[DEFEATED] WA Peacekeeping Charter

[Cybraxia]

Second draft, feedback requested.

"At a cursory look-over, we find this draft to be agreeable. We will however look at it more closely later. As of now, you can expect Cybraxian suppo-"

"Dibs on a General position in the Peacekeepers!" Van Doorn shouted, interrupting Quint.

[The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper]

(Ari throws his hands up in disgust, but Ahume raises an eyebrow, and whispers in Ari's ear. Ari snorts, but then looks back at Ahume, who nods his head.)

ARI: Hmm. Okay. Add a clause that says no WA personnel can carry any weapons, and we'll consider it.

"How do you expect them to defend themselves? The so-called 'Weapons Nullifiers' only work at the WAHQ. If WA personnel are deployed to a Member nation, what will happen if they are attacked?"

ARI: Well, they're gnomes, they have those hard, sharp, pointy hats that--

AHUME: Those are garden gnomes.

ARI: Oh. Well, whatever nation they're in, they can provide security, yes? In that way they would be defended by the proper personnel utilizing the proper offensive weapons and defensive capabilities that are applicable to that nation. For example, should such peacekeepers ever be required in Wrapper, they'd be accompanied by.... umm....

AHUME: High schoolers with straws and spitballs.

ARI: Oh, do we still allow spitballs? Anyway. The point is, put the weapon in the trained soldier's or policeman's hand, not the WA's hand.

[We Couldnt Agree On A Name]

Second draft, feedback requested.

I'm glad this doesn't include the stupid "defining war" clause.

[The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper]

Second draft, feedback requested.

I'm glad this doesn't include the stupid "defining war" clause.

ARI: Shhhh, no! Don't give him any ideas!

[Excidium Planetis]

Second draft, feedback requested.

I'm glad this doesn't include the stupid "defining war" clause.

"I felt that it was best to deal with that in a separate resolution I have yet to draft."

I'm glad this doesn't include the stupid "defining war" clause.

ARI: Shhhh, no! Don't give him any ideas!

Ambassador Schultz hits the replay button on her datatab.

"I am a woman." Cornelia Schultz interjects.

Oddly, there is now narration on her interjection. Weird, it must be someone pranking her across space and time.

[The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper]

ARI: Shhhh, no! Don't give him any ideas!

Ambassador Schultz hits the replay button on her datatab.

"I am a woman." Cornelia Schultz interjects.

ARI: Erm. Them! I clearly said "them"! As in, "Don't give 'em any ideas!"

(OOC: Yeah, sorry, usually pretty good about that....)

[We Couldnt Agree On A Name]

I'm glad this doesn't include the stupid "defining war" clause.

"I felt that it was best to deal with that in a separate resolution I have yet to draft."

Please do so in a way that actually deals when war is and is not acceptable and doesn't simply "define" it as something it's not.

[Excidium Planetis]

"I felt that it was best to deal with that in a separate resolution I have yet to draft."

Please do so in a way that actually deals when war is and is not acceptable and doesn't simply "define" it as something it's not.

"I will. In fact, I might do so right now."

[Wallenburg]

Prohibits any WA organizations or committees from enforcing WA compliance or taking action against WA members for any acts of non-compliance with WA resolutions.

"Aren't several committees already given the explicit authority to enforce World Assembly legislation? And if the World Assembly cannot enforce compliance, what is the point of its existence at all?"

Prohibits WA personnel from carrying lethal weapons on WAHQ property.

"This does not include the delegations, correct? After all, neither I nor my staff are employees of the World Assembly."

Allows WA organizations, committees, and officials to defend themselves and WA property with deadly force if threatened by WA member nations, non-WA nations, organizations, or individuals;

"I can imagine many cases in which this clause contradicts the one before it."

[We Couldnt Agree On A Name]

"Aren't several committees already given the explicit authority to enforce World Assembly legislation? And if the World Assembly cannot enforce compliance, what is the point of its existence at all?"

Prohibits WA personnel from carrying lethal weapons on WAHQ property.

"This does not include the delegations, correct? After all, neither I nor my staff are employees of the World Assembly."

I was under the impression that any weapon on WAHQ property was rendered nonlethal anyway.

[Wallenburg]

"Aren't several committees already given the explicit authority to enforce World Assembly legislation? And if the World Assembly cannot enforce compliance, what is the point of its existence at all?"

"This does not include the delegations, correct? After all, neither I nor my staff are employees of the World Assembly."

I was under the impression that any weapon on WAHQ property was rendered nonlethal anyway.

IC: "Based on the hate mail my office still receives from the angry citizens of Bitely, you would think otherwise."

OOC: The nullifiers work in the bar and the voting chamber, but not necessarily anywhere else.

[Excidium Planetis]

Prohibits any WA organizations or committees from enforcing WA compliance or taking action against WA members for any acts of non-compliance with WA resolutions.

"Aren't several committees already given the explicit authority to enforce World Assembly legislation? And if the World Assembly cannot enforce compliance, what is the point of its existence at all?"

"I was not aware of any committees allowed to enforce WA law, which would be a violation of the WA police ban.

"But if you have specific examples, please give them.

"Also, the WA does not enforce compliance. So what is the point of the WA?"

Prohibits WA personnel from carrying lethal weapons on WAHQ property.

"This does not include the delegations, correct? After all, neither I nor my staff are employees of the World Assembly."

"That would be correct. National delegations are not WA personnel."

Allows WA organizations, committees, and officials to defend themselves and WA property with deadly force if threatened by WA member nations, non-WA nations, organizations, or individuals;

"I can imagine many cases in which this clause contradicts the one before it."

"Then your imagination is seriously flawed. This clause does not contradict the ban on lethal weapons on WAHQ property."

[Cybraxia]

"I can imagine many cases in which this clause contradicts the one before it."

"Then your imagination is seriously flawed. This clause does not contradict the ban on lethal weapons on WAHQ property."

"That would be correct. I have personally witnessed occasions that my assistant here, Lieutenant Friendly, has killed someone with weapons that have been deemed non-lethal." Quint pauses, then adds. "Typically, out of spite."

[Excidium Planetis]

"Then your imagination is seriously flawed. This clause does not contradict the ban on lethal weapons on WAHQ property."

"That would be correct. I have personally witnessed occasions that my assistant here, Lieutenant Friendly, has killed someone with weapons that have been deemed non-lethal." Quint pauses, then adds. "Typically, out of spite."

"There is also the matter that the prohibiting clause only bans lethal weapons from being carried on WAHQ property, where the allows clause allows the response of lethal force anywhere, which obviously includes places where WA personnel are not prohibited from carrying lethal weapons."

[Liagolas]

"Aren't several committees already given the explicit authority to enforce World Assembly legislation? And if the World Assembly cannot enforce compliance, what is the point of its existence at all?"

"It was the impression of the Dominion that the various committees of the World Assembly merely implemented the resolutions, which is to say carry out necessary actions dictated by the legislation," the Mouth of the Dominion to the World Assembly says, sounding not entirely certain itself. "It was the understanding of the Dominion that these committees held no power to compel nations to take action and that they could only act cooperatively with member nations that willingly sought to comply with World Assembly resolutions."

And if the World Assembly cannot enforce compliance, what is the point of its existence at all?"

"It is the hope of the Dominion that you are jesting!" the Mouth says in a strangely jovial fashion, and it leans back a little in its seat. "Haven't you ever heard of political capital? Soft power? Reputation? Though the World Assembly may not compel compliance with resolutions, it would be untruthful to say there are no incentives to complying. Membership in and compliance with the World Assembly are rewarded with an invisible badge of honor - other World Assembly nations recognize a nation as being - to a certain extent - civil and just. That the nation guarantees similar rights and equality. The reputation gained provides diplomatic boons and enables a certain amount of trust.

"Should a nation be non-compliant with the resolutions, however, those benefits are lost," the Mouth says, and it shrugs. "And then where would the nation be? Paying for an ambassador to talk about laws said nation doesn't comply with for no real gain?" The Mouth shakes its head before throwing said head back as it adds, "It is the belief of the Dominion that it is far more valuable to a World Assembly member to be compliant than not.

"While the World Assembly may not have an enforcement mechanism, that does not mean there is no point to its existence," the Mouth says. "It is the assertion of the Dominion that the diplomatic incentives for compliance ensure that the World Assembly still achieves its goal of 'improving the world one resolution at a time.'

"Now, is this foolproof?" the Mouth asks, spreading is arms wide apart. "Certainly not. Non-compliant nations exist. But it is good enough, and in the eyes of the Dominion, any benefits of a World Assembly police force are not worth the possibilities of abuse."

OOC: And, of course, the RP implications of World Assembly police.

[Wallenburg]

Noting the [presumed] absence of legislation preventing WA military intervention in international and national,

"International and national what, Ambassador?"

[Excidium Planetis]

Noting the [presumed] absence of legislation preventing WA military intervention in international and national,

"International and national what, Ambassador?"

"Uh..." Schultz looks over the drafts in desperation. "I don't know. I forgot what I had meant to say there. Maybe 'affairs'?"

[The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper]

ARI: Sadly, we cannot support this. We'll have to go our own way here; we shall not pay a single discarded gum wrapper to put any weapons into the hands of WA personnel. If you'll excuse us, we have our own draft to work on.

[Excidium Planetis]

"Alright, I fixed the first preambulatory clause, clarified the lethal weapons ban clause, and changed the category, since 'International Aid' no longer seemed to fit."

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Um...forgive me for lacking the time to peruse the entire thread...but this would still be illegal under the current ruleset, wouldn't it?

[Tinfect]

Um...forgive me for lacking the time to peruse the entire thread...but this would still be illegal under the current ruleset, wouldn't it?

OOC:
Seeing as how GAR 2 ICly codifies OOC Rules, yes.
Unless Moderation decides to make it the Inverse.
At which point, well, we'll need to decide on a Replacement really, really quickly.

[Excidium Planetis]

Um...forgive me for lacking the time to peruse the entire thread...but this would still be illegal under the current ruleset, wouldn't it?

No.

It doesn't create a WA army or police, has no branding, isn't a category violation as far as I am aware, is not bloody stupid, once GA#2 is repealed it neither contradicts nor duplicates any resolutions, and it doesn't break any other rules I can't think of right now.

Unless you have a specific reason you would like to give for why it is illegal?

[Sciongrad]

Um...forgive me for lacking the time to peruse the entire thread...but this would still be illegal under the current ruleset, wouldn't it?

No.

It doesn't create a WA army or police, has no branding, isn't a category violation as far as I am aware, is not bloody stupid, once GA#2 is repealed it neither contradicts nor duplicates any resolutions, and it doesn't break any other rules I can't think of right now.

Unless you have a specific reason you would like to give for why it is illegal?

OOC: If I recall correctly, peace keeping forces are explicitly prohibited by the WA Army rule.

[We Couldnt Agree On A Name]

No.

It doesn't create a WA army or police, has no branding, isn't a category violation as far as I am aware, is not bloody stupid, once GA#2 is repealed it neither contradicts nor duplicates any resolutions, and it doesn't break any other rules I can't think of right now.

Unless you have a specific reason you would like to give for why it is illegal?

OOC: If I recall correctly, peace keeping forces are explicitly prohibited by the WA Army rule.

The World Assembly is prohibited from establishing a peacekeeping force, but there's no rule against allowing nations to do so.

[Excidium Planetis]

No.

It doesn't create a WA army or police, has no branding, isn't a category violation as far as I am aware, is not bloody stupid, once GA#2 is repealed it neither contradicts nor duplicates any resolutions, and it doesn't break any other rules I can't think of right now.

Unless you have a specific reason you would like to give for why it is illegal?

OOC: If I recall correctly, peace keeping forces are explicitly prohibited by the WA Army rule.

OOC: Then I will change the name. You can't argue that the authority given to the WA Peacekeepers violates the WA Army rule. They are given no law enforcement capacity and are certainly not a military. Essentially, if illegal, this resolution is illegal because I named the committee "WA Peacekeepers" instead of "WA Nazi Youth".