[PASSED] Administrative Compliance Act

[Thyerata]

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

*Matthew, having fallen asleep, snores particularly loudly and contentedly*

[Aclion]

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:

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

It is a very very obscure rule. So obscure it does not exist.

[Imperium Anglorum]

snip

No.

[Xanthal]

((In response to the approval solicitation I received by telegram. This is a tough one to respond to, as WA noncompliance seems so frequently to gleefully straddle the line between IC and OOC, such that no purely IC or OOC position is well-suited to address it. However, Xanthal acts In Character where the General Assembly is concerned, so taking the proposal as the IC measure that it is...

I sympathize with the objectives of this proposal; indeed the Federation and myself personally share the Seperatist Peoples' frustration with those nations and states which attach themselves to this body in bad faith. I have not followed the discussion thus far, and so normally wouldn't interject without at least a cursory review of the record, but since I've been petitioned by the author to register an approval I'll register some thoughts by way of a response even though I don't presently have time for a proper read of the transcript. Apologies in advance for treading any ground already covered.

Three items come quickly to mind. First, again I understand the sentiment, but not every act of deliberate noncompliance is malicious and though I don't generally let a resolution's preamble change my vote on its substance I would be more at ease with wording which acknowledged that fact. Second, given that not all nations are in a position to absorb fines of the magnitude required to "coerce compliance" without seriously harming the welfare of their inhabitants, could a provision be added to waive GAO noncompliance assessments if the violator brings itself into compliance within a reasonable time frame following a GAO finding (not extending to remedies under Article IV, naturally)? Third, given the practice of certain countries in which a separate, nominally independent legal entity is created to sit and vote in the World Assembly while its "puppeteer" is insulated from the consequences of WA action, is there any way in which the ACA can be made to hold these de facto members of the WA in contempt as though they were members de jure?

[Separatist Peoples]

First, again I understand the sentiment, but not every act of deliberate noncompliance is malicious and though I don't generally let a resolution's preamble change my vote on its substance I would be more at ease with wording which acknowledged that fact.

"Whether a fine is levied depends on several factors, one of which is whether the violation was intentional. Your concern was already addressed."

Second, given that not all nations are in a position to absorb fines of the magnitude required to "coerce compliance" without seriously harming the welfare of their inhabitants, could a provision be added to waive GAO noncompliance assessments if the violator brings itself into compliance within a reasonable time frame following a GAO finding (not extending to remedies under Article IV, naturally)?

"Whether a fine is levied depends on several factors, one of which is whether there are factors preventing the nation from complying. Your concern was already addressed."

Third, given the practice of certain countries in which a separate, nominally independent legal entity is created to sit and vote in the World Assembly while its "puppeteer" is insulated from the consequences of WA action, is there any way in which the ACA can be made to hold these de facto members of the WA in contempt as though they were members de jure?

OOC: This is impossible to stop, as it implicates Gameside concerns. Any attempt would be immediately marked as illegal.

[Xanthal]

O...kay. While I appreciate your response, of sorts, I'm sure you can appreciate that just because you say my concerns are addressed doesn't help to actually address them. Again, my issue with the preamble is in the belligerent posture it strikes, not with any of the practical effects of the resolution. And giving the GAO discretion to levy a fine is different than a provision which explicitly outlines a process by which a member can avoid a fine by bringing itself into compliance. As much as I'd like to trust in the understanding and general good nature of the IAO, some manner of assurance that there is a codified "out" in the spirit of the one I suggested would make my disposition towards your proposal more favorable.

[Separatist Peoples]

O...kay. While I appreciate your response, of sorts, I'm sure you can appreciate that just because you say my concerns are addressed doesn't help to actually address them. Again, my issue with the preamble is in the belligerent posture it strikes, not with any of the practical effects of the resolution. And giving the GAO discretion to levy a fine is different than a provision which explicitly outlines a process by which a member can avoid a fine by bringing itself into compliance. As much as I'd like to trust in the understanding and general good nature of the IAO, some manner of assurance that there is a codified "out" in the spirit of the one I suggested would make my disposition towards your proposal more favorable.

Ooc: the conditions for fines are spelled out in Art. I, Clause 1.d. I'm not sure how an explicit order to weigh those factors equally could not assuage your concern. Unless you doubt that the agencies will faithfully carry out their duties. At which time I point out the presumption of good conduct we apply to fictional WA staff to avoid forcing authors to accommodate for increasingly absurd WA corruption.

At that point, though, we come to an impasse, since I adhere to those drafting presumptions pretty firmly. And I'd point out that nothing prevents later proposals from creating an internal affairs approach to WA staff to keep them honest and fair. And I'd end by pointing out that such an addition would be both beyond the scope of this proposal and utterly untimely, as this is nearly at quorum.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: I'm really not trying to be rude, Xanthal. Its just that your concern is butting against a stalwart principal in GA roleplay that I literally cannot address. The hearings are fair and independent, and we presume that committee actions do as the text of the law describes. Ipso facto, we assume the IAO will fulfill it's duties fairly and independently.

[Xanthal]

((I'm confused, are you asking me to explain the Xanthalian ambassador's concerns OOC?

[Separatist Peoples]

((I'm confused, are you asking me to explain the Xanthalian ambassador's concerns OOC?

OOC: Sorry, I genuinely couldn't tell if it was meant ICly or OOCly, but the principal underlying my assumption that the committee would act only be described OOCly. We have to assume that the IAO can act in a fair manner (or, I suppose, understanding and good nature) and consider explicitly the factors in I.1.d, because otherwise we don't have a solid assumption upon which to base our roleplay.

[Xanthal]

OOC: Sorry, I genuinely couldn't tell if it was meant ICly or OOCly, but the principal underlying my assumption that the committee would act only be described OOCly. We have to assume that the IAO can act in a fair manner (or, I suppose, understanding and good nature) and consider explicitly the factors in I.1.d, because otherwise we don't have a solid assumption upon which to base our roleplay.

((Gotcha. I'm with that. The first matter is purely a tonal one. The second isn't so much that the Xanthalians don't have faith that the IAO won't be fair, it's that fairness is frequently a matter of opinion and they want specifically to know that when a non-compliant nation agrees to comply and in fact does so in a timely manner that the GAO won't fine them anyway, which is not guaranteed by the current wording. As for the rest, I don't know what to tell you. ICly speaking, the Xanthalians received a request (your telegram) for their support, and their delegate came to say how their support could be earned. That's really all there is to it; neither I OOC nor they IC think you need them. From their perspective their input was asked for and they obliged by providing it.

[Cosmopolitan borovan]

I skimmed it I think it's good

[Wallenburg]

So GenSec is in agreement that this is in the right category?

[Bears Armed]

So GenSec is in agreement that this is in the right category?

OOC: Because of Article IV, yes, however much reluctance I [at least] might feel about having non-compliance treated as a matter to be handled through resolutions rather than through the WA's underlying rules.

Of course, with regard to this proposed resolution's actual usefulness, there's the question of why a national government that's already deliberately non-compliant with some other resolutions should agree to comply with this one and actually pay] the IAO-defined fines...

[Separatist Peoples]

So GenSec is in agreement that this is in the right category?

OOC: Because of Article IV, yes, however much reluctance I might feel about having non-compliance treated as a matter to be handled through resolutions rather than through the WA's [presumed] underlying rules.

Of course, with regard to this proposed resolution's actual usefulness, there's the question of why a nation that's already deliberately non-compliant with some other resolutions should agree to comply with this one and actually pay] the IAO-defined fines...

OOC: Because otherwise they get the crap sanctioned out of them. Members would have to be totally self-sufficient to shrug that off.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: Because otherwise they get the crap sanctioned out of them. Members would have to be totally self-sufficient to shrug that off.

Or they could just trade largely with non-member nations...

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Because otherwise they get the crap sanctioned out of them. Members would have to be totally self-sufficient to shrug that off.

Or they could just trade largely with non-member nations...

OOC: Sure. They could. Presuming sanctions by WA states don't include blockades at some point. Or that they have ready access to such trade. Or that those nonmembers want to trade with them. We'll see where the WA Army approach goes in the years to come. Or that other political sanctions aren't equally effective. Any way you slice it, having thousands of nations sanction you is no small thing. Doubly so when WA nations have so many incentives for WA trade already. This is one part in a broader tapestry of potential options.

It is currently impossible for the WA to successfully coerce all noncompliant nations, even assuming this passes. There are too many ways to weasel around the language and twist roleplay. That doesn't mean that we have to pretend that all nations will realistically act that way. You're making a mountain out of a molehill.

[Wallenburg]

The clauses in Article IV end with periods rather than semicolons. For this reason, I am in full opposition. Quite frankly, this is exactly the kind of unacceptably insulting behavior I would expect from a power hungry GenSec elite.

[Separatist Peoples]

The clauses in Article IV end with periods rather than semicolons. For this reason, I am in full opposition. Quite frankly, this is exactly the kind of unacceptably insulting behavior I would expect from a power hungry GenSec elite.

OOC: Well, Art. IV isn't a list. But I accept your judgment. Its hard to argue with my obvious personal contempt for you by using blatantly corrupt punctuation.

[Wallenburg]

The clauses in Article IV end with periods rather than semicolons. For this reason, I am in full opposition. Quite frankly, this is exactly the kind of unacceptably insulting behavior I would expect from a power hungry GenSec elite.

OOC: Well, Art. IV isn't a list. But I accept your judgment. Its hard to argue with my obvious personal contempt for you by using blatantly corrupt punctuation.

#OccupyFullStop #WeAreTheSemicolons

[Imperium Anglorum]

You're making a mountain out of a molehill.

MADSONS: WE MUST CLIMB MT MOLEHILL! FOR KING AND COUNTRY!

Also, for the speech cliché, 'So proud to propose'.

[Azadistan-land of the free]

For years Azadistan has been victimised by War criminals who are actually World Assembly Members.
This will solve that

[The Earth Systems Alliance]

The Alliance will not support this resolution for a number of reasons:

Article IV subsection 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.

The Alliance believes that should any demonstrations take place and escalate to civil disorder, police forces will not be able to retaliate if they are attacked from fear that if they fight back, the injured will plea to the World Assembly.

Article IV subsection 4:
Member states must enforce the strongest sanctions available against those member states that refuse to pay IAO fines, subject only to the limitations of extant law, until the fines are paid or the issue becomes moot
Such sanctions have a high probability of leading to the rise of nationalistic movements, with both far-right and far-left parties destabilizing civil order out of the spirit of revenge. Democratic nations cannot purge such parties as it is a violation of a number of rights, for example; the right to free speech. (OOC: I got Versailles vibes out of this one, cause the financial choke the Entente exercised to the Germans led to the inflation of the Reichmark and indirectly to the rise of Dolfy)

Finally, Article IV subsection 5:
Member states must cooperate fully with, and not restrict or frustrate the actions of, all World Assembly committees referenced in this resolution.
This subsection provides the ability of the WA to assume direct control of a nation's government, a clear violation to democracy and the right of the people to appoint their leaders. In addition, it turns the WA from an institution whose main mission is to ensure peace, freedom, justice and security to its member states into an occupying force.

Thus, the Alliance condemns this resolution and will not legalize it if it passes

[Greater Gilead]

OOC: As an RP focused player, I want to know how this is going to affect me, running a Conservative Christian Theocracy that is in the WA. Beyond occasional global RP repercussions, will this really be able to do anything at all?
(On the Global RP thing, my 'settings' on Global RPs is "open to being dragged in", if anyone wants to try calling me out IC for what we do in Gilead.)

[Xanthal]

I would really have liked to see a codified provision for avoiding fines like the one I brought up earlier, but you have Xanthal's vote. Honestly, my biggest regret is that the scope of this proposal isn't even broader.