[PASSED] World Assembly Justice Accord

[Imperium Anglorum]

If I signed a contract in good faith, why do we need courts to enforce them?

[Maowi]

-snip-

OOC: I'm in a rush now, but basically my point is that for me to be convinced by the NatSov argument against this proposal I want reasons why you're drawing the line where you are, rather than that being completely arbitrary. That's why it annoys me when people turn up and say something like 'I'm against this because NatSov' - because you could say that about any proposal.

[Bears Armed Mission]

OOC: Voted against because this proposal continues the ridiculous notion that compliance can somehow be enforced via resolutions (rather than it being enforced via simply being in the WA). Also in IC Araraukar would be against anything letting any court try any Araraukarians in absentia for any reason whatsoever. (It's a police state that doesn't trust the courts of any other instance, be it WA gnomes or not, to be properly impartial and fair. )

OOC
Voted against, because non-compliance by member governments is already handled (and I share Araraukar's opinion that this is a apart of being in the WA; in my view, at least, this is IC -- through whatever treaty or charter national governments ratify when their players click the 'Join' button -- as well as OOC, with no resolutions needed for the subject), and non-compliance by other bodies or people should be handled through the relevant nations' own legal systems.

[Araraukar]

OOC: I'm in a rush now, but basically my point is that for me to be convinced by the NatSov argument against this proposal I want reasons why you're drawing the line where you are, rather than that being completely arbitrary.

OOC: Hence me actually giving my reasoning - talking OOCly but of both OOC and IC reasoning. ^_^

[Wallenburg]

I truly am sorry that people disagree with the premise of this and several other already passed resolutions. However, I cannot reasonably accept the alternative argument that all members just automatically and fully comply with World Assembly resolutions, presumably because "that's how stats work" or "because the TG the WA bot sent me said so".

[Araraukar]

However, I cannot reasonably accept the alternative argument that all members just automatically and fully comply with World Assembly resolutions, presumably because "that's how stats work" or "because the TG the WA bot sent me said so".

OOC: The stats are just proof that you comply OOCly whether you want to or not, but I've always understood it in IC to be that OOCly clicking the "join" button and verifying the email, is - like Bears said - the equivalent of your nation signing/ratifying the whole "WA charter" or whatever you want to call it. Hence why creative compliance means following the letter of the law, not the spirit of the law - you can't not comply, because your nation chooses to be in the WA (and no, it's not the same thing as a person breaking laws) and thus upholds the signing/ratification of the whole thing, so your only out is to do exactly what the resolution says, not what is meant by it.

By writing noncompliance into resolutions as a thing that happens, means that nations who don't give a shit about some gnomes sending them letters saying they need to pay some fines (because if you're ignoring resolutions, you might as well ignore that one as well) or other nations cutting trade/whatnot ties with yours (that you likely didn't want in the first place but had no choice because you had signed up to be in the WA), will get to eat the cake (be in the WA for the reasons they wanted to be in the WA to begin with) and keep it too (not having to suffer for being in the WA). And that just makes things too easy to be interesting.

Hence I'm ignoring only those resolutions that try to make noncompliance a thing in IC, to keep things interesting as my nation(s) try to comply with resolutions they'd much rather ignore, because they have no choice because they signed/ratified the whole WA charter thing and have to put up with resolutions whether they like them or not.

[Aclion]

Noncompliance is already part of existing resolutions. That ship has sailed. It's canon now.

[Vrama]

Namaste,

His Most Sacred Majesty has informed me to inform the General Assembly that the Most Sacred Kingdom of Vrama is opposed to this resolution and considers it illegal and void ab initio.

Because this new committee would be doing the job of the Security Council, we consider this resolution illegal. Also, be believe it violates GA Resolution 2 in many areas. It will also lead to undue discrimination against more traditionalist states, a violation of Article 8.

As such, the Kingdom will never recognise the authority of any such "court."

While we tend to agree with Wallenburg and their recommendation the vast majority of the time, on this issue, we cannot.

[Wallenburg]

"Ambassador, the committee this resolution establishes isn't even remotely similar to the other wing of the World Assembly Headquarters. Or so I am told, as I haven't personally ventured across to those dark halls.

"If you believe this resolution contradicts existing legislation, file a challenge. It will be denied, because this resolution does not actually contradict existing legislation. You have no authority to deem any resolutions you do not like 'illegal'."

[Kenmoria]

Because this new committee would be doing the job of the Security Council, we consider this resolution illegal. Also, be believe it violates GA Resolution 2 in many areas. It will also lead to undue discrimination against more traditionalist states, a violation of Article 8.

(OOC: If you believe a proposal is illegal, file a legality challenge against it by posting one on these forums for the attention of Gensec. If you do not, and this passes, it will be legal by virtue of that passage.)

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Noncompliance is already part of existing resolutions. That ship has sailed. It's canon now.

OOC: Yes. A limited degree of non-compliance must be assumed by anyone thinking (hoping?) that the General Assembly is remotely realistic and not a campy exercise in utter fantasy. My thoughts on this are basically articulated by this very thinly disguised puppet as well as Gruen's [TDSR] post just below. In an imperfect world multiverse, not everything happens the way the enlightened authorities decree it shall; and so for whatever reason, be it "the wording of laws, judicial interpretation, government corruption, police budgets, police discretion/corruption, criminal competence, citizen attitudes, unforeseen cleverness or technical skill by criminals, [or any of] a dozen other factors that complicate the dirty business of actually ensuring societal compliance...", it's reasonable to assume that sometimes there are people or nations who need to be brought into line with global consensus.

This is a well-written means of doing so, and a fine replacement for the ludicrously repealed GAR #102.

Because this new committee would be doing the job of the Security Council, we consider this resolution illegal. Also, be believe it violates GA Resolution 2 in many areas. It will also lead to undue discrimination against more traditionalist states, a violation of Article 8.

OOC: We tend not to account for the existence of the Security Council in GA resolutions or RP, [not least] because if such a body existed, it would necessarily do a lot more (and more effective) stuff than the actual body is able to. If your other arguments are both IC and OOC, the correct thing to do is, as Kenmoria said, file a formal (OOC) legality challenge. Otherwise, I'll treat this as IC rhetoric.

[Maowi]

OOC: I'm in a rush now, but basically my point is that for me to be convinced by the NatSov argument against this proposal I want reasons why you're drawing the line where you are, rather than that being completely arbitrary.

OOC: Hence me actually giving my reasoning - talking OOCly but of both OOC and IC reasoning. ^_^

OOC: Indeed, you have been giving your reasoning, but it is a vexingly frequent occurrence for nations to simply declare such proposals unacceptable without providing justification.

OOC: The stats are just proof that you comply OOCly whether you want to or not, but I've always understood it in IC to be that OOCly clicking the "join" button and verifying the email, is - like Bears said - the equivalent of your nation signing/ratifying the whole "WA charter" or whatever you want to call it. Hence why creative compliance means following the letter of the law, not the spirit of the law - you can't not comply, because your nation chooses to be in the WA (and no, it's not the same thing as a person breaking laws) and thus upholds the signing/ratification of the whole thing, so your only out is to do exactly what the resolution says, not what is meant by it.

IRL, someone signing a contract does not automatically mean that this contract's terms are never violated. It would therefore be reasonable, as SL said, to assume that IC there are going to be problems with non-compliance. This proposal acts to remove the issue of non-compliance as effectively as possible while trying to keep things vaguely realistic.

By writing noncompliance into resolutions as a thing that happens, means that nations who don't give a shit about some gnomes sending them letters saying they need to pay some fines (because if you're ignoring resolutions, you might as well ignore that one as well) or other nations cutting trade/whatnot ties with yours (that you likely didn't want in the first place but had no choice because you had signed up to be in the WA), will get to eat the cake (be in the WA for the reasons they wanted to be in the WA to begin with) and keep it too (not having to suffer for being in the WA). And that just makes things too easy to be interesting.

At least in terms of the WA as an IC construct, I think the point of the WA is not to be particularly 'interesting', but to be realistic. As I think it's reasonable to assume that non-compliance exists IC-ly, I think that this proposal is a good way of reducing non-compliance within a fairly realistic setting.

[Araraukar]

I think the point of the WA is not to be particularly 'interesting', but to be realistic.

OOC: (The WA is many things, but realistic doesn't fit in the same multiverse with it.)

I think that this proposal is a good way of reducing non-compliance within a fairly realistic setting.

...by letting anyone sue anyone else for anything else anywhere else? Like, how is that EVEN REMOTELY realistic? In RL (if all RL nations were WA members) that would mean I could sue a poor parent in some third world country for not getting their child proper medical care (Child Abuse Ban) and the WA would punish that mother. Oh and if their nation decided that throwing the parent in jail for that crime was stupid and would further endanger the child, WA could movethem to any other nation to be jailed there, and that would be totally fine and realistic? And that's with a single universe, single planet, MT setting.

(Also, cause 6's "positively refusing" can be read to mean you have to actually say "Yes, I will continue avoid showing up in court" instead of, for example, saying "No I'm not refusing to show up, I'll show up later", and keeping on saying that every time they ask, and the WA can't touch you. )

Yeah, I think that both for reasons outlined before, as well as for the sake of keeping any realism in place, if this passes, it's going to go on my very short list of "does not make sense in IC, hence ignored" resolutions.

EDIT: For the record, I appreciate you trying to explain your point of view. If we just can't find common ground on this issue, we might need to just agree to disagree.

[Dictoriahon]

One must take note of GAR#2 Section 1 Article 1. The WAJA seems to underestimate the importance of this article, which explicitly states that 'Every WA Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.' However, I also recognise the importance of the subsequent Article 2: 'Article 2 § Every WA Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.' I direct your attention to everything before the word 'subject'. The 'immunities' in question are rarely practiced by a substantial number of states.

If you believe there exists a contradiction, feel free to make a challenge. I can tell you that it will be rejected, however, since (1) the first provision does nothing to prohibit the Assembly violating it, since it only applies to other member states and (2) the second provision is subject to the immunities recognised by international law, i.e. every single WA resolution.

Please note that the World Assembly can be defined not only as a global organisation, but as the collective states that make it up.

[Dictoriahon]

I think the point of the WA is not to be particularly 'interesting', but to be realistic.

OOC: (The WA is many things, but realistic doesn't fit in the same multiverse with it.)

I think that this proposal is a good way of reducing non-compliance within a fairly realistic setting.

...by letting anyone sue anyone else for anything else anywhere else? Like, how is that EVEN REMOTELY realistic? In RL (if all RL nations were WA members) that would mean I could sue a poor parent in some third world country for not getting their child proper medical care (Child Abuse Ban) and the WA would punish that mother. Oh and if their nation decided that throwing the parent in jail for that crime was stupid and would further endanger the child, WA could movethem to any other nation to be jailed there, and that would be totally fine and realistic? And that's with a single universe, single planet, MT setting.

(Also, cause 6's "positively refusing" can be read to mean you have to actually say "Yes, I will continue avoid showing up in court" instead of, for example, saying "No I'm not refusing to show up, I'll show up later", and keeping on saying that every time they ask, and the WA can't touch you. )

Yeah, I think that both for reasons outlined before, as well as for the sake of keeping any realism in place, if this passes, it's going to go on my very short list of "does not make sense in IC, hence ignored" resolutions.

EDIT: For the record, I appreciate you trying to explain your point of view. If we just can't find common ground on this issue, we might need to just agree to disagree.

Araraukar has a point.

[Wallenburg]

...by letting anyone sue anyone else for anything else anywhere else? Like, how is that EVEN REMOTELY realistic? In RL (if all RL nations were WA members) that would mean I could sue a poor parent in some third world country for not getting their child proper medical care (Child Abuse Ban) and the WA would punish that mother. Oh and if their nation decided that throwing the parent in jail for that crime was stupid and would further endanger the child, WA could movethem to any other nation to be jailed there, and that would be totally fine and realistic? And that's with a single universe, single planet, MT setting.

Ara, you know not only that that isn't how lawsuits work, but also that the clauses of this resolution are written such that what you just said is objectively untrue. Don't pull that.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Please note that the World Assembly can be defined not only as a global organisation, but as the collective states that make it up.

And yet when we say that the UN or the government did something, we say that the UN or the government did something. Why? In law, because those entities possess a corporate nature. In the sermo vulgaris, because unless it is unanimous, epistemological claims of implicit totality should be dismissed.

[Separatist Peoples]

...by letting anyone sue anyone else for anything else anywhere else? Like, how is that EVEN REMOTELY realistic? In RL (if all RL nations were WA members) that would mean I could sue a poor parent in some third world country for not getting their child proper medical care (Child Abuse Ban) and the WA would punish that mother. Oh and if their nation decided that throwing the parent in jail for that crime was stupid and would further endanger the child, WA could movethem to any other nation to be jailed there, and that would be totally fine and realistic? And that's with a single universe, single planet, MT setting.

Declares that any entity within the jurisdiction of any member state may bring charges against any other entity within the jurisdiction of any member state for damages done to them which violate the terms of extant World Assembly law, to the extent that such legal action does not contradict the mandates of previously passed and henceforward standing World Assembly resolutions,

OOC: There must be an actual case or controversy with remediation available, clearly. So you wouldn't be able to sue a random person for a random violation.

There are probably a whole lot of things that could have made this more clear, but really, they aren't necessary. Wally established a minimum standing threshold that screens most absurd suits.

Personally, I may have made an alternate remedy by making all civil harms private actions with rights enforceable in domestic courts, but there is no reason whatsoever that such a system couldn't exist concurrently. It would have been interesting to have made a International/Domestic system that parallels federal jurisdiction: International Question and diversity. Actually...

Hey Wally, if this ends up repealed for some reason, wanna tweak it to have a concurrent jurisdiction option for domestic suits to cut costs?

[Scherzinger]

does this mean that i may be kicked for doing as i please? wow it only took you all one year

WA resolutions can't kick people from the WA

OOC: If all a player is here for is gameplay, they can stay out of the GA. This element of the game relies on RP.

This whole argument does show that the system of using WA membership for authentication is outdated. I'm tired of having to RP tools to work with a gameplay sytem that doesn't give a shit about RP just because there's no better way to avoid sock puppetry.

frankly, in that case, ill continue doing as i please, after all its not as if my refusal to follow biased and ridiculous resolutions, affects other nations anyway.

Hail the Confederation!

[Wallenburg]

WA resolutions can't kick people from the WA


This whole argument does show that the system of using WA membership for authentication is outdated. I'm tired of having to RP tools to work with a gameplay sytem that doesn't give a shit about RP just because there's no better way to avoid sock puppetry.

frankly, in that case, ill continue doing as i please, after all its not as if my refusal to follow biased and ridiculous resolutions, affects other nations anyway.

Hail the Confederation!

Door.

[Bears Armed]

Noncompliance is already part of existing resolutions. That ship has sailed. It's canon now.

OOC: Yes. A limited degree of non-compliance must be assumed by anyone thinking (hoping?) that the General Assembly is remotely realistic and not a campy exercise in utter fantasy. My thoughts on this are basically articulated by this very thinly disguised puppet as well as Gruen's [TDSR] post just below. In an imperfect world multiverse, not everything happens the way the enlightened authorities decree it shall; and so for whatever reason, be it "the wording of laws, judicial interpretation, government corruption, police budgets, police discretion/corruption, criminal competence, citizen attitudes, unforeseen cleverness or technical skill by criminals, [or any of] a dozen other factors that complicate the dirty business of actually ensuring societal compliance...", it's reasonable to assume that sometimes there are people or nations who need to be brought into line with global consensus.

OOC
Yes, some governments might fail to comply, deliberately or through negligence, but we already have procedures in place to handle such situations.
Yes, some individuals or organisations within nations might fail to comply, deliberately or through negligence... but in that case wouldn't the nations' duty to comply mean that they they must either handle such situations or be liable under the same procedures that would apply if the initial failure was theirs? WA courts should only be courts of final appeal in such cases, at the most, rather than courts of first action.

[Bananaistan]

I think the point of the WA is not to be particularly 'interesting', but to be realistic.

OOC: (The WA is many things, but realistic doesn't fit in the same multiverse with it.)

I think that this proposal is a good way of reducing non-compliance within a fairly realistic setting.

...by letting anyone sue anyone else for anything else anywhere else? Like, how is that EVEN REMOTELY realistic? In RL (if all RL nations were WA members) that would mean I could sue a poor parent in some third world country for not getting their child proper medical care (Child Abuse Ban) and the WA would punish that mother. Oh and if their nation decided that throwing the parent in jail for that crime was stupid and would further endanger the child, WA could movethem to any other nation to be jailed there, and that would be totally fine and realistic? And that's with a single universe, single planet, MT setting.

(Also, cause 6's "positively refusing" can be read to mean you have to actually say "Yes, I will continue avoid showing up in court" instead of, for example, saying "No I'm not refusing to show up, I'll show up later", and keeping on saying that every time they ask, and the WA can't touch you. )

Yeah, I think that both for reasons outlined before, as well as for the sake of keeping any realism in place, if this passes, it's going to go on my very short list of "does not make sense in IC, hence ignored" resolutions.

EDIT: For the record, I appreciate you trying to explain your point of view. If we just can't find common ground on this issue, we might need to just agree to disagree.

OOC: I think this unreasonable. Your argument does not adequately reflect the provisions of GAR#222 Prevention of Child Abuse. If a parent cannot provide for the child adequately, it is not a child abuse per part iv of the definition of child abuse in GAR#222.

I think the great thing about this resolution is that it tries to tack on an international justice system over completely incompatible national legal systems and a form of punishment/damages system on top of international laws which tend to leave such issues as sentencing to member states. Crimes defined in existing resolutions are not accompanied by sentencing guidelines. All this resolution can practically so is to force some punishment upon a convict where a member state refused to even try them. So if a person has already been convicted or lost a civil case within a member states' system and in accordance with their domestic and existing international law, this new international body cannot do any more, even if the injured party and this international court feel that the punishment/award is too light.

It's not nearly as wide ranging or offensive as people are making it out to be. In the normal course of events for the typically compliant member state, it's just an additional check to ensure that justice is done in accordance with the relevant member state's obligations under international law.

[Separatist Peoples]

WA resolutions can't kick people from the WA


This whole argument does show that the system of using WA membership for authentication is outdated. I'm tired of having to RP tools to work with a gameplay sytem that doesn't give a shit about RP just because there's no better way to avoid sock puppetry.

frankly, in that case, ill continue doing as i please, after all its not as if my refusal to follow biased and ridiculous resolutions, affects other nations anyway.

Hail the Confederation!

Ooc: since you refuse to participate in good faith, nobody here is going to engage with your shuf. Begone, orc! We have no place for liars and cheats here!

[Bears Armed Mission]

Declares that any entity within the jurisdiction of any member state may bring charges against any other entity within the jurisdiction of any member state for damages done to them which violate the terms of extant World Assembly law, to the extent that such legal action does not contradict the mandates of previously passed and henceforward standing World Assembly resolutions,

OOC: There must be an actual case or controversy with remediation available, clearly. So you wouldn't be able to sue a random person for a random violation.

OOC
"But them doing that hurts my feelings! I'm being oppressed by them!"

[Kenmoria]

WA resolutions can't kick people from the WA


This whole argument does show that the system of using WA membership for authentication is outdated. I'm tired of having to RP tools to work with a gameplay sytem that doesn't give a shit about RP just because there's no better way to avoid sock puppetry.

frankly, in that case, ill continue doing as i please, after all its not as if my refusal to follow biased and ridiculous resolutions, affects other nations anyway.

Hail the Confederation!

(OOC: Don’t do that. It’s considered godmodding, a form of poor roleplaying, to ignore GA resolutions. It would be like going into a realistic medieval war roleplaying thread and sending fourteen million nukes at one side.

OOC: There must be an actual case or controversy with remediation available, clearly. So you wouldn't be able to sue a random person for a random violation.

OOC
"But them doing that hurts my feelings! I'm being oppressed by them!"

Would that be a good-faith interpretation though?)