(thank you for answering me.)
Advertisement
by Wealthatonia » Sun Oct 23, 2016 3:48 pm
by Calladan » Sun Oct 23, 2016 3:57 pm
by States of Glory WA Office » Sun Oct 23, 2016 4:03 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Wealthatonia wrote:Ambassador, you are twisting my words, i think if you actually took a look at the prosperous Wealthatonia, you'd take that statement back.
Nobody cares if you're wealthy. If you are violating equal protection, from a legalistic sense, you are still violating WA resolutions.
Wallenburg wrote:I'm not really sure why it would matter to you. You are already roleplaying against the mandates of WA resolutions, so why would any affect on your stats be of consequence?
by Imperium Anglorum » Sun Oct 23, 2016 4:05 pm
Calladan wrote:When the proposal says "Expands the remit of the Global Emigration, Security, Travel And Passport Organisation, hereafter referred as the Passport Organisation" - is this just making an amendment to the resolution that created the original organisation (and gave it the..... interesting name that has apparently cause much discussion) or is the "hereafter referred as the Passport Organisation" part just for the life of the proposal? Because I have seen both interpretations in various discussions, and if it is indeed changing the name, does that class as an amendment to a previous proposal and so would that make this resolution illegal?
by States of Glory WA Office » Sun Oct 23, 2016 4:06 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:I'd say 'hereafter' refers to the resolution itself.
by Calladan » Sun Oct 23, 2016 4:14 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Calladan wrote:When the proposal says "Expands the remit of the Global Emigration, Security, Travel And Passport Organisation, hereafter referred as the Passport Organisation" - is this just making an amendment to the resolution that created the original organisation (and gave it the..... interesting name that has apparently cause much discussion) or is the "hereafter referred as the Passport Organisation" part just for the life of the proposal? Because I have seen both interpretations in various discussions, and if it is indeed changing the name, does that class as an amendment to a previous proposal and so would that make this resolution illegal?
I'd say 'hereafter' refers to the resolution itself. Expansion of committee responsibilities has long been taken to be legal.
by Wrapper » Mon Oct 24, 2016 9:56 am
Reducing Statelessness was passed 14,100 votes to 3,517.
by Wallenburg » Mon Oct 24, 2016 10:23 am
by Excidium Planetis » Mon Oct 24, 2016 12:32 pm
Wallenburg wrote:"Well, congratulations, your Grace. You have passed an entirely pointless and ineffective resolution."
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.
by Wallenburg » Mon Oct 24, 2016 1:27 pm
Excidium Planetis wrote:Wallenburg wrote:"Well, congratulations, your Grace. You have passed an entirely pointless and ineffective resolution."
"While pointless, I wouldn't say it is ineffective." Blackbourne states. "It certainly is effective at preventing our nation from removing the citizenship of traitors. Which is good for the traitors, I suppose, but not our nation."
by Sciongrad » Mon Oct 24, 2016 1:35 pm
Wallenburg wrote:Excidium Planetis wrote:
"While pointless, I wouldn't say it is ineffective." Blackbourne states. "It certainly is effective at preventing our nation from removing the citizenship of traitors. Which is good for the traitors, I suppose, but not our nation."
"It prevents your nation from removing their nationality. You may still revoke their citizenship."
by Wallenburg » Mon Oct 24, 2016 1:51 pm
Sciongrad wrote:Wallenburg wrote:"It prevents your nation from removing their nationality. You may still revoke their citizenship."
"That doesn't make it toothless. Citizenship and nationality are different, which you rightly note, but you seem to be operating under the assumption that nationality doesn't confer any rights or privileges in its own right. Nationals typically have two privileges that do not require citizenship: the right of return and a passport. I don't think resolution ever tried to ensure citizenship, just nationality."
by Sciongrad » Mon Oct 24, 2016 1:59 pm
Wallenburg wrote:Sciongrad wrote:"That doesn't make it toothless. Citizenship and nationality are different, which you rightly note, but you seem to be operating under the assumption that nationality doesn't confer any rights or privileges in its own right. Nationals typically have two privileges that do not require citizenship: the right of return and a passport. I don't think resolution ever tried to ensure citizenship, just nationality."
"Ambassador, that does make it toothless. As much as Parsons likes to pretend that nationality can be removed, nationality is an innate, unchangeable quality to each individual. As it is quite literally impossible for any nation to revoke nationality even without this resolution, 'Reducing Statelessness' achieves nothing.
As to your comment on the 'rights' of nationals, Wallenburg confers no rights to any individuals simply because of their nationality. All nationals are automatically born as citizens, and so all legal rights that would be tied to nationality are instead tied to citizenship."
by Excidium Planetis » Mon Oct 24, 2016 2:12 pm
Sciongrad wrote:Wallenburg wrote:"It prevents your nation from removing their nationality. You may still revoke their citizenship."
"That doesn't make it pointless. Citizenship and nationality are different, which you rightly note, but you seem to be operating under the assumption that nationality doesn't confer any rights or privileges in its own right. Nationals typically have two privileges that do not require citizenship: the right of return and a passport. I don't think resolution ever tried to ensure citizenship, just nationality."
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.
by Sciongrad » Mon Oct 24, 2016 2:24 pm
Excidium Planetis wrote:Sciongrad wrote:"That doesn't make it pointless. Citizenship and nationality are different, which you rightly note, but you seem to be operating under the assumption that nationality doesn't confer any rights or privileges in its own right. Nationals typically have two privileges that do not require citizenship: the right of return and a passport. I don't think resolution ever tried to ensure citizenship, just nationality."
"Excidium Planetis issues no passports to those who are not citizens, nor does it recognize the right of return. In Excidian law, only citizens are considered nationals. By revoking citizenship, nationality is revoked. Thus, either we cannot revoke citizenship because it would make someone stateless, or we can revoke citizenship, but the person remains a national, a meaningless title. In which case, this law is pointless."
by States of Glory WA Office » Mon Oct 24, 2016 2:47 pm
Sciongrad wrote:So when you say 'only citizens are considered nationals,' the converse - 'only nationals are considered citizens' - must also necessarily be true.
by Excidium Planetis » Mon Oct 24, 2016 4:41 pm
Sciongrad wrote:"That doesn't make sense. Citizenship necessarily rests on nationality. You can't be a citizen without first being a national. And you admitted that citizens are considered nationals, which means in your case, you can't revoke citizenship either because it overlaps entirely with the nationality. So when you say 'only citizens are considered nationals,' the converse - 'only nationals are considered citizens' - must also necessarily be true."
Excidium Planetis wrote:"While pointless, I wouldn't say it is ineffective."
"It certainly is effective at preventing our nation from removing the citizenship of traitors. Which is good for the traitors, I suppose, but not our nation."
OOC: From Wikipedia: " in most modern countries all nationals are citizens of the state, and full citizens are always nationals of the state.[...]"
Emphasis mine.
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.
by Wallenburg » Mon Oct 24, 2016 6:51 pm
Sciongrad wrote:Wallenburg wrote:"Ambassador, that does make it toothless. As much as Parsons likes to pretend that nationality can be removed, nationality is an innate, unchangeable quality to each individual. As it is quite literally impossible for any nation to revoke nationality even without this resolution, 'Reducing Statelessness' achieves nothing.
As to your comment on the 'rights' of nationals, Wallenburg confers no rights to any individuals simply because of their nationality. All nationals are automatically born as citizens, and so all legal rights that would be tied to nationality are instead tied to citizenship."
"That is a misunderstanding of nationality. There is both a technical, legal definition of nationality, which defines the relationship between a state and a person within it and a colloquial definition which typically describes where someone was born or brought up. The ability of a state to determine who among its inhabitants can be considered a national is an innate right and a defining factor of state sovereignty. So a state not only can choose who it does and doesn't consider to be a national, but is guaranteed this ability simply by existing. So your point that nationality can't be taken away is fundamentally incorrect."
by Sciongrad » Tue Oct 25, 2016 11:15 am
Wallenburg wrote:Sciongrad wrote:"That is a misunderstanding of nationality. There is both a technical, legal definition of nationality, which defines the relationship between a state and a person within it and a colloquial definition which typically describes where someone was born or brought up. The ability of a state to determine who among its inhabitants can be considered a national is an innate right and a defining factor of state sovereignty. So a state not only can choose who it does and doesn't consider to be a national, but is guaranteed this ability simply by existing. So your point that nationality can't be taken away is fundamentally incorrect."
"You have offered no alternate definition of nationality, but merely referenced the difference between national identity and nationality. I have said absolutely nothing about national identity, and so your point is quite irrelevant."
by Excidium Planetis » Tue Oct 25, 2016 11:29 am
Sciongrad wrote:"A state absolutely has the authority to determine who is and isn't a national and, in the absence of this resolution, can freely strip any inhabitant of her nationality. Being able to choose who is and isn't a national is a cornerstone of state sovereignty."
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.
by Wallenburg » Tue Oct 25, 2016 11:30 am
Sciongrad wrote:Wallenburg wrote:"You have offered no alternate definition of nationality, but merely referenced the difference between national identity and nationality. I have said absolutely nothing about national identity, and so your point is quite irrelevant."
"I referenced national identity because you are conflating nationality with national identity. A state absolutely has the authority to determine who is and isn't a national and, in the absence of this resolution, can freely strip any inhabitant of her nationality. Being able to choose who is and isn't a national is a cornerstone of state sovereignty."
by Sciongrad » Tue Oct 25, 2016 1:07 pm
Wallenburg wrote:Sciongrad wrote:"I referenced national identity because you are conflating nationality with national identity. A state absolutely has the authority to determine who is and isn't a national and, in the absence of this resolution, can freely strip any inhabitant of her nationality. Being able to choose who is and isn't a national is a cornerstone of state sovereignty."
"I am not conflating the two in any way. Nationality is, by definition, 'the state of a person in relation to the nation in which he was born'. No state, no matter how delirious its leaders may be, can go back in time and prevent a person from being born within its borders. The state has absolutely no authority over who is and who is not a national. Furthermore, Ambassador, if you have deluded yourself to the extent that you think that the very existence of a sovereign state depends on its ability to decide whether or not to recognize someone as a national, why did you vote for this resolution? Do you believe that we should eliminate state sovereignty?"
by States of Glory WA Office » Tue Oct 25, 2016 3:09 pm
Wallenburg wrote:No state, no matter how delirious its leaders may be, can go back in time and prevent a person from being born within its borders.
by Imperium Anglorum » Tue Oct 25, 2016 11:15 pm
by United Irish Counties » Wed Oct 26, 2016 4:28 am
Imperium Anglorum wrote:I want to say that I really like the interpretation which Calladan speaks about above. Such an interpretation did not cross my mind when I was drafting the resolution; and obviously, for the sake of it not being removed, I argued in favour of the 'hereafter clause' being something which applied to the resolution itself. But it certainly is interpretable that the 'hereafter clause' extends outside of the resolution and actually renames the committee. Considering that I really don't like the name 'GESTAPO', I am going to change my public opinion on the topic and say that the committee formerly known as GESTAPO is now known as the Passport Organisation.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement