[DEBATE] Vindiciae contra tyrannos

[Knootoss]

Update!

• New title!
• Popular sovereignty has been removed and replaced with a broad historical context for the "right to revolt", which should cover different ideological justifications.
• References to liberty, justice and equity have been replaced with a reference to the "principles which [Member State governments] are bound to uphold;" which is decidedly less ideological.

Right of Abjuration
Category: A resolution to increase democratic freedoms. | Strength: Strong| Proposed by: Knootoss

The World Assembly,

RECOGNISES that the peoples' right to overthrow a despotic ruler has been invoked since ancient times, for the divine right to rule is based on the virtue of the ruler;

FURTHER RECOGNISES that many feudal rulers are received upon the swearing of certain oaths, to uphold ancient rights and customs, without which they cannot rule;

FINALLY RECOGNISES that natural law implies a duty to replace a government that acts against the interests of citizens with one that serves the interests of citizens;

Hereby:

AFFIRMS that citizens of World Assembly are not slaves to their governments, but rather that these governments exist for the sake of their citizens;

FURTHER AFFIRMS that the governments of Member States have a responsibility to govern their people according to the principles which they are bound to uphold;

FINALLY AFFIRMS that these governments and institutions have a duty to refrain from such actions which would ruin or destroy their people;

And firmly:

RESOLVES that, when a government acts contrary to the above affirmations, the people have a right to institute a new government;

MANDATES that any people seeking to declare their independence in this manner should declare the specific causes which impel them to the separation;

CAUTIONS that such a right may only be exercised by a people when all reasonable petitions and lawful procedures have failed to dissuade a government from their tyrannical proceedings;

CONDEMNS the use of excessive violence, whether by governments or by peoples seeking their independence from tyrannical rule.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

RESOLVES that, when a government acts contrary to the above affirmations, the people have a right to institute a new government;

I am a little concerned about the legality of this draft because this is seems to interfere with the type of government. The clause in GA#2 states that:

Article 1 § Every WA Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

However, Ms. Harper does take interest on the concept of a resolution regarding governments using violence against its own people without cause (like what Gaddafi did).

[Glen-Rhodes]

'Cautions' and a 'condemns' aren't actionable words. Why not require that all lawful means before declaring independence? Why not ban violence in the last clause, rather than just condemn it?

Also, I'm not sure 'de-ideologue-ing' the proposal is actually any kind of benefit. Before, you were upholding the principles of liberty, justice and equity. Now, you're not upholding any principles at all. What tyrannical government has ever been bound to uphold liberty, justice and equity? Most tyrants I know of are bound to uphold their own power.

I think the end goal of this proposal is worthy, as it upholds self-determination, albeit in a very narrow way. But I think it's been neutered to meaninglessness. The rewording won't have any effect on its legality, because the end result is still the legitimizing of declaring independence, which is a solidly democratic ideal. Instead, the rewording will probably just decrease the attraction of member states who believe in democracy. After all, it is not as if you are catering to the member states who would rather keep their tyrannical governments.

On a side note, Ms. Harper, that article of Rights and Duties only applies to other nation-states, not to the World Assembly.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

'Cautions' and a 'condemns' aren't actionable words. Why not require that all lawful means before declaring independence? Why not ban violence in the last clause, rather than just condemn it?

Also, I'm not sure 'de-ideologue-ing' the proposal is actually any kind of benefit. Before, you were upholding the principles of liberty, justice and equity. Now, you're not upholding any principles at all. What tyrannical government has ever been bound to uphold liberty, justice and equity? Most tyrants I know of are bound to uphold their own power.

I think the end goal of this proposal is worthy, as it upholds self-determination, albeit in a very narrow way. But I think it's been neutered to meaninglessness. The rewording won't have any effect on its legality, because the end result is still the legitimizing of declaring independence, which is a solidly democratic ideal. Instead, the rewording will probably just decrease the attraction of member states who believe in democracy. After all, it is not as if you are catering to the member states who would rather keep their tyrannical governments.

On a side note, Ms. Harper, that article of Rights and Duties only applies to other nation-states, not to the World Assembly.

- Dr. B. Castro

The fact that some other nations are WA members does not change the fact that they are still "other" and "NationState".

[Glen-Rhodes]

The fact that some other nations are WA members does not change the fact that they are still "other" and "NationState".

The World Assembly isn't a nation-state, is my point. Rights and Duties frequently distinguishes between the World Assembly and its member states. The two are not one in the same, so when Article 1 places a limitation on 'NationStates,' it is not placing a limitation on the World Assembly itself.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Monikian WA Mission]

"We were opposed to this tripe the first time it came around and we remain opposed to it."

[Arivali]

No, no, and did I mention... NO!

[Baptovia]

Just thinking ::
Two thirds of the beings in region A of Baptovia with very good reasons, wish independece . One third do NOT.
So region A becomes independent. The one third vote for independence from region A. However none of the beings wish to move away from their homes of many years and Baptovia now has a nation within a nation within our nation, with the two smaller nations totally confused logisticly and realistically. Wow! What a mess.

Opposed.

[Separatist Peoples]

Just thinking ::
Two thirds of the beings in region A of Baptovia with very good reasons, wish independece . One third do NOT.
So region A becomes independent. The one third vote for independence from region A. However none of the beings wish to move away from their homes of many years and Baptovia now has a nation within a nation within our nation, with the two smaller nations totally confused logisticly and realistically. Wow! What a mess.

Opposed.

I think it is safe to say that were the population as divided as that, the initial attempt at peaceful secession would fail. Also, I believe there is a point where a small enough group cannot function as a stand-alone nation, and certainly not within the international community...Somehow I'm not surprised that Baptovia would be against this proposal...

[-Hellkite-]

There is real world examples Namely Northern Ireland. and oh boy that did not work .

May be a proposal for right to redress of grievances would be more sound.

[Knootoss]

@Charlotte Ryberg: Please point out how this resolution restricts the form of government that a nation may take? This seems to be a delusion that the instinctive opponents have taken, but I cannot find it anywhere in the resolution text.

Glen-Rhodes: My consideration is that Liberty, justice and equity may lead to the resolution being perceived as an ideological diktat, even though really, it isn't. It is more culturally relativist in that governments are expected to uphold the principles that it is considered to be bound by. That may still be liberty, justice and equity. The 'Cautions' clause is intended as actionable. The 'condemns' clause intentionally is not.

@Baptovia: Stop hogging the bong pipe, please.

@-Hellkite- I don't see what Northern Ireland has to do with anything, especially when you can name a thousand independence movements that indeed have been legitimate and successful.

[-Hellkite-]

@Charlotte Ryberg: Please point out how this resolution restricts the form of government that a nation may take? This seems to be a delusion that the instinctive opponents have taken, but I cannot find it anywhere in the resolution text.

Glen-Rhodes: My consideration is that Liberty, justice and equity may lead to the resolution being perceived as an ideological diktat, even though really, it isn't. It is more culturally relativist in that governments are expected to uphold the principles that it is considered to be bound by. That may still be liberty, justice and equity. The 'Cautions' clause is intended as actionable. The 'condemns' clause intentionally is not.

@Baptovia: Stop hogging the bong pipe, please.

@-Hellkite- I don't see what Northern Ireland has to do with anything, especially when you can name a thousand independence movements that indeed have been legitimate and successful.

Really ?

The point is that it was a case of that was Legislation (or "statutory law") that had the same effect as you proposal.

The principal issues at stake in the Troubles were the constitutional status of Northern Ireland and the relationship between the mainly Protestant unionist and mainly Catholic nationalist communities in Northern Ireland. The Troubles had both political and military (or paramilitary) dimensions. Its participants included republican and loyalist paramilitaries, the security forces of the United Kingdom and of the Republic of Ireland, and nationalist and unionist politicians and political activists.

[Knootoss]

OOC: I know what the Troubles in Ireland were about. I fail to see the relationship, or why this somehow makes my resolution bad. However I must admit I don't really care either. Oppose as you wish.

[Glen-Rhodes]

My consideration is that Liberty, justice and equity may lead to the resolution being perceived as an ideological diktat, even though really, it isn't. It is more culturally relativist in that governments are expected to uphold the principles that it is considered to be bound by. That may still be liberty, justice and equity. The 'Cautions' clause is intended as actionable. The 'condemns' clause intentionally is not.

The concern I have is that by making the affirmation relative, then the affirmations can't ever be violated. A dictatorship is not bound by freedom, liberty, the rule of law, or any other honest and good democratic principle. So, when would the people of a dictatorship have the right to institute a new government or declare independence?

[Kryozerkia]

Knoot's made a request to Moderation for input. He requested that a response be posted in his thread. Just a couple of thoughts on the issue.

Would 'Vindiciae contra tyrannos' be a legitimate title for a WA proposal? Specifically, this WA proposal:

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=126533

There is no reason why a Latin title wouldn't be acceptable, given that there is precedent for it. There are other instances where Latin has been used in the body of a resolution as well. If the translated title ("Defences [of liberty] against tyrants") didn't fit the intended nature of the proposal, I'd say no, it wouldn't be legitimate. Given it does reflect the intent and spirit of the proposal, it does seem reasonable. Nevertheless, the current title, Right of Abjuration, seems better in my opinion. At the end of the day, either title is ultimately acceptable. If your goal is to gain votes, I'd recommend the current title if only for that reason.

If a moderator could find it in his heart to comment on the general legality considerations of the proposal that'd be very nice too.

The biggest concern here could be whether or not this constitutes an ideological ban. As it doesn't ban or unnecessarily promote one style of government over another, it's fair that it wouldn't fall into the realm of ideological ban. It allows the citizens of a nation the right to a change in government style. It doesn't promote democracy over any other ideology.

As for the category, as a result of the intent and spirit, it is best suited to the category already selected.

[Knootoss]

OOC: Thank you very much, Kryozerkia! That is very helpful. As for the title, I'm purely going for what is most popular here, so I've added a poll!

[Mousebumples]

Re: the poll ...

I voted for "Right of Revolution" because I think it best caters to the fluffy vote. If we could be assured of this proposal's passage, regardless of the title, I'd pick the Latin one. But I'm sure titling my medical marijuana proposal "Essential Medication Act" helped gain a lot of votes that I may not have won otherwise ...

[-Hellkite-]

OOC: I know what the Troubles in Ireland were about. I fail to see the relationship, or why this somehow makes my resolution bad. However I must admit I don't really care either. Oppose as you wish.

Then you would fail to see the forest for the trees.

Rest assured that I most certainly will actively Oppose it as my regions founder and delegate.

[Knootoss]

I hate trees anyway.


Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

[Charlotte Ryberg]

AFFIRMS that citizens of World Assembly are not slaves to their governments, but rather that these governments exist for the sake of their citizens;

The WA is not a country. Did you mean:

AFFIRMS that citizens of member countries are not slaves to their governments, but rather that these governments exist for the sake of their citizens;

Since it does not outlaw constitutional monarchies, I will support.

[Cliched Villainy]

The Holy Empire of Cliched Villainy cannot condone this, as we feverently believe citizens are to serve the interests of the state, and not the other way around. As the wise Plato put it, has not the state cared for the individual, and thus the individual is at the disposal of the state?

[Bears Armed]

I hate trees anyway.

(Image)
Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

"Hwat?!?"

*(defenestrates Aram)*

Splash!

[Knootoss]

After Aram clambers back into the hall.

In response to the Minoan suggestion, an edit has been made.


Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

[Knootoss]

I may submit this for a test run in seven hours. 'Vindiciae contra tyrannos' is leading as a title right now.

[Knootoss]

OOC: A Right to Petition draft has been put up, and may be submitted jointly with this resolution.