NationStates

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Veshat wrote:
"All that means any nation that wishes to leave does so knowing it loses many, many protections. Maybe that's not enough. Maybe it is. Any nation that had a reason to join in the first place probably doesn't value noncompliance more than it values membership. And if they leave, so much the better.

"Yours is a piss-poor argument, ambassador."

"So you are saying that your past argument is indeed wrong and this will have effects that will reach outside of the WA. Just telling everyone to leave if they disagree isn't an argument, my argument is the only one with any weight. You just prefer resulting to petty arguments instead of thinking out what you're saying. You are scaring people into complying and giving up their sovereignty or be embargoed, sounds a lot like extortion. "

Wallenburg wrote:

Scherzinger wrote:
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.

kiss it

If it's for the better of the Nation Doitch Land will agree

FOR

I believe In real life this would just lengthen (and make more expensive) legal system of member states, as this would be the new final arbiter. For time being it would create nice jobs for lot of layers. In the end it would utterly fail. The reason for failure will be because all sorts of activists would surely ask it to impose impose its own idea of laws, what is proper and what is not. And the day the court would decide that USA supreme court is in error the USA journalists and politicians would be first to denounce the court. Neither any other independent world power would allow such court override its own judicial processes (I mean China, Russia).
Only ones who would happily comply will be europeans.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Bananaistan wrote:
OOC: It speaks only to allowing the verdict to stand. A retrial is only permitted where the verdict was miscarriage of justice. This international court can't just decide to retry because the sentence was too light in its opinion.

Also, good spot by IA.

OOC: Unless it was so light as to itself be a miscarriage of justice, like community service for multiple homicides. In that case, the verdict may not end up reviewed, but the sentencing may.

In isolation, this resolution looks terrible, but when placed in the context of other resolutions, its much more nuanced.

OOC: Retrials for bad sentencing are banned by GAR#198 section 2 quoted by IA above. The only exception is in respect of the verdict being a miscarriage of justice.

But anyways we're prolly getting too bogged down in the criminal aspects. There's not a huge amount of crimes defined in existing resolutions compared to the obligations placed on member nations. One would imagine that actions by citizens/companies against their own governments would be the majority of cases under this resolution. Holding governments to account for failing in their obligations under international law is not a bad thing.

One other comment. If the current resolutions dealing with trials and rights of defendants and so on were repealed, this court would not be bound to adhere to any replacements due to the wording of the second part of clause 4. This catch-all type of anti-contradiction clause is becoming more common. I wouldn't be a fan.

Veshat wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:

"So you are saying that your past argument is indeed wrong and this will have effects that will reach outside of the WA. Just telling everyone to leave if they disagree isn't an argument, my argument is the only one with any weight. You just prefer resulting to petty arguments instead of thinking out what you're saying. You are scaring people into complying and giving up their sovereignty or be embargoed, sounds a lot like extortion. "

"Nope. I'm saying that the WA has no authority over nonmembers, but individual member states have no such obligation. Pay attention.

"I am also not telling anybody who disagrees to leave. I'm giving you your options. One is leaving. Frankly, if this is the quality of discussion we can expect, you'd do us all a favor by leaving."

Scherzinger wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:Door.

kiss it

Ooc: Wally, ignore him. He contributes nothing of value. I've yet to see him make a genuine argument.

I'm not sure I see it the way Banana does. There is definitely ambiguity on whether the definition of retrial in MD's resolution includes resentencing.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:I'm not sure I see it the way Banana does. There is definitely ambiguity on whether the definition of retrial in MD's resolution includes resentencing.

How so? Section 2 explicitly says retrials are prohibited "except where significant and compelling miscarriages of justice can result from allowing the verdict previously reached to stand...". It doesn't list bad sentencing as an exception and, as far as I am aware, verdict and sentence are two separate things.

BeatsMe wrote:I believe In real life this would just lengthen (and make more expensive) legal system of member states, as this would be the new final arbiter. For time being it would create nice jobs for lot of layers. In the end it would utterly fail. The reason for failure will be because all sorts of activists would surely ask it to impose impose its own idea of laws, what is proper and what is not. And the day the court would decide that USA supreme court is in error the USA journalists and politicians would be first to denounce the court. Neither any other independent world power would allow such court override its own judicial processes (I mean China, Russia).
Only ones who would happily comply will be europeans.

(OOC: The difference is that the real-world UN, along with the real-world International Court of Justice, don’t have any power to enforce resolutions. On the other hand, the General Assembly can extract money from noncompliant member states via fines, and I don’t think any nation enjoys having a lower budget due to continuous outflows of money into the WA.)

We, the People's Hindu Matriarchy of Shaktirajya, find this resolution bordering on redundant. Despite this, We hereby vote FOR this resolution in concert with Our regional delegate, as We do not possess sufficiently strong feelings on the matter to vote otherwise.

Vaktaha Samajavadinaha Matarajyasya Shaktirajyasya

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Veshat wrote:
"So you are saying that your past argument is indeed wrong and this will have effects that will reach outside of the WA. Just telling everyone to leave if they disagree isn't an argument, my argument is the only one with any weight. You just prefer resulting to petty arguments instead of thinking out what you're saying. You are scaring people into complying and giving up their sovereignty or be embargoed, sounds a lot like extortion. "

"Nope. I'm saying that the WA has no authority over nonmembers, but individual member states have no such obligation. Pay attention.

"I am also not telling anybody who disagrees to leave. I'm giving you your options. One is leaving. Frankly, if this is the quality of discussion we can expect, you'd do us all a favor by leaving."

"If I can expect all diplomats to be like you, this can hardly be considered a World Assembly and more of a pissing contest persay."

Does this resolution give more power to the WA?

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Leaving the World Assembly subjects member states to political and economic repercussions, including loss of favorable trade rights, lack of recognition from fellow WA nations, and no protection from a number of particularly bad acts. Destabilizing political action, counterfeiting, intellectual property infringement, so on and so forth."

IC: "...exactly how, given that the nations remaining in the WA cannot terrorize nonmembers any more they can terrorize member nations, and that any nonmembers they might deal with weren't bound by the WA laws in the first place?"

OOC: Asking more out of curiosity than trying to support their claims, because WA laws affect the actions of the WA nations, regardless of if they're acting on other member nations or nonmembers. Like, you can't sponsor terrorism in a nonmember nation anymore than you could in a member nation.

BeatsMe wrote:Only ones who would happily comply will be europeans.

OOC: The author and the ones advocating for it the most are Americans. IA is European, but so am I and Bears and Banana and we're not happy with the overreach/vagueness.

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: On the other hand, the General Assembly can extract money from noncompliant member states via fines, and I don’t think any nation enjoys having a lower budget due to continuous outflows of money into the WA.)

OOC: Not really, if the noncompliant nation is noncompliant with the resolution that creates the fines. And member nations already flow money into the WA due to the membership fees that are extracted by some magical way that IA fortunately didn't think to use in that silly noncompliance resolution of his.

Araraukar wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Leaving the World Assembly subjects member states to political and economic repercussions, including loss of favorable trade rights, lack of recognition from fellow WA nations, and no protection from a number of particularly bad acts. Destabilizing political action, counterfeiting, intellectual property infringement, so on and so forth."

IC: "...exactly how, given that the nations remaining in the WA cannot terrorize nonmembers any more they can terrorize member nations, and that any nonmembers they might deal with weren't bound by the WA laws in the first place?"

OOC: Asking more out of curiosity than trying to support their claims, because WA laws affect the actions of the WA nations, regardless of if they're acting on other member nations or nonmembers. Like, you can't sponsor terrorism in a nonmember nation anymore than you could in a member nation.

OOC: There is no obligation under GAR#2 not to foment discord through means less than terrorism.

Veshat wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:
"Nope. I'm saying that the WA has no authority over nonmembers, but individual member states have no such obligation. Pay attention.

"I am also not telling anybody who disagrees to leave. I'm giving you your options. One is leaving. Frankly, if this is the quality of discussion we can expect, you'd do us all a favor by leaving."

"If I can expect all diplomats to be like you, this can hardly be considered a World Assembly and more of a pissing contest persay."

"Pissing contest implies some kind of parity that can be compared, ambassador.

Bell shrugs, "You and I don't have parity. I've been here the better part of ten years. You've not been here the better part of ten days. Your arguments are unsupported by pertinent law governing the relationship between Member States and the World Assembly. Much of which I wrote or lent counsel to develop. Perhaps you have not had the chance to read the extant body of WA law. I have. And I promise you, your interpretation is wrong. You can double down on any backwards argument you want, ambassador. Just expect to get called out. Or resign. Its really six to one half dozen to me."

Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: There is no obligation under GAR#2 not to foment discord through means less than terrorism.

OOC: What does GA #2 have anything to do with it? All the other resolutions (including the anti-terrorism one) affect the actions of the member nations.

Araraukar wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: There is no obligation under GAR#2 not to foment discord through means less than terrorism.

OOC: What does GA #2 have anything to do with it? All the other resolutions (including the anti-terrorism one) affect the actions of the member nations.

OOC: Resolutions governing member state behavior are not exclusive of all internal discord one can sow. And some of mine deliberately exclude nonmembers.

Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: Resolutions governing member state behavior are not exclusive of all internal discord one can sow. And some of mine deliberately exclude nonmembers.

OOC: Fair enough, and yes I've noticed.

Ayeinc wrote:Does this resolution give more power to the WA?

It exercises the power of the WA independent of member states, yes.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Veshat wrote:
"So you are saying that your past argument is indeed wrong and this will have effects that will reach outside of the WA. Just telling everyone to leave if they disagree isn't an argument, my argument is the only one with any weight. You just prefer resulting to petty arguments instead of thinking out what you're saying. You are scaring people into complying and giving up their sovereignty or be embargoed, sounds a lot like extortion. "

"Nope. I'm saying that the WA has no authority over nonmembers, but individual member states have no such obligation. Pay attention.

"I am also not telling anybody who disagrees to leave. I'm giving you your options. One is leaving. Frankly, if this is the quality of discussion we can expect, you'd do us all a favor by leaving."

Scherzinger wrote:
kiss it

Ooc: Wally, ignore him. He contributes nothing of value. I've yet to see him make a genuine argument.

has to unmute you to see if you would continue to waste your time. If i contribute nothing of value, then why do you continue to 'waste your time with me? I find you incredibly boorish and incredibly annoying, trying to turn everybody into this utopian filthy democracy, which, in my opinion, makes my dictatorial forward thinking government look quite good. The GA claims it is improving the world, but is it really improving the world, or is it just subjugating others to its corrupt shenanigans so that it has no opposition? Yet to see me make a genuine argument? thats ok, you after all are an elitist boar who thinks that their wa badges and your higher education attitude gives you the right to talk down on those who care to think for themselves and resist your urges to force everybody to think like you.

Hail The Confederation

"Fire is strictly prohibited in the voting chamber!" cries Ogenbond, rushing to grab an extinguisher.

"Let it be known that the Republic of Creslonia will be voting for this resolution."
- Alexander Finch, Minister of Foreign Affairs

Scherzinger wrote:thats ok, you after all are an elitist boar who thinks that their wa badges and your higher education attitude gives you the right to talk down on those who care to think for themselves and resist your urges to force everybody to think like you.

OOC: While flaming people is never advisable, I have to ask if you meant "bore" or "boar" there? Because those two words may be said the same way, but have very different meanings...

Scherzinger wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:
"Nope. I'm saying that the WA has no authority over nonmembers, but individual member states have no such obligation. Pay attention.

"I am also not telling anybody who disagrees to leave. I'm giving you your options. One is leaving. Frankly, if this is the quality of discussion we can expect, you'd do us all a favor by leaving."



Ooc: Wally, ignore him. He contributes nothing of value. I've yet to see him make a genuine argument.

has to unmute you to see if you would continue to waste your time. If i contribute nothing of value, then why do you continue to 'waste your time with me? I find you incredibly boorish and incredibly annoying, trying to turn everybody into this utopian filthy democracy, which, in my opinion, makes my dictatorial forward thinking government look quite good. The GA claims it is improving the world, but is it really improving the world, or is it just subjugating others to its corrupt shenanigans so that it has no opposition? Yet to see me make a genuine argument? thats ok, you after all are an elitist boar who thinks that their wa badges and your higher education attitude gives you the right to talk down on those who care to think for themselves and resist your urges to force everybody to think like you.

Hail The Confederation

Ooc: personal attacks still arent valid arguments, and I was telling Wallenburg to ignore you, which isnt wasting time with you. The quote you included wasnt even directed at you. But I dont expect much from the CCD's regulars.

The whole elitist, higher education attitude is probably because I have a doctorate and know I'm an expert on the GA. False modesty isnt modesty.

I dont talk down to you because you have a different opinion. I could care less. I talk down to you because you are godmoding in a roleplay, the same way I would talk down to somebody playing Monopoly who helped theirselves to the bank without permission and wouldn't stop. You dont make arguments of law or policy, you insult people and refuse to cooperate. Your cooperation or lack thereof is fine, but I wonder why you need to let us know so frequently. Is it any wonder you're viewed with contempt and not welcome in the community?

Also, Ara is right. Its boor or bore, depending on the insult, and not boar. At least insult me properly.

Wallenburg wrote: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".

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:

Aclion wrote: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
I am not (and never have been) one of the people trying to claim that the automatic nature of OOC compliance means that IC compliance must also be automatic & complete. I just hold that there must be some sort of treaty or charter that nations ratify IC when their players click the ‘Join’ button IC, that there’s presumably some mechanism for “encouraging” compliance included in that legal document (Personally I like to think that, although nothing is done OOC, at the IC level any member nations whose governments are convicted of blatant non-compliance have their membership privileges suspended until they make amends…), and that relying solely on resolutions to enforce compliance -- when there’s ultimately nothing except for that presumed treaty or charter to force compliance with those ‘enforcing’ resolutions anyway -- seems fairly pointless. GAR #440’s economic sanctions might be better than nothing in that respect, but if you reject the idea of an underlying charter or treaty then even those sanctions depend on the willingness to comply of any member nations that actually have significant trade with the targeted nations…
And while I concede that some member nations’ legal systems might be too corrupt or ineffective to hear these cases properly and that introducing WA courts to hear cases where and when that has happened might therefore be reasonable, I (and IC the Bears, too) still consider this proposed resolution making those WA courts potentially the first resort for all relevant cases — rather than just a system that can be invoked if national courts fail to operate properly — to be an insult to the many member nations whose legal systems do work properly.

Bears Armed wrote:And while I concede that some member nations’ legal systems might be too corrupt or ineffective to hear these cases properly and that introducing WA courts to hear cases where and when that has happened might therefore be reasonable, I (and IC the Bears, too) still consider this proposed resolution making those WA courts potentially the first resort for all relevant cases — rather than just a system that can be invoked if national courts fail to operate properly — to be an insult to the many member nations whose legal systems do work properly.

(OOC: But corrupt according to whom? I think very few member nations will call themselves corrupt, and it would greatly limit the power of the GA if it could only try criminals in backwater nations, not modern one that just have a few problems. If it was the WA itself that made the decision, then it would produce an end-result almost exactly the same as the current one, where the court only overrules bad decisions.)