World Police Discussion-Split from Multilateral Arbitration

[NERVUN]

Mod Edit: This is a split from Unibot's ICA thread to discuss the ruling made in it (Since it was starting to clutter up the draft thread). Any further discussion about the decision goes here. Unibot's original thread should be about the resolution only.

Sorry this took us so long to get back to, but given the WA police thing, we ended up pounding our heads together for some time trying to get the right angle.

In terms of legality for the WA Police: At this point in time, kinda. The legal eagles had a nice stealcage match and came up with the following. Your court, acting as a court (i.e. ruling on the crime of a stateless person) is not forming the WA Police. The court is, after all, a WA committee acting judicial and passing judgement. This is a right and proper function of the WA and its committiees. We could see it being acceptable if the court is assumed to meet in the WA HQ. There's already "security" there. If you leave it with some vague phrase suggesting the use of 'such security as is provided by the relevant authorities', you'd be covered even if some cataclysm overtakes the WA HQ resolution. This tosses the mess into the laps of our hard working gnomes who guard the WA as is. No police force is created. In regards to convicts, the way to avoid a WA Police would be to have the prisoners guarded in WA member states (As you stated) with the WA paying for the facilities rental and a "cost of guarding" charge. The WA in this case would be JUST renting space and spending some extra money for the priviledge of housing a prisoner there, nothing more. We could see a "Treatment of prisoners shall be according to WA resolutions" being added as this forbids the WA from giving orders to the guards.

In effect, the WA rents space. It does not tell the member nation how to guard. It does not tell the member nation's guards to do something. And if the prisoner escapes, that's the fault of the member nation and they get to go after him, just not on WA authority.

In terms of conflict with resolution #20 (International Piracy): No, I do not think that the no death penality conflicts with it as it is written.

Catagory wise: Human rights would be the best 'fit' for this.

Further issues:
Clause 2 however (Clarifies that all previous and future WA legislation that establishes criminal charges, are directing those duties of judiciary and enforcement of the law to member nations, unless explicitly stated otherwise;) comes very close to dictating future legislation, which is forbidden.

Also, your treatment of the prisoners seems to duplicate resolution 62 (For the Detained and Convicted).

[Glen-Rhodes]

.... Eh, transferred over to moderation.
Probably should have posted it here, and not in the topic.

In regards to convicts, the way to avoid a WA Police would be to have the prisoners guarded in WA member states (As you stated) with the WA paying for the facilities rental and a "cost of guarding" charge. The WA in this case would be JUST renting space and spending some extra money for the priviledge of housing a prisoner there, nothing more. We could see a "Treatment of prisoners shall be according to WA resolutions" being added as this forbids the WA from giving orders to the guards.

I will now submit the resolution I have been waiting to submit for months: the WA funding militias with the directive that those militias take down authoritarian regimes. (Or, to make it even more indirect: the WA funding militias who voluntarily choose to fight authoritarian regimes.) I mean, they're only renting the militias! ... Absolutely ridiculous there, so why not here?

In effect, the WA rents space. It does not tell the member nation how to guard. It does not tell the member nation's guards to do something. And if the prisoner escapes, that's the fault of the member nation and they get to go after him, just not on WA authority.

It tells the nation to detain the person; I don't know how that isn't "telling the member nation's guards to do something".The WA sending prisoners to other nations, and funding the operation of those prisons, is the same thing as the WA having prisons itself and detaining persons itself. It's like extraordinary rendition, to draw a real-world parallel.

The way I read it, this ruling opens the floodgates to the WA becoming a World Police, albeit indirectly. Anything the rules prevents us from doing in regards to the "no police" thing, we can just do by using nations as proxies for our own ends. Where is the limit? What explicitly is the WA not allowed to do, when using other nations to carry out its operations?

[NERVUN]

.... Eh, transferred over to moderation.
Probably should have posted it here, and not in the topic.

In regards to convicts, the way to avoid a WA Police would be to have the prisoners guarded in WA member states (As you stated) with the WA paying for the facilities rental and a "cost of guarding" charge. The WA in this case would be JUST renting space and spending some extra money for the priviledge of housing a prisoner there, nothing more. We could see a "Treatment of prisoners shall be according to WA resolutions" being added as this forbids the WA from giving orders to the guards.

I will now submit the resolution I have been waiting to submit for months: the WA funding militias with the directive that those militias take down authoritarian regimes. (Or, to make it even more indirect: the WA funding militias who voluntarily choose to fight authoritarian regimes.) I mean, they're only renting the militias! ... Absolutely ridiculous there, so why not here?

In effect, the WA rents space. It does not tell the member nation how to guard. It does not tell the member nation's guards to do something. And if the prisoner escapes, that's the fault of the member nation and they get to go after him, just not on WA authority.

It tells the nation to detain the person; I don't know how that isn't "telling the member nation's guards to do something".The WA sending prisoners to other nations, and funding the operation of those prisons, is the same thing as the WA having prisons itself and detaining persons itself. It's like extraordinary rendition, to draw a real-world parallel.

The way I read it, this ruling opens the floodgates to the WA becoming a World Police, albeit indirectly. Anything the rules prevents us from doing in regards to the "no police" thing, we can just do by using nations as proxies for our own ends. Where is the limit? What explicitly is the WA not allowed to do, when using other nations to carry out its operations?

Given the complexity of this issue, please wait.

[Bears Armed]

.... Eh, transferred over to moderation.
Probably should have posted it here, and not in the topic.

In regards to convicts, the way to avoid a WA Police would be to have the prisoners guarded in WA member states (As you stated) with the WA paying for the facilities rental and a "cost of guarding" charge. The WA in this case would be JUST renting space and spending some extra money for the priviledge of housing a prisoner there, nothing more. We could see a "Treatment of prisoners shall be according to WA resolutions" being added as this forbids the WA from giving orders to the guards.

I will now submit the resolution I have been waiting to submit for months: the WA funding militias with the directive that those militias take down authoritarian regimes. (Or, to make it even more indirect: the WA funding militias who voluntarily choose to fight authoritarian regimes.) I mean, they're only renting the militias! ... Absolutely ridiculous there, so why not here?

In effect, the WA rents space. It does not tell the member nation how to guard. It does not tell the member nation's guards to do something. And if the prisoner escapes, that's the fault of the member nation and they get to go after him, just not on WA authority.

The way I read it, this ruling opens the floodgates to the WA becoming a World Police, albeit indirectly. Anything the rules prevents us from doing in regards to the "no police" thing, we can just do by using nations as proxies for our own ends. Where is the limit? What explicitly is the WA not allowed to do, when using other nations to carry out its operations?

"Ahem!"

Rights and Duties of WA States
A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.

Category: Political Stability
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Frisbeeteria

Description: *(snip)*

Section III:

The Role of the World Assembly:

Article 8 § Every WA Member State has the right to equality in law with every other WA Member State.

Article 9 § Every WA Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, including this World Assembly, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty.

Article 10 § Whilst WA Member States may engage in wars, the World Assembly as a body maintains neutrality in matters of civil and international strife. As such, the WA will not engage in commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner.

*(snip)*

[Glen-Rhodes]

"Ahem!"

OOC: I argued that the detention of individuals was a violation of Rights and Duties banning the WA from carrying out 'policing actions'. Nervun's ruling seems to support that, and says that we can get around that by having the WA states themselves manage it. But in no way, according to the ruling so far, is the WA banned from funding the operations. So, if that kind of indirect policing is allowed, it logically follows that the WA may fund the operation of militias, but it just can't have a militia itself.

Since, with the current ruling, the WA is maintaining neutrality in policing/detaining/whatever criminals by sending them to WA states (i.e indirectly policing the world), the WA would be equally maintaining neutrality in wars by only funding like-minded WA state militias. It's doubly indirect because the WA isn't even giving out any orders, unlike it is when having nations detain criminals. We can't say that the WA is allowed to indirectly police, but it's not allowed to indirectly engage in war, when the policing and war regulations are both (a) covered the same clause in Rights and Duties and (b) covered by the same 'Official Rule'.

[NERVUN]

In regards to convicts, the way to avoid a WA Police would be to have the prisoners guarded in WA member states (As you stated) with the WA paying for the facilities rental and a "cost of guarding" charge. The WA in this case would be JUST renting space and spending some extra money for the priviledge of housing a prisoner there, nothing more. We could see a "Treatment of prisoners shall be according to WA resolutions" being added as this forbids the WA from giving orders to the guards.

I will now submit the resolution I have been waiting to submit for months: the WA funding militias with the directive that those militias take down authoritarian regimes. (Or, to make it even more indirect: the WA funding militias who voluntarily choose to fight authoritarian regimes.) I mean, they're only renting the militias! ... Absolutely ridiculous there, so why not here?

Big difference between the WA renting militas to go after authoritarian regimes as ID'd by the WA, with WA patches on the uniforms, and the WA paying for (a) member nation(s) to contain prisoners judged by the WA.

In effect, the WA rents space. It does not tell the member nation how to guard. It does not tell the member nation's guards to do something. And if the prisoner escapes, that's the fault of the member nation and they get to go after him, just not on WA authority.

It tells the nation to detain the person; I don't know how that isn't "telling the member nation's guards to do something".The WA sending prisoners to other nations, and funding the operation of those prisons, is the same thing as the WA having prisons itself and detaining persons itself. It's like extraordinary rendition, to draw a real-world parallel.

The way I read it, this ruling opens the floodgates to the WA becoming a World Police, albeit indirectly. Anything the rules prevents us from doing in regards to the "no police" thing, we can just do by using nations as proxies for our own ends. Where is the limit? What explicitly is the WA not allowed to do, when using other nations to carry out its operations?

Er, no. Look at it this way, I want to build a house. I hire a construction company. I tell them what I want (House) and where I want it (There). THEY decide how to build it. I cannot tell them how to pound the nails. If they want to use a hammer, a rock, the Force, it's up to them. I do not own the construction company in the meantime, nor do I own the workers. I am only contracting. If something goes wrong with the house, THEY have to fix it, not me. In other words I am paying them to provide a service. What the contractor does with the actual money while providing that service is his affair. He may use it to pay his workers' wages; he may use it to buy them bikkies for their teabreak; he may blow it all on ruby-studded corset piercings for the lissom back of his inventive young mistress, and win the actual building funds in a wild session of high-stakes gambling. I neither know nor care. All I care about is that he and his company provide the service they contracted to provide, ie, House. There.

The service here is that the WA nation agrees to receive the prisoner. The WA cannot tell the host nation HOW to keep the prisoner (Beyond treatment as already prescribed by WA resolutions). So if it's a jail, a force field, suspended animation, sent into the Phantom Zone, it's not the WA's business. They cannot do anything beyond providing money for the custodial service.

The above is the "line" as it were. The WA has no authority, there are no WA uniform patches, and the WA isn't telling the member nation to go after anyone or do anything.

So to answer your question, the line that will be looked at is "Is the WA telling someone to go do something militarily or in a law enforcement effort?" If so, you've crossed it.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Big difference between the WA renting militas to go after authoritarian regimes as ID'd by the WA, with WA patches on the uniforms, and the WA paying for (a) member nation(s) to contain prisoners judged by the WA.

Boil it down to the core of what the World Assembly would be doing. In my proposition, it would be funding operations to inhibit persons/entities/what-have-you that take actions the World Assembly disagrees with. What this proposal does is fund operations that detain criminals, i.e it funds operations that inhibit persons/entities/what-have-you that take actions the World Assembly disagrees with. (Also, I should note that I've never said the WA could have a military itself. My argument centers around the WA utilizing member states' militias.)

Er, no. Look at it this way, I want to build a house. I hire a construction company. I tell them what I want (House) and where I want it (There). THEY decide how to build it. I cannot tell them how to pound the nails. If they want to use a hammer, a rock, the Force, it's up to them. I do not own the construction company in the meantime, nor do I own the workers. I am only contracting. etc ...

I want to get rid of X. So, I hire a militia. I tell them what I want to get rid of. They decide how to do it. I am only contracting... There really is no fundamental difference that I can see between what is being done here, which mods say is OK, and what I proposed could be done based on this ruling, which I think you are saying is a no-no.

The service here is that the WA nation agrees to receive the prisoner. The WA cannot tell the host nation HOW to keep the prisoner (Beyond treatment as already prescribed by WA resolutions). So if it's a jail, a force field, suspended animation, sent into the Phantom Zone, it's not the WA's business. They cannot do anything beyond providing money for the custodial service.

In summary, I understand completely what you are saying is legal and how it is legal. However, the mods cannot say that this ruling only applies to this scenario, without being completely unfair. The prohibition of WA police and militias is found in the same exact clause of Rights and Duties and the same exact official rule. The interpretation of those two things that the mods have provided is that the WA can indirectly police, so long as a single condition is met: the WA cannot directly manage what outside entities are doing. And because policing and militias fall under the exact same rules/legislative clauses, that interpretation applies to militias as well.

So, just tell me if I'm wrong and why: the WA can fund militias that fight against X***, so long as it isn't telling those militias how to go through with that mission. When asked the question, "Is the WA telling someone to go do something militarily or in a law enforcement effort?", the proposer answers: "No. The WA is only providing funds to militias that fight against X. The WA is not ever telling militias to fight against X." Or it could even be a proposal funding police forces that do X, without the WA actually telling the police to do X. If there's a problem with that, then there's a serious problem with the ruling.

***Note the difference between this statement and "the WA can fund militias to fight against X". By the way, sorry if I'm coming off as abrasive. I just want to get this straight. This is pretty significant ruling, in my eyes.

[Unibot]

So, just tell me if I'm wrong and why: the WA can fund militias that fight against X***, so long as it isn't telling those militias how to go through with that mission. When asked the question, "Is the WA telling someone to go do something militarily or in a law enforcement effort?", the proposer answers: "No. The WA is only providing funds to militias that fight against X. The WA is not ever telling militias to fight against X." Or it could even be a proposal funding police forces that do X, without the WA actually telling the police to do X. If there's a problem with that, then there's a serious problem with the ruling.

First of all, I'd say if it's a nation you plan on sending militia to fight.. you're out of luck, because it contradicts war by definition in GA #2. Because it's otherwise metagaming to suggest that the WA will fight a nation through any means, because it will either interfere with the sovereignty of a non-WA nation or not effect all WA nations evenly (some will be 'attacked' and some will not -- and we have no means of showing the effect of war, in-game, at the moment).

Secondly, if you're planning to fund to send militia to fight a non-national entity -- like stateless people, terrorists or pirates -- the WA already does that, or atleast endorses it. We just do not define how the fighting is done specifically.

[/not a mod]

[Glen-Rhodes]

First of all, I'd say if its a nation you plan on sending militia to fight.. you're out of luck, because it contradicts war by definition in GA #2. Because its otherwise metagaming to suggest that the WA will fight a nation through any means, because it will either interfere with the sovereignty of a non-WA nation or not effect all WA nations evenly (some will be 'attacked' and some will not -- and we have no means of showing the effect of war, in-game, at the moment).

The key point is that the World Assembly isn't telling militias what to do at all. It's not saying, "Go to war." It's saying, "If your group does happen to fight against X, you will receive funding." That does affect all nations equally; all nations have the same opportunity to choose to fight against X. It's not an issue of the WA declaring war, but rather an issue of the WA funding militias that choose to do something the WA views as worthy of funds. And I don't want to pigeon-hole the effects of the ruling to the WA funding militias. My point is that the WA can do anything its otherwise restricted from doing by providing funds to member nations who will take up the mantle. The militia issue is simply the best example of the negative impacts of such a ruling.

On a side-note, I don't think we can call that metagaming, unless we call a lot of other things metagaming as well. The WA is providing funds to militias; what they do with those funds is out of our hands. Yes, those funds may go towards affecting non-WA nations. But the WA isn't directly doing anything to non-WA nations, nor is it ever advocating the attacking of non-WA nations. Nearly everything the WA does affects non-WA nations this way. That is, through choices WA nations make that are facilitated, as a byproduct and not a direct edict, by WA resolutions.

[Unibot]

First of all, I'd say if its a nation you plan on sending militia to fight.. you're out of luck, because it contradicts war by definition in GA #2. Because its otherwise metagaming to suggest that the WA will fight a nation through any means, because it will either interfere with the sovereignty of a non-WA nation or not effect all WA nations evenly (some will be 'attacked' and some will not -- and we have no means of showing the effect of war, in-game, at the moment).

The key point is that the World Assembly isn't telling militias what to do at all. It's not saying, "Go to war." It's saying, "If your group does happen to fight against X, you will receive funding." That does affect all nations equally; all nations have the same opportunity to choose to fight against X. It's not an issue of the WA declaring war, but rather an issue of the WA funding militias that choose to do something the WA views as worthy of funds. And I don't want to pigeon-hole the effects of the ruling to the WA funding militias. My point is that the WA can do anything its otherwise restricted from doing by providing funds to member nations who will take up the mantle. The militia issue is simply the best example of the negative impacts of such a ruling.

On a side-note, I don't think we can call that metagaming, unless we call a lot of other things metagaming as well. The WA is providing funds to militias; what they do with those funds is out of our hands. Yes, those funds may go towards affecting non-WA nations. But the WA isn't directly doing anything to non-WA nations, nor is it ever advocating the attacking of non-WA nations. Nearly everything the WA does affects non-WA nations this way. That is, through choices WA nations make that are facilitated, as a byproduct and not a direct edict, by WA resolutions.

OOC: I'm really starting to get bored, arguing the same thing over again with you, and having you argue the same thing back. Einstein would call that insanity.

I'm looking to actually improve this draft, and if you don't want to do that, please take this rules-lawyering stalemate elsewhere... it doesn't concern this resolution, it concerns a tangent you've created off of a ruling pertaining to it.

I see problems currently with the resolution, I think it can definitely be reduced in length for example, and I'm sure there is someone out there who has problems with the judicial sector of this resolution -- I mean, what was Habeas Corpus, eight months in the making? So please, if you have comments, concerns, suggestions or additions to voice, pertaining to the resolution, instead of its legality, please voice them!

[NERVUN]

Ok, this is going to be rather long and involved, and we will probably be repeating ourselves as there are multiple points to address and some of them have been stated more than once.

"Ahem!"

OOC: I argued that the detention of individuals was a violation of Rights and Duties banning the WA from carrying out 'policing actions'. Nervun's ruling seems to support that, and says that we can get around that by having the WA states themselves manage it. But in no way, according to the ruling so far, is the WA banned from funding the operations. So, if that kind of indirect policing is allowed, it logically follows that the WA may fund the operation of militias, but it just can't have a militia itself.

Ok, here you have misread my ruling. I stated that the WA is forbidden from becoming the World Police. It first is necessary to ask, just what is a police force? Using Webster's we have:

Main Entry: police
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural police
1 : the control and regulation of affairs affecting the order and welfare of a political unit and its citizens
2 a : the department of a government or other institution that maintains order and safety and enforces laws b : POLICE FORCE c plural : the members of a police force

This says to me that the WA cannot, as a body, enforce order or laws within the world (It can, through resolutions and the gnomes force WA states to become compliant with the resolution). It cannot, as it were, act as a Certain International Body in Blue That Cannot Be Named and send peacekeepers to areas or bring order to the rest of the NS World(s). In practical terms, this means taking a good, hard look at what is being asked. Do prison guards have anything to do with maintaining order and safety and enforcing laws? Only in the broadest of interpretations. So the actual objection was "Ok, if the WA keeps the prisoners, that means we've got people wandering around in a WA uniform and taking orders from the WA" (If they just stand there, that's not so much of a problem, the gnomes do that at the WA HQ), but what happens if the prisoner escapes? Ah, THEN we have a police situation. Guards just stand there and look pretty. Police can actively hunt criminals (Keeping order) and re-arrest them (Enforcing laws). So what if we just FUND the police? No, that too is indirectly having a police force. But are we funding it here? No, we are not. We are paying for room and board for a prisoner tried and convicted by the WA. Again, HOW the member nation does something is up to it, it MIGHT use the money for guards. It MIGHT use the money for police. It MIGHT use the money for an all-expenses paid trip for the member nation's parliament to the best little cat house money can buy. It isn't up to the WA to say. We're just paying the rent, NOT funding operations (It should be noted that the line is (d) Appropriately reimbursed by the World Assembly for all services provided to conduct the aforementioned consequences (Emphasis mine) so nowhere does it state we're funding the police force). Should the prisoner escape, there is nothing in this resolution that calls for a member nation's police to recapture that prisoner. So it is up to the member nation just how they go about doing so, or even if they want to. But the money would shut off when there is no prisoner.

So no, it does not logically follow that you are therefore allowed to fund a militia.

Since, with the current ruling, the WA is maintaining neutrality in policing/detaining/whatever criminals by sending them to WA states (i.e indirectly policing the world), the WA would be equally maintaining neutrality in wars by only funding like-minded WA state militias. It's doubly indirect because the WA isn't even giving out any orders, unlike it is when having nations detain criminals. We can't say that the WA is allowed to indirectly police, but it's not allowed to indirectly engage in war, when the policing and war regulations are both (a) covered the same clause in Rights and Duties and (b) covered by the same 'Official Rule'.

There a problem with this argument as well. Even if we were allowing funding of militia, funding "like minded militia" is NOT maintaining neutrality. The excuse of "No, no we're neutral, we're just giving aid to your enemies" didn't work for the US in the run up to WWII and it isn't going to work here. Picking "like-minded" militia would violate WA neutrality.

Big difference between the WA renting militas to go after authoritarian regimes as ID'd by the WA, with WA patches on the uniforms, and the WA paying for (a) member nation(s) to contain prisoners judged by the WA.

Boil it down to the core of what the World Assembly would be doing. In my proposition, it would be funding operations to inhibit persons/entities/what-have-you that take actions the World Assembly disagrees with. What this proposal does is fund operations that detain criminals, i.e it funds operations that inhibit persons/entities/what-have-you that take actions the World Assembly disagrees with. (Also, I should note that I've never said the WA could have a military itself. My argument centers around the WA utilizing member states' militias.)

In this case you have lost the forest for the trees. Nowhere is policing being funded. The taking of these stateless pirates is being done by the member nations on their authority. They pay for it. This resolution and ruling is centered on what happens to them. In this case, they are tried by the WA (This, as noted is right and proper. The WA jugdes things all the time. That is what the members are doing). The WA is not arresting anyone (Detaining). It is not incarcerating anyone. It is paying for services rendered in carrying out the consequences as judged by the WA. This does not run afoul of the "No world police" rule.

Er, no. Look at it this way, I want to build a house. I hire a construction company. I tell them what I want (House) and where I want it (There). THEY decide how to build it. I cannot tell them how to pound the nails. If they want to use a hammer, a rock, the Force, it's up to them. I do not own the construction company in the meantime, nor do I own the workers. I am only contracting. etc ...

I want to get rid of X. So, I hire a militia. I tell them what I want to get rid of. They decide how to do it. I am only contracting... There really is no fundamental difference that I can see between what is being done here, which mods say is OK, and what I proposed could be done based on this ruling, which I think you are saying is a no-no.

You are missing the point here. The contract you are taking out in the above is illegal. The notion of making a contract is not the problem we are debating, the WA can contract. It's the kind. If I want to build a house, that's perfectly legal. If I want to build a brothel, that's not-so-legal. The WA cannot hire a militia and they are not hiring a police force here.

The service here is that the WA nation agrees to receive the prisoner. The WA cannot tell the host nation HOW to keep the prisoner (Beyond treatment as already prescribed by WA resolutions). So if it's a jail, a force field, suspended animation, sent into the Phantom Zone, it's not the WA's business. They cannot do anything beyond providing money for the custodial service.

In summary, I understand completely what you are saying is legal and how it is legal. However, the mods cannot say that this ruling only applies to this scenario, without being completely unfair. The prohibition of WA police and militias is found in the same exact clause of Rights and Duties and the same exact official rule. The interpretation of those two things that the mods have provided is that the WA can indirectly police, so long as a single condition is met: the WA cannot directly manage what outside entities are doing. And because policing and militias fall under the exact same rules/legislative clauses, that interpretation applies to militias as well.

So, just tell me if I'm wrong and why: the WA can fund militias that fight against X***, so long as it isn't telling those militias how to go through with that mission. When asked the question, "Is the WA telling someone to go do something militarily or in a law enforcement effort?", the proposer answers: "No. The WA is only providing funds to militias that fight against X. The WA is not ever telling militias to fight against X." Or it could even be a proposal funding police forces that do X, without the WA actually telling the police to do X. If there's a problem with that, then there's a serious problem with the ruling.

Most of what you have said I have answered above. But I would like to make a point that all your scenarios are more than a little... hmm... off kilter because you are asking us what's wrong with the WA giving money to people with no strings attached. The issue here is that the member is being reimbursed for services rendered, not TO conduct those services. Again, we can't state what they are going to be doing with that money. So be actually doing what is being done here, the WA would be giving money to member nations for services, but it cannot say what those services are, how they are performed, or where the money is going to. Now, technically, I suppose the WA COULD do such a thing...

***Note the difference between this statement and "the WA can fund militias to fight against X". By the way, sorry if I'm coming off as abrasive. I just want to get this straight. This is pretty significant ruling, in my eyes.

Again, please note that taking sides in "fighting X" would violate the WA's neutrality.

First of all, I'd say if its a nation you plan on sending militia to fight.. you're out of luck, because it contradicts war by definition in GA #2. Because its otherwise metagaming to suggest that the WA will fight a nation through any means, because it will either interfere with the sovereignty of a non-WA nation or not effect all WA nations evenly (some will be 'attacked' and some will not -- and we have no means of showing the effect of war, in-game, at the moment).

The key point is that the World Assembly isn't telling militias what to do at all. It's not saying, "Go to war." It's saying, "If your group does happen to fight against X, you will receive funding." That does affect all nations equally; all nations have the same opportunity to choose to fight against X. It's not an issue of the WA declaring war, but rather an issue of the WA funding militias that choose to do something the WA views as worthy of funds. And I don't want to pigeon-hole the effects of the ruling to the WA funding militias. My point is that the WA can do anything its otherwise restricted from doing by providing funds to member nations who will take up the mantle. The militia issue is simply the best example of the negative impacts of such a ruling.

Answered above.

On a side-note, I don't think we can call that metagaming, unless we call a lot of other things metagaming as well. The WA is providing funds to militias; what they do with those funds is out of our hands. Yes, those funds may go towards affecting non-WA nations. But the WA isn't directly doing anything to non-WA nations, nor is it ever advocating the attacking of non-WA nations. Nearly everything the WA does affects non-WA nations this way. That is, through choices WA nations make that are facilitated, as a byproduct and not a direct edict, by WA resolutions.

On a further side note, I would like to say that if we followed your logic, it would seem that ANYTHING the WA does runs afoul of the World Police rules. After all, it is using its resolutions to improve the world, right?

[Glen-Rhodes]

I stated that the WA is forbidden from becoming the World Police. It first is necessary to ask, just what is a police force?

I wrote up responses to everything in your post, but I think there's a really important, fundamental question that should be answered definitively first. Is the World Assembly allowed to incarcerate people itself? If not, what rule doesn't allow it? Is it the same rule that disallows a police force? And if it is, does that not mean that incarceration is part of, as far as the WA is concerned, a police force? My entire viewpoint is based on the assumption that, yes, the World Assembly is banned from incarcerating people, and that's because it violates the World Police rules.

[NERVUN]

I stated that the WA is forbidden from becoming the World Police. It first is necessary to ask, just what is a police force?

I wrote up responses to everything in your post, but I think there's a really important, fundamental question that should be answered definitively first. Is the World Assembly allowed to incarcerate people itself? If not, what rule doesn't allow it? Is it the same rule that disallows a police force? And if it is, does that not mean that incarceration is part of, as far as the WA is concerned, a police force? My entire viewpoint is based on the assumption that, yes, the World Assembly is banned from incarcerating people, and that's because it violates the World Police rules.

Depends on your meaning of incarcerate (No, I am not trying to be Bill Clinton). If you mean the WA is allowed to build its own jail, no. That would run afoul of the rules because of what I wrote above (The guard being ok, until they had to go after someone, then they become police). If you are talking about does the WA have the authority to condem someone to incarceration, yes. Nothing that I can see within the WA rules prevents this. Condeming someone to it is a judicial matter and well within the perview of the WA.

[Unibot]

You've ruled this line as legal, NERVUN ...

9. Outlaws the ICA from sentencing anyone to capital punishment;

.. but Bears' argument from above pertained to this incarnation of Clause Nine...

9. Outlaws the use of capital punishment against, or otherwise, murder of a stateless individual;

.. the difference is startling, but I'd opt for the latter if was legal.

[Quelesh]

I stated that the WA is forbidden from becoming the World Police. It first is necessary to ask, just what is a police force?

I wrote up responses to everything in your post, but I think there's a really important, fundamental question that should be answered definitively first. Is the World Assembly allowed to incarcerate people itself? If not, what rule doesn't allow it? Is it the same rule that disallows a police force? And if it is, does that not mean that incarceration is part of, as far as the WA is concerned, a police force? My entire viewpoint is based on the assumption that, yes, the World Assembly is banned from incarcerating people, and that's because it violates the World Police rules.

Depends on your meaning of incarcerate (No, I am not trying to be Bill Clinton). If you mean the WA is allowed to build its own jail, no. That would run afoul of the rules because of what I wrote above (The guard being ok, until they had to go after someone, then they become police). If you are talking about does the WA have the authority to condem someone to incarceration, yes. Nothing that I can see within the WA rules prevents this. Condeming someone to it is a judicial matter and well within the perview of the WA.

I want to make sure I understand this too, so I can revise my own proposal appropriately.

As I understand it, the WA can sentence someone to incarceration. The WA could, theoretically, build a jail, with guards, to house the prisoner, because the guards would just be "standing around looking pretty" and not actually engaging in police actions. The WA guards would be able to take actions, within the jail itself, to prevent prisoners from escaping (for example, if a prisoner were running down a hallway of the jail trying to reach the exit, the guards could tackle the prisoner to the ground to prevent him from escaping). However, if the prisoner actually escapes, the guards would have no choice but to just let him go; actually going after him would be an illegal police action.

A proposal that creates an international court that can sentence individuals to incarceration, but does not say anything about a detention facility or guards, is illegal because:

1. The possibility of people being sentenced to incarceration implies the need for a jail.

2. Because the proposal doesn't say anything about the jail or who operates it, it's implied that the jail would be operated by the WA itself.

3. The existence of a WA jail implies the need for WA guards.

4. The need for WA guards to prevent prisoners from escaping implies the possibility that prisoners will escape, which would require the guards to engage in illegal police actions by going after them.

5. Because escapes are possible, and because the proposal does not specifically state that the guards are prohibited from leaving the jail and going after them (because it doesn't say anything about guards or jails at all), it is implied that the guards would be allowed to go after the prisoners, and since that would be an illegal police action, the proposal is illegal.

Theoretically, if this is the case, it could be gotten around by specifying that the WA itself would operate the jail and that it would have WA guards whose job it is to prevent prisoners from escaping but that, in the event of a successful escape, the guards are prohibited from leaving the jail to go after the escaped prisoner. I wouldn't like that solution, however, because it doesn't allow for any way to recapture the escaped prisoner, so prisoners could try to escape knowing that if they do they're scott free. (Presumeably the international court could issue another arrest warrant for the escaped prisoner, though, in the case of my proposal, so that member states are required to arrest him again. But that could conflict with a double jeopardy provision, so the new arrest warrant would have to be for the escape itself, which means that the offense of escaping from the WA jail would have to be added to the list of offenses for which the international court can issue warrants.) This is too messy and dangerous.

Another way to get around the problem though is to specify in the proposal that the detention facility (which would obviously be required, since people can be sentenced to incarceration by the court) will not be operated by the WA itself. The proposal would have to specify who would operate the jail though. It could require the WA, or the court, to contract with a willing member state to house and guard the prisoners. It would not have to state that the guards of the member state's jail for WA prisoners would be prohibited from going after escaped prisoners, since these non-WA guards going after escaped prisoners is perfectly fine.

So the proposal requiring that the court contract with a willing member state (without specifying that member state, of course - similar to the way the WA HQ was established) to house, for the terms of their sentences, and to guard, those convicts that it has sentenced to incarceration, and requiring that the member state that houses the prisoners treat them in accordance with international law, would be legal. It would not be necessary to specify how the court will determine the nation that it contracts with to house the prisoners, or anything else about the detention facility or guards, as that would be up to the member state that's housing the prisoners, as long as that member state is treating the prisoners in accordance with international law (no torture, etc.).

Have I got it right?

[Sionis Prioratus]

In the midst of all this legalese, can't we just summon the WA Schutzstaffel, throw Glen-Rhodes into some forgotten dungeon, and launch the keys into orbit?

Respectfully submitted,
Yours,

[Bears Armed]

OOC: Are we losing the wood behind the trees, here? The rule against WA police and WA military basically exists because any such organisation would have an obvious role in RP and -- to prevent players godmoding that organisation aas being on their side -- this would have to be RPed by the Mods... who have quite enough to do already.
So, would 'WA prison guards' -- operating at an unspecified location, and therefore fairly immune from RPed attacks because players would actually have to godmode in order to locate them in the first place -- require RPing in that way, by the Mods, or not?

[NERVUN]

You've ruled this line as legal, NERVUN ...

9. Outlaws the ICA from sentencing anyone to capital punishment;

.. but Bears' argument from above pertained to this incarnation of Clause Nine...

9. Outlaws the use of capital punishment against, or otherwise, murder of a stateless individual;

.. the difference is startling, but I'd opt for the latter if was legal.

My take on it is that you are saying the exact same thing (Er, I am correct that your second line is ICA ONLY and not general, correct?). That said, I would think you'd have and easier time with the first rather than the second, but that is my opinion and not a ruling.

[NERVUN]

I stated that the WA is forbidden from becoming the World Police. It first is necessary to ask, just what is a police force?

I wrote up responses to everything in your post, but I think there's a really important, fundamental question that should be answered definitively first. Is the World Assembly allowed to incarcerate people itself? If not, what rule doesn't allow it? Is it the same rule that disallows a police force? And if it is, does that not mean that incarceration is part of, as far as the WA is concerned, a police force? My entire viewpoint is based on the assumption that, yes, the World Assembly is banned from incarcerating people, and that's because it violates the World Police rules.

Depends on your meaning of incarcerate (No, I am not trying to be Bill Clinton). If you mean the WA is allowed to build its own jail, no. That would run afoul of the rules because of what I wrote above (The guard being ok, until they had to go after someone, then they become police). If you are talking about does the WA have the authority to condem someone to incarceration, yes. Nothing that I can see within the WA rules prevents this. Condeming someone to it is a judicial matter and well within the perview of the WA.

I want to make sure I understand this too, so I can revise my own proposal appropriately.

As I understand it, the WA can sentence someone to incarceration. The WA could, theoretically, build a jail, with guards, to house the prisoner, because the guards would just be "standing around looking pretty" and not actually engaging in police actions. The WA guards would be able to take actions, within the jail itself, to prevent prisoners from escaping (for example, if a prisoner were running down a hallway of the jail trying to reach the exit, the guards could tackle the prisoner to the ground to prevent him from escaping). However, if the prisoner actually escapes, the guards would have no choice but to just let him go; actually going after him would be an illegal police action.

A proposal that creates an international court that can sentence individuals to incarceration, but does not say anything about a detention facility or guards, is illegal because:

1. The possibility of people being sentenced to incarceration implies the need for a jail.

2. Because the proposal doesn't say anything about the jail or who operates it, it's implied that the jail would be operated by the WA itself.

3. The existence of a WA jail implies the need for WA guards.

4. The need for WA guards to prevent prisoners from escaping implies the possibility that prisoners will escape, which would require the guards to engage in illegal police actions by going after them.

5. Because escapes are possible, and because the proposal does not specifically state that the guards are prohibited from leaving the jail and going after them (because it doesn't say anything about guards or jails at all), it is implied that the guards would be allowed to go after the prisoners, and since that would be an illegal police action, the proposal is illegal.

Theoretically, if this is the case, it could be gotten around by specifying that the WA itself would operate the jail and that it would have WA guards whose job it is to prevent prisoners from escaping but that, in the event of a successful escape, the guards are prohibited from leaving the jail to go after the escaped prisoner. I wouldn't like that solution, however, because it doesn't allow for any way to recapture the escaped prisoner, so prisoners could try to escape knowing that if they do they're scott free. (Presumeably the international court could issue another arrest warrant for the escaped prisoner, though, in the case of my proposal, so that member states are required to arrest him again. But that could conflict with a double jeopardy provision, so the new arrest warrant would have to be for the escape itself, which means that the offense of escaping from the WA jail would have to be added to the list of offenses for which the international court can issue warrants.) This is too messy and dangerous.

Another way to get around the problem though is to specify in the proposal that the detention facility (which would obviously be required, since people can be sentenced to incarceration by the court) will not be operated by the WA itself. The proposal would have to specify who would operate the jail though. It could require the WA, or the court, to contract with a willing member state to house and guard the prisoners. It would not have to state that the guards of the member state's jail for WA prisoners would be prohibited from going after escaped prisoners, since these non-WA guards going after escaped prisoners is perfectly fine.

So the proposal requiring that the court contract with a willing member state (without specifying that member state, of course - similar to the way the WA HQ was established) to house, for the terms of their sentences, and to guard, those convicts that it has sentenced to incarceration, and requiring that the member state that houses the prisoners treat them in accordance with international law, would be legal. It would not be necessary to specify how the court will determine the nation that it contracts with to house the prisoners, or anything else about the detention facility or guards, as that would be up to the member state that's housing the prisoners, as long as that member state is treating the prisoners in accordance with international law (no torture, etc.).

Have I got it right?

Close. Try the ICC would contract out to a member nation to house the convicts for the duration of such sentences as passed by the WA. The WA can, if it is written, reimburse the host nation for services rendered to do so. It can't say "guard" just house.

OOC: Are we losing the wood behind the trees, here? The rule against WA police and WA military basically exists because any such organisation would have an obvious role in RP and -- to prevent players godmoding that organisation aas being on their side -- this would have to be RPed by the Mods... who have quite enough to do already.
So, would 'WA prison guards' -- operating at an unspecified location, and therefore fairly immune from RPed attacks because players would actually have to godmode in order to locate them in the first place -- require RPing in that way, by the Mods, or not?

Pretty much this.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Depends on your meaning of incarcerate (No, I am not trying to be Bill Clinton). If you mean the WA is allowed to build its own jail, no. That would run afoul of the rules because of what I wrote above (The guard being ok, until they had to go after someone, then they become police). If you are talking about does the WA have the authority to condem someone to incarceration, yes. Nothing that I can see within the WA rules prevents this. Condeming someone to it is a judicial matter and well within the perview of the WA.

OK. So we're in agreement that the WA cannot incarcerate people because of the same rules that prevent the WA from having a military. Now, am I understanding the 'test' for the legality of Multilateral Arbitration-like 'policing by proxy'?

The World Assembly can contract out policing actions, so long as no commands are coming from the World Assembly itself.

So, would 'WA prison guards' -- operating at an unspecified location, and therefore fairly immune from RPed attacks because players would actually have to godmode in order to locate them in the first place -- require RPing in that way, by the Mods, or not?

By NERVUN's post explaining that it would be illegal for the WA to build and run a prison itself, I think the answer is yes. What I'm trying to get at with the drawn-own argument is how far the WA can go in contracting out police, militias, etc. I don't think NERVUN and the rest of the mods intended for the ruling to extrapolate out far enough to allow a proposal like this, which I think is completely in compliance with what I understand to be the 'test' as described by NERVUN, but which I had always assumed would be illegal because of the rules:

The Peace Fund
Category: International Security
Strength: Mild

BELIEVING it to be the purpose of the World Assembly to foster peace,

NOTING that authoritarian regimes really hamper that goal,

ACKNOWLEDGING that the World Assembly cannot ban authoritarianism,

FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGING that the prohibition placed on the World Assembly does not, however, prevent it from promoting non-authoritarian forms of government,

FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGING that the World Assembly cannot have a militia itself,

NOTING that national militias are not World Assembly militias,

The World Assembly hereby

ESTABLISHES the Peace Fund to donate money to nations whose national militias voluntarily work to promote non-authoritarian forms of government,

ENCOURAGES nations to take affirmative action to promote international peace through unilateral, bilateral, or multilateral agendas.

In the midst of all this legalese, can't we just summon the WA Schutzstaffel, throw Glen-Rhodes into some forgotten dungeon, and launch the keys into orbit?

Or we can have a serious discussion about understanding the impact of a ruling, without employing Godwin's law and trying to flamebait. If you don't like the discussion, there's no requirement for you to read it.

[Quelesh]

I stated that the WA is forbidden from becoming the World Police. It first is necessary to ask, just what is a police force?

I wrote up responses to everything in your post, but I think there's a really important, fundamental question that should be answered definitively first. Is the World Assembly allowed to incarcerate people itself? If not, what rule doesn't allow it? Is it the same rule that disallows a police force? And if it is, does that not mean that incarceration is part of, as far as the WA is concerned, a police force? My entire viewpoint is based on the assumption that, yes, the World Assembly is banned from incarcerating people, and that's because it violates the World Police rules.

Depends on your meaning of incarcerate (No, I am not trying to be Bill Clinton). If you mean the WA is allowed to build its own jail, no. That would run afoul of the rules because of what I wrote above (The guard being ok, until they had to go after someone, then they become police). If you are talking about does the WA have the authority to condem someone to incarceration, yes. Nothing that I can see within the WA rules prevents this. Condeming someone to it is a judicial matter and well within the perview of the WA.

I want to make sure I understand this too, so I can revise my own proposal appropriately.

As I understand it, the WA can sentence someone to incarceration. The WA could, theoretically, build a jail, with guards, to house the prisoner, because the guards would just be "standing around looking pretty" and not actually engaging in police actions. The WA guards would be able to take actions, within the jail itself, to prevent prisoners from escaping (for example, if a prisoner were running down a hallway of the jail trying to reach the exit, the guards could tackle the prisoner to the ground to prevent him from escaping). However, if the prisoner actually escapes, the guards would have no choice but to just let him go; actually going after him would be an illegal police action.

A proposal that creates an international court that can sentence individuals to incarceration, but does not say anything about a detention facility or guards, is illegal because:

1. The possibility of people being sentenced to incarceration implies the need for a jail.

2. Because the proposal doesn't say anything about the jail or who operates it, it's implied that the jail would be operated by the WA itself.

3. The existence of a WA jail implies the need for WA guards.

4. The need for WA guards to prevent prisoners from escaping implies the possibility that prisoners will escape, which would require the guards to engage in illegal police actions by going after them.

5. Because escapes are possible, and because the proposal does not specifically state that the guards are prohibited from leaving the jail and going after them (because it doesn't say anything about guards or jails at all), it is implied that the guards would be allowed to go after the prisoners, and since that would be an illegal police action, the proposal is illegal.

Theoretically, if this is the case, it could be gotten around by specifying that the WA itself would operate the jail and that it would have WA guards whose job it is to prevent prisoners from escaping but that, in the event of a successful escape, the guards are prohibited from leaving the jail to go after the escaped prisoner. I wouldn't like that solution, however, because it doesn't allow for any way to recapture the escaped prisoner, so prisoners could try to escape knowing that if they do they're scott free. (Presumeably the international court could issue another arrest warrant for the escaped prisoner, though, in the case of my proposal, so that member states are required to arrest him again. But that could conflict with a double jeopardy provision, so the new arrest warrant would have to be for the escape itself, which means that the offense of escaping from the WA jail would have to be added to the list of offenses for which the international court can issue warrants.) This is too messy and dangerous.

Another way to get around the problem though is to specify in the proposal that the detention facility (which would obviously be required, since people can be sentenced to incarceration by the court) will not be operated by the WA itself. The proposal would have to specify who would operate the jail though. It could require the WA, or the court, to contract with a willing member state to house and guard the prisoners. It would not have to state that the guards of the member state's jail for WA prisoners would be prohibited from going after escaped prisoners, since these non-WA guards going after escaped prisoners is perfectly fine.

So the proposal requiring that the court contract with a willing member state (without specifying that member state, of course - similar to the way the WA HQ was established) to house, for the terms of their sentences, and to guard, those convicts that it has sentenced to incarceration, and requiring that the member state that houses the prisoners treat them in accordance with international law, would be legal. It would not be necessary to specify how the court will determine the nation that it contracts with to house the prisoners, or anything else about the detention facility or guards, as that would be up to the member state that's housing the prisoners, as long as that member state is treating the prisoners in accordance with international law (no torture, etc.).

Have I got it right?

Close. Try the ICC would contract out to a member nation to house the convicts for the duration of such sentences as passed by the WA. The WA can, if it is written, reimburse the host nation for services rendered to do so. It can't say "guard" just house.

Got it. That's a perfectly acceptable solution for me.