[PASSED] Compliance Commission

[Imperium Anglorum]

Continuing proposal.

[Sandaoguo]

Without commenting on the merits of either the policy or the legality arguments... If this is mostly an international criminal court, can the name of the body reflect that more than "Compliance Commission" does?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Without commenting on the merits of either the policy or the legality arguments... If this is mostly an international criminal court, can the name of the body reflect that more than "Compliance Commission" does?

It isn't an International Criminal Court. It is a fact-finding commission. §5 clearly states that it is a truth-seeking commission.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Without commenting on the merits of either the policy or the legality arguments... If this is mostly an international criminal court, can the name of the body reflect that more than "Compliance Commission" does?

It isn't an International Criminal Court. It is a fact-finding commission. §5 clearly states that it is a truth-seeking commission.

Fairburn: Which one is it, then? Fact-finding or truth-seeking?

[Imperium Anglorum]

It's the kind in the text.

[Excidium Planetis]

It's the kind in the text.

Blackbourne smiles at Parson's reply. "Indeed, it is the kind in the text."

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: I've only just noticed that the OP has been edited seventeen times, yet the space reserved for previous drafts is still blank. What are you hiding?

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: I've only just noticed that the OP has been edited seventeen times, yet the space reserved for previous drafts is still blank. What are you hiding?

This is what you're going to spend your time with? I see why Gruenberg constantly complains about the decline of debate in the GA. That's an FAQ section, not a previous drafts section. I no longer keep previous drafts.

I'm happy to hear any comments whatsoever on the actual contents of the proposal. But it appears that none are forthcoming.

[Tinfect]

I no longer keep previous drafts.

OOC:
I've noticed this, and, I do rather have to ask; why? There's no reason not to, and not doing so rather makes it quite difficult to follow the debate/determine changes between drafts.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I no longer keep previous drafts.

OOC:
I've noticed this, and, I do rather have to ask; why? There's no reason not to, and not doing so rather makes it quite difficult to follow the debate/determine changes between drafts.

OOC: Mostly because (1) keeping them in the main post makes it extremely hard to comment on the current draft, (2) putting them in the second post makes it hard to comment on the FAQ [there is no guarantee that it will be written, just like TNP MoWA recommendations continually go unwritten as well], (3) they take up a ton of space, even with spoilers, (4) I'm lazy, and (5) most of the changes which I implement are incremental so there is no bright line where I can say Draft 1 moved into Draft 2.

[Sandaoguo]

Without commenting on the merits of either the policy or the legality arguments... If this is mostly an international criminal court, can the name of the body reflect that more than "Compliance Commission" does?

It isn't an International Criminal Court. It is a fact-finding commission. §5 clearly states that it is a truth-seeking commission.

So it's INTERPOL. Either way, "Compliance Commission" isn't an accurate title...

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: I've only just noticed that the OP has been edited seventeen times, yet the space reserved for previous drafts is still blank. What are you hiding?

This is what you're going to spend your time with?

OOC: Well, it only took me twenty seconds at most to type up that post.

That's an FAQ section, not a previous drafts section. I no longer keep previous drafts.

OOC: You could have made more clear, you know. Just saying.

OOC: Mostly because (1) keeping them in the main post makes it extremely hard to comment on the current draft, (2) putting them in the second post makes it hard to comment on the FAQ [there is no guarantee that it will be written, just like TNP MoWA recommendations continually go unwritten as well], (3) they take up a ton of space, even with spoilers, (4) I'm lazy, and (5) most of the changes which I implement are incremental so there is no bright line where I can say Draft 1 moved into Draft 2.

OOC:

1) No need to place them in the OP.
2) No need to place them in the second post.
3) Not if they have a post to themselves.
4) Great excuse.
5) Yes there is. If there's a change, it's a new draft. Also, many small changes add up to a big change.

[Imperium Anglorum]

This is what you're going to spend your time with?

OOC: Well, it only took me twenty seconds at most to type up that post.

That's an FAQ section, not a previous drafts section. I no longer keep previous drafts.

OOC: You could have made more clear, you know. Just saying.

OOC: Mostly because (1) keeping them in the main post makes it extremely hard to comment on the current draft, (2) putting them in the second post makes it hard to comment on the FAQ [there is no guarantee that it will be written, just like TNP MoWA recommendations continually go unwritten as well], (3) they take up a ton of space, even with spoilers, (4) I'm lazy, and (5) most of the changes which I implement are incremental so there is no bright line where I can say Draft 1 moved into Draft 2.

OOC:

1) No need to place them in the OP.
2) No need to place them in the second post.
3) Not if they have a post to themselves.
4) Great excuse.
5) Yes there is. If there's a change, it's a new draft. Also, many small changes add up to a big change.

Absent any responses to my request for comments other than responses utterly immaterial to the proposal itself, I am going to submit in five days.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I would strongly suggest you take time to figure out just what this proposal is actually supposed to do. Because I can't even tell.

It's not clear what this "Compliance Commission" is actually doing. Does investigating mean it's a party to criminal cases? What is the nature of "prosecutorial" investigation, in the first place?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Does investigating mean it's a party to criminal cases? What is the nature of "prosecutorial" investigation, in the first place?

No. It isn't a party to criminal cases, because it isn't prosecuting. The nature of such an investigation in the first place is to assemble information for possible prosecutions in the future.

I would strongly suggest you take time to figure out just what this proposal is actually supposed to do. Because I can't even tell.

It's a precursor to another proposal which more effectively solves the problem created by On Universal Jurisdiction.

---

Some rather large changes in wording have been made to more clearly define the scope and the scale of the proposal.

[States of Glory WA Office]

It's a precursor to another proposal which more effectively solves the problem created by On Universal Jurisdiction.

Neville: Hmm...I was not aware of this important piece of information. I'm wondering how you would go about solving this issue.

Fairburn: Regardless, this is one of those cases where although the proposal is well-written, we are opposed to it on ideological grounds. There are no suggestions we can make in terms of the wording, so we'll just wish the best of luck to Lord Colonel His Grace...

Neville: I think we get the gist.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Does investigating mean it's a party to criminal cases? What is the nature of "prosecutorial" investigation, in the first place?

No. It isn't a party to criminal cases, because it isn't prosecuting. The nature of such an investigation in the first place is to assemble information for possible prosecutions in the future.

This may be a distinction without a difference. Prosecutors rely on police investigators to "assemble information" in pretty much any regular criminal justice system. Most people would consider those investigators as parties to their cases. It may strain credulity to argue that WA investigators aren't in a similar position.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: as currently worded, this proposal looks like a "Committee only" illegality...

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: as currently worded, this proposal looks like a "Committee only" illegality...

Clauses 2 and 4 require nations to abide with the committee in a certain fashion. Such clauses have long been held not to be external, and therefore, allow that illegality to pass.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: as currently worded, this proposal looks like a "Committee only" illegality...

Clauses 2 and 4 require nations to abide with the committee in a certain fashion. Such clauses have long been held not to be external, and therefore, allow that illegality to pass.

Requiring nations to comply with the committee used to be enough for legality, at one point, but that rule was changed.

Committees: Committees cannot be the sole purpose of the proposal. It is an addition to the proposal and designed to carry out specific duties related to the proposal.

How is your Compliance Commission not "the sole purpose of the proposal"?

Although whether the rule should be reverted to its earlier state is a matter that might be worth considering, as it currently stands I would definitely consider the proposal subject to legal challenge in this respect.

[Imperium Anglorum]

You all have signed yourselves the power to do such things. Determining and having a discussion about interpretation of the Committees rule certainly is within your power. But I will soon add a clause encouraging nations to quickly investigate the issues at hand.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Strongly encourages nations to cooperate with the Compliance Commission on matters relevant to their security and conduct their own investigations into observance with World Assembly resolutions as soon as possible;

This clause has been edited to the above version to avoid Committee issues.

[Western Evilly]

As this will be coming to vote soon.

[Sedgistan]

Proposal removed at author's request.

[Tinhampton]

I was honestly not expecting that. A last-ditch legality ruling, maybe; but definitely not an author-requested nuking.