[PASSED] World Assembly Justice Accord

[Glacikaldr]

I'm definitely for it, but it requires a clause to cast nations down into The Well (our NS equivalent of the Wall).

[Kenmoria]

“Seeing as this is now at vote, I will declare this mission’s vote FOR this proposal. I hope it will enable the WA to bring to court member nations who do not follow the mandates of General Assembly resolutions.”

[Thuzbekistan]

Oh God why would I ever vote to give the wa more power!?

[Kenmoria]

Oh God why would I ever vote to give the wa more power!?

(OOC: That’s what any resolution involving a committee does, to some extent. It wouldn’t make much sense if member nations chose how to decide international disputes, since they are national by their very nature.)

[Maowi]

Oh God why would I ever vote to give the wa more power!?

'If that's your attitude, the solution's simple.' (points to the door) 'Leave.

'Maowi has registered its vote in favour of this proposal.'

[Central Asian Republics]

Oh God why would I ever vote to give the wa more power!?

'If that's your attitude, the solution's simple.' (points to the door) 'Leave.

'Maowi has registered its vote in favour of this proposal.'

WA membership is synonymous with being a nation with a legitimate government. Many member states are here because of necessity, not will.

[Kenmoria]

'If that's your attitude, the solution's simple.' (points to the door) 'Leave.

'Maowi has registered its vote in favour of this proposal.'

WA membership is synonymous with being a nation with a legitimate government. Many member states are here because of necessity, not will.

(OOC: Less than one seventh of nations are in the World Assembly; I don’t think membership is a requirement of recognition.)

[Maowi]

'If that's your attitude, the solution's simple.' (points to the door) 'Leave.

'Maowi has registered its vote in favour of this proposal.'

WA membership is synonymous with being a nation with a legitimate government. Many member states are here because of necessity, not will.

'WA membership is entirely voluntary and it is definitely possible to have a legitimate, functioning - or thriving- government from outside the WA. If you don't like how it works, sitting there complaining will not help. You may as well leave. I personally believe this proposal would be a good measure to ensure compliance with WA resolutions, to which a nation agrees upon joining.'

[Central Asian Republics]

WA membership is synonymous with being a nation with a legitimate government. Many member states are here because of necessity, not will.

'WA membership is entirely voluntary and it is definitely possible to have a legitimate, functioning - or thriving- government from outside the WA. If you don't like how it works, sitting there complaining will not help. You may as well leave. I personally believe this proposal would be a good measure to ensure compliance with WA resolutions, to which a nation agrees upon joining.'

I never complained about anything on this matter yet, only stating a known fact. You on the other hand are being overtly hostile to anyone who doesn't follow your views on the WA.
The opinion that the WA should have as little control over member nations as possible is a perfectly valid one, telling them to leave this organisation just because you disagree with that is very immature.

[Kenmoria]

'WA membership is entirely voluntary and it is definitely possible to have a legitimate, functioning - or thriving- government from outside the WA. If you don't like how it works, sitting there complaining will not help. You may as well leave. I personally believe this proposal would be a good measure to ensure compliance with WA resolutions, to which a nation agrees upon joining.'

I never complained about anything on this matter yet, only stating a known fact. You on the other hand are being overtly hostile to anyone who doesn't follow your views on the WA.
The opinion that the WA should have as little control over member nations as possible is a perfectly valid one, telling them to leave this organisation just because you disagree with that is very immature.

“The point of the General Assembly is to ‘improve the world one resolution at a time’, which is only possible if resolutions actually have an effect on member nations. If your nation disagrees with this mandate, then your nation is under no obligation to stay within the organisation.”

[Inannarc]

The WA already over-reaches its authority. This violates the sovereignty of individual governments and their autonomy. This also interferes with the natural course and progress of a government's growth. Furthermore, it imposes one culture's standard of rights on another while providing more insidious nations the opportunity to go "justifiably" invading a region based on simple cultural differences. When this passes, the FIRE nation's will be pulling their delegate and begin actively campaigning both for mass secession and the dissolution of a nefarious legislative body that is more concerned with giving the appearance of doing a noble thing rather than digging deep, being objective, and doing what is actually right.

All nations, peoples, and their leadership have the innate right to self-determination. This flies in the very face of that.

[Central Asian Republics]

I never complained about anything on this matter yet, only stating a known fact. You on the other hand are being overtly hostile to anyone who doesn't follow your views on the WA.
The opinion that the WA should have as little control over member nations as possible is a perfectly valid one, telling them to leave this organisation just because you disagree with that is very immature.

“The point of the General Assembly is to ‘improve the world one resolution at a time’, which is only possible if resolutions actually have an effect on member nations. If your nation disagrees with this mandate, then your nation is under no obligation to stay within the organisation.”

Being in opposition of overreaching legislation is not the equivalent of disagreeing with the principles of the WA itself, don't try to pull any of that 'don't like it, leave' nonsense with me.

[Maowi]

'WA membership is entirely voluntary and it is definitely possible to have a legitimate, functioning - or thriving- government from outside the WA. If you don't like how it works, sitting there complaining will not help. You may as well leave. I personally believe this proposal would be a good measure to ensure compliance with WA resolutions, to which a nation agrees upon joining.'

I never complained about anything on this matter yet, only stating a known fact. You on the other hand are being overtly hostile to anyone who doesn't follow your views on the WA.
The opinion that the WA should have as little control over member nations as possible is a perfectly valid one, telling them to leave this organisation just because you disagree with that is very immature.

'The "you" was supposed to be generic; I was not referring to your delegation in particular. And the point I am making is that if one is just going to complain and do nothing, they might as well leave. If they really wish to stay, they can try and do some effective campaigning, rather than merely voicing their disapproval without any persuasive argument, and try proposing well-written repeals of resolutions which they believe overstep the WA's authority - although of course backed up by other arguments.'

[Araraukar]

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. )

[Wallenburg]

The WA already over-reaches its authority. This violates the sovereignty of individual governments and their autonomy. This also interferes with the natural course and progress of a government's growth. Furthermore, it imposes one culture's standard of rights on another while providing more insidious nations the opportunity to go "justifiably" invading a region based on simple cultural differences. When this passes, the FIRE nation's will be pulling their delegate and begin actively campaigning both for mass secession and the dissolution of a nefarious legislative body that is more concerned with giving the appearance of doing a noble thing rather than digging deep, being objective, and doing what is actually right.

"Ambassador, all World Assembly resolutions, apart from repeals, must by their nature encroach on the sovereignty of member states. The act of joining the World Assembly is an agreement to surrender national autonomy. If your nation does not wish to remain in the World Assembly, that is its choice, and most likely a good one for you. The legislative record will show a growing degree of enforcement through international administrative action."

All nations, peoples, and their leadership have the innate right to self-determination. This flies in the very face of that.

"It does not. This resolution has no impact on the ability of peoples to choose their own sovereign entity, nor on the ability of that entity to operate independently. It does, however, hold accountable those member states that would rather leech the benefits of World Assembly membership without any of the responsibilities."

[Thuzbekistan]

Oh God why would I ever vote to give the wa more power!?

'If that's your attitude, the solution's simple.' (points to the door) 'Leave.

'Maowi has registered its vote in favour of this proposal.'

Ooc: bloody hate this attitude. The WA is an integral part of ooc gameplay. I also get to register my vote for or against without being told "leave if you dont like the majority".

[Wallenburg]

'If that's your attitude, the solution's simple.' (points to the door) 'Leave.

'Maowi has registered its vote in favour of this proposal.'

Ooc: bloody hate this attitude. The WA is an integral part of ooc gameplay. I also get to register my vote for or against without being told "leave if you dont like the majority".

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.

[Scherzinger]

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

[Aclion]

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.

[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.
The WAJA would also undermine the freedom of NationStates users in another way. Many, like me, have formed states contumacious of WA jurisdiction for the sake of entertainment. We must remember that the WAJA would theoretically homogenize all member states in such a way that a great deal of international freedom is lost.

[Imperium Anglorum]

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.

[Thuzbekistan]

Ooc: bloody hate this attitude. The WA is an integral part of ooc gameplay. I also get to register my vote for or against without being told "leave if you dont like the majority".

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.

OOC: Even IC, my nation wouldn't vote to expand the power of the WA and that is a legitimate view that shouldn't result in "leave" statements

[Separatist Peoples]

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.

OOC: Even IC, my nation wouldn't vote to expand the power of the WA and that is a legitimate view that shouldn't result in "leave" statements

OOC: This is fair.

Objecting to expanded, centralized government power in an international body is reasonable. Refusing to comply because a vote doesn't go your way is not. This is the former not the latter. Checks out to me.

[Maowi]

Ooc: bloody hate this attitude. The WA is an integral part of ooc gameplay. I also get to register my vote for or against without being told "leave if you dont like the majority".

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.

OOC: This, and also, the whole purpose of the WA is to encroach on National Sovereignty. Sure, there are limits, but I don't think you are going to convice anyone by saying 'but NatSov' without any justification or reasoning. Especially with this proposal, which seeks to reduce non-compliance, I think you need further justification to oppose it because upon joining the WA you agree to comply or pay the penalty.

[Araraukar]

OOC: This, and also, the whole purpose of the WA is to encroach on National Sovereignty.

OOC: Thus a nation that belongs to WA for other reasons (talking of other IC reasons, not gameplay), can be happy with what WA has been doing up to now, but not with what the current proposal wants to do. Saying "we shouldn't give WA MORE power" is a perfectly valid IC argument and shouldn't be responded to with a "leave if you don't like it".

I don't think you are going to convice anyone by saying 'but NatSov' without any justification or reasoning.

Nor are you or others going to convince anyone by saying "but IntFed" for same reasons.

Especially with this proposal, which seeks to reduce non-compliance

Which is an OOC concept. Which shouldn't be in IC resolutions AT ALL. The compliance-enforcement one (the "comply or pay fines or get sanctions") is (or are, I think there are at least two so far) like the only resolution I'm completely ignoring the existence of in IC, because Araraukar would be just fine with all the trade sanctions, as the resolutions to do with trade and traffic are the ones they have the most problems with in the first place, and I don't want to give the nation such an easy "out" of having to deal with problematic resolutions.

And before you (or someone like you) does the inevitable "then why are you in the WA", which is an as stupid a reaction as "leave if you don't like it", that's entirely to do with IC reasons and that though I can't OOCly have more than one nation in the WA, ICly I can and do. Araraukar is in the WA (currently), because PPU is in the WA (though OOCly it isn't), and as I'm ignoring the "easy out" resolution(s), that means having to deal with all the ones that are inconvenient to an insular police state dictatorship.

because upon joining the WA you agree to comply or pay the penalty.

...if you agree to comply upon joining, why are resolutions attempting to compel compliance needed in the first place?