[PASSED] Administrative Compliance Act

[Imperium Anglorum]

No, civil rights (1) don't exist as a category, so learn that before arguing with people on the Secretariat, and (2) talk about the ability for people to do things (not sue the government for redress of grievances), so read the category definitions on the Compendium thread.

And to the "this is a major problem" comment, no it isn't. It's not a problem, and never really has been.

[Wallenburg]

No, civil rights (1) don't exist as a category, so learn that before arguing with people on the Secretariat, and (2) talk about the ability for people to do things (not sue the government for redress of grievances), so read the category definitions on the Compendium thread.

And to the "this is a major problem" comment, no it isn't. It's not a problem, and never really has been.

They clearly meant Human Rights. There's no need for that degree of pedantry.

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: Art IV. Takes power away from governments and gives it to the people, which is appropriate for FoD pursuant to how issues editors consider the category.

[Glen-Rhodes]

OOC:
So, is this intended to shut down creative compliance?

OOC: No, just noncompliance. Creative compliance is technically compliance.

OOC I certainly hope this doesn't just become another way to insert "noncompliance is magically impossible" back into the GA canon. While intergovernmental organizations can and should try to ensure compliance with international law, noncompliance will always be a possible choice for member states.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: No, just noncompliance. Creative compliance is technically compliance.

OOC I certainly hope this doesn't just become another way to insert "noncompliance is magically impossible" back into the GA canon. While intergovernmental organizations can and should try to ensure compliance with international law, noncompliance will always be a possible choice for member states.

OOC: This will substantially increase the cost of noncompliance

[Sciongrad]

OOC: No, just noncompliance. Creative compliance is technically compliance.

OOC I certainly hope this doesn't just become another way to insert "noncompliance is magically impossible" back into the GA canon. While intergovernmental organizations can and should try to ensure compliance with international law, noncompliance will always be a possible choice for member states.

OOC: I think it does the opposite by both formalizing the possibility for non-compliance through a resolution and acknowledging the incentive structure that enables it (i.e., lack of enforcement mechanisms, self-interested states). If anything, this proposal addresses non-compliance in a way that rejects the idea of magical non-compliance. It would be silly, I think, for a proposal that, at its base, recognizes the possibility of non-compliance, to be used by future authors to hand wave away all potential non-compliance.

[Araraukar]

[OOC: I think it does the opposite by both formalizing the possibility for non-compliance through a resolution

OOC: ^This, except this isn't the first one to do that. #390, Compliance Commission, and the GenSec ruling on the compliance issue pretty much sanctified noncompliance being a thing.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Who still thinks this is illegal af?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Oh yea, don't you know all proposals are illegal because I'm bad at debating and can't think of real reasons to oppose something?

[Wallenburg]

OOC: Who still thinks this is illegal af?

I mean, it isn't FoD, so...

Plz give us buffed bookkeeping category, don't hide it behind Premium.

[United Massachusetts]

We still oppose this.

[Bears Armed]

[OOC: I think it does the opposite by both formalizing the possibility for non-compliance through a resolution

OOC: ^This, except this isn't the first one to do that. #390, Compliance Commission, and the GenSec ruling on the compliance issue pretty much sanctified noncompliance being a thing.

OOC
I still disagree with that ruling, and think that whatever rules exist IC on compliance should have been left as a matter for the IC treaty or charter that nations presumably ratify when their players IC click the 'Join' button. There must be a treaty or charter, like that, because otherwise even matters like joining/leaving and how proposals are voted into becoming resolutions don't have any IC explanation... Also, if we say that compliance with resolutions is only required due to some resolutions (e.g. GAR #2) then there's nothing to require members' compliance with those resolutions on the first paw...
*<mutter , grumble, snarrl>*

I mean, it isn't FoD, so...

I agree. At the very least, to meet that category, it needs to make presenting cases to the IAO a matter for member nations' inhabitants rather than just for the WACC.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Who still thinks this is illegal af?

I mean, it isn't FoD, so...

Plz give us buffed bookkeeping category, don't hide it behind Premium.

It is FoD. By giving citizens legal rights to assert against the government to force the government into compliance with WA law, the people are receiving political rights at the expense of government control. Art IV covers this. I had a long chat with an issues editor about that exactly.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: ^This, except this isn't the first one to do that. #390, Compliance Commission, and the GenSec ruling on the compliance issue pretty much sanctified noncompliance being a thing.

OOC
I still disagree with that ruling, and think that whatever rules exist IC on compliance should have been left as a matter for the IC treaty or charter that nations presumably ratify when their players IC click the 'Join' button. There must be a treaty or charter, like that, because otherwise even matters like joining/leaving and how proposals are voted into becoming resolutions don't have any IC explanation... Also, if we say that compliance with resolutions is only required due to some resolutions (e.g. GAR #2) then there's nothing to require members' compliance with those resolutions on the first paw...
*<mutter , grumble, snarrl>*

I mean, it isn't FoD, so...

I agree. At the very least, to meet that category, it needs to make presenting cases to the IAO a matter for member nations' inhabitants rather than just for the WACC.

Art. IV.

[Mallorea and Riva]

OOC: Who still thinks this is illegal af?

I mean, it isn't FoD, so...

Plz give us buffed bookkeeping category, don't hide it behind Premium.

Bookkeeping OP, nerfed accordingly.

I think there was a discussion of opening up bookkeeping in the GA rules rewrite a few years back, I don't want to threadjack but I just wanted to point that out for anyone who is interested.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: ^This, except this isn't the first one to do that. #390, Compliance Commission, and the GenSec ruling on the compliance issue pretty much sanctified noncompliance being a thing.

OOC
I still disagree with that ruling, and think that whatever rules exist IC on compliance should have been left as a matter for the IC treaty or charter that nations presumably ratify when their players IC click the 'Join' button. There must be a treaty or charter, like that, because otherwise even matters like joining/leaving and how proposals are voted into becoming resolutions don't have any IC explanation... Also, if we say that compliance with resolutions is only required due to some resolutions (e.g. GAR #2) then there's nothing to require members' compliance with those resolutions on the first paw...
*<mutter , grumble, snarrl>*

I mean, it isn't FoD, so...

I agree. At the very least, to meet that category, it needs to make presenting cases to the IAO a matter for member nations' inhabitants rather than just for the WACC.

Your opinion is still pending on that. Do you ever intend on releasing (or writing) it?

[Bears Armed]

OOC
I still disagree with that ruling, and think that whatever rules exist IC on compliance should have been left as a matter for the IC treaty or charter that nations presumably ratify when their players IC click the 'Join' button. There must be a treaty or charter, like that, because otherwise even matters like joining/leaving and how proposals are voted into becoming resolutions don't have any IC explanation... Also, if we say that compliance with resolutions is only required due to some resolutions (e.g. GAR #2) then there's nothing to require members' compliance with those resolutions on the first paw...
*<mutter , grumble, snarrl>*

Your opinion is still pending on that. Do you ever intend on releasing (or writing) it?

OOC
Oops! I'll see what I can do.

I agree. At the very least, to meet that category, it needs to make presenting cases to the IAO a matter for member nations' inhabitants rather than just for the WACC.

Art. IV.

OOC
You mean the following?

Every inhabitant of a member state is entitled to an effective remedy against their state for all injuries to their person, property, or character by having recourse in law or equity for any right, made explicitly or implicitly by a restriction on member states, created by World Assembly law.

If that "effective remedy" is meant to include the right to bring cases to the IAO directly, rather than through the WACC, then Art.1 needs changing to say so because currently -- unless I'm missing something -- it gives only WACC the right to bring cases there.
or
If that "effective remedy" is meant to include getting cases before the IAO by presenting them to the WACC for this purpose, although the resolution that established the WACC made no mention of such a right, then I think that Art.4 needs to say explicitly that this is the situation.
(In either of those cases, i think that it would work better with the current Art.4/Sub-Art.1 moved to before the current Art.1...)
and if the current Art.4 means that "effective remedy" to be by bringing cases through the nations' own legal systems, rather than through the IAO, then doesn't that really make the IAO superfluous anyway?


(My apologies for not raising these points earlier: RL was cutting into my available time, for a while, and this proposal -- maybe because of my belief that the whole 'Compliance Commission' business should never have been raised anyway -- slipped past me...)

[Eriadni]

Support, solves a lot of issues with non-compliance if the legality works out.

[United Massachusetts]

Rev. Pierce rises up to speak, visibly distraught by the resolution proposed:

"We abhor this policy in the utmost and any evil spawn that is like it. No proposal regarding compliance should discourage World Assembly membership so severely as this does. Non compliant nations should not be pushed out of this Assembly and thus out of its regulatory reach; they should be pushed to adopt stronger policy through fair, compromise resolutions on contraversial issues. This proposal runs contrary to the core principles of international diplomacy, and should thus be rejected by every member nation."

[Separatist Peoples]

Rev. Pierce rises up to speak, visibly distraught by the resolution proposed:

"We abhor this policy in the utmost and any evil spawn that is like it. No proposal regarding compliance should discourage World Assembly membership so severely as this does. Non compliant nations should not be pushed out of this Assembly and thus out of its regulatory reach; they should be pushed to adopt stronger policy through fair, compromise resolutions on contraversial issues. This proposal runs contrary to the core principles of international diplomacy, and should thus be rejected by every member nation."

"Why should I listen to the demands of somebody whos nation cant be assed to follow WA law? If you're not putting in your fair share, why should you get a say?"
Bell holds up his hand to forestall a response. "Also, I dont deal with shamans. Get me a secular representative and we can have a conversation."

[Separatist Peoples]

You mean the following?

Every inhabitant of a member state is entitled to an effective remedy against their state for all injuries to their person, property, or character by having recourse in law or equity for any right, made explicitly or implicitly by a restriction on member states, created by World Assembly law.

If that "effective remedy" is meant to include the right to bring cases to the IAO directly, rather than through the WACC, then Art.1 needs changing to say so because currently -- unless I'm missing something -- it gives only WACC the right to bring cases there.
or
If that "effective remedy" is meant to include getting cases before the IAO by presenting them to the WACC for this purpose, although the resolution that established the WACC made no mention of such a right, then I think that Art.4 needs to say explicitly that this is the situation.
(In either of those cases, i think that it would work better with the current Art.4/Sub-Art.1 moved to before the current Art.1...)
and if the current Art.4 means that "effective remedy" to be by bringing cases through the nations' own legal systems, rather than through the IAO, then doesn't that really make the IAO superfluous anyway?


(My apologies for not raising these points earlier: RL was cutting into my available time, for a while, and this proposal -- maybe because of my belief that the whole 'Compliance Commission' business should never have been raised anyway -- slipped past me...)

An effective remedy and the means to pursue it means having the right to sue in national courts against the national government or it's analog.

The IAO provides punitive power to enforce compliance on nations moving forward, and Art. IV provides individuals the right to address specifics and seek compensation for past wrongs or where there exists a questionable interpretation noncompliant states might seize upon. Fines on nations that fund the WA don't provide a remedy to individuals at all. And if individuals seek to use their Art. IV powers and get rebuffed, that itself is a signal to the IAO that intervention is necessary.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Let's get a move on. We can all see storm clouds forming. I'm ready to move forward with my section of this if it keeps looking like one of those red herring proposals held in permanent stasis.

[Wallenburg]

You may wish to edit the OP to reflect the strength change.

[Thyerata]

This may be a bit obscure, especialy since the text of the Resolution doesn't expressly say this, but I'm reading this as a Committee violation because the Resolution indirectly adds another task to a pre-existing Committee - namely, it requires the Compliance Commission to bring cases of noncompliance to the Independent Adjudicator. See here:

1. (a) Hold fair and independent evidentiary hearings for claims of noncompliance brought by the WACC, overseen by a panel of independent adjudicators;

[Wallenburg]

This may be a bit obscure, especialy since the text of the Resolution doesn't expressly say this, but I'm reading this as a Committee violation because the Resolution indirectly adds another task to a pre-existing Committee - namely, it requires the Compliance Commission to bring cases of noncompliance to the Independent Adjudicator. See here:

1. (a) Hold fair and independent evidentiary hearings for claims of noncompliance brought by the WACC, overseen by a panel of independent adjudicators;

The WA has a long history of adding duties to existing committees. This isn't even remotely a question of legality.