[PASSED] The Rule of Law

[Sanctaria]

Ambassador, would this make void all situations of sovereign, or crown, immunity that may exist in nations?

[Mosktopia]

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

I'm not sure this objection has had a thorough response.

Would this amount to an ideological ban on absolute monarchy?

[Sciongrad]

Ambassador, would this make void all situations of sovereign, or crown, immunity that may exist in nations?

"Not necessarily. Sovereign immunity, in the sense that the government or sovereign cannot be sued or tried without consent, would remain intact for the most part. Sovereign immunity would only be waived if the sovereign or government violated its own law, which again, is not necessarily the intent of sovereign immunity." (OOC: From my experience and understanding, sovereign immunity is only particularly used when discussing tortious acts by the government. Its historical intent in other countries may be different, but absolute sovereign immunity in the modern world is mostly traditional from what I can gather. If Queen Elizabeth II butchered her husband to death, I'm sure she wouldn't be protected by sovereign immunity).

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

I'm not sure this objection has had a thorough response.

Would this amount to an ideological ban on absolute monarchy?

"Not quite. An absolute monarch, under this resolution, would not have their ability to determine the law at will abridged at all - it would only require that they follow the law."

[Sanctaria]

Ambassador, would this make void all situations of sovereign, or crown, immunity that may exist in nations?

"Not necessarily. Sovereign immunity, in the sense that the government or sovereign cannot be sued or tried without consent, would remain intact for the most part. Sovereign immunity would only be waived if the sovereign or government violated its own law, which again, is not necessarily the intent of sovereign immunity." (OOC: From my experience and understanding, sovereign immunity is only particularly used when discussing tortious acts by the government. Its historical intent in other countries may be different, but absolute sovereign immunity in the modern world is mostly traditional from what I can gather. If Queen Elizabeth II butchered her husband to death, I'm sure she wouldn't be protected by sovereign immunity).

And this law, as I understand, would force the sovereign or government to waive its immunity? Ambassador, is this some sort of back-door attempt at banning capital punishment? The state cannot take the life of someone without their consent because, if anyone else did it, under the law it'd be murder. The state would leave itself open to being tried or sued for taking the life of an inmate.

((OOC: Bad example, as the sovereign in the UK cannot be charged with a crime - or even arrested, if I recall correctly. As far as I know, in this case, it has something to do with all prosecutions being made in the name of the sovereign and obviously the sovereign cannot sue/prosecute him/herself))

[Sciongrad]

And this law, as I understand, would force the sovereign or government to waive its immunity? Ambassador, is this some sort of back-door attempt at banning capital punishment? The state cannot take the life of someone without their consent because, if anyone else did it, under the law it'd be murder. The state would leave itself open to being tried or sued for taking the life of an inmate.

"This proposal would indeed prevent sovereigns or governments from behaving in contravention of their own established law. So while this would not waive sovereign immunity in all cases (tort, for example), it would not allow the government to behave illegally. However, if this continues to be a serious issue that can't be resolved through this discourse, I'll certainly look into the matter. Regarding your second point - this proposal would not do that, as far as I can see. I've never encountered a nation whose law included capital punishment in its own homicide laws. This is only meant to hold all individuals and institutions, including the government and other elite groups, accountable to the law. It wouldn't necessarily change the preexisting law."

((OOC: Bad example, as the sovereign in the UK cannot be charged with a crime - or even arrested, if I recall correctly. As far as I know, in this case, it has something to do with all prosecutions being made in the name of the sovereign and obviously the sovereign cannot sue/prosecute him/herself))

OOC: Researching a bit on the topic, I did come across that - as the basis for the nation's court system, the sovereign can't be tried by it. But my point was, the reason that absolute sovereign immunity exists in most nations today is likely tradition. If Queen Elizabeth II did kill someone, I'm sure that there would be legal changes to waive her immunity. My overall point is that sovereign immunity is not meant to allow sovereigns or governments to behave illegally in today's world. And using the intent of the doctrine when it was first established may not be a very good way of determining whether or not it's necessarily a good idea.

[Mosktopia]

I'm not sure this objection has had a thorough response.

Would this amount to an ideological ban on absolute monarchy?

"Not quite. An absolute monarch, under this resolution, would not have their ability to determine the law at will abridged at all - it would only require that they follow the law."

So an absolute monarch could exempt themselves from the law, so long as that exemption was applied equally? Like, "every person who is absolute monarch of Monarchicha shall be exempt from criminal prosecution?"

Absolute Monarchies, as we understand them, are governments where the power of the state is embodied in a single individual. It does not really make sense to say that person is subject to the law when they are the law.

It seems to us that this law says there can be no more absolute monarchs. Rather, all monarchs are now limited in that they may still make the law, but they are also subject to it.

[Sanctaria]

"This proposal would indeed prevent sovereigns or governments from behaving in contravention of their own established law. So while this would not waive sovereign immunity in all cases (tort, for example), it would not allow the government to behave illegally. However, if this continues to be a serious issue that can't be resolved through this discourse, I'll certainly look into the matter. Regarding your second point - this proposal would not do that, as far as I can see. I've never encountered a nation whose law included capital punishment in its own homicide laws. This is only meant to hold all individuals and institutions, including the government and other elite groups, accountable to the law. It wouldn't necessarily change the preexisting law."

Ambassador, assume for a moment this proposal passed. If, then, a nation's homicide law is "the pre-meditated intentional taking of life" exactly, and the state executes someone, couldn't a case be brought against them for violating their own laws? Capital punishment is the pre-meditated and intentional taking of life after all.

I'm becoming more and more troubled by this seemingly innocuous proposal. In theory it seems like a sensible addition to the statute book, but I'm still not satisfied I can support it. The Ambassador's answers regarding sovereign immunity and capital punishment are not reassuring, though I understand she means well and is answering with all sincerity.

[Sciongrad]

So an absolute monarch could exempt themselves from the law, so long as that exemption was applied equally? Like, "every person who is absolute monarch of Monarchicha shall be exempt from criminal prosecution?"

"That would obviously not be legal. That would be a flagrant violation of GAR#35."

Absolute Monarchies, as we understand them, are governments where the power of the state is embodied in a single individual. It does not really make sense to say that person is subject to the law when they are the law.

"I would argue the opposite - it only makes sense that the source of the law obey the law. Aside from creating an obvious ethical conundrum, it would be inconsistent for the source of the law to violate the law it creates. A single individual can still embody the power of the state, but I fail to see how that concept - the defining characteristic of an absolute monarchy - would be abridged by requiring that the monarch obey its own laws."

It seems to us that this law says there can be no more absolute monarchs. Rather, all monarchs are now limited in that they may still make the law, but they are also subject to it.

"Behaving in contravention of the law is not a characteristic of absolute monarchies. A single individual, held accountable to the rule of law, can still create laws freely, they simply cannot violate those laws. The entire purpose of the doctrine of the rule of law is that no one, even those that make the law, are above it. Thus, the law rules. And if the law comes in the form of an absolute monarch, then that absolute monarch must still follow its own laws."

[Sciongrad]

Ambassador, assume for a moment this proposal passed. If, then, a nation's homicide law is "the pre-meditated intentional taking of life" exactly, and the state executes someone, couldn't a case be brought against them for violating their own laws? Capital punishment is the pre-meditated and intentional taking of life after all.

"This entire argument presupposes that all nations with capital punishment laws and homicide laws are already acting illegally. Even if that were the case, the simple legal fix would be to create an exception for capital punishment in the homicide law, or vice versa. Again, this proposal doesn't dictate what a nation's laws must be - just that they must follow them."

I'm becoming more and more troubled by this seemingly innocuous proposal. In theory it seems like a sensible addition to the statute book, but I'm still not satisfied I can support it. The Ambassador's answers regarding sovereign immunity and capital punishment are not reassuring, though I understand she means well and is answering with all sincerity.

"I do regret that the most honorable ambassador of Sanctaria cannot currently support this proposal, but perhaps clarification as the debate continues will change your mind."

[The Dark Star Republic]

"Not quite. An absolute monarch, under this resolution, would not have their ability to determine the law at will abridged at all - it would only require that they follow the law."

So an absolute monarch could exempt themselves from the law, so long as that exemption was applied equally? Like, "every person who is absolute monarch of Monarchicha shall be exempt from criminal prosecution?"

Absolute Monarchies, as we understand them, are governments where the power of the state is embodied in a single individual. It does not really make sense to say that person is subject to the law when they are the law.

It seems to us that this law says there can be no more absolute monarchs. Rather, all monarchs are now limited in that they may still make the law, but they are also subject to it.

OOC: As an aside, the ideological ban rule as a whole is silly, as this discussion demonstrates, and it's a shame nothing ever really came of "Rethinking The Ruleset", but given the mods have stated they are not prepared to reconsider or discuss the proposal rules, we're stuck with it.

Here's why I don't see this particular case as an ideological ban:

An absolute monarchy can still exist under the terms of this proposal, so long as the monarch is perfectly compliant with the rule of law. In the same way, a Nazi state can still exist under the terms of this proposal, so long as they do not actually pass Nuremberg laws. Whether an absolute monarch could actually maintain their rule while remaining completely within the rule of law in their practice is theoretically doubtful, but the ideological ban rule doesn't prevent making a theoretical form of government more difficult.

[Sanctaria]

Ambassador, assume for a moment this proposal passed. If, then, a nation's homicide law is "the pre-meditated intentional taking of life" exactly, and the state executes someone, couldn't a case be brought against them for violating their own laws? Capital punishment is the pre-meditated and intentional taking of life after all.

"This entire argument presupposes that all nations with capital punishment laws and homicide laws are already acting illegally.

Not quite. They wouldn't be acting illegally if it wasn't illegal for the state to break its own laws - only once this is passed would they then be acting illegally. Not that I or my government condones such actions but there are 17,000 nations in this body, let's be realistic.

Even if that were the case, the simple legal fix would be to create an exception for capital punishment in the homicide law, or vice versa. Again, this proposal doesn't dictate what a nation's laws must be - just that they must follow them."

I am aware of what you are trying to tell me this proposal does, but unfortunately I rather doubt the gnomes take into consideration authors' intents when applying World Assembly resolutions to individual nations.

I'm becoming more and more troubled by this seemingly innocuous proposal. In theory it seems like a sensible addition to the statute book, but I'm still not satisfied I can support it. The Ambassador's answers regarding sovereign immunity and capital punishment are not reassuring, though I understand she means well and is answering with all sincerity.

"I do regret that the most honorable ambassador of Sanctaria cannot currently support this proposal, but perhaps clarification as the debate continues will change your mind."

This we find to be rather unlikely.

Further, at the end of section one, the text refers to "a relevant member nation" - am I presuming incorrectly this is supposed to be "the relevant member nation"?

[Normlpeople]

So an absolute monarch could exempt themselves from the law, so long as that exemption was applied equally? Like, "every person who is absolute monarch of Monarchicha shall be exempt from criminal prosecution?"

"That would obviously not be legal. That would be a flagrant violation of GAR#35."

"Actually Ambassador, I could interpret GAR #35 to allow such a thing, As it does contain an exemption that could be exploited in this case. That said, in states where there is a singular head of government (such as ours), there would be a serious difficulty in enforcing it. After all, when one controls the courts and justice system directly, one wouldn't be tried by it."

OOC: As an aside, the ideological ban rule as a whole is silly, as this discussion demonstrates, and it's a shame nothing ever really came of "Rethinking The Ruleset", but given the mods have stated they are not prepared to reconsider or discuss the proposal rules, we're stuck with it.

OOC: I dont. While sometimes it's applied in a silly manner, if we didn't have it, all WA nations would be parliamentary democracies or not in the WA. A necessary evil for a game of this magnitude.

[Sciongrad]

Not quite. They wouldn't be acting illegally if it wasn't illegal for the state to break its own laws - only once this is passed would they then be acting illegally. Not that I or my government condones such actions but there are 17,000 nations in this body, let's be realistic.

"This whole line of reasoning is becoming silly. Why would a nation prefer to create a legal system where its actions are illegal and it must rely on legalizing illegal actions simply to act legally (boy, what a mouthful) when it could more simply create a capital punishment law that states that 'capital punishment shall be explicitly excluded from homicide statutes.' I can't see why a nation would have to rely on breaching the rule of law in this situation."

I am aware of what you are trying to tell me this proposal does, but unfortunately I rather doubt the gnomes take into consideration authors' intents when applying World Assembly resolutions to individual nations.

"The impact of this resolution is entirely in the individual nation's ability to change, in this very particular instance. My intent is irrelevant here - the clause in question merely states that member nations must abide by their own laws and by creating a legal system where capital punishment is specifically excluded from homicide laws by statute is a way to prevent becoming needlessly constrained by this resolution."

[Brilliant Equestria]

Ambassador, assume for a moment this proposal passed. If, then, a nation's homicide law is "the pre-meditated intentional taking of life" exactly, and the state executes someone, couldn't a case be brought against them for violating their own laws? Capital punishment is the pre-meditated and intentional taking of life after all.

"This entire argument presupposes that all nations with capital punishment laws and homicide laws are already acting illegally. Even if that were the case, the simple legal fix would be to create an exception for capital punishment in the homicide law, or vice versa. Again, this proposal doesn't dictate what a nation's laws must be - just that they must follow them."

"I would have to agree that the more I consider this proposal, the more possible hidden dangers emerge. Even if a nation that practices capital punishment (such as ours) were to sidestep this resolution by adding such an exception, it would be tantamount to admitting they consider execution to be murder and are simply allowing it regardless. This is entirely contrary to our own - and, I would imagine, most others' - established jurisprudence and a dangerous precedent to be setting".

[Sciongrad]

"Actually Ambassador, I could interpret GAR #35 to allow such a thing, As it does contain an exemption that could be exploited in this case. That said, in states where there is a singular head of government (such as ours), there would be a serious difficulty in enforcing it. After all, when one controls the courts and justice system directly, one wouldn't be tried by it."

"I can see no way where it would be legal for an individual to create a system of discrimination on such a profound level. The only exceptions allowed by GAR#35 are those that are for "practical and compelling purposes -" obviously, making arbitrary legal exceptions for someone on the basis of their position is not even close to complying with the intent of GAR#35."

OOC: We couldn't even pass a resolution that required nations to declare war before engaging in conflict. Do you honestly think the WA would likely pass a resolution that banned dictatorships?

[Sciongrad]

"This entire argument presupposes that all nations with capital punishment laws and homicide laws are already acting illegally. Even if that were the case, the simple legal fix would be to create an exception for capital punishment in the homicide law, or vice versa. Again, this proposal doesn't dictate what a nation's laws must be - just that they must follow them."

"I would have to agree that the more I consider this proposal, the more possible hidden dangers emerge. Even if a nation that practices capital punishment (such as ours) were to sidestep this resolution by adding such an exception, it would be tantamount to admitting they consider execution to be murder and are simply allowing it regardless. This is entirely contrary to our own - and, I would imagine, most others' - established jurisprudence and a dangerous precedent to be setting".

"This is honestly becoming absurd in the extreme. Homicide is the premeditated killing of an individual. Obviously, capital punishment falls under this definition - that's not even a question. Specifically excepting capital punishment as not homicide does not, in any way, even imply that capital punishment is homicide, however. As a matter of fact, by relying on violating the rule of law to commit capital punishment in itself assumes that capital punishment is homicide and that violating your nation's homicide law is the only possible way to accomplish capital punishment, so the reverse of your argument would be true in this case."

[Sanctaria]

Not quite. They wouldn't be acting illegally if it wasn't illegal for the state to break its own laws - only once this is passed would they then be acting illegally. Not that I or my government condones such actions but there are 17,000 nations in this body, let's be realistic.

"This whole line of reasoning is becoming silly. Why would a nation prefer to create a legal system where its actions are illegal and it must rely on legalizing illegal actions simply to act legally (boy, what a mouthful) when it could more simply create a capital punishment law that states that 'capital punishment shall be explicitly excluded from homicide statutes.' I can't see why a nation would have to rely on breaching the rule of law in this situation."

The nation may not have created the legal system in this manner, but via this resolution's passage it would have rendered it thus. The Ambassador is not considering the impact this will have on nations with simplistic legal systems.

Unfortunately the Ambassador's reluctance to consider certain aspects of crown immunity is not compatible with this delegation's responsibilities. We cannot support this resolution.

[Sciongrad]

The nation may not have created the legal system in this manner, but via this resolution's passage it would have rendered it thus. The Ambassador is not considering the impact this will have on nations with simplistic legal systems.

"I apologize - I really do - but I cannot think of any difficulty in merely excluding capital punishment from a nation's homicide statute. Even a nation run by two monkeys and a jar of peanuts would be able to accomplish this very easily. Honestly, a nation would need to be very incompetent to intentionally declare capital punishment as a form of homicide and then refuse to change it - I can't see why this type of convoluted legal disaster would exist in the first place."

Unfortunately the Ambassador's reluctance to consider certain aspects of crown immunity is not compatible with this delegation's responsibilities. We cannot support this resolution.

"Crown immunity, as I've already stated, is not intended to allow a monarch to violate the rule of the law willynilly. And any system where that is the case is the intended recipient of this resolution."

[Normlpeople]

"Actually Ambassador, I could interpret GAR #35 to allow such a thing, As it does contain an exemption that could be exploited in this case. That said, in states where there is a singular head of government (such as ours), there would be a serious difficulty in enforcing it. After all, when one controls the courts and justice system directly, one wouldn't be tried by it."

"I can see no way where it would be legal for an individual to create a system of discrimination on such a profound level. The only exceptions allowed by GAR#35 are those that are for "practical and compelling purposes -" obviously, making arbitrary legal exceptions for someone on the basis of their position is not even close to complying with the intent of GAR#35."

OOC: We couldn't even pass a resolution that required nations to declare war before engaging in conflict. Do you honestly think the WA would likely pass a resolution that banned dictatorships?

OOC: Of course not.. but variety makes it interesting. You and I both know that if the Ideological ban was lifted tomorrow, within a month there would be a resolution forcing parliamentary democracies on all WA nations.

IC: "Should, say, a dictator or monarch be brought up on charges for an imaginary crime, would the potential collapse of governmental stability, the economic loss and the social and civil unrest (be it genuine or stirred up by a propaganda organ) it would cause to be 'practical and compelling purposes' to ignore it? While I do like the concept, there would have to be consideration into the actual status of the person in question. In a democratic system, the loss of a few politicians or even a few leaders could be overcome. In a dictatorship/monarchy, it could be devastating. Again though, there would be an enforcement issue.

That said, our Princess doesn't hold herself higher than her people (though many of us do elevate her to a higher level than I think she is comfortable with), so she abides by her own law. It won't change or affect us much."

[Sciongrad]

OOC: Of course not.. but variety makes it interesting. You and I both know that if the Ideological ban was lifted tomorrow, within a month there would be a resolution forcing parliamentary democracies on all WA nations.

OOC: Of course they might pop up, but I don't see a resolution like that passing.

IC: "Should, say, a dictator or monarch be brought up on charges for an imaginary crime, you don't see the collapse of governmental stability, the economic loss and the social and civil unrest (be it genuine or stirred up by a propaganda organ) it would cause to be 'practical and compelling purposes' to ignore it? While I do like the concept, there would have to be consideration into the actual status of the person in question. In a democratic system, the loss of a few politicians or even a few leaders could be overcome. In a dictatorship/monarchy, it could be devastating. Again though, there would be an enforcement issue.

"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.'"

[Mosktopia]

Behaving in contravention of the law is not a characteristic of absolute monarchies. A single individual, held accountable to the rule of law, can still create laws freely, they simply cannot violate those laws. The entire purpose of the doctrine of the rule of law is that no one, even those that make the law, are above it. Thus, the law rules. And if the law comes in the form of an absolute monarch, then that absolute monarch must still follow its own laws."

In legal jurisprudence, the rule of law supplanted the notion of the divine right of kings. Historically and conceptually, the ideal of rule of law is at odds with the ideal of absolute monarchy. While behaving in contravention of the law is not (necessarily...) a characteristic of absolute monarchy, the notion that the ruler is above the law, subject to no earthly authority, is.

An absolute monarch is not subject to the law. This proposal would de facto convert all absolute monarchies into some form of limited monarchy. (Then again, I suppose there's an argument that all absolute monarchs have already converted themselves to limited monarchies by submitting themselves to to the laws of the WA. Then again, I suppose the argument could be that absolute monarchs are still absolute in the sense that they only comply with WA laws at their pleasure, and if it ever displeased them they would simply quit the WA).

OOC: As an aside, the ideological ban rule as a whole is silly, as this discussion demonstrates, and it's a shame nothing ever really came of "Rethinking The Ruleset", but given the mods have stated they are not prepared to reconsider or discuss the proposal rules, we're stuck with it.

I'm inclined to agree. But if we're going to have a rule against ideological bans, it seems like this sort of law would be the kind most suspect. More than simply saying nations must enact such and such environmental/human rights laws or prohibit such and such conduct, with a proposal like this we are telling nations how their government should work. We would be imposing a political ideal.

Here's why I don't see this particular case as an ideological ban:

An absolute monarchy can still exist under the terms of this proposal, so long as the monarch is perfectly compliant with the rule of law. In the same way, a Nazi state can still exist under the terms of this proposal, so long as they do not actually pass Nuremberg laws. Whether an absolute monarch could actually maintain their rule while remaining completely within the rule of law in their practice is theoretically doubtful, but the ideological ban rule doesn't prevent making a theoretical form of government more difficult.

Historically, the rule of law is not compatible with absolute monarchy. The former, by its nature, supersedes and destroys the later. A monarch who submits themselves to the rule of law has fundamentally altered the nature of their government. That applies even to a monarch who must obey their own laws: an absolute monarch passes laws that regulate the conduct of his society but is himself above those rules.

Rather than having a single master of all and subject to none, this law would demand at most a limited monarchy, with the figurehead simply one among many under the auspices of the law. That has been the history of the rule of law: the abrogation of absolute monarchy.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: As an aside, the ideological ban rule as a whole is silly, as this discussion demonstrates, and it's a shame nothing ever really came of "Rethinking The Ruleset", but given the mods have stated they are not prepared to reconsider or discuss the proposal rules, we're stuck with it.

I'm inclined to agree. But if we're going to have a rule against ideological bans, it seems like this sort of law would be the kind most suspect. More than simply saying nations must enact such and such environmental/human rights laws or prohibit such and such conduct, with a proposal like this we are telling nations how their government should work. We would be imposing a political ideal.

Here's why I don't see this particular case as an ideological ban:

An absolute monarchy can still exist under the terms of this proposal, so long as the monarch is perfectly compliant with the rule of law. In the same way, a Nazi state can still exist under the terms of this proposal, so long as they do not actually pass Nuremberg laws. Whether an absolute monarch could actually maintain their rule while remaining completely within the rule of law in their practice is theoretically doubtful, but the ideological ban rule doesn't prevent making a theoretical form of government more difficult.

Historically, the rule of law is not compatible with absolute monarchy. The former, by its nature, supersedes and destroys the later. A monarch who submits themselves to the rule of law has fundamentally altered the nature of their government. The applies even to a monarch who must obey their own laws: an absolute monarch passes laws that regulate the conduct of his society but is himself above those rules.

Rather than having a single master of all and subject to none, this law would demand at most a limited monarchy, with the figurehead simply one among many under the auspices of the law. That has been the history of the rule of law: the abrogation of absolute monarchy.

OOC: But even within the confines of the ideological ban law, we have to be realistic. Several types of government are, whether the mods wish to admit it or not, essentially banned by the WA: truly absolute rule (whether in the guise of absolute monarchy or some other kind of autocracy, such as a dictatorship or military rule) is already abrogated by the simple act of joining the WA and making one's laws subject to an external body. Similarly, truly direct democracies, truly lawless anarchies, and nations literally deriving all of their laws from divinity, are all essentially not functional as part of the WA, because the WA has the authority to pass laws itself that do not follow their standards of government. This proposal merely formalises that.

[Sciongrad]

Behaving in contravention of the law is not a characteristic of absolute monarchies. A single individual, held accountable to the rule of law, can still create laws freely, they simply cannot violate those laws. The entire purpose of the doctrine of the rule of law is that no one, even those that make the law, are above it. Thus, the law rules. And if the law comes in the form of an absolute monarch, then that absolute monarch must still follow its own laws."

In legal jurisprudence, the rule of law supplanted the notion of the divine right of kings. Historically and conceptually, the ideal of rule of law is at odds with the ideal of absolute monarchy. While behaving in contravention of the law is not (necessarily...) a characteristic of absolute monarchy, the notion that the ruler is above the law, subject to no earthly authority, is.

An absolute monarch is not subject to the law. This proposal would de facto convert all absolute monarchies into some form of limited monarchy. (Then again, I suppose there's an argument that all absolute monarchs have already converted themselves to limited monarchies by submitting themselves to to the laws of the WA. Then again, I suppose the argument could be that absolute monarchs are still absolute in the sense that they only comply with WA laws at their pleasure, and if it ever displeased them they would simply quit the WA).

OOC: By this logic, an absolute monarch cannot currently exist in the World Assembly. Being constrained by World Assembly legislation inherently limits their ability to act absolutely while within the World Assembly, even if they can choose to leave at any time. But this is just a microcosm of how the ideological ban rule behaves in practice - the WA has already obviously prevented absolute and extreme forms of certain types of government from feasibly existing. Your entire argument is predicated on the assumption that the WA cannot prevent the most radical extremes of an ideology, which as DSR noted, is demonstrably false.

You yourself have noted that by submitting to World Assembly legislation, absolute monarchies are already limited but that what allows them to retain the "absolute" characteristic is their ability to unilaterally withdraw at any time. I challenge whether this is actually correct, but that's beside the point. By your own logic, there already exist inherent limitations on absolute monarchs within the World Assembly and that their ability to withdraw allows them to maintain an "absolute monarch" status; however, the logical conclusion would be that a resolution mandating the rule of law in such absolute monarchies would not limit them any more than any other resolution currently does because they can withdraw at any time. Before I begin to ramble, my point here is that the entire argument that the World Assembly can't limit extremes of an ideology is not consistent with how the World Assembly has always behaved and defining very specific types of broader "ideologies" or government types as ideologies in their own right, afforded the full protection of the ideological ban rule, is also incorrect. An absolutely totalitarian state cannot currently exist under the World Assembly, yet "Freedom of Expression" is not a violation of the ideological ban rule because totalitarianism can still exist to an extent.

[Sciongrad]

"The queue is pretty full, and I'm in no rush, but I do plan on submitting this once the queue empties out. As always, comments are most welcome."

[Normlpeople]

"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".