[DEFEATED] WA Peacekeeping Charter

[Wrapper]

I'll let you folks keep debating but for the record the rule says:

Creating Military or Police Force

The WA cannot have or form a military, peace keeping force, the World Police or any other such variation. This is pretty clear: don't do it.

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC: There. No more WA Peacekeeping force. We now have a WA Friendship Force, which is prohibited from engaging in offensive military actions, from enforcing compliance, and from carrying lethal weapons on WAHQ property. It is allowed to assist in disarmament, demobilization, government restructuring, and protection of non-combatants.

Try to say that violates the above rule.

[Wallenburg]

OOC: There. No more WA Peacekeeping force. We now have a WA Friendship Force, which is prohibited from engaging in offensive military actions, from enforcing compliance, and from carrying lethal weapons on WAHQ property. It is allowed to assist in disarmament, demobilization, government restructuring, and protection of non-combatants.

Try to say that violates the above rule.

How does it protect noncombatants?

[Tinfect]

OOC: There. No more WA Peacekeeping force. We now have a WA Friendship Force, which is prohibited from engaging in offensive military actions, from enforcing compliance, and from carrying lethal weapons on WAHQ property. It is allowed to assist in disarmament, demobilization, government restructuring, and protection of non-combatants.

Try to say that violates the above rule.

How does it protect noncombatants?

OOC:
Deployable De-Weaponizers? Throwing invincible Gnomes into the line of Fire to act as bullet sponges?

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC: There. No more WA Peacekeeping force. We now have a WA Friendship Force, which is prohibited from engaging in offensive military actions, from enforcing compliance, and from carrying lethal weapons on WAHQ property. It is allowed to assist in disarmament, demobilization, government restructuring, and protection of non-combatants.

Try to say that violates the above rule.

How does it protect noncombatants?

The gnomes act as bullet sponges.

It's a way of thinning out the WA bureaucracy.

That, or a Strongly Worded Letter.

[Wallenburg]

How does it protect noncombatants?

The gnomes act as bullet sponges.

It's a way of thinning out the WA bureaucracy.

That, or a Strongly Worded Letter.

Cool. We'll use artillery instead of bullets!

[Tinfect]

The gnomes act as bullet sponges.

It's a way of thinning out the WA bureaucracy.

That, or a Strongly Worded Letter.

Cool. We'll use artillery instead of bullets!

OOC:
"Deploy the GNOME-DOME! Suffer not a single shell to pass!"

[Wallenburg]

Cool. We'll use artillery instead of bullets!

OOC:
"Deploy the GNOME-DOME! Suffer not a single shell to pass!"

All gnomes are hereby denied entry into Wallenburg. Violators will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.

[Sciongrad]

OOC: There. No more WA Peacekeeping force. We now have a WA Friendship Force, which is prohibited from engaging in offensive military actions, from enforcing compliance, and from carrying lethal weapons on WAHQ property. It is allowed to assist in disarmament, demobilization, government restructuring, and protection of non-combatants.

Try to say that violates the above rule.

OOC: Not to keep hounding on this, because I'm not necessarily opposed to a peace keeping force of some kind, but how is the "WA Friendship Force" functionally different from a peacekeeping force?

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC: There. No more WA Peacekeeping force. We now have a WA Friendship Force, which is prohibited from engaging in offensive military actions, from enforcing compliance, and from carrying lethal weapons on WAHQ property. It is allowed to assist in disarmament, demobilization, government restructuring, and protection of non-combatants.

Try to say that violates the above rule.

OOC: Not to keep hounding on this, because I'm not necessarily opposed to a peace keeping force of some kind, but how is the "WA Friendship Force" functionally different from a peacekeeping force?

OOC: It isn't. But the WA Army rule doesn't ban peacekeeping efforts, it bans military forces. Unless you want to argue that GA#130 Elections and Assistance Act should have been illegal because the OEA assists in government transition, something that is a peacekeeping effort in the real world.

[Sciongrad]

OOC: Not to keep hounding on this, because I'm not necessarily opposed to a peace keeping force of some kind, but how is the "WA Friendship Force" functionally different from a peacekeeping force?

OOC: It isn't. But the WA Army rule doesn't ban peacekeeping efforts, it bans military forces. Unless you want to argue that GA#130 Elections and Assistance Act should have been illegal because the OEA assists in government transition, something that is a peacekeeping effort in the real world.

OOC: The crux of my concern is this subclause: "the WA Friendship Force [shall] have the following duties, provided at the request or consent of all WA member nations involved in each specific friendship effort: Protection of civilian non-combatants in times of war or civil strife [...]"

This is peace keeping force - i.e., it must function in some type of armed capacity to carry out its duties effectively - which is explicitly prohibited by the rule. Again, I have no strong feelings on this issue, but I think this is something you should consider.

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC: It isn't. But the WA Army rule doesn't ban peacekeeping efforts, it bans military forces. Unless you want to argue that GA#130 Elections and Assistance Act should have been illegal because the OEA assists in government transition, something that is a peacekeeping effort in the real world.

OOC: The crux of my concern is this subclause: "the WA Friendship Force [shall] have the following duties, provided at the request or consent of all WA member nations involved in each specific friendship effort: Protection of civilian non-combatants in times of war or civil strife [...]"

This is peace keeping force - i.e., it must function in some type of armed capacity to carry out its duties effectively - which is explicitly prohibited by the rule. Again, I have no strong feelings on this issue, but I think this is something you should consider.

Who says they have to use arms to protect civilians? The resolution does not specify how they must protect civilians. I trust the gnomes can figure it out in a way that does not break the rules.

[Separatist Peoples]

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.

OOC: since this basically makes the GA forum pointless, I'll have to oppose this. Compliance is the basis of our RP. Gutting that makes us little more organized than the II threads where you get a half dozen kids going "Nuh UH!" "Yuh HUH!" regarding thread rules. I really hope I'm reading it wrong.

[Liagolas]

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.

OOC: since this basically makes the GA forum pointless, I'll have to oppose this. Compliance is the basis of our RP. Gutting that makes us little more organized than the II threads where you get a half dozen kids going "Nuh UH!" "Yuh HUH!" regarding thread rules. I really hope I'm reading it wrong.

EDIT: Whoops, forgot about the OOC tags there that mean the Mouth can't actually be replying to this, strictly speaking, since it wasn't actually said IC. Just look to the quote to see Liagolas's IC explanation from earlier.

"The Dominion has addressed this concern," the Mouth says. "Though the Cornelia Schultz may have additional comments to make, it is the hope of the Dominion that the transcript of its previous comments will be of service to understanding how the absence of enforcement mechanisms - though the impression of the Dominion was that they already didn't exist - would not be as much of a problem as you fear.

"Additionally, would noncompliance not lead to ejection from the World Assembly? Though not strictly an 'enforcement mechanism,' it is a disincentive. Unless the recollection of the Dominion on this specific matter is somewhat inaccurate."

"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. "Other member states would see the nation in an increasingly negative light, 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.

OOC: The IC reasons in the quote are, in fact, the reasons why Liagolas joined the WA despite Liagolas's Orwellian nature. Also, to use a RL example, it's not as though all UN nations are compliant with all UN treaties they sign. And yet the UN continues to exist.

[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.

OOC: since this basically makes the GA forum pointless, I'll have to oppose this. Compliance is the basis of our RP. Gutting that makes us little more organized than the II threads where you get a half dozen kids going "Nuh UH!" "Yuh HUH!" regarding thread rules. I really hope I'm reading it wrong.

OOC:
1) Enforcing compliance is already illegal by GA rules in Metagaming and WA Police.

2) Roleplayed non-compliance on the GA forum is already a thing.

3) As Liagolas pointed out ICly, even in the absence of enforcement, nations have strong IC reasons to comply.

4) If you take my other GA#2 replacement draft into consideration, not only are nations required to comply with GA resolutions, but non-compliance can actually serve as an excuse to attack other members. Sciongrad's Nuclear Defense draft also allows first strike nuclear attacks on non-complying nations, so if that passes that would be incentive enough to comply.

[Bears Armed]

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.

OOC: since this basically makes the GA forum pointless, I'll have to oppose this. Compliance is the basis of our RP. Gutting that makes us little more organized than the II threads where you get a half dozen kids going "Nuh UH!" "Yuh HUH!" regarding thread rules. I really hope I'm reading it wrong.

OOC:
1) Enforcing compliance is already illegal by GA rules in Metagaming and WA Police.
2) Roleplayed non-compliance on the GA forum is already a thing.
3) As Liagolas pointed out ICly, even in the absence of enforcement, nations have strong IC reasons to comply.
4) If you take my other GA#2 replacement draft into consideration, not only are nations required to comply with GA resolutions, but non-compliance can actually serve as an excuse to attack other members. Sciongrad's Nuclear Defense draft also allows first strike nuclear attacks on non-complying nations, so if that passes that would be incentive enough to comply.

"As written, wouldn't it even prevent the bringing of court cases to determine whether or not certain official actions-- or inactions, for that matter -- were compliant with another resolution? I strongly suggest adding "by any means other than through the law-courts" to the end of that clause..."

Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.

[We Couldnt Agree On A Name]

Since when did this become a joke proposal?

[Excidium Planetis]

"As written, wouldn't it even prevent the bringing of court cases to determine whether or not certain official actions-- or inactions, for that matter -- were compliant with another resolution? I strongly suggest adding "by any means other than through the law-courts" to the end of that clause..."

Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.

"That is actually a rather good suggestion, as law courts are neither police nor enforcers. I will integrate it. Thank you for your assistance."

Since when did this become a joke proposal?

OOC: Whatever do you mean?

[We Couldnt Agree On A Name]

OOC: Whatever do you mean?

OOC:the WA Friendship Force?

I know that can't be serious. You know that calling a police force something else won't change it's legality.

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC: Whatever do you mean?

OOC:the WA Friendship Force?

I know that can't be serious. You know that calling a police force something else won't change it's legality.

OOC: That's WA International Cooperation Force, and they aren't police in any capacity. They can't enforce laws, arrest people, or do anything normally associated with police activity.

[We Couldnt Agree On A Name]

OOC:the WA Friendship Force?

I know that can't be serious. You know that calling a police force something else won't change it's legality.

OOC: That's WA International Cooperation Force, and they aren't police in any capacity. They can't enforce laws, arrest people, or do anything normally associated with police activity.

Well that's a much better name...

[Excidium Planetis]

"I have made some changes to this draft, and as the Railana Ambassador is pushing their WA Peacekeeping proposal, I figured I would push this one."

OOC:
After the rule changes, I have now eliminated the WA Police blocker (nobody seemed to like it, I figure some other resolution can deal with enforcing compliance) and changed the WA International Cooperation Force back to the WA Peacekeepers.

Any input?

[Excidium Planetis]

Major changes have been made.

This is no longer intended to replace part of GA#2. I have eliminated parts of it and reworded the rest so that it should be legal even with GA#2 in place.

[Alozia]

Interesting

[Excidium Planetis]

Interesting

OOC:
While informing you why military forces could not be created in the GA, I discovered that unlike the old WA Army rule that was changed, GA#2 never mentions Peacekeeping forces. Hence making this legal.

So I made a few changes to my old GA#2 replacement part 1, and voila.