Separatist Peoples wrote:Blackledge wrote:(OOC: Thing is, the challenges really aren't all that much. The GAO has no way to enforce payment of fines levied by the IAO. The only real meat to the resolution is getting other WA states to enforce sanctions, and given the sheer size of the WA and the diversity of its member-states there's no real way of making sure the right states (if any) are imposing sanctions. Some nations are even autarkies, so there's no pressure there. If roleplay takes into account that the WA can't force members out, then that's about it for consequences. The fines can stack up, but GAO can't enforce them, nations can't be expelled, and a violator may not have any sanctioners or even be in a position where sanctions matter. *shrugs*)
Ooc: except we presume the majority of WA members comply in good faith. So the presumption is that most of the members are sanctioning properly. While not all nations are coerced, all nations in noncompliance do face significant consequences. Frozen financial assets, no trade with Members, political and diplomatic pressure, exclusion from treaties...basically anything normal about international relations dissolves when you trigger sanctions. Shrugging those off as entirely ineffectual is silly.
OOC: I suppose I simply view assuming the actions of others to be poor roleplaying too. Given the divisiveness of the WA and the real life example of the difficulty of getting UN nations to work together, comply with some things, or even bother with even more than lip-service to resolutions, etc, it doesn't seem convincing. Especially given the NatSov types usually aren't the ones given to reply on others anyway. And the fact non-WA nations massively outnumber WA nations, so there's an open pool of commerce there. Again, *shrugs*