[DEFEATED] Subject State Enforcement Act

[Morover]

OOC: A little bit of feedback here but broadly in support.

The World Assembly,

Aware that the World Assembly may not affect non-member-states directly,

Concerned, however, at the possibility for nations to bypass international legislation through the use of vassals, protectorates, thralls, tributaries, or any other type of state at the mercy of a parent state,

Recognizing the possibility to resolve this issue,

Believing that no reasonable state should hold a subject state at any standard which they do it does not hold themselves itself (see 1.b. - I only spotted this afterwards),

And convinced that, despite the inability to directly affect non-member-states, the World Assembly may impose its will upon member-states, which, in turn, can affect non-member-states,

Hereby,

1. Defines the following, for the purposes of this resolution:
   
   1. "Subject State" as any state which totally or partially lacks sovereignty, especially with regards to its military, economic, or political aspects of the state, (unnecessary because you already have "its". Also I'd personally lose the capitalisation )
   2. "Parent State" as any state which is a member of the World Assembly and has one or more subject states either totally or partially under their its control, (or alternatively change "its" in the clause above to "their" - this is just for consistency. I haven't combed through the rest of your writing in here for American/British English but as far as I know you're American (? correct me if I'm wrong) and in American English this would be "its" so I've gone with that throughout. Also add "and" to the end of this subclause.)
   3. "Subsidiary" as any company or corporation which is run partly or entirely by the government of any member-state or subject state. (if you read the proposal as one long sentence, it doesn't make sense to have a full stop here. If you want to keep the feeling of having a longer pause, I'd replace that and all corresponding full stops with semicolons)
2. Demands that all parent states hold all of their subject states to the same laws which fall under any area the member-mother-state has control over as the parent state, both national and international, (this is a personal request for clarification as much as it is a suggestion to change anything. I'm just confused by the phrasing here. Is "member-mother-state" the same as "parent state", and if not, should it be defined or clarified? What I think you might mean here could be phrased more clearly as "Demands that all parent states hold each of their subject states to the same laws as each other and their parent state, both national and international" - although I might be misinterpreting it)
   
   1. Notes that an exception may be made for national laws which are only directly relevant to the parent state (if you do make a change as tentatively suggested above you could change this to "parent or subject state") and can either cause harm or unintended consequences which the parent (likewise here) state is not also at risk of having,
   2. Clarifies that laws may be enacted in subject states which are not enacted in a parent state, given that said law is in no contradiction of World Assembly Law and will not cause undue harm to residents or visitors to the subject state.
3. Requires all member-states to hold subsidiaries to all World Assembly Law,
   
   
4. Clarifies that any subject state which is currently a member of the world assembly (capitalise), under the dominion of a non-member-state, they need not appeal to their parent state to follow World Assembly Law,
   
   1. Notes, however, that if there are in further the future (?) subject states which are subject to the authority of the member-state, the member-state (for consistency) must apply all provisions supplied by this resolution unto the subject states. and (if you change the full stops to semicolons)
5. Asks that member-states, in a nonviolent manner, urge non-member-states, even if the non-member-states are not affected by this resolution, to follow World Assembly Law, either partially or fully.

OOC: Thanks for the feedback. I've implemented some of your changes and changed some other things to hopefully clarify the things you were confused about.

For clause 2, I'm trying to make it so that the parent states who only have control over political, militaristic, or economic factors of a subject state only have to hold the subject states to the laws regarding political, militaristic, or economic laws, respectively, of the parent state, while parent states who have total control over a subject state have to do so with all laws. I thought it came across fine, but it's obviously a bit convoluted. The member-mother-state was from when the definition for "parent state" was "member-mother-state," and I must have just missed that one to be changed. I changed the clause a little bit to hopefully better clarify the intention.

I've also made clause 4(a) into a new clause 5, in order to better serve the purpose 4(a) had.

Let me know if the changes help it at all.

[Maowi]

OOC: I get what you meant by clause 2 now - it only just clicked

The main problem, other than the "member-mother-state" thing which you've fixed, was that I thought "area" referred to a geographical area, which made things confusing. Although that is mostly my fault for misreading it, I do feel that clarification could be helpful - maybe something similar to what I've put below. Also, given 2.a., it seems like you are trying to mandate that these laws a parent state must hold its subject states to must also be in effect in the parent state, but it doesn't look like clause 2 currently does that. I've included that in a possible edit:

2. Demands that all parent states hold all of their subject states to the same laws which fall under any area the parent state has control over the subject state, both national and international, to which the parent state is subject, insofar as it has the legislative authority to do so,

Here you need to remove the "they", as you've already stated the subject of the sentence ("any subject state which is ..." etc.)

4. Clarifies that any subject state which is currently a member of the World Assembly, under the dominion of a non-member-state, they need not appeal to their parent state to follow World Assembly Law,

Your other changes were definitely helpful, thank you. Only other thing I'd say is replace the full stops at the end of each clause with semicolons and after clause 5, put "and" to make the proposal a complete sentence.

[Morover]

OOC: I get what you meant by clause 2 now - it only just clicked

The main problem, other than the "member-mother-state" thing which you've fixed, was that I thought "area" referred to a geographical area, which made things confusing. Although that is mostly my fault for misreading it, I do feel that clarification could be helpful - maybe something similar to what I've put below. Also, given 2.a., it seems like you are trying to mandate that these laws a parent state must hold its subject states to must also be in effect in the parent state, but it doesn't look like clause 2 currently does that. I've included that in a possible edit:

2. Demands that all parent states hold all of their subject states to the same laws which fall under any area the parent state has control over the subject state, both national and international, to which the parent state is subject, insofar as it has the legislative authority to do so,

Here you need to remove the "they", as you've already stated the subject of the sentence ("any subject state which is ..." etc.)

4. Clarifies that any subject state which is currently a member of the World Assembly, under the dominion of a non-member-state, they need not appeal to their parent state to follow World Assembly Law,

Your other changes were definitely helpful, thank you. Only other thing I'd say is replace the full stops at the end of each clause with semicolons and after clause 5, put "and" to make the proposal a complete sentence.

OOC: All has been fixed. Thanks for the help!

[Araraukar]

1. Defines the following, for the purposes of this resolution:
   
   1. "Subject state" as any state which totally or partially lacks sovereignty, especially with regards to its military, economic, or political aspects;
   2. "Parent state" as any state which is a member of the World Assembly and has one or more subject states either totally or partially under its control;

OOC: I still think this is unfair and unnecessarily complicated as a definition, as long as the "partially lacks sovereignty" bit is in it.

RL example of the complication: Scotland would count as a subject state to UK, arguably as a subject state to England (which is also a subject state to UK), and (at the time of writing this, anyway) UK would count as a subject state to EU. If Scotland joins the Nordic Council WA, but none of the others in that chain do, then what happens?

As an RP example of the unfairness, the PPU hivemind owns an island off the Araraukarian coastline. Araraukar's coast guard is the "military" (they're well enough armed to count as a navy, but are organized under the law enforcement) in those waters and they also defend the island from outsiders if necessary. Also, the hivemind bought the island off of Araraukar on credit, and will be paying off the price for the next 50 or so years. That means that Araraukar pretty much also dominates the hivemind's economic aspects. So, do I now have to have the hivemind's island count as a subject state of Araraukar, despite neither party thinking of it like that or treating each other like that? (And in IC they're both in the WA, and Araraukar has much stricter laws, which the hivemind would prefer not to apply on its island.)

[Morover]

1. Defines the following, for the purposes of this resolution:
   
   1. "Subject state" as any state which totally or partially lacks sovereignty, especially with regards to its military, economic, or political aspects;
   2. "Parent state" as any state which is a member of the World Assembly and has one or more subject states either totally or partially under its control;

OOC: I still think this is unfair and unnecessarily complicated as a definition, as long as the "partially lacks sovereignty" bit is in it.

RL example of the complication: Scotland would count as a subject state to UK, arguably as a subject state to England (which is also a subject state to UK), and (at the time of writing this, anyway) UK would count as a subject state to EU. If Scotland joins the Nordic Council WA, but none of the others in that chain do, then what happens?

As an RP example of the unfairness, the PPU hivemind owns an island off the Araraukarian coastline. Araraukar's coast guard is the "military" (they're well enough armed to count as a navy, but are organized under the law enforcement) in those waters and they also defend the island from outsiders if necessary. Also, the hivemind bought the island off of Araraukar on credit, and will be paying off the price for the next 50 or so years. That means that Araraukar pretty much also dominates the hivemind's economic aspects. So, do I now have to have the hivemind's island count as a subject state of Araraukar, despite neither party thinking of it like that or treating each other like that? (And in IC they're both in the WA, and Araraukar has much stricter laws, which the hivemind would prefer not to apply on its island.)

OOC: The definition is very tricky, honestly. It's probably the hardest part of the proposal. The reason I went with the way it currently is is that, as per the wording in clause 2, the parent nation only needs to apply laws relevant laws (E.G. if they only have control over the economy of a nation, they only need to apply economic laws towards the subject nation), which I don't find unreasonable. I can further clarify this in the definition, if you'd like, but I'm very wary about saying that the parent state must have total control over the sovereignty is because that means that just about any level of autonomy within the subject state may invalidate the claim of the parent state on the subject state.

As for your RP situation, so long as Araraukar does not have control over the sovereignty over the Hivemind's economy, it shouldn't fall under the provisions laid out by this proposal.

Further input would be appreciated.

[Potted Plants United]

As for your RP situation, so long as Araraukar does not have control over the sovereignty over the Hivemind's economy, it shouldn't fall under the provisions laid out by this proposal.

OOC: Then what do you actually mean by sovereignty, here?

[Morover]

As for your RP situation, so long as Araraukar does not have control over the sovereignty over the Hivemind's economy, it shouldn't fall under the provisions laid out by this proposal.

OOC: Then what do you actually mean by sovereignty, here?

OOC: The ability to directly seize control of another nation's something, without compulsion upon the subject state.

It's not perfect, I agree, but I don't know any way to do a definition of "subject state" without either being too ultra-specific or too broad.

[Morover]

OOC:
So, I've thought a lot about this proposal. I think the current definition is the only adequate way to do things. I'll edit the wording a bit, but, ultimately, the meaning will remain the same. Of course, if between now and the time I submit it 40 hours (unless I did some terribly mistaken math, but that should be right), someone can come up with one which more effectively does what this proposal aims to accomplish, I'll certainly go with that one instead.

Additionally, I have added subclauses 3(a) and 3(b), following feedback from the TNP Forum (see here).

This will be submitted soon.

[Empyia]

OOC: Correct me if I am wrong, but since the law has the potential to affect non WA nations, wouldnt this entire proposal be disallowed under metagaming? Considering that it forces compliance on non-member nations?

[Quirinum]

This is a great resolution. The added number of jurisdictions under WA control will make it all the more easy for the Roman people to invade their lands, sack their cities, and cart off their populations for sale. If you want peace, prepare for war. If you cannot, become a Roman protectorate.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Correct me if I am wrong, but since the law has the potential to affect non WA nations, wouldnt this entire proposal be disallowed under metagaming? Considering that it forces compliance on non-member nations?

OOC: A fair question. Perhaps the "last call" thing could be removed from thread topic to imply the draft is actually being worked on, rather than being on brink of needing a legality challenge to resolve questions like ^that?

[Morover]

OOC: Correct me if I am wrong, but since the law has the potential to affect non WA nations, wouldnt this entire proposal be disallowed under metagaming? Considering that it forces compliance on non-member nations?

OOC: A fair question. Perhaps the "last call" thing could be removed from thread topic to imply the draft is actually being worked on, rather than being on brink of needing a legality challenge to resolve questions like ^that?

OOC: Honestly, I feel that it doesn't break any rules. It's obviously riding the line, but considering Bears Armed commented without mentioning that the premise as a whole was illegal, I think it shouldn't be. I'm sure a legality challenge will crop up, but I'm not overly worried about it. I'll take [Last Call] out of the title, but I'll still submit it on the second of January, unless some truly major criticism comes up. I have no qualms fixing some minor things before then, though, as I have been doing.

Also, I have taken out clause three and all subsequent subclauses. While I wish for something similar to what it was, I've decided that it's better for a whole new resolution to take care of it, instead of shoehorning it into this one.

[Morover]

This has been submitted.

[Satuga]

OOC: I have a problem mainly with this,

[*]Demands that all parent states hold all of their subject states to the same laws, both national and international, to which the parent state is subject, insofar as it has the legislative authority to do so,

1. Notes that an exception may be made for national laws which are only directly relevant to the parent state and can either cause harm or unintended consequences which the parent state is not also at risk of having;
2. Clarifies that laws may be enacted in subject states which are not enacted in a parent state, given that said law is in no contradiction of World Assembly Law and will not cause undue harm to residents or visitors to the subject state;

my nation Satuga is one of high political freedoms, so even its' vassal Bigtopia is granted these autonomous freedoms. The only thing Satuga forces Bigtopia to follow is the WA Laws, any more force upon their countries autonomy would be viewed as tyrannical, my nations vassal has a right to(In my mind) enact societal laws as its public sees fit. Should this resolution only want to enact WA laws upon all WA members vassals I would have no problem with this but this seems to not be the case, and therefore will not support this resolution should it come to vote.

[Morover]

OOC: I have a problem mainly with this,

[*]Demands that all parent states hold all of their subject states to the same laws, both national and international, to which the parent state is subject, insofar as it has the legislative authority to do so,

1. Notes that an exception may be made for national laws which are only directly relevant to the parent state and can either cause harm or unintended consequences which the parent state is not also at risk of having;
2. Clarifies that laws may be enacted in subject states which are not enacted in a parent state, given that said law is in no contradiction of World Assembly Law and will not cause undue harm to residents or visitors to the subject state;

my nation Satuga is one of high political freedoms, so even its' vassal Bigtopia is granted these autonomous freedoms. The only thing Satuga forces Bigtopia to follow is the WA Laws, any more force upon their countries autonomy would be viewed as tyrannical, my nations vassal has a right to(In my mind) enact societal laws as its public sees fit. Should this resolution only want to enact WA laws upon all WA members vassals I would have no problem with this but this seems to not be the case, and therefore will not support this resolution should it come to vote.

OOC:

So, firstly, I'd argue that having significant backlash would fall under the "harm or unintended consequences" of clause 2(a). Basically, don't inflict undue harm onto your subject states and ensure that the citizens of the subject state are held to the same standard as the parent state.

[Satuga]

OOC:

So, firstly, I'd argue that having significant backlash would fall under the "harm or unintended consequences" of clause 2(a). Basically, don't inflict undue harm onto your subject states and ensure that the citizens of the subject state are held to the same standard as the parent state.

When my nation took over it implemented a constitution similar to it's own, however any further implementations are up to the people's vote. We cannot force any laws further from the WA laws and the constitution otherwise we would be oppressing the people right to self rule. Clause 2(a). says "harm or unintended consequences" however does this apply to lower less important laws? Such as Drone restrictions, modesty regulations(nudity) or Gun regulations?

[Morover]

OOC:

So, firstly, I'd argue that having significant backlash would fall under the "harm or unintended consequences" of clause 2(a). Basically, don't inflict undue harm onto your subject states and ensure that the citizens of the subject state are held to the same standard as the parent state.

When my nation took over it implemented a constitution similar to it's own, however any further implementations are up to the people's vote. We cannot force any laws further from the WA laws and the constitution otherwise we would be oppressing the people right to self rule. Clause 2(a). says "harm or unintended consequences" however does this apply to lower less important laws? Such as Drone restrictions, modesty regulations(nudity) or Gun regulations?

OOC:

Well, firstly, you only implement laws that you have the legislative authority to do so. In the event that they ratified their own constitution with the right to self-rule, and you agreed to that, you do not have the legislative authority to do so.

And, if implementing a law would legitimately cause political instability, that does inflict “harm or unintended consequences” upon the subject nation.

[Satuga]

When my nation took over it implemented a constitution similar to it's own, however any further implementations are up to the people's vote. We cannot force any laws further from the WA laws and the constitution otherwise we would be oppressing the people right to self rule. Clause 2(a). says "harm or unintended consequences" however does this apply to lower less important laws? Such as Drone restrictions, modesty regulations(nudity) or Gun regulations?

OOC:

Well, firstly, you only implement laws that you have the legislative authority to do so. In the event that they ratified their own constitution with the right to self-rule, and you agreed to that, you do not have the legislative authority to do so.

And, if implementing a law would legitimately cause political instability, that does inflict “harm or unintended consequences” upon the subject nation.

I will have to review some more before I come to a conclusion on whether to fully support this resolution or not.

[Iciaros]

"If I may ask, Ambassador... when a subject state is one which 'totally' lacks sovereignty, what sorts of political arrangements would this include? Protectorates and colonies, certainly, I can indeed see falling under this definition, though I would hesitate to call them 'states' in the first place (albeit a difficulty that the resolution does not share, given the preamble). What about the components or 'states' of a federal nation? Or, for an example with less freedom in internal governance, provinces or territories? Would all of these also be included under the definition? I struggle to conceptualise them as such, since the proposal clearly regards subject and parent states as separate entities, and does not seem to consider the possibility that parent states are 'made up of' their subject states. I would appreciate a clarification on this matter.

"I must further inquire as to clauses 2a and b. By my understanding, 2b applies only to the enactment of laws, as opposed to the absence of them, the latter of which would fall under 2a. However, 2a makes no exception for national laws which are directly relevant to the subject state, or which can cause harm or consequences that the parent state is also at risk of having, but that the subject state chooses of its own free will to ignore. An example that comes to mind is anti-terror or anti-hate-speech legislation in the parent state, when the subject state also faces the same risks as the parent state but values the freedoms the laws would prejudice over the safety or societal change those laws would effect. Would 2a allow for the subject state to escape the relevant laws of the parent state? The only justification I can find is that population dissatisfaction or unhappiness amounts to the 'harm' or 'unintended consequence' to which the provision refers, but this might create a rather easy tool for evasion for any state that can claim that their population would be unhappy with a particular piece of parent legislation, or perhaps that they would be unhappy that the parent state is exerting its will at all, even if it has the power to do so.

"My apologies for coming to this resolution so late, Ambassador, but it was only recently brought to my attention. I appreciate your efforts and hope for a clarification at your leisure."

[Morover]

"If I may ask, Ambassador... when a subject state is one which 'totally' lacks sovereignty, what sorts of political arrangements would this include? Protectorates and colonies, certainly, I can indeed see falling under this definition, though I would hesitate to call them 'states' in the first place (albeit a difficulty that the resolution does not share, given the preamble). What about the components or 'states' of a federal nation? Or, for an example with less freedom in internal governance, provinces or territories? Would all of these also be included under the definition? I struggle to conceptualise them as such, since the proposal clearly regards subject and parent states as separate entities, and does not seem to consider the possibility that parent states are 'made up of' their subject states. I would appreciate a clarification on this matter."

"Honestly, you'd be very hard-pressed to find a traditional subject-state that totally lacks sovereignty, but it was included for sake of completeness. Basically, it was written the way it was in order to give off the effect of 'if it's under your jurisdiction, it needs to follow your laws.' Given the traditional definition of a state (a geographical area with a distinct government), internal provinces or territories could be considered a subject state, if they have a distinctive government. In fact, it could be argued that these internal provinces are a prime example of a subject-state, with the overarching government that rules them being the parent-state. Because of the wording of clause 2 ("insofar as it has the legislative authority to do so;"), systems can be set up that allow a federalized law system, in which the overarching government has authority over some powers, and the internal affairs of each individual province has authority over others (OOC: Think the system the United States has). This was intentionally designed for this to be possible."

"I must further inquire as to clauses 2a and b. By my understanding, 2b applies only to the enactment of laws, as opposed to the absence of them, the latter of which would fall under 2a. However, 2a makes no exception for national laws which are directly relevant to the subject state, or which can cause harm or consequences that the parent state is also at risk of having, but that the subject state chooses of its own free will to ignore. An example that comes to mind is anti-terror or anti-hate-speech legislation in the parent state, when the subject state also faces the same risks as the parent state but values the freedoms the laws would prejudice over the safety or societal change those laws would effect. Would 2a allow for the subject state to escape the relevant laws of the parent state? The only justification I can find is that population dissatisfaction or unhappiness amounts to the 'harm' or 'unintended consequence' to which the provision refers, but this might create a rather easy tool for evasion for any state that can claim that their population would be unhappy with a particular piece of parent legislation, or perhaps that they would be unhappy that the parent state is exerting its will at all, even if it has the power to do so."

"2b does only apply to the enactment of laws, you are correct. However, I do consider 2a to cover the harm that would come from political unrest. So, for example, mere unhappiness with the law would not be enough to constitute the nullification of a law - it would have to be something more severe, such as a public protest. I believe that the Compliance Commission and the Independent Adjudicative Office would agree with me there. Nullifying the law due to mere unhappiness would, in my opinion, be a show of bad faith. And, as we've heard time and time again, bad faith compliance is prohibited by GAR#2."

"However, if the parent-state had the same levels of political instability as the subject-state as a result of the applied law, it would not qualify for nullification. While it would have been ideal to be able to rid subject-states of that, it simply proved to be infeasible. I believe that doing so would have opened the floodgates for all sorts of loopholes. Instead, I opted to choose the lesser of all the evils (though whether it is actual lesser can be tossed up for debate, I suppose). My thought process is that if a parent-state is so authoritarian that they institute laws that invariably cause more due harm than good, they would choose not to invoke whatever provisions I had installed for 2a. Clause 2, in almost all cases, will ensure the equality of subject-states with parent-states. I've maximized the effectiveness as much as I have been able, and even if I withdrew to try to make it more effective, I doubt I would succeed."

"My apologies for coming to this resolution so late, Ambassador, but it was only recently brought to my attention. I appreciate your efforts and hope for a clarification at your leisure."

"You're good, there. I believe that your issues are adequately covered by the proposal, however subtlely it may be."

[Iciaros]

-snip-

"Thank you for your clarification, Ambassador. I must admit that I continue to be unsettled by the ramifications of this proposal, particularly as Iciaros has a number of autonomous states who fully comply with World Assembly law but enjoy exemption from national law in other matters, despite the legislative power of the Iciarosian government to dictate otherwise. I do hope that the political unrest you have envisioned as falling under clause 2a is sufficient to cover the political ramifications of upsetting the delicate status quo.

"In any case, thank you very much for your clarification. It is clear that, regardless of the desirability of the proposal, it targets what it intends to and leaves few loopholes. I wish you all the best in your efforts."

[Araraukar]

Demands that all parent states

OOC: Given that you do specify member nations elsewhere in the proposal, ^that is a classic case of legislating for non-members in an illegal manner. The lithmus test is that if you use "all nations" but don't use "member nations", then you're assumed to be talking of only member nations. But if you use both, then "all nations" includes non-members.

[Morover]

Demands that all parent states

OOC: Given that you do specify member nations elsewhere in the proposal, ^that is a classic case of legislating for non-members in an illegal manner. The lithmus test is that if you use "all nations" but don't use "member nations", then you're assumed to be talking of only member nations. But if you use both, then "all nations" includes non-members.

OOC: Forgive me if I misunderstand your assertion, but I do specify that parent states must be member-states in the definition of parent states.

[Potted Plants United]

OOC: Forgive me if I misunderstand your assertion, but I do specify that parent states must be member-states in the definition of parent states.

OOC: ...and clause three?

[Kenmoria]

“Seeing as it is the subject state that is in the World Assembly, in the case of Kenmoria, I am voting for this proposal.”