Advertisement
by Gordano and Lysandus » Thu May 30, 2013 4:26 am
by SkyDip » Thu May 30, 2013 4:28 am
Gordano and Lysandus wrote:There is a very big difference between nations breaching WA resolutions every so often and a complete disregard of the resolutions that Hippostania had signed up to defend.
If we repeal this condemnation, then we are effectively calling for the disbanding of the World Assembly, for we show no confidence in its integrity.
Gordano and Lysandus wrote:SkyDip's actions have, ultimately, destroyed the World Assembly.
Eist wrote:Yea... If you are just going to casually dismiss SkyDip's advice, you are probably not going to get very far at all.
Sedgistan wrote:SkyDip is trying to help, and is giving sound advice. I'd suggestion listening to him, as he has experience of writing (and advising others with) legal proposals.
Frisbeeteria wrote:What Skydip said. This bitchfest is an embarrassment to the Security Council.
by Gordano and Lysandus » Thu May 30, 2013 4:30 am
by SkyDip » Thu May 30, 2013 4:33 am
Gordano and Lysandus wrote:You've worded the proposal to make implications against the authors of the original Condemnation, of which I was one.
There was no ideological influence, this was a stand against a nation who shows a complete disregard for international law. If we do not stand up for the integrity of international law, then what business have we bothering with it?
(OOC: Funny how so many people love the EU's influence over nations, but the WA is a whole other thing entirely.)
Gordano and Lysandus wrote:SkyDip's actions have, ultimately, destroyed the World Assembly.
Eist wrote:Yea... If you are just going to casually dismiss SkyDip's advice, you are probably not going to get very far at all.
Sedgistan wrote:SkyDip is trying to help, and is giving sound advice. I'd suggestion listening to him, as he has experience of writing (and advising others with) legal proposals.
Frisbeeteria wrote:What Skydip said. This bitchfest is an embarrassment to the Security Council.
by Riasy » Thu May 30, 2013 4:34 am
REALIZING that many nations which hold membership in the World Assembly are in violation, intentionally or otherwise, of some laws passed by the General Assembly,
BELIEVING that it is fully unrealistic to expect all nations in the WA to comply to the letter of every mandate, law, and sub-council given power in these halls,
by SkyDip » Thu May 30, 2013 4:45 am
Riasy wrote:REALIZING that many nations which hold membership in the World Assembly are in violation, intentionally or otherwise, of some laws passed by the General Assembly,
BELIEVING that it is fully unrealistic to expect all nations in the WA to comply to the letter of every mandate, law, and sub-council given power in these halls,
I am not necessarily against the repealing of the SC Resolution #107, but these two clauses force me to stand against this Repeal. It is unacceptable to include into the text of Resolution the clauses that so openly encourage non-compliance with decisions of the World Assembly.
Such statements are tolerable when they are expressed during debates, but in the text of WA Resolution they will undoubtedly undermine the faith into the principles of the World Assembly. It is especially dangerous to include such clauses into the text of Repeal, because Repeals cannot be repealed.
I urge honorable members of the World Assembly to vote against this Repeal to protect the moral authority of the World Assembly.
Gordano and Lysandus wrote:SkyDip's actions have, ultimately, destroyed the World Assembly.
Eist wrote:Yea... If you are just going to casually dismiss SkyDip's advice, you are probably not going to get very far at all.
Sedgistan wrote:SkyDip is trying to help, and is giving sound advice. I'd suggestion listening to him, as he has experience of writing (and advising others with) legal proposals.
Frisbeeteria wrote:What Skydip said. This bitchfest is an embarrassment to the Security Council.
by Riasy » Thu May 30, 2013 5:33 am
SkyDip wrote:I think there's a stark difference between acceptance of some minor-non compliances may occur due to the vastness of the WA and "openly encourag[ing] non-compliance." There's no text here that reads "HEREBY encourages lootings, nuclear proliferation, and bank fraud," and to characterize the entire proposal as such is an over simplification of what this proposal looks to accomplish.
by Castelo Quintas » Thu May 30, 2013 5:34 am
by SkyDip » Thu May 30, 2013 5:42 am
Riasy wrote:SkyDip wrote:I think there's a stark difference between acceptance of some minor-non compliances may occur due to the vastness of the WA and "openly encourag[ing] non-compliance." There's no text here that reads "HEREBY encourages lootings, nuclear proliferation, and bank fraud," and to characterize the entire proposal as such is an over simplification of what this proposal looks to accomplish.
Such wording probably wouldn't be legal.
Riasy wrote:But it is absolutely wrong to include any wording that suggests that non-compliance is tolerable. And inside the Repeal of Condemnation of nation that carried out numerous war crimes such clauses sound like an excuse of very severe forms of non-compliance.
Repeals cannot be repealed, so it is very important to not include in them the wordings that can compromise basic principles of the World Assembly. Mandatory compliance is one of the main principles of the World Assembly.
Gordano and Lysandus wrote:SkyDip's actions have, ultimately, destroyed the World Assembly.
Eist wrote:Yea... If you are just going to casually dismiss SkyDip's advice, you are probably not going to get very far at all.
Sedgistan wrote:SkyDip is trying to help, and is giving sound advice. I'd suggestion listening to him, as he has experience of writing (and advising others with) legal proposals.
Frisbeeteria wrote:What Skydip said. This bitchfest is an embarrassment to the Security Council.
by Riasy » Thu May 30, 2013 6:07 am
by SkyDip » Thu May 30, 2013 6:10 am
Riasy wrote:I am not saying that these clauses will mandate anything, but the existence of resolution that, among other things, openly proclaims that “it is fully unrealistic to expect all nations in the WA to comply to the letter of every mandate, law, and sub-council given power in these halls” will definitely encourage all forms of non-compliance among the WA members.
Gordano and Lysandus wrote:SkyDip's actions have, ultimately, destroyed the World Assembly.
Eist wrote:Yea... If you are just going to casually dismiss SkyDip's advice, you are probably not going to get very far at all.
Sedgistan wrote:SkyDip is trying to help, and is giving sound advice. I'd suggestion listening to him, as he has experience of writing (and advising others with) legal proposals.
Frisbeeteria wrote:What Skydip said. This bitchfest is an embarrassment to the Security Council.
by Gordano and Lysandus » Thu May 30, 2013 6:11 am
by Novaterra » Thu May 30, 2013 6:27 am
I completely agree. It seems that these "diplomats" have a goal and they will clear their way for everything that gets in their way. If international security is a hindrance, will be removed.Riasy wrote:REALIZING that many nations which hold membership in the World Assembly are in violation, intentionally or otherwise, of some laws passed by the General Assembly,
BELIEVING that it is fully unrealistic to expect all nations in the WA to comply to the letter of every mandate, law, and sub-council given power in these halls,
I am not necessarily against the repealing of the SC Resolution #107, but these two clauses force me to stand against this Repeal. It is unacceptable to include into the text of Resolution the clauses that so openly encourage non-compliance with decisions of the World Assembly.
Such statements are tolerable when they are expressed during debates, but in the text of WA Resolution they will undoubtedly undermine the faith into the principles of the World Assembly. It is especially dangerous to include such clauses into the text of Repeal, because Repeals cannot be repealed.
I urge honorable members of the World Assembly to vote against this Repeal to protect the moral authority of the World Assembly.
by Novaterra » Thu May 30, 2013 6:38 am
I say without acrimony. If you are against the AW should object and ask for its dissolution.Castelo Quintas wrote:After reading the original condemnation of Hippostania i think it was wrong, and has serious lack of proofs of the accusations that were made.
1-Condemning a nation based on crimes against human rights to their own population is wrong, it's imposing our morals and beliefs. That's for every user to decide, if the people are tired, they can overthrown the government, it's not us or the WA that has to that job.
2-There is absolutely no proofs whatsoever on the following subjects:
"Further Deplores that the Hippostanian Army violated GA RES. #27 by authorizing troops to violently attack protesters in a foreign country"
"Deplores the fact that The Republic of Hippostania has violated GA RES. #2, Section 3 by refusing to ‘refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState’ by overthrowing a democratically elected government in Longfort and participating in the conquest of Falsea"
Therefore, The Community of Castelo Quintas votes FOR the "Repeal Condemn Hippostania".
by Riasy » Thu May 30, 2013 6:42 am
SkyDip wrote:Then we will have to agree to disagree on that point. I can't see this passing and suddenly having all good, respectful WA members suddenly deciding that since that line is in there, they can now go out an break every law they want. I just don't see it.
by SkyDip » Thu May 30, 2013 7:15 am
Gordano and Lysandus wrote:This does make me wonder how many would support a Resolution calling for the Abolition of the World Assembly.
Gordano and Lysandus wrote:SkyDip's actions have, ultimately, destroyed the World Assembly.
Eist wrote:Yea... If you are just going to casually dismiss SkyDip's advice, you are probably not going to get very far at all.
Sedgistan wrote:SkyDip is trying to help, and is giving sound advice. I'd suggestion listening to him, as he has experience of writing (and advising others with) legal proposals.
Frisbeeteria wrote:What Skydip said. This bitchfest is an embarrassment to the Security Council.
by Castelo Quintas » Thu May 30, 2013 7:59 am
Novaterra wrote:I say without acrimony. If you are against the AW should object and ask for its dissolution.Castelo Quintas wrote:After reading the original condemnation of Hippostania i think it was wrong, and has serious lack of proofs of the accusations that were made.
1-Condemning a nation based on crimes against human rights to their own population is wrong, it's imposing our morals and beliefs. That's for every user to decide, if the people are tired, they can overthrown the government, it's not us or the WA that has to that job.
2-There is absolutely no proofs whatsoever on the following subjects:
"Further Deplores that the Hippostanian Army violated GA RES. #27 by authorizing troops to violently attack protesters in a foreign country"
"Deplores the fact that The Republic of Hippostania has violated GA RES. #2, Section 3 by refusing to ‘refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState’ by overthrowing a democratically elected government in Longfort and participating in the conquest of Falsea"
Therefore, The Community of Castelo Quintas votes FOR the "Repeal Condemn Hippostania".
By definition, World Assembly creates directirces interfering sovereignty of nations that adhere to the WA.
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Thu May 30, 2013 9:36 am
BELIEVING that it is fully unrealistic to expect all nations in the WA to comply to the letter of every mandate, law, and sub-council given power in these halls,
by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Thu May 30, 2013 11:29 am
Castelo Quintas wrote:2-There is absolutely no proofs whatsoever on the following subjects:
"Further Deplores that the Hippostanian Army violated GA RES. #27 by authorizing troops to violently attack protesters in a foreign country"
"Deplores the fact that The Republic of Hippostania has violated GA RES. #2, Section 3 by refusing to ‘refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState’ by overthrowing a democratically elected government in Longfort and participating in the conquest of Falsea"
by Novaterra » Thu May 30, 2013 11:30 am
In fact, the Security Council has the duty to interfere, convict guilty nations, etc. So only affect nations adhering to WA. It is the duty and the legal and moral obligation to do so. Another issue is when we are against the SC.Castelo Quintas wrote:Novaterra wrote:I say without acrimony. If you are against the AW should object and ask for its dissolution.
By definition, World Assembly creates directirces interfering sovereignty of nations that adhere to the WA.
But it shouldn't interfere with the sovereignty of nations, it should help nations to become better, not by condemning every nation we don't agree, but through conversations.
Obviously i don't support nations that invade other nations, or ban other nations from their region just because they don't agree with the delegate. That in my opinion, is a reason to condemn.
Because if the WA continues like this, it's not better than EU or UN, two institutions that in my opinion are imoral and corrupt, and the WA should function in a new paradigm.
by Novaterra » Thu May 30, 2013 11:40 am
by Juroain » Thu May 30, 2013 11:42 am
by KingtonianCommonwealth » Thu May 30, 2013 11:50 am
by The Republic of Lanos » Thu May 30, 2013 11:52 am
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:Castelo Quintas wrote:2-There is absolutely no proofs whatsoever on the following subjects:
"Further Deplores that the Hippostanian Army violated GA RES. #27 by authorizing troops to violently attack protesters in a foreign country"
"Deplores the fact that The Republic of Hippostania has violated GA RES. #2, Section 3 by refusing to ‘refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState’ by overthrowing a democratically elected government in Longfort and participating in the conquest of Falsea"
Does this mean I can start gassing, bombing and burning civilians with my military too? Or deposing democratically elected governments in favour of dictatorial and paedophilic puppets?
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement