[LEGALITY CHALLENGE] WA Peacekeeping Charter

[Auralia]

My apologies to the author for not filing this challenge earlier, though I did voice my concerns about the proposal on multiple occasions.

I allege that the WA Peacekeeping Charter violates article 10 of GAR #2, "Rights and Duties of WA States". GAR #2 clearly prohibits the World Assembly from establishing a military or police force, yet this is precisely what the WA Peacekeeping Charter seeks to do in all but name.

The relevant provision of GAR #2 reads:

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.

This is an extremely broad prohibition on the use of force by the World Assembly. Article 10 does not merely ban the World Assembly from establishing a military or using deadly force; in prohibiting police actions, it prohibits any use of force by the World Assembly in a law enforcement capacity.

Yet the WA Peacekeeping Charter establishes an entity called the "WA Peacekeepers" with a mandate that we would typically associate with a military or at the very least a police force, especially the highlighted provisions:

Establishes the WA Peacekeepers, whose goal shall be to prevent and end conflict, and preserve peace.

[...]

Tasks the WA Peacekeepers with the following duties:

• Assistance in reintegrating former combatants back into civilian society
• Assistance in disarmament and demobilizing of military forces,
• Organization of elections or government reorganization or establishment, or monitoring thereof
• Monitoring the fulfillment of obligations created by armistices or ceasefires
• Protection of the WA-recognized rights of citizens of member nations and support for the rule of law
• Assistance in international mediation and resolving potential causes for international conflict

In general, it's not easy to "prevent and end conflict", "preserve peace", "disarm[] and demobiliz[e] military forces", "protect[]...the WA-recognized rights of citizens" and "support...the rule of law" without recourse to force. That's why military and police forces exist in the first place. As such, to the extent that the WA Peacekeepers are authorized to use force to carry out this mandate, we can anticipate that this force will be regularly used.

And indeed, we see that the WA Peacekeepers are implicitly authorized to use non-lethal force (and even lethal force if necessary for self-defense) to carry out its mandate:

Establishes the WA Peacekeepers, whose goal shall be to prevent and end conflict, and preserve peace. Peacekeepers shall adhere to these principles:

• Consent of all parties involved in its operations. No peacekeeping effort shall be made without the consent of all WA member nations involved, and without the request of at least one member nation involved.
• Impartiality in proceedings and conflicts. Peacekeepers shall maintain professionalism at all times and give equal consideration to the involved parties.
• Non-use of force. Except in cases of self defense, Peacekeepers are to refrain from using lethal force, and shall be prohibited from carrying lethal weapons. Peacekeepers are to avoid using non-lethal force on state actors.

If the WA Peacekeepers are encouraged to refrain from using non-lethal force against state actors, then this implies that they are permitted to use non-lethal force in other situations, such as against non-state actors, and even to use it against state actors if it is deemed necessary; to "avoid" is not to prohibit. Moreover, if the WA Peacekeepers are prohibited from using lethal force in cases other than self-defense, then this implies that they are permitted to use lethal force in self-defense.

Yet GAR #2 prohibits the use of any kind of force to carry out a law enforcement mandate. As such, I argue that the proposal as currently structured violates GAR #2.

[Glen-Rhodes]

GenSec has acknowledged this challenge and is in the process of conducting our review.

[Excidium Planetis]

The relevant provision of GAR #2 reads:

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.

This is an extremely broad prohibition on the use of force by the World Assembly. Article 10 does not merely ban the World Assembly from establishing a military or the use of deadly force; in prohibiting police actions, it prohibits any use of force by the World Assembly in a law enforcement capacity.

That's an extremely big assumption, considering GA#2 doesn't even use the word force in Clause 10. What it does specifically mention is participation in armed conflict, police actions, and military activities under the WA banner.

Yet the WA Peacekeeping Charter establishes an entity with a mandate that we would typically associate with a military or at the very least a police force, especially the highlighted provisions:

Establishes the WA Peacekeepers, whose goal shall be to prevent and end conflict, and preserve peace.

This is the goal of the military? To prevent and preserve peace? That sounds like the opposite of what militaries are traditionally for.

Instead, the goal of creating peace sounds much like part of the US Department of State's Mission Statement:
"There is the prospect for a durable peace among the great powers based on alignment against common threats. We will strive to strengthen traditional alliances and build new relationships to achieve a peace that brings security, but when necessary, we will act alone to face the challenges, provide assistance, and seize the opportunities of this era."
You wouldn't call the Department of State a military, would you?

[...]

Tasks the WA Peacekeepers with the following duties:
[list][*]Assistance in reintegrating former combatants back into civilian society
[*]Assistance in disarmament and demobilizing of military forces,

If disarmament was sufficient to render a resolution illegal, why did we have GA#40 The Landmine Convention, which specifically stated:
"9. Establish the World Assembly Demining Agency (WADA) with a charter to:
- conduct and aid mine clearance operations, where requested,"
Which is a disarmament activity exactly like what the Peacekeepers are tasked with.

[*]Protection of the WA-recognized rights of citizens of member nations and support for the rule of law

It is hard to see why a military force would be necessary to protect the rights of citizens and support the rule of law. Lawyers and international treaties would better at that.

In fact, this is a responsibility of the WA itself, as GA#375 Crime and Punishment proclaims:
"The World Assembly,

Reasserting its authority to protect basic civil rights, including the rights of the accused and condemned for even the most heinous and monstrous of crimes,"

In general, it's not easy to "prevent and end conflict", "preserve peace", "disarm[] and demobiliz[e] military forces", "protect[]...the WA-recognized rights of citizens" and "support...the rule of law" without recourse to force.

And yet the WA has been tasked with all of those in prior resolutions. Nowhere does the resolution maintain that force is used to promote these goals.

As such, to the extent that this entity is authorized to use force to carry out this mandate, we can anticipate that this force will be regularly used.

This entity is not authorized to use force to fulfill it's mandates, only to use force in self defense.

And indeed, we see that this entity is implicitly authorized to use non-lethal force (and even lethal force if necessary for self-defense) to carry out its mandate:

If peacekeepers are encouraged to refrain from using non-lethal force in some situations, then this implies that they are permitted to use non-lethal force in other situations, and even to use it in the stated situation if it is deemed necessary.

Imagine a resolution containing this clause:

Prohibits the WA Peacekeepers from using non-lethal force in any circumstances.

How would this be illegal? And if it is not illegal for contradiction, how can you maintain that the Peacekeepers are authorized to use non-lethal force?

They are encouraged to refrain from using non-lethal force in some circumstances. Nothing prevent the WA from also encouraging them to refrain in other circumstances.

Moreover, if peacekeepers are prohibited from using lethal force in cases other than self-defense, then this implies that they are permitted to use lethal force in self-defense.

Yes. Self-defense, however, is not a police or military activity. It's something citizens in most nations are able to engage in.

Yet GAR #2 prohibits the use of any kind of force to carry out a mandate of this nature. As such, I argue that the proposal as currently structured violates GAR #2.

GA#2 doesn't say that, and even if it did, force is not required for this resolution.

[Glen-Rhodes]

It is hard to see why a military force would be necessary to protect the rights of citizens and support the rule of law. Lawyers and international treaties would better at that.

Should we, in general, give the benefit of the doubt that authors are only talking about rule-abiding activities, when there's vagueness in a proposal that could include activities that break the rules? It would certainly be easier to make this point if the language was less vague on what exactly "support for the rule of law" means.

In fact, this is a responsibility of the WA itself, as GA#375 Crime and Punishment proclaims:
"The World Assembly,

Reasserting its authority to protect basic civil rights, including the rights of the accused and condemned for even the most heinous and monstrous of crimes,"

It's worth pointing out that "Crime and Punishment" has a list of do's and don'ts for member states, and the WA isn't taking any direct action itself. The question Auralia is raising isn't so much whether or not the WA is there to protect basic civil rights, but whether or not it can do so directly with boots on the ground (literally, in this case).

As such, to the extent that this entity is authorized to use force to carry out this mandate, we can anticipate that this force will be regularly used.

This entity is not authorized to use force to fulfill it's mandates, only to use force in self defense.

Should the context of why they'd be engaging in self-defense matter, here? It would be because they're either in the midst of interstate conflict, or because they're protecting themselves in an environment where the conflict isn't truly settled. That would inform a decision on whether or not peacekeepers would be "commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner."

[Excidium Planetis]

Should we, in general, give the benefit of the doubt that authors are only talking about rule-abiding activities, when there's vagueness in a proposal that could include activities that break the rules? It would certainly be easier to make this point if the language was less vague on what exactly "support for the rule of law" means.

If we consider the WA as a real life organization presented with an interpretation that does not contradict GA#2, and an interpretation that does contradict GA#2, which would it take? I argue that if it is possible to interpret the proposal in a rule abiding way, that would be the interpretation the WA takes. The WA should not willingly contradict itself when it does not need to.

It's worth pointing out that "Crime and Punishment" has a list of do's and don'ts for member states, and the WA isn't taking any direct action itself. The question Auralia is raising isn't so much whether or not the WA is there to protect basic civil rights, but whether or not it can do so directly with boots on the ground (literally, in this case).

I argue that it can. If the general goal of the WA is protection of civil rights, why can it not use committees directly to protect those rights? The WA uses committees to carry out other goals, such as the International Mediation Foundation to promote peace through ceasefires, why should protection of civil rights be any different?

Should the context of why they'd be engaging in self-defense matter, here? It would be because they're either in the midst of interstate conflict, or because they're protecting themselves in an environment where the conflict isn't truly settled. That would inform a decision on whether or not peacekeepers would be "commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner."

In general and in law, military actions are not considered self defense. Self defense is specifically the defense of oneself (and sometimes others) as a defense against charges of violent crime. Soldiers in an armed conflict do not usually face charges of violent crime for their actions, and thus self defense as a legal justification does not come into play.

The ordinary, reasonable interpretation of that exception is when a Peacekeeper charged with using lethal force in contravention of this resolution claims self defense, a reaction against a perceived lethal threat such as an ordinary person might encounter, then this is a legal justification according to the resolution.

[Auralia]

That's an extremely big assumption, considering GA#2 doesn't even use the word force in Clause 10. What it does specifically mention is participation in armed conflict, police actions, and military activities under the WA banner.

It doesn't have to. A ban on participation on military and police activities by the World Assembly is effectively a ban on the use of force by the World Assembly, since the use of force (except in the context of individual self-defense) is illegitimate unless undertaken as part of a military or police activity.

This is the goal of the military? To prevent and preserve peace?

In the contemporary developed world? Most certainly. There's a reason why the United States Department of War is now called the Department of Defense, and why UN peacekeepers are given lethal weapons before being sent to conflict zones. Preserving the peace necessitates the use of force.

Instead, the goal of creating peace sounds much like part of the US Department of State's Mission Statement:
"There is the prospect for a durable peace among the great powers based on alignment against common threats. We will strive to strengthen traditional alliances and build new relationships to achieve a peace that brings security, but when necessary, we will act alone to face the challenges, provide assistance, and seize the opportunities of this era."
You wouldn't call the Department of State a military, would you?

No, but we don't equip State Department officials with (non-lethal) weapons and send them off to protect the rights of citizens and support the rule of law in UN member states. Not every organization dedicated to preserving peace is a military or police force, but the WA Peacekeepers certainly appear to be one.

If disarmament was sufficient to render a resolution illegal, why did we have GA#40 The Landmine Convention...

The issue isn't the World Assembly creating an organization to assist in disarmament. The issue is the World Assembly creating an organization with the implied right to use force to compel disarmament.

This entity is not authorized to use force to fulfill it's mandates, only to use force in self defense.

That's the key point on which we disagree. If the WA Peacekeepers are not supposed to use force to accomplish their mandate, then the proposal would either:

1. not comment on the use of force by the WA Peacekeepers at all, or
2. explicitly ban the use of force by the WA Peacekeepers.

But your proposal doesn't do that. It bans the use of certain kinds of force by the WA Peacekeepers. Combine this with the fact that in the real world, peacekeeping missions customarily use force, I think the most reasonable interpretation of the proposal is that the WA Peacekeepers are implicitly allowed to use force to fulfill their mandate.

Imagine a resolution containing this clause:

Prohibits the WA Peacekeepers from using non-lethal force in any circumstances.

How would this be illegal? And if it is not illegal for contradiction, how can you maintain that the Peacekeepers are authorized to use non-lethal force?

They are encouraged to refrain from using non-lethal force in some circumstances. Nothing prevent the WA from also encouraging them to refrain in other circumstances.

I think it would be a form of indirect contradiction, yes. Your proposal creates an implied authorization for the WA Peacekeepers to use non-lethal force to carry out quasi-police functions. A future proposal cannot revoke that implied authorization without falling afoul of the contradiction rule.

[Auralia]

If we consider the WA as a real life organization presented with an interpretation that does not contradict GA#2, and an interpretation that does contradict GA#2, which would it take? I argue that if it is possible to interpret the proposal in a rule abiding way, that would be the interpretation the WA takes. The WA should not willingly contradict itself when it does not need to.

Just as a side note -- if this is the approach GenSec wants to take, that's fine with me. I agree that the proposal is ambiguous, and that it can be interpreted in a legal manner (though I don't think that's the most reasonable reading). In fact, that might even be preferable. I certainly know what it's like to be on defense when it comes to proposal legality; if I were in EP's shoes, I would certainly prefer GenSec to go with the legal reading if it's not completely unreasonable and leave it up to the voters.

All I really want is a declaration that the World Assembly (and by extension the WA Peacekeepers) are not authorized to use force in a military or law enforcement capacity thanks to GAR #2.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I argue that it can. If the general goal of the WA is protection of civil rights, why can it not use committees directly to protect those rights? The WA uses committees to carry out other goals, such as the International Mediation Foundation to promote peace through ceasefires, why should protection of civil rights be any different?

In this particular case, though, GAR#2 includes a broad prohibition on the GA "participating in" these types of military and/or police-related activities, doesn't it?

[Excidium Planetis]

It doesn't have to. A ban on participation on military and police activities by the World Assembly is effectively a ban on the use of force by the World Assembly, since the use of force (except in the context of individual self-defense) is illegitimate unless undertaken as part of a military or police activity.

That's good, because self defense is the only context the resolution specifically allows the use of force in. Your own words affirm the legality of my resolution. GenSec, take note.

No, but we don't equip State Department officials with (non-lethal) weapons and send them off to protect the rights of citizens and support the rule of law in UN member states.

We send them off to protect human rights. How many times have Secretaries of State mentioned human rights violations? How much of diplomacy centers upon the rights of citizens of the world?

Sure, we don't require them to go armed with tazers, but really, if they were, would you call them a police or military force?

Not every organization dedicated to preserving peace is a military or police force, but the WA Peacekeepers certainly appear to be one.

That directly contradicts the resolution in question, which states that the WA Peacekeepers are not a military force.

The issue isn't the World Assembly creating an organization to assist in disarmament. The issue is the World Assembly creating an organization with the implied right to use force to compel disarmament.

Nowhere is that the case. In fact, the Peacekeepers are to refrain from using force on state actors. Disarmament only applies to militaries, which are state actors. The resolution then specifically prohibits the Peacekeepers from suing force to compel disarmament.

That's the key point on which we disagree. If the WA Peacekeepers are not supposed to use force to accomplish their mandate, then the proposal would either:

1. not comment on the use of force by the WA Peacekeepers at all, or
2. explicitly ban the use of force by the WA Peacekeepers.

But your proposal doesn't do that. It bans the use of certain kinds of force by the WA Peacekeepers. Combine this with the fact that in the real world, peacekeeping missions customarily use force, I think the most reasonable interpretation of the proposal is that the WA Peacekeepers are implicitly allowed to use force to fulfill their mandate.

Your argument relies on a comparison to real life Peacekeepers. As I have noted several times, the WA Peacekeepers, while sharing many duties, do not have the power and privileges of real life UN Peacekeepers. UN Peacekeepers are issued lethal weapons, WA Peacekeepers prohibited from being issued them. This is just one example of the differences.

As most WA Peacekeeper mandates concern states, and they are to refrain from using force on state actors, your whole argument that they are using force to achieve their goals falls apart.

I think it would be a form of indirect contradiction, yes. Your proposal creates an implied authorization for the WA Peacekeepers to use non-lethal force to carry out quasi-police functions. A future proposal cannot revoke that implied authorization without falling afoul of the contradiction rule.

What is indirect contradiction?

[Excidium Planetis]

If we consider the WA as a real life organization presented with an interpretation that does not contradict GA#2, and an interpretation that does contradict GA#2, which would it take? I argue that if it is possible to interpret the proposal in a rule abiding way, that would be the interpretation the WA takes. The WA should not willingly contradict itself when it does not need to.

Just as a side note -- if this is the approach GenSec wants to take, that's fine with me. I agree that the proposal is ambiguous, and that it can be interpreted in a legal manner (though I don't think that's the most reasonable reading). In fact, that might even be preferable. I certainly know what it's like to be on defense when it comes to proposal legality; if I were in EP's shoes, I would certainly prefer GenSec to go with the legal reading if it's not completely unreasonable and leave it up to the voters.

All I really want is a declaration that the World Assembly (and by extension the WA Peacekeepers) are not authorized to use force in a military or law enforcement capacity thanks to GAR #2.

I agree to this. Is it possible to ask the GenSec for a compromise ruling?

In this particular case, though, GAR#2 includes a broad prohibition on the GA "participating in" these types of military and/or police-related activities, doesn't it?

If this is the case, no WA committees could participate in disarmament, no WA committees could participate in ceasefire negotiations, no WA committees could engage in any activities that military or police forces may do in addition to armed conflict.

[Glen-Rhodes]

In this particular case, though, GAR#2 includes a broad prohibition on the GA "participating in" these types of military and/or police-related activities, doesn't it?

If this is the case, no WA committees could participate in disarmament, no WA committees could participate in ceasefire negotiations, no WA committees could engage in any activities that military or police forces may do in addition to armed conflict.

That's entirely possible, yeah, insofar as WA officials would be direct, non-neutral participants, in cases where conflict is ongoing. It's not actually clear here if the proposal is limited to post-conflict peacekeeping activities, since the goal as stated is also to end conflict, which is proactive language.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I also would like to say that it's in the author's most prudent interests to request a review of their proposal before submission, when legality issues have been raised during drafting, or the likelihood of a legality challenge is very high. Doing an end-run around GenSec or mods by submitting a proposal, campaigning, and reaching quorum overnight -- as impressive a feat as that may be -- doesn't foster a healthy debate environment. It forces us to rush through our own deliberations, robs everybody of a chance to provide input into the legality review process, and ultimately may compel the use of the Discard function that so many community regulars hate.

[Auralia]

It doesn't have to. A ban on participation on military and police activities by the World Assembly is effectively a ban on the use of force by the World Assembly, since the use of force (except in the context of individual self-defense) is illegitimate unless undertaken as part of a military or police activity.

That's good, because self defense is the only context the resolution specifically allows the use of force in. Your own words affirm the legality of my resolution. GenSec, take note.

I agree that your proposal does not explicitly authorize the WA Peacekeepers to use force. I'm arguing that it implicitly does so.

We send them off to protect human rights. How many times have Secretaries of State mentioned human rights violations? How much of diplomacy centers upon the rights of citizens of the world?

The US Secretary of State has diplomatic power primarily because their words are backed by the might of the US military. Anyway, unless you're claiming that the WA Peacekeepers are the World Assembly's foreign affairs department, I'm not sure what the purpose is in continuing this tangent.

Sure, we don't require them to go armed with tazers, but really, if they were, would you call them a police or military force?

If you sent a group of people called "peacekeepers" armed with tazers or other non-lethal weapons tasked with "supporting the rule of law" in a particular World Assembly member state, then yes, I'd call them a police force.

That directly contradicts the resolution in question, which states that the WA Peacekeepers are not a military force.

Look, I'll agree with you that there's not a very strong case for the WA Peacekeepers being a military force specifically. I think there's a strong case that they're a police force, however.

Nowhere is that the case. In fact, the Peacekeepers are to refrain from using force on state actors. Disarmament only applies to militaries, which are state actors. The resolution then specifically prohibits the Peacekeepers from suing force to compel disarmament.

Actually, no -- the peacekeepers are to "avoid" using force on state actors, which is a far weaker verb than, say, "ban" or "prohibit". Moreover, disarmament doesn't just apply to state actors.

Your argument relies on a comparison to real life Peacekeepers. As I have noted several times, the WA Peacekeepers, while sharing many duties, do not have the power and privileges of real life UN Peacekeepers. UN Peacekeepers are issued lethal weapons, WA Peacekeepers prohibited from being issued them. This is just one example of the differences.

Sure, there are some differences, which is why you're probably right that the WA Peacekeepers aren't a military force. But there are enough similarities to call them a police force, in my view.

What is indirect contradiction?

Just a less obvious form of contradiction.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

This entity is not authorized to use force to fulfill it's mandates, only to use force in self defense.

That's not what it says, though. The entity is permitted to use lethal force only in self-defense; and forbidden from using non-lethal force only against state actors. This means that it is perfectly within the rules this proposal lays out for the Peacekeepers to use non-lethal force against non-state actors under whatever circumstances they please. Even if there were procedural requirements in place limiting the circumstances under which they're permitted to club and tase people beyond your prohibition on military action, this power combined with its various positive mandates makes this entity a WA police force per se. Perhaps a very limited one; they are not required¹ to do anything if someone carries out, say, a bank robbery right in front of them, but if someone tries to suppress another's free expression or forcibly denigrate beekeeping, they'll intervene. But a police force nonetheless.

¹Nothing says they can't, either, which is possibly troublesome. One unit may see the promotion of public order as essential for human rights, while another unit may see their mandate strictly limited to enforcing the rights explicitly enumerated in international law. This would lead to inconsistent policing, a bane of any stable society. One argues that that's the national/provincial/municipal police's job, but if that's the proposal's intent then why aren't the Peacekeepers specifically forbidden from keeping public order?

It doesn't have to. A ban on participation on military and police activities by the World Assembly is effectively a ban on the use of force by the World Assembly, since the use of force (except in the context of individual self-defense) is illegitimate unless undertaken as part of a military or police activity.

That's good, because self defense is the only context the resolution specifically allows the use of force in. Your own words affirm the legality of my resolution. GenSec, take note.

The highlighted phrase here is ultimately irrelevant. First, it's simply not true: self-defense is the only context in which the resolution specifically allows lethal force; and "on state actors" is the only context in which the resolution specifically disallows non-lethal force. Therefore the resolution permits the use of lethal force against anyone attacking the peacekeepers; and non-lethal force against any non-state actor no matter what they're doing. Force is thus permitted against the people in the conflict zone, rendering this a police force. I don't currently see an alternative interpretation.

[Excidium Planetis]

I agree that your proposal does not explicitly authorize the WA Peacekeepers to use force. I'm arguing that it implicitly does so.

I argue that even if it did imply that, it must be interpreted to not contradict GA#2. As nothing explicitly contradicts GA#2, any implications of force must be rejected.

The US Secretary of State has diplomatic power primarily because their words are backed by the might of the US military. Anyway, unless you're claiming that the WA Peacekeepers are the World Assembly's foreign affairs department, I'm not sure what the purpose is in continuing this tangent.

In a way, they are. If you saw one of my followup proposals, they would be tasked with staffing WA embassies and attending diplomatic negotiations.

Sure, we don't require them to go armed with tazers, but really, if they were, would you call them a police or military force?

If you sent a group of people called "peacekeepers" armed with tazers or other non-lethal weapons tasked with "supporting the rule of law" in a particular World Assembly member state, then yes, I'd call them a police force.

That wasn't what I asked. If we sent the US State Department with tazers, given that they in their mission statement have as their goal creating peace, and as part of their usual activities address civil rights concerns, would you call them a police force?

Look, I'll agree with you that there's not a very strong case for the WA Peacekeepers being a military force specifically. I think there's a strong case that they're a police force, however.

Alright, then, I will bring up the security for the WAHQ. They were allowed, IIRC correctly, on the interpretation that they were little more than mall cops. I don't see why a similar ruling could not apply here.

Actually, no -- the peacekeepers are to "avoid" using force on state actors, which is a far weaker verb than, say, "ban" or "prohibit".

I will concede this point.

Moreover, disarmament doesn't just apply to state actors.

Disarmament does generally apply to only state actors.
As Wikipedia's article in Disarmament says, "Disarmament generally refers to a country's military or specific type of weaponry". A country's military or weapons are not non-state militaries or weapons.

That's not what it says, though. The entity is permitted to use lethal force only in self-defense; and forbidden from using non-lethal force only against state actors. This means that it is perfectly within the rules this proposal lays out for the Peacekeepers to use non-lethal force against non-state actors under whatever circumstances they please.

I agree that this would be the case in the absence of GA#2. But as the resolution never explicitly states that force is allowed, never authorizes the use of force, then with GA#2's prohibition on police actions force may not be used.

Even if there were procedural requirements in place limiting the circumstances under which they're permitted to club and tase people beyond your prohibition on military action, this power combined with its various positive mandates makes this entity a WA police force per se.

Nothing stops the WA Peacekeepers from deciding as an organization to ban all use of non-lethal force. Nothing stops the WA itself from passing a resolution that does such.

The resolution does not require the use of force to fulfill its mandates.

Perhaps a very limited one; they are not required¹ to do anything if someone carries out, say, a bank robbery right in front of them, but if someone tries to suppress another's free expression or forcibly denigrate beekeeping, they'll intervene.

Citation needed. Nothing in the resolution requires the WA Peacekeepers to intervene in violations of WA law.

One argues that that's the national/provincial/municipal police's job, but if that's the proposal's intent then why aren't the Peacekeepers specifically forbidden from keeping public order?

Because GA#2 already does that, there is no need to make it doubly clear that they can't enforce public order.

The highlighted phrase here is ultimately irrelevant. First, it's simply not true: self-defense is the only context in which the resolution specifically allows lethal force

That's literally what I just said.

"on state actors" is the only context in which the resolution specifically disallows non-lethal force.

Lack of disallowing is not specific allowing. The WA has not disallowed murder. It has not specifically allowed murder. Implicit allowing of murder does not result in a contradiction of a future proposal prohibiting murder, only specific allowing of murder would create a contradiction.

Therefore the resolution permits the use of lethal force against anyone attacking the peacekeepers;

What?
I can't see how you could possibly have arrived at this interpretation when lethal force in all cases except self defense were banned. Protecting beekeepers is not self defense.

I don't currently see an alternative interpretation.

Even the person who filed the legality challenge sees an alternative. Auralia called it "[not] the most reasonable", but he did say "I agree that the proposal is ambiguous, and that it can be interpreted in a legal manner"

[Auralia]

I argue that even if it did imply that, it must be interpreted to not contradict GA#2. As nothing explicitly contradicts GA#2, any implications of force must be rejected.

As I've said, when there are two reasonable interpretations of a proposal -- one legal and one not -- I think it would be a good idea for GenSec to go with the legal interpretation. However, given the conventional definition of "peacekeeper", the police force-style mandate, bans on the use of certain kinds of force but not others... I don't really think it's reasonable to interpret the proposal in the way that you want. I think that a reasonable person reading your proposal would come to the conclusion that you're establishing an international police force.

I do think it's somewhat subjective, so if GenSec goes the other way I won't be surprised or even particularly disappointed. As I said, what I really want is a declaration that the World Assembly can't use force. If your proposal -- or a proposal like yours -- is ever passed, I want to be able to argue that World Assembly peacekeepers are being given the responsibilities of a military or police force without the powers required to fulfill those responsibilities, with outcomes like these these being the inevitable result.

That wasn't what I asked. If we sent the US State Department with tazers, given that they in their mission statement have as their goal creating peace, and as part of their usual activities address civil rights concerns, would you call them a police force?

No, I wouldn't. But the WA Peacekeepers are clearly not a foreign affairs ministry like the State Department.

Alright, then, I will bring up the security for the WAHQ. They were allowed, IIRC correctly, on the interpretation that they were little more than mall cops. I don't see why a similar ruling could not apply here.

I disagree. I don't think the World Assembly is permitted to maintain a security force for the WA headquarters. Since the WA headquarters are located in "international neutral territory", any WA-authorized security force would necessarily be a police force because there would be higher authority with jurisdiction.

I think that's stupid, but that's just another reason to repeal GAR #2. (I should add that to my list of repeal arguments, actually).

As Wikipedia's article in Disarmament says, "Disarmament generally refers to a country's military or specific type of weaponry". A country's military or weapons are not non-state militaries or weapons.

This just isn't true. When the UN talks about post-conflict disarmament, they're often talking about disarming violent non-state actors. To use an example you brought up, look at the picture from Wikipedia's Disarmament article. According to the caption, those weapons were not collected from any state actor, but from "various armed groups" in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Another example is the peace treaty Columbia recently negotiated with FARC, a far-left rebel group. FARC must disarm as a condition of the treaty, but FARC is not a state actor.

[States of Glory WA Office]

This means that it is perfectly within the rules this proposal lays out for the Peacekeepers to use non-lethal force against non-state actors under whatever circumstances they please.

I brought this point up in the drafting thread, but I think that EP adequately defended themselves.

Here's one of the principles which the Peacekeepers must abide by:

Impartiality in proceedings and conflicts. Peacekeepers shall maintain professionalism at all times and give equal consideration to the involved parties.

Indiscriminate use of non-lethal force against non-state actors clearly violates this principle.

Also, the proposal:

Further tasks Peacekeepers with:
Maintaining the legitimacy of WA actions

It could be argued that indiscriminate use of non-lethal force against non-state actors undermines the legitimacy of WA actions. I will admit that this is a weaker point, though.

[Excidium Planetis]

As I've said, when there are two reasonable interpretations of a proposal -- one legal and one not -- I think it would be a good idea for GenSec to go with the legal interpretation.

Snip

Again, I would accept this too.

Moving on to where I still disagree, because I want to ensure that my proposal is legal even if it is defeated at vote:

I disagree. I don't think the World Assembly is permitted to maintain a security force for the WA headquarters. Since the WA headquarters are located in "international neutral territory", any WA-authorized security force would necessarily be a police force because there would be higher authority with jurisdiction.

That's a direct contradiction of World Assembly Headquarters, however. GA#8 says:

Establishes the World Assembly Office of Building Management (OBM), the duties of which shall entail:
- locating suitable real estate for the establishment of international headquarters for the NationStates World Assembly
- constructing and maintaining the facilities necessary to house these headquarters
- furnishing the necessary security to protect the headquarters complex and all who use it
- selling contracts to vendors, retailers and other service providers to offer products or services, or operate local chapters, offices or franchises, within WA-controlled territory
- supplying access to available office space for WA agencies and all member and observer nations who request it, provided the requests are reasonable and appreciative of the OBM's limited time and resources
- ignoring or delaying requests for office space for weeks on end;

You can't say they aren't allowed to have security when furnishing security is a WA mandated duty of the OBM.

[Auralia]

That's a direct contradiction of World Assembly Headquarters, however. GA#8 says:

Establishes the World Assembly Office of Building Management (OBM), the duties of which shall entail:
- locating suitable real estate for the establishment of international headquarters for the NationStates World Assembly
- constructing and maintaining the facilities necessary to house these headquarters
- furnishing the necessary security to protect the headquarters complex and all who use it
- selling contracts to vendors, retailers and other service providers to offer products or services, or operate local chapters, offices or franchises, within WA-controlled territory
- supplying access to available office space for WA agencies and all member and observer nations who request it, provided the requests are reasonable and appreciative of the OBM's limited time and resources
- ignoring or delaying requests for office space for weeks on end;

You can't say they aren't allowed to have security when furnishing security is a WA mandated duty of the OBM.

I don't think that provision is legal. GAR #2's prohibition of World Assembly police actions is absolute -- there's no exception for WA HQ security.

[Excidium Planetis]

I don't think that provision is legal. GAR #2's prohibition of World Assembly police actions is absolute -- there's no exception for WA HQ security.

But it passed. All passed resolutions are legal.

[Auralia]

I don't think that provision is legal. GAR #2's prohibition of World Assembly police actions is absolute -- there's no exception for WA HQ security.

But it passed. All passed resolutions are legal.

They don't provide a basis for future proposal legality. For example, the passage of "Max Barry Day" did not nullify the metagaming rule.

[Excidium Planetis]

But it passed. All passed resolutions are legal.

They don't provide a basis for future proposal legality. For example, the passage of "Max Barry Day" did not nullify the metagaming rule.

According to Gruenberg, it disabled the Metagaming rule for the passage of the Repeal, so in a way, it did set a precedent.

Also, there is a huge difference between an instarepealed resolution that even the mods declared illegal, and a resolution which is still on the books and has not ever been declared illegal.

[Auralia]

Also, there is a huge difference between an instarepealed resolution that even the mods declared illegal, and a resolution which is still on the books and has not ever been declared illegal.

The only point I'm trying to make is that the fact that a resolution was successfully passed is not sufficient to prove legality. It's very possible that the mods didn't look too closely at the interactions between GAR #2 and that resolution, especially in the chaos of the early days of the WA.

[Excidium Planetis]

Also, there is a huge difference between an instarepealed resolution that even the mods declared illegal, and a resolution which is still on the books and has not ever been declared illegal.

The only point I'm trying to make is that the fact that a resolution was successfully passed is not sufficient to prove legality. It's very possible that the mods didn't look too closely at the interactions between GAR #2 and that resolution, especially in the chaos of the early days of the WA.

Correction: The Security forces for the WAHQ were ruled LEGAL. Frisbeeteria's words in the jolt forums debate

The way I read the difference between your proposal and the one GMC was discussing was that UNGA seemed to imply that it was drawing security forces out of existing UN security / police / army forces; whereas yours was more along the lines of hiring private security guards for a building complex.

We have some of those on my corporate campus. Most of them are over 60. The running joke is their enforcement method, "Stop! Or I'll yell Stop again!"

That's why I gave it a pass.

[Auralia]

The only point I'm trying to make is that the fact that a resolution was successfully passed is not sufficient to prove legality. It's very possible that the mods didn't look too closely at the interactions between GAR #2 and that resolution, especially in the chaos of the early days of the WA.

Correction: The Security forces for the WAHQ were ruled LEGAL. Frisbeeteria's words in the jolt forums debate

The way I read the difference between your proposal and the one GMC was discussing was that UNGA seemed to imply that it was drawing security forces out of existing UN security / police / army forces; whereas yours was more along the lines of hiring private security guards for a building complex.

We have some of those on my corporate campus. Most of them are over 60. The running joke is their enforcement method, "Stop! Or I'll yell Stop again!"

That's why I gave it a pass.

That's certainly interesting, though I disagree with Frisbeeteria's reasoning. As I explained earlier, private security isn't considered police because security guards do not have any police powers of their own besides the right to make a citizen's arrest. They must turn over anybody they detain to the actual police. However, because the WA HQ is not within the jurisdiction of any member state, private security does not have this option and therefore has no choice but to operate as an actual state-sanctioned police force.

Ultimately it doesn't matter; GenSec is not bound by prior rulings. They've said they'll consider them persuasive precedent, but I hope they'll overturn this one because it was wrongly decided.