[PASSED] Administrative Compliance Act

[Liagolas]

It is true that there is roleplay of noncompliance which does not deliberately denigrate authors or participants in the shared illusion of the game. I use a little bit of it (arguing a prolonged series of legal disputes), and players like Auralia often manage to roleplay noncompliance without harming the group experience. I don't see this as incompatible with the presumptive competence of WA committees.

There are many actions taken by competent experts and organizations that are intended to bring about a behavior that nonetheless fail. As Captain Picard once said, it is possible to make no mistakes and still fail. Assuming this passes, a player could theoretically roleplay a nation who remains non-compliant at the cost of the serious penalties imposed. After all, there are ways to evade sanctions, and WA members are the minority in the world. To be realistic, however, I suspect such nations would have to roleplay the serious impacts of those sanctions.

So, tl;dr, I don't think that the possibility of the committee failing to accomplish a specific goal upset the presumption of effectiveness and competency. I do think it seriously affects non-compliant roleply, and that is the goal.

OOC: Hm... yeah, that addresses my concern. Thanks.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Since Auralia is graciously looking to bolster the legislative framework around the ACA, and since his draft requires mine to effectively work, I've bumped this!

I've made some adjustments for numbered clauses and spacing. Mostly aesthetics.

[Kenmoria]

"You use a comma after the committee name in clause 1 but not in clause 2. I would standardise that."

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Updated draft

[Imperium Anglorum]

Not sure whether centring works in the proposals screen.

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: formatting issues totally aside, since I can't fix them on my phone without a gigantic mess, I believe the last Article addresses category concerns and gets me unquestionably out of Committee Only violations. Thoughts? I anticipated another spirited debate about the category.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I’ve no objections to category or committee structure. Also, Committee only applies only if there is no interaction with the nations. So that’s a resolved point anyway.

[Araraukar]

4. Member states must enforce the strongest measures of economic sanction available against those member states that refuse to pay IAO fines, subject only to the limitations of extant law.

OOC: Does this mean that stuff like humanitarian assistance (such as required in case of certain disastrous situations) isn't affected?

And since this actually states consequences for disobedience, that basically means that disobedience is expected to happen (at least occasionally)? Asking because Araraukar would be totally happy (actually happier, given some of the existing meddlesome resolutions) without any trade deals or economical dealings with other WA nations.

Also, can non-member "individual and sub-national entities" file these claims/challenges? Like, say, a WA nation breaking the existing resolutions in a war fought on non-member territory? Or in a war with a non-member nation anyway.

EDITs because apparently I fail at coding today.

[Separatist Peoples]

4. Member states must enforce the strongest measures of economic sanction available against those member states that refuse to pay IAO fines, subject only to the limitations of extant law.

OOC: Does this mean that stuff like humanitarian assistance (such as required in case of certain disastrous situations) isn't affected?

OOC: Existing requirements that require aid or trade stand, but future requirements wouldn't pass muster.

And since this actually states consequences for disobedience, that basically means that disobedience is expected to happen (at least occasionally)? Asking because Araraukar would be totally happy (actually happier, given some of the existing meddlesome resolutions) without any trade deals or economical dealings with other WA nations.

I'm not sure how many of those you're required to have to begin with. This is premised on the idea that noncompliance occurs occasionally.

Also, can non-member "individual and sub-national entities" file these claims/challenges? Like, say, a WA nation breaking the existing resolutions in a war fought on non-member territory? Or in a war with a non-member nation anyway.

No. The only entity with the jurisdiction to initiate IOA proceedings is WASO. Nothing stops you from cooperating with or reporting to WASO/CC to speed things along, but you cannot file a suit in the IOA unless you work for the WASO.

[Araraukar]

I'm not sure how many of those you're required to have to begin with. This is premised on the idea that noncompliance occurs occasionally.

OOC: Remember the arguments about things that hinder socialist/communist/isolationist nations? I think all of those proposals passed eventually. And other WA nations being required to cut all trade and such would solve the issues.

[Separatist Peoples]

I'm not sure how many of those you're required to have to begin with. This is premised on the idea that noncompliance occurs occasionally.

OOC: Remember the arguments about things that hinder socialist/communist/isolationist nations? I think all of those proposals passed eventually. And other WA nations being required to cut all trade and such would solve the issues.

OOC: Its only mandatory if those nations are noncompliant. The rest of this issue is really outside the scope of this resolution.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Its only mandatory if those nations are noncompliant.

OOC: Well, like I said, Araraukar would (in IC; I usually try to think of creative compliance ways, but this is one in which the opinions of the IC characters and me OOCly would differ) be more than happy to find a resolution to ignore (likely one of the ones that are problematic to isolationist/socialist/communist nations to begin with) and then ignore the fines set in this one, just to get rid of foreign trade and economical meddling by other WA nations.

The rest of this issue is really outside the scope of this resolution.

Yeah, I get that, but if non-members aren't allowed to do these challenges, then any nation that wants to only deal with non-members, would likely be fine with ignoring the fines set in this one.

And yes I know resolutions are technically mandatorily enforced, but the recent trend has been to acknowledge that noncompliance is a thing that happens in IC.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Its only mandatory if those nations are noncompliant.

OOC: Well, like I said, Araraukar would (in IC; I usually try to think of creative compliance ways, but this is one in which the opinions of the IC characters and me OOCly would differ) be more than happy to find a resolution to ignore (likely one of the ones that are problematic to isolationist/socialist/communist nations to begin with) and then ignore the fines set in this one, just to get rid of foreign trade and economical meddling by other WA nations.

OOC: I strongly suspect that the sanctions involved would have a greater reach than you give it credit for. Unless none of your banks or people invest internationally. But thats really neither here nor there.

Yeah, I get that, but if non-members aren't allowed to do these challenges, then any nation that wants to only deal with non-members, would likely be fine with ignoring the fines set in this one.

Potentially, sure. Its possible that a totally isolated nation or a large enough empire could be self-sufficient. Its unlikely to be the norm.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Its possible that a totally isolated nation or a large enough empire could be self-sufficient. Its unlikely to be the norm.

OOC: That's all I need to know to be happy with this proposal. Thank you. ^_^

[First Nightmare]

(OOC)This has
the category Furtherment of Democracy
the strength Strong.

I would say that Strong is probably correct.
However, the category is not Furtherment of Democracy.
Moral Decency, Political Stability, Civil Rights - these come into mind. But FoD is wrong.

[Separatist Peoples]

(OOC)This has
the category Furtherment of Democracy
the strength Strong.

I would say that Strong is probably correct.
However, the category is not Furtherment of Democracy.
Moral Decency, Political Stability, Civil Rights - these come into mind. But FoD is wrong.

Ooc: based on...?

[Wallenburg]

Personally, I think this belongs in Bookkeeping.

[United Massachusetts]

We should ask Technical to revive the Bookkeeping category.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: If bookkeeping isn't available, a case could be made to put this into political stability. This is based on the category's description:

A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.

Because this proposal would make it that a country would not have the freedom to violate GA legislation, their political freedoms are restricted. In addition, this is being done in the interest of law - international law.)

[Mallorea and Riva]

(OOC: If bookkeeping isn't available, a case could be made to put this into political stability. This is based on the category's description:

A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.

Because this proposal would make it that a country would not have the freedom to violate GA legislation, their political freedoms are restricted. In addition, this is being done in the interest of law - international law.)

That's a tortured interpretation. Like I said before, the most likely category choice is that there isn't currently an appropriate category. The category system is limited, and while I think everyone would love to be able to write proposals about whatever they want the fact is that it's not coded that way right now. "This is the closest category to being right" does not make the category right, it just makes it less wrong.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Permitting people to sue the government for failing to follow the laws is very much a political freedom. And it is one granted or expanded by the WA. This is pretty clearly FoD.

[United Massachusetts]

We agree that Furtherment of Democracy is acceptable.

[United Massachusetts]

(OOC: If bookkeeping isn't available, a case could be made to put this into political stability. This is based on the category's description:

A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.

Because this proposal would make it that a country would not have the freedom to violate GA legislation, their political freedoms are restricted. In addition, this is being done in the interest of law - international law.)

This is a weak interpretation at best, especially given that political freedoms apply to individuals, rather than nations.

[Imperium Anglorum]

political freedoms apply to individuals, rather than nations.

Yup. Otherwise, every single resolution fits into Political Stability, because all resolutions restrict what nations can do.

[First Nightmare]

political freedoms apply to individuals, rather than nations.

The effect of the compliance is dependant on the WA legislation currently active. This is a major problem.
If the IAO stops a breach of a WA resolution in the category Political Stability, then the result is not more political freedoms, for example.

1. 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.

This is the only clause that does something else.
And that clause looks to me like a Civil Rights clause.