[PASSED] The Rule of Law

[Sciongrad]

"Well, luckily for you, your Excellency, this proposal does not involve itself in any way with imaginary crimes. It simply holds sovereigns and governments accountable to their own law. Blaming the rule of law for an elaborate coup where the judicial system is also an active participant is just nonsensical, though. That's essentially tantamount to saying 'well malls exist, and sometimes, shootings occur at malls, and therefore, malls must immediately be banned.'"

"My apologies, I was not clear in my argument. By "Imaginary crime", I met a generic charge, not a judicial coup. Any attempt to bring an absolute ruler up on charges would easily be countered by the argument of "Such an act would cause civil and political unrest to the level of the nations collapse".

"Oh, I see. However, I still don't find that argument very convincing. Simply because there's a minute chance that a government official or sovereign's trial may cause civil or social unrest does not present a more compelling interest than ensuring that they don't act illegally or above the law. Ensuring fair application of the law is more important than accommodating for extreme and unlikely scenarios."

[Mosktopia]

I know I'm the only one arguing this line - and I want it to be clear that I agree with this proposal and would like it to be law - but I'm still convinced that this runs afoul of the ideological ban rule by outlawing a form of government: namely absolute monarchy.

I've been told that we have other resolutions on the books that also interfere with nations choosing a preferred government ideology and that, therefore, this is not an ideological ban. That's a non sequitur, but nonetheless I'd like to know what resolutions those are. While we've obviously passed several laws that prevent nations from implementing certain preferred policies (or require policies they would not prefer), I can't think of a single example that tells nations, effectively, that they cannot have a certain form of government.

I've also been told that this is not an ideological ban because absolute monarchies can still exist, they just have to agree that the king (or queen, or whatever) is subject to the law just like anyone else. I maintain that this is like saying apples can still be apples so long as they agree to be oranges. Absolute monarchs are not subject to any law, even their own. A very simple example to illustrate this point is taxation: the absolute monarch can pass laws requiring everyone in the kingdom to pay taxes and not pay any himself. This law, presumably, would disallow that: requiring that the king also be subject to laws on taxation. A more extreme example is murder: the king can make murder illegal, then turn around and murder every possible contender to the throne and be immune from prosecution. This law, presumably, would disallow that: requiring that the king also be put on trial if he murders his rivals.

I cannot see how this proposal does not affect an ideological ban by outlawing a form of government. That is what the ascendance of the rule of law means: the abolition of absolute monarchy.

[Normlpeople]

"My apologies, I was not clear in my argument. By "Imaginary crime", I met a generic charge, not a judicial coup. Any attempt to bring an absolute ruler up on charges would easily be countered by the argument of "Such an act would cause civil and political unrest to the level of the nations collapse".

"Oh, I see. However, I still don't find that argument very convincing. Simply because there's a minute chance that a government official or sovereign's trial may cause civil or social unrest does not present a more compelling interest than ensuring that they don't act illegally or above the law. Ensuring fair application of the law is more important than accommodating for extreme and unlikely scenarios."

"In something such as a democracy or republic, where the loss of one leader is unlikely to affect the government function, I agree. Many nations are not these however. Many do not have the safety net in place that would allow for the supreme leader to be removed from power without creating a substantial power vacuum, and it could be argued that such a vacuum would lead to the collapse of the nation in general."

[Sciongrad]

I've been told that we have other resolutions on the books that also interfere with nations choosing a preferred government ideology and that, therefore, this is not an ideological ban. That's a non sequitur, but nonetheless I'd like to know what resolutions those are. While we've obviously passed several laws that prevent nations from implementing certain preferred policies (or require policies they would not prefer), I can't think of a single example that tells nations, effectively, that they cannot have a certain form of government.

The argument is not a non-sequitur - it demonstrates legislative precedent, which clarifies the rule at issue here. The whole point of my previous argument was that ideological extremes of one ideology are not protected by the ideological ban rule - that is, that absolute monarchy is not an ideology in its own right, otherwise, all WA resolutions will have prevented one type of ideology or another at some point. For example, a completely totalitarian state cannot currently exist within the World Assembly due to resolutions that make their defining characteristics essentially impossible. GAR#30's guarantee of free expression, GAR#155's freedom of press, and other resolutions that make complete and total state control over their population impossible. You're assuming that an absolute monarchy is a unique type of government that should be afforded the same protection under the ideological ban rule as other types of government, but my point is that this isn't the case. The World Assembly has always been allowed to restrict the extremes of ideologies, and this is no different than when anarchy, totalitarianism, and other extremes have been restricted to accommodate reason. Just as relevant is the fact that I still am not convinced that the rule of law makes an absolute monarchy absolute impossible. I have conceded that there would be difficulty in accomplishing this, but an absolute monarchy can still exist in a limited state. An absolute monarchy is not defined exclusively by its ability to transcend the rule of law. If you still disagree, I don't think this debate will bear any fruit, so I'll file a request with the secretariat should it be necessary."

I've also been told that this is not an ideological ban because absolute monarchies can still exist, they just have to agree that the king (or queen, or whatever) is subject to the law just like anyone else. I maintain that this is like saying apples can still be apples so long as they agree to be oranges. Absolute monarchs are not subject to any law, even their own. A very simple example to illustrate this point is taxation: the absolute monarch can pass laws requiring everyone in the kingdom to pay taxes and not pay any himself. This law, presumably, would disallow that: requiring that the king also be subject to laws on taxation. A more extreme example is murder: the king can make murder illegal, then turn around and murder every possible contender to the throne and be immune from prosecution. This law, presumably, would disallow that: requiring that the king also be put on trial if he murders his rivals.

I still hold that an absolute monarchy would not be banned outright by mandating adherence to the rule of law - it would be made very difficult to accomplish, of course - but even if that were the case, this literal and extreme interpretation of the ideological ban rule is simply not consistent with how the rule has been applied previously. I've already demonstrated that there is extensive legislative precedent involved in restricting extremes of ideologies. There is even secretariat judgement to this effect:

But if a series of resolutions seems to gradually make it more and more difficult to keep a nation on a particular track, it's a player problem. There's plenty that can be done in-game about it and plenty of time to do it. It's not a one-proposal problem, it's not a one-proposal solution, and (again, IMHO) mods should keep our noses out of it. We're not supposed to play the game for you.

[Alqania]

"While a philosophical discussion about the extent to which a monarchy can remain absolute within the World Assembly may have merit, the connection between the member-state obligation to comply with GA Resolutions and the special status of the Sovereign is an indirect one", opined Lord Raekevik. "On the other hand, this proposal would - directly - demand that the rule of law replace divine right."

"The proposal rule against ideological bans has a very narrow application, to the best of the Alqanian delegation's recollection, and we are not convinced that this proposal would violate that rule, even though we would perhaps have preferred a wider application of the ban that could have encompassed the content before us."

"For the Queendom, this is a no-brainer. Her Majesty the Queen of Alqania rules by divine right, so we cannot accept any proposal that would limit divine right. And subjecting the Queen to worldly law is incompatible with divine right, more so than any other action ever taken by this Assembly."

[Sciongrad]

"While a philosophical discussion about the extent to which a monarchy can remain absolute within the World Assembly may have merit, the connection between the member-state obligation to comply with GA Resolutions and the special status of the Sovereign is an indirect one", opined Lord Raekevik. "On the other hand, this proposal would - directly - demand that the rule of law replace divine right."

"The proposal rule against ideological bans has a very narrow application, to the best of the Alqanian delegation's recollection, and we are not convinced that this proposal would violate that rule, even though we would perhaps have preferred a wider application of the ban that could have encompassed the content before us."

"For the Queendom, this is a no-brainer. Her Majesty the Queen of Alqania rules by divine right, so we cannot accept any proposal that would limit divine right. And subjecting the Queen to worldly law is incompatible with divine right, more so than any other action ever taken by this Assembly."

"It saddens me that his most honorable Excellency of Alqania cannot support us in this endeavor, but it would be disingenuous of me to pretend that I expected anything less than complete and total opposition by the Queendom. Unfortunately, that will not deter our efforts to pass this proposal through all means necessary."

[Brilliant Equestria]

"Sadly, I must announce we shall also be opposing this by all means available to us. Call it whatever you like but the fact remains it is still a blatant and unnecessary attack on our nation, culture, and way of life. Her Eternal Highness is both the source and the enforcer of our law; there is no higher authority to appeal to and expecting Her to enforce it on Herself is an obvious conflict of interest. There is also the fact that our entire legal infrastructure is dependent on Her continuing presence to function and has absolutely no provisions for continuity of government in Her absence".

"Try to see it from our perspective, Ambassador. You are attempting to force a single form of jurisprudence on the entirety of the World Assembly with no concern for existing structure or culture. It's hard to see this as anything other than an attack and, evidently, I'm not alone in this thinking".

[Sciongrad]

"Sadly, I must announce we shall also be opposing this by all means available to us. Call it whatever you like but the fact remains it is still a blatant and unnecessary attack on our nation, culture, and way of life. Her Eternal Highness is both the source and the enforcer of our law; there is no higher authority to appeal to and expecting Her to enforce it on Herself is an obvious conflict of interest. There is also the fact that our entire legal infrastructure is dependent on Her continuing presence to function and has absolutely no provisions for continuity of government in Her absence".

"Try to see it from our perspective, Ambassador. You are attempting to force a single form of jurisprudence on the entirety of the World Assembly with no concern for existing structure or culture. It's hard to see this as anything other than an attack and, evidently, I'm not alone in this thinking".

"It is a good thing that her Majesty of Brilliant Equestria will not be forced to abandon her authority as both the source and enforcer of laws. All this proposal does is require her Majesty to adhere to her own laws. Which means that if you have a law against murder in Brilliant Equestria, her Majesty cannot axe murder her neighbor and claim sovereign immunity. The rule of law is incompatible with tyranny, but luckily for those who fear it will deprive them of a functioning monarchy, it does not deprive anyone of absolute and total control over all aspects of their nation. I reiterate, this only holds the sovereign or the government accountable for its own actions. And frankly, cultural tradition ends where abuses in civil and political liberties begin. Meaning that while I certainly respect your culture and political history, it is not compatible with the ideals of a legitimate society that the sovereign is inherently better than her people."

[Bears Armed]

Would this make it illegal for any member nation's government to issue pardons to people proven (or maybeso, in some case, so far only alleged) to have committed an offence unless they pardon everybody there who's faced/facing comparable charges?
if it does do so then member nations' governments lose the tool of selective pardoning, although that can have legitimate & beneficial uses... but if it doesn't then the murdering monarchs about whom some people here have been talking could simply pardon themselves for their "illegal" actions anyhows...

[Bananaistan]

Would be correct in saying that this proposal would effectively abolish positive discrimination?

[Alqania]

Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but this would, I think, interfere with the idea of diplomatic immunity. Which, personally, I think is great, but it bears mentioning.

"Not sure I see that. I think the key is in Article 1: 'All persons...shall be held equally accountable under the established laws of a relevant member nation'. That means that an official serving in a foreign jurisdiction with diplomatic immunity, so long as they are still held accountable under their own nation's laws. According to the relevant WA Resolution:

a) A diplomat may still be tried for crimes by the nation they serve

"As such, they are still accountable under the laws of 'a member nation' - their own."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

"What about diplomats representing non-member states accredited in member states? How would they be accountable under the law of a member state?" asked Lord Raekevik.

[Sciongrad]

Would be correct in saying that this proposal would effectively abolish positive discrimination?

"A good clarifying question, but no, this would not do that. Again, this proposal does not concern itself with what any given nation's law does. Clause one only prevents individuals from acting above the law. Positive discrimination is an issue of legal equality, and is therefore relevant to GAR#35 but not to this proposal."

Would this make it illegal for any member nation's government to issue pardons to people proven (or maybeso, in some case, so far only alleged) to have committed an offence unless they pardon everybody there who's faced/facing comparable charges?
if it does do so then member nations' governments lose the tool of selective pardoning, although that can have legitimate & beneficial uses... but if it doesn't then the murdering monarchs about whom some people here have been talking could simply pardon themselves for their "illegal" actions anyhows...

"How does this sound:

'Member nations shall be permitted to selectively pardon individuals convicted or accused of crimes, but such selective pardoning must be done in such a way that does not compromise a member nation's good faith compliance with the intentions of this resolution.'"

"Not sure I see that. I think the key is in Article 1: 'All persons...shall be held equally accountable under the established laws of a relevant member nation'. That means that an official serving in a foreign jurisdiction with diplomatic immunity, so long as they are still held accountable under their own nation's laws. According to the relevant WA Resolution:

"As such, they are still accountable under the laws of 'a member nation' - their own."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

"What about diplomats representing non-member states accredited in member states? How would they be accountable under the law of a member state?" asked Lord Raekevik.

"That's a good question. I could always add 'excepting individuals who enjoy diplomatic immunity,' after 'all persons' and then create a clause that urges or requires member nations to declare such diplomats personae non gratae if it is determined that they acted in contravention of that member nation's law."

[Alqania]

"So why is diplomatic immunity acceptable but sovereign immunity not?" wondered Lord Raekevik.

[Chester Pearson]

"So why is diplomatic immunity acceptable but sovereign immunity not?" wondered Lord Raekevik.

Neither should be....

[Sciongrad]

"So why is diplomatic immunity acceptable but sovereign immunity not?" wondered Lord Raekevik.

"Because diplomatic immunity is necessary in ensuring that a diplomat can act without fear of duress. It's a necessary element of international diplomacy. Furthermore, diplomatic immunity guarantees that an individual will not be prosecuted by the nation in which they serve, but those diplomats that do flout the law can be expelled and even prosecuted by their home nation. Absolute sovereign immunity, on the other hand, does not serve any such purpose. An absolute monarch can continue to function without acting above the law - the only purpose that absolute sovereign immunity serves is to foment tyranny. Not in all cases of course - the Queendom is obviously one such example of this exception - but an exception to the rule is not compelling enough to justify the continuation of such a dangerous system."

EDIT/OOC: Typing on phone = errors

[Bears Armed]

Would this make it illegal for any member nation's government to issue pardons to people proven (or maybeso, in some case, so far only alleged) to have committed an offence unless they pardon everybody there who's faced/facing comparable charges?
if it does do so then member nations' governments lose the tool of selective pardoning, although that can have legitimate & beneficial uses... but if it doesn't then the murdering monarchs about whom some people here have been talking could simply pardon themselves for their "illegal" actions anyhows...

"How does this sound:

'Member nations shall be permitted to selectively pardon individuals convicted or accused of crimes, but such selective pardoning must be done in such a way that does not compromise a member nation's good faith compliance with the intentions of this resolution.'"

Make it "Member nations shall be permitted to selectively pardon individuals convicted or accused of crimes, if their own laws allow this, but such selective pardoning must be done in such a way that does not compromise a member nation's good faith compliance with the intentions of this resolution.'" so that it doesn't automatically give that power to any governments who currently lack it?

[Alqania]

"So why is diplomatic immunity acceptable but sovereign immunity not?" wondered Lord Raekevik.

"Because diplomatic immunity is necessary in ensuring that a diplomat can act without fear of duress. It's a necessary element of international diplomacy. Furthermore, diplomatic immunity guarantees that an individual will not be prosecuted by the nation in which they serve, but those diplomats that do flout the law can be expelled and even prosecuted by their home nation. Absolute sovereign immunity, on the other hand, does not serve any such purpose. An absolute monarch can continue to function without acting above the law - the only purpose that absolute sovereign immunity serves is to foment tyranny. Not in all cases of course - the Queendom is obviously one such example of this exception - but an exception to the rule is not compelling enough to justify the continuation of such a dangerous system."

EDIT/OOC: Typing on phone = errors

"Uh-huh. I thought this proposal was motivated by a principle that 'everyone is equal under the law'. Interesting that diplomats can be excepted but not sovereigns. And I assume Your Excellency understands very well that this proposal would also bring an end to all the currently recognised presidential and parliamentary immunities recognised in member states. I am sure the democracies of the world will benefit immensely from their parliamentarians starting to sue each other over libel and slander, or perhaps even bringing up criminal charges like incitement and hate speech, for the harsh words often used in their everyday proceedings. I mean, the representatives in this chamber, not to mention that other one at the other end of the monorail, are very lucky to have diplomatic immunity - consider for a moment a similarly festering national or local parliament in a member state, where the members are regular politicians with no diplomatic status. Parliamentary immunity may be necessary for the functioning of such animated parliaments."

"Returning to the topic of what is legitimate to except and what is not, the Queendom is curious to hear the reasoning behind deeming pardons a legitimate tool. We find pardons, on the whole, a much greater side-step from the rule of law, than things like sovereign, presidential and parliamentary immunities, and we would much rather see a proposal banning pardons than one banning immunities."

[Sciongrad]

"Uh-huh. I thought this proposal was motivated by a principle that 'everyone is equal under the law'. Interesting that diplomats can be excepted but not sovereigns. And I assume Your Excellency understands very well that this proposal would also bring an end to all the currently recognised presidential and parliamentary immunities recognised in member states. I am sure the democracies of the world will benefit immensely from their parliamentarians starting to sue each other over libel and slander, or perhaps even bringing up criminal charges like incitement and hate speech, for the harsh words often used in their everyday proceedings. I mean, the representatives in this chamber, not to mention that other one at the other end of the monorail, are very lucky to have diplomatic immunity - consider for a moment a similarly festering national or local parliament in a member state, where the members are regular politicians with no diplomatic status. Parliamentary immunity may be necessary for the functioning of such animated parliaments."

"The rule of law is not incompatible with reasonable, good faith exceptions like diplomatic immunity. The intent behind diplomatic immunity is to protect diplomats from duress while performing their duties, just like you've rightly pointed out that parliamentary and sovereign immunity can protect from frivolous slander and tort suits. But the intent behind these forms of immunity is not to suggest that an individual or institution can act freely outside of the law - a diplomat can be declared persona non grata and prosecuted in his or her home nation, under many circumstances, and parliamentary and sovereign immunity have limits (meaning an MP can't stab his colleague to death). Absolute crown immunity, on the other hand, does not have such limits and is incompatible with the rule of law. I'll make the exception broader than diplomatic immunity to account for qualified and parliamentary immunity, in certain circumstances, however. The rule of law is meant to prevent anyone from using their ability to transcend the law as a means of abuse or gaining an unfair advantage - obviously, preventing a diplomat from being jailed by a less-than-friendly neighbor does not flout the ideals of the rule of law like you seem to be insinuating."

"Returning to the topic of what is legitimate to except and what is not, the Queendom is curious to hear the reasoning behind deeming pardons a legitimate tool. We find pardons, on the whole, a much greater side-step from the rule of law, than things like sovereign, presidential and parliamentary immunities, and we would much rather see a proposal banning pardons than one banning immunities."

"Pardons often have useful purposes - typically, it's to repudiate unjust policies from a former regime. For example, those that evade the draft during a time of war may be prosecuted or forced to flee, but a more forgiving future regime may offer amnesty or pardon those already convicted for the crime." (OOC: Just as a clarifying point, the U.S. Constitution has both a clause mandating the rule of law and a clause permitting pardons. The idea that they can coexist is definitely not unheard of. Interestingly enough, the U.S. government also has sovereign immunity from civil suits, it offers its diplomats immunity, offers its bureaucrats qualified immunity and provides its congresspersons with parliamentary immunity).

[Alqania]

OOC:

If we're going to play the "something's reasonable because it exists in an RL Western liberal democracy" game... I live in Sweden, a constitutional monarchy with a King as Head of State, who's been a virtually powerless figurehead since the 1975 Constitution came into effect. Perhaps we can agree that Sweden qualifies as a "Western liberal democracy" with the rule of law? Yet, the Swedish Head of State has unlimited immunity:

Art. 8. The King or Queen who is Head of State cannot be prosecuted for his or her actions. Nor can a Regent be prosecuted for his or her actions as Head of State.

Parliamentary immunity is limited in Sweden, but it's not limited by statute to not apply to murder or manslaughter in the way you imply that parliamentary immunity should be. The relevant article of the Constitution is:

Art. 12. Legal proceedings may not be initiated against a person who holds a mandate as a member of the Riksdag, or who has held such a mandate, on account of a statement or an act made in the exercise of his or her mandate, unless the Riksdag has given its consent thereto in a decision supported by at least five sixths of those voting.

Nor may such a person be deprived of his or her liberty, or restricted from travelling within the Realm, on account of an act or statement made in the exercise of his or her mandate, unless the Riksdag has given such consent thereto.

If, in any other case, a member of the Riksdag is suspected of having committed a criminal act, the relevant legal provisions concerning apprehension, arrest or detention are applied only if he or she admits guilt or was caught in the act, or the minimum penalty for the offence is imprisonment for two years.

In the unlikely event that a Swedish MP would stab a colleague to death within the chamber during parliamentary proceedings, the Swedish Constitution's rules above for parliamentary immunity could, in theory, hinder the rendering of justice, because it is not clear by statute that the offending MP could be prosecuted. In practice, I suppose that five sixths of the Riksdag would waiver the parliamentary immunity for such a grievous offence as murder or manslaughter, though there is no precedent.

As for a clause mandating the rule of law in Sweden, we need look no further than the very first and most fundamental article of the Constitution:

Art. 1. All public power in Sweden proceeds from the people.

Swedish democracy is founded on the free formation of opinion and on universal and equal suffrage. It is realised through a representative and parliamentary form of government and through local self-government.

Public power is exercised under the law.

But maybe the King of Sweden doesn't break the law? Actually, he has been pulled over for speeding on a number of occasions, but he can't be issued a ticket, because of his immunity. Is speeding a grievous offence? No, not really, but the circumstance that one person can be ticketed for it and another can't be is an obvious inequality before the law.

Now, obviously, though they are both monarchies, Sweden and Alqania are very different. And though both have sovereign immunity, Lord Raekevik and I don't have the same opinion on that matter. IRL, I would like my King to lose his immunity and I do vote for a political party that repeatedly motions our parliament to remove the King's immunity from the Constitution. I would also, IRL, prefer to have an elected Head of State, not a hereditary one. So I'm not going to really defend my RL country regarding these matters.

However, when you say that the rule of law and pardons can coexist, because they do so under the US Constitution, then logically, you will have to accept that the rule of law and unlimited sovereign immunity can coexist, because they do so under the Swedish Constitution.

I'm not very fond of bringing RL justifications into the debate on GA proposals though and I'd prefer it if we didn't use RL Constitutions as arguments for the legitimacy of various tools and practices in WA member states.

IC:

"Intent?" asked Lord Raekevik sceptically. "Is it Your Excellency's argument that the legitimacy of immunity from legal action, civil or criminal, is dependant on the intent behind it? Is it Your Excellency's argument that the exact same legal status should be allowed or disallowed by this proposal based on what justification the member state uses for it?"

"There are many tools and practices that have useful purposes, yet are prohibited by national or international law. Is Your Excellency's argument that the legitimacy of pardons is dependant on their usefulness?"

"An amnesty is not really the same as a pardon, but it is interesting that Your Excellency brought it up. Would an amnesty be permissible under this proposal?"

"In any case, if some nations (OOC: like the RL US) did not have such unreasonable and extremist prohibitions on double jeopardy, perhaps pardons would not be needed to achieve any justifiable goal."

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: It seems to me virtually all the problems with this concern Article 1. So would there be any value in pursuing Article 2 separately, establishing nulla poena sine lege? I realize it means two resolutions rather than one, but it also means that the nulla poena... provisions won't be shot down should objections to the equal protection provisions prove insurmountable.

[Alqania]

OOC: It seems to me virtually all the problems with this concern Article 1. So would there be any value in pursuing Article 2 separately, establishing nulla poena sine lege? I realize it means two resolutions rather than one, but it also means that the nulla poena... provisions won't be shot down should objections to the equal protection provisions prove insurmountable.

OOC: My RP'ed delegation would support that. In any case, I think Article 2 should be compared to Article I of the Ban on Ex Post Facto Laws, to make sure they are different enough to not fall into the trap of duplication. Personally, I think Article 2 will stay clear of such duplication as long as it is clearly focused on promulgation, which isn't covered by the existing resolution.

[Sciongrad]

OOC: It seems to me virtually all the problems with this concern Article 1. So would there be any value in pursuing Article 2 separately, establishing nulla poena sine lege? I realize it means two resolutions rather than one, but it also means that the nulla poena... provisions won't be shot down should objections to the equal protection provisions prove insurmountable.

OOC: This is a good suggestion, and I'll likely split off the two clauses into separate drafts. A broader resolution on nulla poena sine lege might overlap a little bit with Ban on Ex Post Facto Laws, but that can easily be ironed out. I still plan on pursuing a resolution on the rule of law, but I'll have to post my rebuttals at a later time because real life is severely restricting my NS time right now.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Ruling of the Secretariat

The above proposal, as currently written, does not constitute a violation of Section 1, Article 1 of GAR #2.

This proposal does not prohibit the existence of absolute monarchies nor any other type of dictatorship, autocracy, authoritarianism, despotism, or tyranny. It may place restrictions upon such forms of government but the General Assembly is capable of chipping away at certain aspects of any given type of government.

The above is in response to a legality query which came in via a GHR.

[Texan Hotrodders]

Given that the Federation is an anarchy with all the equality one could want and quite possibly more than one would want, I suspect that most of the populace would have no objections to the idea that laws should apply equally to various persons and that there should be no rulers with immunity from the laws which they promulgate.

That said, this does seem to be a case of an international legislature overstepping its proper scope of authority by engaging in an attempt to strangle various forms of government which rely upon the immunity of the sovereign as part and parcel of their nation's governance. Not all nations are at a stage in their political development during which the democratic and egalitarian ideals we take so far are likely to be successful.

Accordingly, I recommend that we work with our neighboring nations to help them gradually develop in a direction which might ultimately lead to such a strong regard for the rule of law, perhaps leveraging our relationships within the World Assembly to do so. I see it as preferable to maintain our relationships with such nations so that we may influence them positively rather than driving them away or causing a break in those relationships by attempting to hammer their government into the image of our own when they are not ready for such a change.

Thank you for your consideration,

Ambassador to the World Assembly
Tlaloc Blackstone

[Chester Pearson]

(Image)Ruling of the Secretariat(Image)

The above proposal, as currently written, does not constitute a violation of Section 1, Article 1 of GAR #2.

This proposal does not prohibit the existence of absolute monarchies nor any other type of dictatorship, autocracy, authoritarianism, despotism, or tyranny. It may place restrictions upon such forms of government but the General Assembly is capable of chipping away at certain aspects of any given type of government.

The above is in response to a legality query which came in via a GHR.

This is a disappointing turn of events....