[PASSED] The Rule of Law

[Ainocra]

This doesn't really appear to do anything as far as I can see.

[Sciongrad]

Isn't clause #1 effectively covered already by the CoCR?

They do overlap, but elaborating on specific points in past resolution has typically been legal. For example, GAR#91 is also covered by CoCR, but the scope is more specific. I'm certainly not a moderator, so I'm not sure for positive, but my interpretation of the duplication rule is that it prevents substantively identical resolution from being on the books at the same time. In this particular case, while clause #1 and the CoCR do essentially do similar things, the scope of this proposal focuses specifically on the rule of law while CoCR is more broadly on equality and non-discrimination. If you still think this is a duplication, I'd be willing to discuss this further.

This doesn't really appear to do anything as far as I can see.

Ambassador, this resolution seeks to hold governments accountable to their own laws (or equivalent guidelines) and requires governments to make their laws (or equivalent guidelines) publicly available to all citizens. Does this clarify things?

[Sciongrad]

"At the risk of juggling too many proposals at once, I'm putting this one back on the 'to-do' list. Comments are appreciated."

[Defwa]

I like the idea- I will consult with Defwaen leadership to see if this might have undesirable effect but I find it unlikely.

EDIT: We do have minor concerns. So under its current verbiage, would this not stop us from treating criminals differently? For instance we explicitly forbid the purchase of firearms by criminals but we wouldn't be able to do that if we had to treat all people the same regardless of legal status. Another interpretation (and one that happens to allow treating criminals differently) says that you can still be consistent with this proposal by declaring exceptions in the law itself. "This effects everyone except political rank A." The law is being enforced evenly as per its stated terms and everybody has access to political rank A.

[Sciongrad]

I like the idea- I will consult with Defwaen leadership to see if this might have undesirable effect but I find it unlikely.

EDIT: We do have minor concerns. So under its current verbiage, would this not stop us from treating criminals differently? For instance we explicitly forbid the purchase of firearms by criminals but we wouldn't be able to do that if we had to treat all people the same regardless of legal status. Another interpretation (and one that happens to allow treating criminals differently) says that you can still be consistent with this proposal by declaring exceptions in the law itself. "This effects everyone except political rank A." The law is being enforced evenly as per its stated terms and everybody has access to political rank A.

"Excellent question. This proposal specifically ensures that the law affects everyone equally, not that everyone must be treated equally. The latter falls under the scope of GAR#35, really, which already makes exceptions for discrimination that has a compelling practical purpose. This resolution ensures that everyone is held accountable to the law when it applies. So let's take Examplistan, which has a population of orange people, who are historically those in power, and a purple minority, who were historically segregated and discriminated against. GAR#35 would prevent Examplistan from passing separate sets of laws that favor orange people while this proposal would require orange people to be held accountable to their new laws. This proposal is meant primarily to ensure that the law is the final authority, and that those in power can't act above the law."

[Defwa]

I like the idea- I will consult with Defwaen leadership to see if this might have undesirable effect but I find it unlikely.

EDIT: We do have minor concerns. So under its current verbiage, would this not stop us from treating criminals differently? For instance we explicitly forbid the purchase of firearms by criminals but we wouldn't be able to do that if we had to treat all people the same regardless of legal status. Another interpretation (and one that happens to allow treating criminals differently) says that you can still be consistent with this proposal by declaring exceptions in the law itself. "This effects everyone except political rank A." The law is being enforced evenly as per its stated terms and everybody has access to political rank A.

"Excellent question. This proposal specifically ensures that the law affects everyone equally, not that everyone must be treated equally. The latter falls under the scope of GAR#35, really, which already makes exceptions for discrimination that has a compelling practical purpose. This resolution ensures that everyone is held accountable to the law when it applies. So let's take Examplistan, which has a population of orange people, who are historically those in power, and a purple minority, who were historically segregated and discriminated against. GAR#35 would prevent Examplistan from passing separate sets of laws that favor orange people while this proposal would require orange people to be held accountable to their new laws. This proposal is meant primarily to ensure that the law is the final authority, and that those in power can't act above the law."

On those grounds, it does make a very good complement to GAR#35 but we're still concerned it doesn't meet the stated purpose.
GAR#35 makes it so you can't write laws that says "This only effects purples" while this proposal makes it so the government can't ignore an orange citizen's crime.
That purpose is fully functional as far as I'm concerned and is enough to garner Defwa's support.

But it doesn't stop you from declaring "This doesn't effect political elite." It needs language preventing the creation of protected classes based on power or political party which I believe is still allowed as long as such classes are created within the law and isn't really covered or isn't covered clearly enough in GAR#35, while still allowing for caveats in policies for individuals who are a proven risk like criminals (as long as the laws aren't designed to target a specific race or to ignore a group, that shouldn't be applied unfairly).

[Sciongrad]

But it doesn't stop you from declaring "This doesn't effect political elite." It needs language preventing the creation of protected classes based on power or political party which I believe is still allowed as long as such classes are created within the law and isn't really covered or isn't covered clearly enough in GAR#35, while still allowing for caveats in policies for individuals who are a proven risk like criminals (as long as the laws aren't designed to target a specific race or to ignore a group, that shouldn't be applied unfairly).

"I would argue that CoCR clearly prevents establishing privileges for 'political elite' based solely on their status - under GAR#35, discrimination cannot exist without a compelling practical purpose. This proposal presupposes that member nations are already obligated to ensure at least theoretical legal equality. This proposal's effect is intended to ensure that those laws are applied equally to everyone."

[Sciongrad]

"I've incorporated the suggestions of his Excellency of Christian Democrats. Comments and criticism are most welcome."

[The Dark Star Republic]

"I am uneasy with this 'state of exception' idea. Other laws, such as those on criminal detention, on equal protection, or on criminal trial, do not allow for such 'states of exception'. The 'state of exception' derives from particular one theory of jurisprudence, that is not necessarily widely accepted and has received significant criticism.

"Order up, double baconburger and mobius strip fries.

"I'm not taking issue with the specific wording, which is clearly tailored to prevent abuse, but with the concept that we include 'public welfare' loopholes in laws - much as I previously did when you suggested a similar amendment to an early draft of your arms trading proposal.

"Refills are free, sir, please help yourself.

"Otherwise I remain broadly supportive of the effort."

~ former Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer
Server, GnomeBurger

[Sciongrad]

"I am uneasy with this 'state of exception' idea. Other laws, such as those on criminal detention, on equal protection, or on criminal trial, do not allow for such 'states of exception'. The 'state of exception' derives from particular one theory of jurisprudence, that is not necessarily widely accepted and has received significant criticism.

"Order up, double baconburger and mobius strip fries.

"I'm not taking issue with the specific wording, which is clearly tailored to prevent abuse, but with the concept that we include 'public welfare' loopholes in laws - much as I previously did when you suggested a similar amendment to an early draft of your arms trading proposal.

"Refills are free, sir, please help yourself.

"Otherwise I remain broadly supportive of the effort."

~ former Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer
Server, GnomeBurger

"I've taken some time to reflect on this issue and, at the risk of seeming fickle, have decided to continue with the draft prior to the addition of the "state of exception" clauses. My initial concern was that in the event of civil war or other emergencies, the rule of law may exacerbate the problem, but I'm more concerned with the consequences of what you've termed as "public welfare loopholes," and the bad precedent that may set. I'm confident that any reasonable nation would not be so short sighted as to create a system where the rule of law acts as a significant detriment to stability, and so I'm comfortable with the previous draft, sans the 'state of exception' clauses."

[Chester Pearson]

2. Member nations shall ensure that all established statutory laws, judicial precedents, and/or any other principles or guidelines with the equivalent force of law applicable under their jurisdiction are publicly promulgated through all means practical and necessary; member nations shall be prohibited from arresting, detaining, and/or prosecuting individuals for violating laws that are not publicly promulgated.

So national security means nothing then?

OPPOSED!

OOC: If this was passed in real life, it would effectively shut down most intelligence agencies.

[Sciongrad]

2. Member nations shall ensure that all established statutory laws, judicial precedents, and/or any other principles or guidelines with the equivalent force of law applicable under their jurisdiction are publicly promulgated through all means practical and necessary; member nations shall be prohibited from arresting, detaining, and/or prosecuting individuals for violating laws that are not publicly promulgated.

So national security means nothing then?

OPPOSED!

OOC: If this was passed in real life, it would effectively shut down most intelligence agencies.

"I'm sorry, I don't think I follow. That clause means that member nations are required to make their laws known to the public. I don't know how concealing the law from the public, and then prosecuting them anyways, would damage national security. Perhaps you could elaborate?"

[Defwa]

So national security means nothing then?

OPPOSED!

OOC: If this was passed in real life, it would effectively shut down most intelligence agencies.

"I'm sorry, I don't think I follow. That clause means that member nations are required to make their laws known to the public. I don't know how concealing the law from the public, and then prosecuting them anyways, would damage national security. Perhaps you could elaborate?"

I think Chester is admitting that his intelligence agencies work in ways that are illegal according to his nation's laws. Like wire tapping without warrants or enhanced interrogation techniques. If so, I can't wait for the Canadian media's reaction.

[The Flood]

The Emperor is not and can never be subject to the law, for he is the law. Opposed.

[Lemonacia]

2. All persons, entities, both public and private, and institutions, including the state, political subdivisions thereof, and its officials, shall be held equally accountable under the established statutory laws, judicial precedents, and/or any other principles or guidelines with the equivalent force of law of a relevant member nation;

Wouldn't this mean that soldiers have to be held accountable for murder when they kill people? Clearly this definition encapsulates the military.

[Applebania]

The Emperor is not and can never be subject to the law, for he is the law. Opposed.

OOC: I! Am! The law!

[Applebania]

"I'm sorry, I don't think I follow. That clause means that member nations are required to make their laws known to the public. I don't know how concealing the law from the public, and then prosecuting them anyways, would damage national security. Perhaps you could elaborate?"

I think Chester is admitting that his intelligence agencies work in ways that are illegal according to his nation's laws. Like wire tapping without warrants or enhanced interrogation techniques. If so, I can't wait for the Canadian media's reaction.

Claire sits back.
"So, Chester, exactly how many assassinations has the Canadian intelligence service engaged in?"

[Araraukar]

"So, Chester, exactly how many assassinations has the Canadian intelligence service engaged in?"

Pfft, they don't do assassinations. Assimilations, maybe.

[Applebania]

Joshua smiles, and leans on his desk.
"We are in support, but have one concern. Under this law, couldn't a criminal prosecute the policeman who arrested him for kidnapping?"

[Sciongrad]

The Emperor is not and can never be subject to the law, for he is the law. Opposed.

"That's too bad, your Excellency."

2. All persons, entities, both public and private, and institutions, including the state, political subdivisions thereof, and its officials, shall be held equally accountable under the established statutory laws, judicial precedents, and/or any other principles or guidelines with the equivalent force of law of a relevant member nation;

Wouldn't this mean that soldiers have to be held accountable for murder when they kill people? Clearly this definition encapsulates the military.

"If the law of Lemonacia prohibits soldiers from killing enemy combatants, then this proposal would forbid them from killing enemy combatants. However, I've never heard of any nation whose homicide laws include military casualties. Bear in mind, all this proposal does is require individuals to adhere to the law - many ambassadors may be over-thinking this."

Joshua smiles, and leans on his desk.
"We are in support, but have one concern. Under this law, couldn't a criminal prosecute the policeman who arrested him for kidnapping?"

"Again, not unless your nation's law code considers arrests made by policemen to be kidnapping already. All this proposal does is hold everyone equally accountable to the law - that is, it prevents individuals from acting above the law by virtue of their position or status. It does not require member nations to literally apply of their laws to situations where they would not make sense. So while this proposal may forbid a policeman from making an unlawful arrest in a nation where unscrupulous police activity is tacitly permitted, it will not require nations to charge police officers for theft when they confiscate inculpatory evidence."

[Applebania]

Joshua smiles, and leans on his desk.
"We are in support, but have one concern. Under this law, couldn't a criminal prosecute the policeman who arrested him for kidnapping?"

"Again, not unless your nation's law code considers arrests made by policemen to be kidnapping already. All this proposal does is hold everyone equally accountable to the law - that is, it prevents individuals from acting above the law by virtue of their position or status. It does not require member nations to literally apply of their laws to situations where they would not make sense. So while this proposal may forbid a policeman from making an unlawful arrest in a nation where unscrupulous police activity is tacitly permitted, it will not require nations to charge police officers for theft when they confiscate inculpatory evidence."

"Applebanian law regarding kidnapping does have a clause about arrests not being kidnapping, but under the current wording of the legislation, it would have to be removed. It seems to me that it would ban any exceptions based on profession. What I would suggest is to, similarly to CoCR, add a clause to the law about not banning the law applying differently if there are compelling practical purposes for it."

[Sciongrad]

"Again, not unless your nation's law code considers arrests made by policemen to be kidnapping already. All this proposal does is hold everyone equally accountable to the law - that is, it prevents individuals from acting above the law by virtue of their position or status. It does not require member nations to literally apply of their laws to situations where they would not make sense. So while this proposal may forbid a policeman from making an unlawful arrest in a nation where unscrupulous police activity is tacitly permitted, it will not require nations to charge police officers for theft when they confiscate inculpatory evidence."

"Applebanian law regarding kidnapping does have a clause about arrests not being kidnapping, but under the current wording of the legislation, it would have to be removed. It seems to me that it would ban any exceptions based on profession. What I would suggest is to, similarly to CoCR, add a clause to the law about not banning the law applying differently if there are compelling practical purposes for it."

"Why would such a clause need to removed under the current wording of the proposal...?"

[Defwa]

"Applebanian law regarding kidnapping does have a clause about arrests not being kidnapping, but under the current wording of the legislation, it would have to be removed. It seems to me that it would ban any exceptions based on profession. What I would suggest is to, similarly to CoCR, add a clause to the law about not banning the law applying differently if there are compelling practical purposes for it."

"Why would such a clause need to removed under the current wording of the proposal...?"

Because under that interpretation, as I was concerned about earlier, a nation can write in exceptions and be in compliance. A police officer arresting an individual isn't kidnapping. A senator taking a car without permission isn't stealing. A duke burning down his neighbor's house isn't an arsonist.

[Applebania]

"Applebanian law regarding kidnapping does have a clause about arrests not being kidnapping, but under the current wording of the legislation, it would have to be removed. It seems to me that it would ban any exceptions based on profession. What I would suggest is to, similarly to CoCR, add a clause to the law about not banning the law applying differently if there are compelling practical purposes for it."

"Why would such a clause need to removed under the current wording of the proposal...?"

"Because this piece of legislation says that all entities must be held accountable under the law exactly the same. This implies that creating legislation which impacts someone differently than another (For example, Applebanian kidnap laws) is now banned. As I have stated, to disperse any and all doubts about it, add a clause to the proposal about "Compelling Practical Reasons"".

[Sciongrad]

"Why would such a clause need to removed under the current wording of the proposal...?"

Because under that interpretation, as I was concerned about earlier, a nation can write in exceptions and be in compliance. A police officer arresting an individual isn't kidnapping. A senator taking a car without permission isn't stealing. A duke burning down his neighbor's house isn't an arsonist.

"But we've established that such an interpretation is invalid because it's a violation of GAR#35. A duke can't be given permission to burn down houses legally because article 1 section c of GAR#35 prevents discrimination without a compelling practical purpose. Only allowing an established elite to partake in an activity is arbitrary and therefore there is no compelling practical interest for doing so. Because legal equality is already assumed due to GAR#35, member nations can't pass laws to create legal loopholes for transcending the rule of law. A senator can't be given legal permission to steal a car because that's discrimination against ordinary citizens on the grounds of status. This proposal simply forbids member nations from allowing senators or dukes to steal cars or burn houses in contravention of their own laws."

"Why would such a clause need to removed under the current wording of the proposal...?"

"Because this piece of legislation says that all entities must be held accountable under the law exactly the same. This implies that creating legislation which impacts someone differently than another (For example, Applebanian kidnap laws) is now banned. As I have stated, to disperse any and all doubts about it, add a clause to the proposal about "Compelling Practical Reasons"".

"That's not quite what this resolution does. It doesn't change your laws - GAR#35 already establishes legal equality. This proposal simply forbids member nations from allowing individuals, particularly those in a position of authority, to violate the law. So a king can't murder and rape simply because he's king. But if the law already establishes compelling, practical purposes for certain types of discrimination (e.g., allowing only soldiers to kill enemies or policemen to arrest suspected criminals), then this proposal doesn't change that. It merely prevents individuals in positions of authority from acting illegally without reprisal."