the only thing this resolution seems to do, besides blocking future legislation on affirmative action, is already covered by CoCR itself.

Unless I've missed something, in which case, please correct me."

Neville: I can think of three interpretations.

1) Affirmative action is forbidden by CoCR; therefore, this proposal contradicts CoCR
2) Affirmative action is allowed by CoCR; therefore, this proposal duplicates CoCR
3) CoCR is ambiguous on affirmative action; therefore, this proposal is needed for clarification purposes

You seem to follow the second interpretation, which is a perfectly valid interpretation. I, however, follow the third interpretation and therefore believe that the WA needs to pass a blocker. While affirmative action may count as a compelling purpose, I'm not convinced that it counts as a practical purpose. At the same time, however, I'm not convinced that it doesn't count as a practical purpose.

OOC: Also, I understand why you used it, but the phrase "sapient being" is just such an awkward construction. I feel like "individual" would work just as well.

OOC: Yeah, you're right. That would probably be better. Thanks for that.

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: I've changed 'sapients beings' to 'individuals' (thanks, Sciongrad!) and I've tried to address non-governmental roles (thanks, Wallenburg(!)).

[Wallenburg]

"I am glad to see that the Ambassador has clarified his proposal, although the clauses could probably be streamlined to eliminate repetition. As it is, I suspect that this contradicts the anti-discrimination mandates of 'Charter of Civil Rights', as it explicitly allows for discrimination against 'socially advantaged' individuals based upon arbitrary and innate characteristics. Unless the Secretariat rules that this proposal is, indeed, legal, I will have to oppose it."

[Hannasea]

OOC: It's a bit disappointing this doesn't simply ban affirmative action, as it would have been fun to see whether you could break the record for the most successful resolution in WA history, maybe even crack 99% for.

That said on the legality issue, what is the point of pursuing a legality question just as WA rules moderation is about to change? Any mod ruling you get may be moot almost immediately.

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: It's a bit disappointing this doesn't simply ban affirmative action, as it would have been fun to see whether you could break the record for the most successful resolution in WA history, maybe even crack 99% for.

OOC: Considering how left-leaning NS is, I suspect that such a resolution would be met with explicit disapproval.

That said on the legality issue, what is the point of pursuing a legality question just as WA rules moderation is about to change? Any mod ruling you get may be moot almost immediately.

OOC: You're right in that there is no guarantee that the Council will agree with the Mods on whether this proposal is legal. However, there is a possibility that the two will agree with each other, and in any case, since this is mainly an issue of duplication/contradiction, the opinions of the regulars should hopefully hold more weight than if this were, say, an issue of game mechanics.

Also, unlike National Taxation Act, pursuing a legality question isn't the sole point of this proposal. I could just have easily have banned or mandated affirmative action if that were the case, but I wanted to put forward a proposal which I actually agreed with.

[Sciongrad]

You seem to follow the second interpretation, which is a perfectly valid interpretation. I, however, follow the third interpretation and therefore believe that the WA needs to pass a blocker. While affirmative action may count as a compelling purpose, I'm not convinced that it counts as a practical purpose. At the same time, however, I'm not convinced that it doesn't count as a practical purpose.

"My only concern with the third interpretation is that by passing a single clarifying resolution, we call into question whether other worthwhile forms of positive discrimination are valid interpretations of GAR#35. In other words, by passing a clarifying resolution, we must necessarily assume that the original may not itself permit affirmative action. In the absence of legislation, a reasonable member nation will simply interpret the ambiguity in whichever way best aligns with their interests. But if we clarify specific examples, then we must clarify all similar examples. Again, this is certainly not duplication (OOC: Ard has previously ruled that because CoCR is so broad, any number of specific resolutions shouldn't constitute duplication), but I question whether or not it's good policy."

[Christian Democrats]

We agree with the Scionite delegation. We don't believe this proposal is necessary.

All we have to add is our concern that this proposal might violate Resolution 205 (Freedom to Contract) or Resolution 302 (Individual Working Freedoms). The former resolution prohibits member states from infringing on contractual rights, unless infringements are both necessary and compelling. The latter resolution encourages member states to ensure their populations "the greatest possible degree of freedom" in matters of employment. An encouragement clause certainly does not forbid individual nations from implementing affirmative action policies; but it might preclude the passage of international legislation countenancing practices, such as affirmative action, that undermine liberty in labor relations.

For the record, our delegation voted against both of the above resolutions.

[States of Glory WA Office]

You seem to follow the second interpretation, which is a perfectly valid interpretation. I, however, follow the third interpretation and therefore believe that the WA needs to pass a blocker. While affirmative action may count as a compelling purpose, I'm not convinced that it counts as a practical purpose. At the same time, however, I'm not convinced that it doesn't count as a practical purpose.

"My only concern with the third interpretation is that by passing a single clarifying resolution, we call into question whether other worthwhile forms of positive discrimination are valid interpretations of GAR#35. In other words, by passing a clarifying resolution, we must necessarily assume that the original may not itself permit affirmative action.

Neville: I don't quite follow. Could you please rephrase that?

In the absence of legislation, a reasonable member nation will simply interpret the ambiguity in whichever way best aligns with their interests.

Neville: That is certainly the status quo. However, what's to stop some other nation from passing a resolution which either mandates or forbids affirmative action? Like all blockers, this proposal is intended to prevent the WA from legislating on a particular topic; in this case, affirmative action.

All we have to add is our concern that this proposal might violate Resolution 205 (Freedom to Contract) or Resolution 302 (Individual Working Freedoms). The former resolution prohibits member states from infringing on contractual rights, unless infringements are both necessary and compelling. The latter resolution encourages member states to ensure their populations "the greatest possible degree of freedom" in matters of employment. An encouragement clause certainly does not forbid individual nations from implementing affirmative action policies; but it might preclude the passage of international legislation countenancing practices, such as affirmative action, that undermine liberty in labor relations.

Neville: In regards to Resolution 205, some member states may have a good-faith belief that affirmative action is necessary to meet some compelling public policy interest. Therefore, I'd argue that there is no contradiction.

In regards to Resolution 302, while it's clearly meant to apply especially to working time, I agree that it can also apply to other matters of employment. Is it even possible to duplicate or contradict an encouragement, though? I'm not well-versed in previous precedent regarding this issue.

[Sciongrad]

Neville: I don't quite follow. Could you please rephrase that?

"Gladly. Currently, there is ambiguity, and therefore, a reasonable member nation will interpret it in whatever way aligns with their interests. By passing a resolution that seeks to clarify, you undermine the position that certain reasonable forms of discrimination are compatible with CoCR in the absence of specific legislation. In this delegation's opinion, if you create a special clarifying resolution for one ambiguity in CoCR, you must clarify them all, otherwise, we must assume that a) all types of reasonable discrimination except those explicitly recognized by clarifying resolutions are violations of CoCR, or b) this proposal is totally superfluous. I think that certain resolutions that expand on GAR#35 are acceptable, but only when a reasonable ambiguity might be abused. I don't see how this particular ambiguity could be abused, and even if I could, this resolution would not do anything except recognize that a reasonable ambiguity exists and that member nations can continue interpreting the resolution in whatever way they please."

Neville: That is certainly the status quo. However, what's to stop some other nation from passing a resolution which either mandates or forbids affirmative action? Like all blockers, this proposal is intended to prevent the WA from legislating on a particular topic; in this case, affirmative action.

"We would argue that a WA-wide ban on affirmative action would contradict CoCR. GAR#35 quite obviously states that discrimination is permissible for 'compelling, practical purposes.' Foreclosing anything that may reasonably be considered a 'compelling, practical purpose' would constitute a contradiction violation."

[Christian Democrats]

All we have to add is our concern that this proposal might violate Resolution 205 (Freedom to Contract) or Resolution 302 (Individual Working Freedoms). The former resolution prohibits member states from infringing on contractual rights, unless infringements are both necessary and compelling. The latter resolution encourages member states to ensure their populations "the greatest possible degree of freedom" in matters of employment. An encouragement clause certainly does not forbid individual nations from implementing affirmative action policies; but it might preclude the passage of international legislation countenancing practices, such as affirmative action, that undermine liberty in labor relations.

Neville: In regards to Resolution 205, some member states may have a good-faith belief that affirmative action is necessary to meet some compelling public policy interest. Therefore, I'd argue that there is no contradiction.

Let's refer back to your proposal. According to the current draft, nations would have an "absolute right . . . to pursue affirmative action." But this "absolute right" would contradict Resolution 205's guarantee of liberty of contract. Resolution 205 permits nations to restrict liberty of contract only under necessary and compelling conditions. Surely, in a lot of nations, there are not necessary and compelling reasons for affirmative action. Thus, giving these nations an "absolute right" to pursue affirmative action would undercut Resolution 205.

An alternative to your proposal would be a proposal that allows affirmative action but only in those nations where there are necessary and compelling reasons for such discrimination. But, now, you'd be running afoul of the Optionality Rule.

In regards to Resolution 302, while it's clearly meant to apply especially to working time, I agree that it can also apply to other matters of employment. Is it even possible to duplicate or contradict an encouragement, though? I'm not well-versed in previous precedent regarding this issue.

I think it's possible. Imagine that a resolution is passed which says: "Encourages all nations to take practical steps to combat suicide in all forms." Later, a bill is proposed which says: "Protects the right of individuals to assisted suicide paid by the government." The encouragement clause does not, of course, block individual member states from legalizing and funding assisted suicide; but it would be rather absurd (would it not?) for the GA simultaneously to maintain resolutions that encourage combating suicide and that protect suicide as a positive right.

[Araraukar]

OOC: This is one of those proposals that I'm trying to sit out on, since I highly disagree with the "CoCR is so vague you can make further antidiscriminatory resolutions" ruling.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Neville: I don't quite follow. Could you please rephrase that?

"Gladly. Currently, there is ambiguity, and therefore, a reasonable member nation will interpret it in whatever way aligns with their interests. By passing a resolution that seeks to clarify, you undermine the position that certain reasonable forms of discrimination are compatible with CoCR in the absence of specific legislation. In this delegation's opinion, if you create a special clarifying resolution for one ambiguity in CoCR, you must clarify them all, otherwise, we must assume that a) all types of reasonable discrimination except those explicitly recognized by clarifying resolutions are violations of CoCR, or b) this proposal is totally superfluous. I think that certain resolutions that expand on GAR#35 are acceptable, but only when a reasonable ambiguity might be abused. I don't see how this particular ambiguity could be abused, and even if I could, this resolution would not do anything except recognize that a reasonable ambiguity exists and that member nations can continue interpreting the resolution in whatever way they please."

OOC: OK, this is probably going to annoy you, but I still don't entirely get what you're trying to say. If I'm understanding correctly, you're arguing that if one CoCR ambiguity is addressed, all CoCR ambiguities must be addressed. Would this be correct?

Neville: That is certainly the status quo. However, what's to stop some other nation from passing a resolution which either mandates or forbids affirmative action? Like all blockers, this proposal is intended to prevent the WA from legislating on a particular topic; in this case, affirmative action.

"We would argue that a WA-wide ban on affirmative action would contradict CoCR. GAR#35 quite obviously states that discrimination is permissible for 'compelling, practical purposes.' Foreclosing anything that may reasonably be considered a 'compelling, practical purpose' would constitute a contradiction violation."

Neville: Very well then. What's to stop the WA from mandating affirmative action?

Neville: In regards to Resolution 205, some member states may have a good-faith belief that affirmative action is necessary to meet some compelling public policy interest. Therefore, I'd argue that there is no contradiction.

Let's refer back to your proposal. According to the current draft, nations would have an "absolute right . . . to pursue affirmative action." But this "absolute right" would contradict Resolution 205's guarantee of liberty of contract. Resolution 205 permits nations to restrict liberty of contract only under necessary and compelling conditions. Surely, in a lot of nations, there are not necessary and compelling reasons for affirmative action. Thus, giving these nations an "absolute right" to pursue affirmative action would undercut Resolution 205.

Neville: While you make a good argument, it has already been addressed. Clauses Two and Three state that the restrictions which have already been applied by the WA still apply. Therefore, if a member state's affirmative action policy would violate GA #205, they lose the absolute right to pursue that policy.

In regards to Resolution 302, while it's clearly meant to apply especially to working time, I agree that it can also apply to other matters of employment. Is it even possible to duplicate or contradict an encouragement, though? I'm not well-versed in previous precedent regarding this issue.

I think it's possible. Imagine that a resolution is passed which says: "Encourages all nations to take practical steps to combat suicide in all forms." Later, a bill is proposed which says: "Protects the right of individuals to assisted suicide paid by the government." The encouragement clause does not, of course, block individual member states from legalizing and funding assisted suicide; but it would be rather absurd (would it not?) for the GA simultaneously to maintain resolutions that encourage combating suicide and that protect suicide as a positive right.

Neville: I have no counterargument to this, I'm afraid. Do you think that there is any way for this proposal not to contradict GA #302?

OOC: Also, while we're at it, any suggestions on the category? Affirmative action is a...tricky topic, to say the least.

[Sciongrad]

OOC: OK, this is probably going to annoy you, but I still don't entirely get what you're trying to say. If I'm understanding correctly, you're arguing that if one CoCR ambiguity is addressed, all CoCR ambiguities must be addressed. Would this be correct?

OOC: No worries, Natalia is making a fairly legalistic argument, rather than a policy-oriented one. I'm essentially saying that if there is ambiguity - which there is - then one can only claim that an implied right exists if the ambiguity remains. As soon as you write a resolution that seeks to clarify, you're now implying legally that those rights don't exist in the original, and need to be legislated upon separately. Here's an example: while debating the constitution, anti-federalists wanted to include a bill of rights protecting certain rights. Federalists countered that by including a bill of rights, they were then suggesting that the constitution itself doesn't protect those rights. This is not a particularly intuitive argument, so I understand if it's confusing or if I'm not articulating it clearly. So, short answer: yes, if we address one CoCR ambiguity (at least, as far as the compelling, practical purposes clause is concerned), then we must address them all.

Neville: Very well then. What's to stop the WA from mandating affirmative action?

"How could the World Assembly possible pass a resolution that mandates affirmative action? How would it work? Would a committee be drawn up to identify all the underprivileged groups in every country and in every industry, university, and place of employment, and mandate that each individual employer, admissions committee, government bureaucrat comply with affirmative action measures? Who would determine what constitutes a violation? How would this even pass in the first place? I think an international affirmative action regime is simply unrealistic. And even if someone could devise a system that wouldn't be monstrously unwieldy, the odds of it passing are probably very slim.

[Christian Democrats]

Let's refer back to your proposal. According to the current draft, nations would have an "absolute right . . . to pursue affirmative action." But this "absolute right" would contradict Resolution 205's guarantee of liberty of contract. Resolution 205 permits nations to restrict liberty of contract only under necessary and compelling conditions. Surely, in a lot of nations, there are not necessary and compelling reasons for affirmative action. Thus, giving these nations an "absolute right" to pursue affirmative action would undercut Resolution 205.

Neville: While you make a good argument, it has already been addressed. Clauses Two and Three state that the restrictions which have already been applied by the WA still apply. Therefore, if a member state's affirmative action policy would violate GA #205, they lose the absolute right to pursue that policy.

Thus, it's not an absolute right. Your proposal needs to be reworded.

If your proposal, as you say, does nothing but protect nations' power to pursue policies that they're already free to pursue under COCR and Freedom to Contract, what's its point? In other words, how is this proposal not a pure blocker? Furthermore, if its application is limited to nations where necessary and compelling conditions exist for affirmative action, how is this proposal not violative of the Optionality Rule?

I think it's possible. Imagine that a resolution is passed which says: "Encourages all nations to take practical steps to combat suicide in all forms." Later, a bill is proposed which says: "Protects the right of individuals to assisted suicide paid by the government." The encouragement clause does not, of course, block individual member states from legalizing and funding assisted suicide; but it would be rather absurd (would it not?) for the GA simultaneously to maintain resolutions that encourage combating suicide and that protect suicide as a positive right.

Neville: I have no counterargument to this, I'm afraid. Do you think that there is any way for this proposal not to contradict GA #302?

Gruen passed Individual Working Freedoms to block labor legislation on hiring and firing workers. His immediate target was my proposal to prohibit employers from firing or refusing to hire wage laborers who refuse to work more than 50 hours per week. That said, he used broad language in the first section of his resolution. It'll be difficult, if not impossible, to circumvent it.

OOC: Also, while we're at it, any suggestions on the category? Affirmative action is a...tricky topic, to say the least.

Promoting affirmative action = social justice.
Opposing affirmative action = advancement of industry (labor deregulation).

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: OK, this is probably going to annoy you, but I still don't entirely get what you're trying to say. If I'm understanding correctly, you're arguing that if one CoCR ambiguity is addressed, all CoCR ambiguities must be addressed. Would this be correct?

OOC: No worries, Natalia is making a fairly legalistic argument, rather than a policy-oriented one. I'm essentially saying that if there is ambiguity - which there is - then one can only claim that an implied right exists if the ambiguity remains. As soon as you write a resolution that seeks to clarify, you're now implying legally that those rights don't exist in the original, and need to be legislated upon separately. Here's an example: while debating the constitution, anti-federalists wanted to include a bill of rights protecting certain rights. Federalists countered that by including a bill of rights, they were then suggesting that the constitution itself doesn't protect those rights. This is not a particularly intuitive argument, so I understand if it's confusing or if I'm not articulating it clearly. So, short answer: yes, if we address one CoCR ambiguity (at least, as far as the compelling, practical purposes clause is concerned), then we must address them all.

OOC: What other ambiguities are present in CoCR?

Neville: Very well then. What's to stop the WA from mandating affirmative action?

"How could the World Assembly possible pass a resolution that mandates affirmative action?

Fairburn: Easy. Have enough delegations vote for it. That's kind of how things work here, Ambassador Santa.

How would it work? Would a committee be drawn up to identify all the underprivileged groups in every country and in every industry, university, and place of employment, and mandate that each individual employer, admissions committee, government bureaucrat comply with affirmative action measures? Who would determine what constitutes a violation? How would this even pass in the first place? I think an international affirmative action regime is simply unrealistic.

Fairburn: All you're doing is providing more reasons why we should prevent such a resolution from passing!

And even if someone could devise a system that wouldn't be monstrously unwieldy, the odds of it passing are probably very slim.

Fairburn: Didn't people say the same thing about World Space Administration?

Neville: While you make a good argument, it has already been addressed. Clauses Two and Three state that the restrictions which have already been applied by the WA still apply. Therefore, if a member state's affirmative action policy would violate GA #205, they lose the absolute right to pursue that policy.

Thus, it's not an absolute right. Your proposal needs to be reworded.

Neville: What do you mean? Apart from the restrictions placed by this proposal and by previous resolutions, the right is absolute. If a member state can't pursue affirmative action without violating GA #205, that counts as a restriction by a previous resolution, which is already covered.

If your proposal, as you say, does nothing but protect nations' power to pursue policies that they're already free to pursue under COCR and Freedom to Contract, what's its point? In other words, how is this proposal not a pure blocker?

Neville: You appear to be conveniently ignoring Clauses Four and Five. Still, I'll try to see what other requirements I can add.

Furthermore, if its application is limited to nations where necessary and compelling conditions exist for affirmative action, how is this proposal not violative of the Optionality Rule?

Neville: The same way that resolutions about sea boundaries are limited to sea-bordering nations yet aren't considered optional.

Neville: I have no counterargument to this, I'm afraid. Do you think that there is any way for this proposal not to contradict GA #302?

Gruen passed Individual Working Freedoms to block labor legislation on hiring and firing workers. His immediate target was my proposal to prohibit employers from firing or refusing to hire wage laborers who refuse to work more than 50 hours per week. That said, he used broad language in the first section of his resolution. It'll be difficult, if not impossible, to circumvent it.

OOC: Looks like it's back to the drawing-board, then.

OOC: Also, while we're at it, any suggestions on the category? Affirmative action is a...tricky topic, to say the least.

Promoting affirmative action = social justice.
Opposing affirmative action = advancement of industry (labor deregulation).

OOC: Yeah, the current draft doesn't really fit in to either of those. I'm actually a little disappointed that SP and Wallenburg aren't duking it out over whether CoCR forbids affirmative action.

I'll have to think more about this. Consider this draft to be on-hold.

[Separatist Peoples]

Promoting affirmative action = social justice.
Opposing affirmative action = advancement of industry (labor deregulation).

OOC: Yeah, the current draft doesn't really fit in to either of those. I'm actually a little disappointed that SP and Wallenburg aren't duking it out over whether CoCR forbids affirmative action.

I'll have to think more about this. Consider this draft to be on-hold.

OOC: I want to wade in on the conflict with IWF, but I simply don't have the time to do the research at the moment.

I think we aren't battling over it because you've pretty clearly demonstrated an ambiguity, and the general treatment of ambiguity is that, where ambiguity is being clarified, minor duplication is acceptable.

The prevention of discrimination isn't infinite, or we wouldn't be able to chose between qualified and unqualified candidates, as that would be experiential discrimination. So it makes sense that there is acceptable discrimination, and since the limits of that are not clear in regards to systemically socially underprivileged groups (the limits of which may or may not correlate with race or ethnicity or another explicitly enumerated quality), there is room to work.

For what it's worth, there was a significant SCOTUS debate on this in Ashecroft v. Iqbal, which, in addition to upsetting the pleading process in federal court, established that the mass incarceration of Muslim men after 9/11 was not based on discrimination by protected attributes, but demonstrated an incidental correlation. The majority (5/4 iirc) basically found that, based on where the threat came from, it was inevitable that Muslim men were going to be overrepresented in the arrest numbers. The same can be said for righting a social injustice in NS.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Gruen passed Individual Working Freedoms to block labor legislation on hiring and firing workers. His immediate target was my proposal to prohibit employers from firing or refusing to hire wage laborers who refuse to work more than 50 hours per week...

OOC: Huh. I thought the target was something much worse - if I'd seen yours I might not have been so blasé about IWF...

[Gruenberg]

Gruen passed Individual Working Freedoms to block labor legislation on hiring and firing workers. His immediate target was my proposal to prohibit employers from firing or refusing to hire wage laborers who refuse to work more than 50 hours per week...

OOC: Huh. I thought the target was something much worse - if I'd seen yours I might not have been so blasé about IWF...

OOC: From memory, it wasn't "targeted" at any specific proposal, we were just going through one of those periods where everyone and their aunt has a 40 hour working week proposal draft, so I revived my blocker. I also don't think the resolution would be interpreted as the kind of sweeping blocker some here are fearing, especially given one of its main opponents was an "adorable NatSov" inexplicably opposed to national sovereignty in labour law who is coincidentally also a moderator, so in that sense it's a shame this has been abandoned.

That said, I stand by my belief a proposal banning affirmative action would pass sweepingly. NS may be "left leaning", but most of its users are young white people. Don't think affirmative action polls the same way among NS users as other liberal issues like abortion or gay rights do!!

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: Calm down, everyone. This hasn't been abandoned. I'm not giving up that easily. I just need some time to do a little more research. This is one of those issues where I need to tread on eggshells.

Don't think affirmative action polls the same way among NS users as other liberal issues like abortion or gay rights do!!

OOC: Hey, let's not pretend that the issue of abortion is free from controversy when it comes to the WA.

[Ochea]

Throughout the resolution, you say "considered in good faith" multiple times. I would recommend defining or replacing this, because nations may have different definitions of what "in good faith" means. It is a very abstract and vague term, and a nation could bypass clauses four and five by having a different idea of what "in good faith" means than you do.

[Araraukar]

Throughout the resolution, you say "considered in good faith" multiple times. I would recommend defining or replacing this, because nations may have different definitions of what "in good faith" means. It is a very abstract and vague term, and a nation could bypass clauses four and five by having a different idea of what "in good faith" means than you do.

A nation that really wants to bypass clauses, can most likely faff with its legislation in a manner that lets it do that, regardless of whether the clauses read "in good faith" or not. At least including it means that such cases can be said to be "in bad faith" and thus non-compliant.