[DEFEATED] Subject State Enforcement Act

[Kaiserholt]

At this point, the Most Serene Republic of Kaiserholt would like to know what the General Assembly’s opinion of ancient and traditional patron-client systems is. “Subject States,” or as Kaiserholt defines as Client States, are protectorates that retain their domestic autonomy under a rubric of the Patron State providing certain protections. Bothe Patron and Client State have responsibilities and benefits. If half of what this Bill proposes was put to the MSR’s patron-client system, the “subject states” would have already filed for membership in the Republic. The use of the term subject ignores a well established history of interstate relations which could be as mutually beneficial as a patron-client relationship.

[Iciaros]

At this point, the Most Serene Republic of Kaiserholt would like to know what the General Assembly’s opinion of ancient and traditional patron-client systems is. “Subject States,” or as Kaiserholt defines as Client States, are protectorates that retain their domestic autonomy under a rubric of the Patron State providing certain protections. Bothe Patron and Client State have responsibilities and benefits. If half of what this Bill proposes was put to the MSR’s patron-client system, the “subject states” would have already filed for membership in the Republic. The use of the term subject ignores a well established history of interstate relations which could be as mutually beneficial as a patron-client relationship.

"I do not purport to speak for Morover on this point, Ambassador, but based on my understanding of this proposal specifically how such an arrangement would be affected would depend on how it has been 'set up', as it were. Does the client state have the absolute right, legally speaking, to its domestic autonomy? Perhaps it is a formally sovereign state that has surrendered some of its rights via treaty, for example, such that the patron state legally has no right to insist on anything other than treaty compliance. In such a case, Clause 2 has no effect, as parent states are only bound by the proposal insofar as they have the legislative authority to insist on compliance.

"If, however, the retention of domestic autonomy is merely a matter of political agreement, or perhaps (I am not as clear on this point) legislative arrangements which the patron state alone has the legislative authority to override, then Clause 2 and the proposal should take effect and the patron state should be bound to obey, subject to Clauses 2a and 2b which provide exceptions to the rule.

"I hope I have been helpful, Ambassador, and that I have not misrepresented anything on behalf of Morover."

[JuliusTheOrange]

The definition of a subject state is way off..
A piece of legislation like this will never pass.
You should not force us to treat "subject states" in a certain way
They are our subjects and you should not have the right to do this.
Juliustheorange and many other nations will fight this legislation.

The Office Of Prime Minister Auf Zecklerberg
Szent Auf City, 330124 Szekler St.

[The COT Corporation]

Although I can see you have good intentions with this resolution, the whole thing just sounds a bit authoritarian to most people.

I wouldn't mind a resolution like this in the future, but the way you wrote it implies that parent states should have supreme and unquestionable power over their subjects.

[Tyrannyicalist]

This act is completely insane, one they're our subjects and not in the WA you shouldn't have juridistiction over that, two the definition of subject state is off and would make things thst are clearly not subject states subject states.What about equivalents of the EU? What you're proposing would mean nations might have to give up legal soverignity to nations that are in no way similar in domestic situation.If I sign an open border agreement with a nation as long as I authored it or I'm the WA nation I may as well have annexed the nation and that just doesn't make sense.

[Morover]

At this point, the Most Serene Republic of Kaiserholt would like to know what the General Assembly’s opinion of ancient and traditional patron-client systems is. “Subject States,” or as Kaiserholt defines as Client States, are protectorates that retain their domestic autonomy under a rubric of the Patron State providing certain protections. Bothe Patron and Client State have responsibilities and benefits. If half of what this Bill proposes was put to the MSR’s patron-client system, the “subject states” would have already filed for membership in the Republic. The use of the term subject ignores a well established history of interstate relations which could be as mutually beneficial as a patron-client relationship.

"The Iciarosian delegation has summed it up as good as I have."

The definition of a subject state is way off..
A piece of legislation like this will never pass.
You should not force us to treat "subject states" in a certain way
They are our subjects and you should not have the right to do this.
Juliustheorange and many other nations will fight this legislation.

The Office Of Prime Minister Auf Zecklerberg
Szent Auf City, 330124 Szekler St.

"You claim my definition of a subject state is 'wrong,' or in your words, 'way off,' and yet say we should not force you to treat your definition of a subject state in a certain way. I don't think this proposal works like you believe it does."

Although I can see you have good intentions with this resolution, the whole thing just sounds a bit authoritarian to most people.

I wouldn't mind a resolution like this in the future, but the way you wrote it implies that parent states should have supreme and unquestionable power over their subjects.

"Sure, it may sound authoritarian, but it's really not, in practicality. And the way I wrote it may imply a lot of less-than-desirable things to some people, but the reality is that the effect has no bearing on the power a parent state has over its subject state."

This act is completely insane, one they're our subjects and not in the WA you shouldn't have juridistiction over that, two the definition of subject state is off and would make things thst are clearly not subject states subject states.What about equivalents of the EU? What you're proposing would mean nations might have to give up legal soverignity to nations that are in no way similar in domestic situation.If I sign an open border agreement with a nation as long as I authored it or I'm the WA nation I may as well have annexed the nation and that just doesn't make sense.

"The word 'subject state' is really because of a lack of better term. All of your extreme examples are irrelevant, unless you explicitly have legislative authority over the 'subject state.'"

OOC:
So, I feel a lot of the opposition I've had for the proposal comes from a misreading of the proposal, as opposed to a legitimate opposition to the legitimate effects. However, there has been concern expressed to me about the implications on the currently in-effect compliance laws that this proposal would have, if passed. While I disagree with these concerns on principle, I do not discredit the merits of them. As such, I will likely not be pursuing this proposal further, assuming the proposal fails (which it currently appears that it will). While, ideally, I feel that a proposal of this nature should go in the books, I don't see it happening with the current state of the World Assembly. Should GAR#2 be repealed and replaced with more suitable legislation, I may pursue a proposal similar to this. In the meantime, however, I will move on to more realistic proposals. Additionally, this is an official notice that, should anyone wish to use the contents of this proposal for any future proposals of theirs, they are free to do so, so long as I am listed as a co-author.

And, finally, to Araraukur - my apologies for not seeing your concern about the use of 'parent state' in clause 3, you are completely right that that use was unintentional. While I don't believe it would have caused significant issues with the enactment of the law, it would have been enough for me to take down the submitted proposal and fix, if only I had caught it in time. My sincerest apologies. I'll try to be more vigilant in the future. Regardless, it shouldn't matter in the long one, looking at these margins.

[WayNeacTia]

You really expected nations, who maintain a vassal state to represent them in the WA so they can bypass international law, to just willingly give up that little safety blanket?

[Superbunny]

You really expected nations, who maintain a vassal state to represent them in the WA so they can bypass international law, to just willingly give up that little safety blanket?

Also, not joining the WA should mean not joining the WA. If a nation willingly opts out of membership, it should mean that they are not affected by the resolutions we pass. I think this is a completely absurd resolution and what it implies for the rest of the world is appalling.

OOC: Adding onto that, the WA isn't able to influence non-member nations to begin with technically and gameplay wise. As some anti-WA players would call it, it's overreach.

[The Palentine]

What kind of nanny state bullshit is this drek? Absolutely opposed!
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

[PatrickStar]

OOC: Forcing non-member nations to comply with WA laws is against the rules. From the GA Proposal Compendium: Rules & General Advice post:

Meta-Gaming: Proposals cannot break the "fourth wall" or attempt to force events outside of the WA itself. This includes and is not limited to forcing the Security Council to carry out specific actions, mandating that regions carry out specific actions, and forcing compliance on non-member nations.

(emphasis mine)

This proposal has no business making it as far as it has.

[WayNeacTia]

OOC: Forcing non-member nations to comply with WA laws is against the rules. From the GA Proposal Compendium: Rules & General Advice post:

Meta-Gaming: Proposals cannot break the "fourth wall" or attempt to force events outside of the WA itself. This includes and is not limited to forcing the Security Council to carry out specific actions, mandating that regions carry out specific actions, and forcing compliance on non-member nations.

(emphasis mine)

This proposal has no business making it as far as it has.

Legitimate point here. Unfortunately GenSec only seems to intervene when there is an honest mistake in a repeal.

[Iciaros]

OOC: Forcing non-member nations to comply with WA laws is against the rules. From the GA Proposal Compendium: Rules & General Advice post:

Meta-Gaming: Proposals cannot break the "fourth wall" or attempt to force events outside of the WA itself. This includes and is not limited to forcing the Security Council to carry out specific actions, mandating that regions carry out specific actions, and forcing compliance on non-member nations.

(emphasis mine)

This proposal has no business making it as far as it has.

OOC:

I should preface what I'm about to say by noting that I also don't support this resolution passing. But as to whether it falls afoul of this rule, I am genuinely curious, because how and whether this proposal is affected by this rule would go a long way in establishing how wide the rule's scope actually is.

Just for an example, let's say that a proposal on, maybe, preventing torture gets to the General Assembly. (Pretending, of course, that existing legislation doesn't exist.) One of the clauses says that World Assembly nations must restrict trading or take some other kind of negative diplomatic policy against non-member states which do not practice torture. Would this proposal fall afoul of the rule, because by directing member states to target non-member states it amounts to forcing compliance on non-members? If the rule works that way, it would essentially mean that proposals cannot direct member states to do anything with the intention (or perhaps even the effect?) of making non-members change their stances to accord with World Assembly law, even if the proposal doesn't directly mandate non-member compliance.

Now, I don't know if the rule works that way. Ordinarily, I would say no; since the WA has the power to make member states do what it wants, I don't see why it should change when doing so might have an indirect impact on states outside of its jurisdiction. But the way the rule is phrased suggests that any attempt to 'force' anything outside the WA is illegal, even if this is done by mandating solely member states to take action.

Has this rule ever been invoked in this way before? I'm curious to know if it has.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: Forcing non-member nations to comply with WA laws is against the rules. From the GA Proposal Compendium: Rules & General Advice post:



(emphasis mine)

This proposal has no business making it as far as it has.

OOC:

I should preface what I'm about to say by noting that I also don't support this resolution passing. But as to whether it falls afoul of this rule, I am genuinely curious, because how and whether this proposal is affected by this rule would go a long way in establishing how wide the rule's scope actually is.

Just for an example, let's say that a proposal on, maybe, preventing torture gets to the General Assembly. (Pretending, of course, that existing legislation doesn't exist.) One of the clauses says that World Assembly nations must restrict trading or take some other kind of negative diplomatic policy against non-member states which do not practice torture. Would this proposal fall afoul of the rule, because by directing member states to target non-member states it amounts to forcing compliance on non-members? If the rule works that way, it would essentially mean that proposals cannot direct member states to do anything with the intention (or perhaps even the effect?) of making non-members change their stances to accord with World Assembly law, even if the proposal doesn't directly mandate non-member compliance.

Now, I don't know if the rule works that way. Ordinarily, I would say no; since the WA has the power to make member states do what it wants, I don't see why it should change when doing so might have an indirect impact on states outside of its jurisdiction. But the way the rule is phrased suggests that any attempt to 'force' anything outside the WA is illegal, even if this is done by mandating solely member states to take action.

Has this rule ever been invoked in this way before? I'm curious to know if it has.

OOC
Yes, the question has arisen before. More than once.
Precedent on interpretation of the rule says that what the rule means is that the GA cannot try to pass measures that would be legally binding on non-members (or even that "urges" them to do something), but that as it can pass resolutions that require or urge members to do things it definitely CAN tell (or urge) the members to do things that would affect non-members. For example, it can forbid members to import goods that were produced using slave labour...

(Also, by the way, precedent says that the GA can offer the services of WA agencies to non-members (possibly even with the requirement that if they accept the offer then they must behave in a certain way) as long as it doesn't actively urge them to accept the offer...)

[Iciaros]

OOC
Yes, the question has arisen before. More than once.
Precedent on interpretation of the rule says that what the rule means is that the GA cannot try to pass measures that would be legally binding on non-members (or even that "urges" them to do something), but that as it can pass resolutions that require or urge members to do things it definitely CAN tell (or urge) the members to do things that would affect non-members. For example, it can forbid members to import goods that were produced using slave labour...

(Also, by the way, precedent says that the GA can offer the services of WA agencies to non-members (possibly even with the requirement that if they accept the offer then they must behave in a certain way) as long as it doesn't actively urge them to accept the offer...)

OOC:

Thank you for the clarification! I suspected as much, or else this proposal probably would've fallen afoul of something long before it ever reached this stage.

[Quidia]

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin

[Araraukar]

OOC: Thank you for the clarification! I suspected as much, or else this proposal probably would've fallen afoul of something long before it ever reached this stage.

OOC: Actually, as per precedent, it still does violate the rules, but since it seems to be failing on its own, legality challenge has been unnecessary.

[Kenmoria]

What kind of nanny state bullshit is this drek? Absolutely opposed!
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

“In what way is this a nanny-state? If a WA state maintains puppet nations, then those nations ought to follow the same international regulations as everyone in the WA.”

[Araraukar]

You really expected nations, who maintain a vassal state to represent them in the WA so they can bypass international law, to just willingly give up that little safety blanket?

OOC: Actually this wouldn't have any effect against people who RP as their main nation not being in the WA, but have a small "WA mission" or whatever in the WA, because the proposal specifically says that a WA nation that is itself a subject state but whose parent state isn't in the WA, doesn't need to try to influence its non-member parent state.

Basically, this stream of WA regulations only flows downhill.

[The Palentine]

What kind of nanny state bullshit is this drek? Absolutely opposed!
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

“In what way is this a nanny-state? If a WA state maintains puppet nations, then those nations ought to follow the same international regulations as everyone in the WA.”

Oh horseshit! As if the Festering Snakepit gives a rat's ass on how a nation's puppets are RPed. The Festering Snakepit wanders around from crisis to crisis like a drunken pirate on shore leave. It barely keeps its most belligerent member states in line.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

[Araraukar]

Oh horseshit! As if the Festering Snakepit gives a rat's ass on how a nation's puppets are RPed. The Festering Snakepit wanders around from crisis to crisis like a drunken pirate on shore leave. It barely keeps its most belligerent member states in line.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

OOC: You realize you're talking about roleplaying in IC?

Also, not all puppets exist solely because of avoiding resolution stat effects - some actually are necessary for roleplaying reasons (but then they tend not to be "WA mission" type ones, but separate entities).

[The Palentine]

OOC: You realize you're talking about roleplaying in IC?

OOC: yep, this is Senator Sulla we're talking about. The old boy's a drunken reprobate who when in his cups gets the DT's and can break the 4th wall making snide aside comments. He won't remember a thing when he sobers up.

[Satuga]

OOC: Out of further review I have indeed decided to vote against this resolution, not only because it objects to the sovereignty a vassal state may have, but also because the resolution seems like it can be used loosely, with any nation being able to claim that implementing a certain law would be damaging to the political health of their vassal, making this resolution effectively useless. So I and many others have decided to vote against.

[Araraukar]

OOC: You realize you're talking about roleplaying in IC?

OOC: yep, this is Senator Sulla we're talking about. The old boy's a drunken reprobate who when in his cups gets the DT's and can break the 4th wall making snide aside comments. He won't remember a thing when he sobers up.

OOC: Does he sober up sometimes?

[The Palentine]

OOC: yep, this is Senator Sulla we're talking about. The old boy's a drunken reprobate who when in his cups gets the DT's and can break the 4th wall making snide aside comments. He won't remember a thing when he sobers up.

OOC: Does he sober up sometimes?

OOC: It happens every so often, he usually has the shakes when it happens though.

[McMasterdonia]

The North Pacific's Ministry of World Assembly Affairs has issued a recommendation of FOR for your proposal.

I have also voted For in line with the vote on our regional forum. I am sorry to see that your proposal is not passing. Perhaps it can be revisited again in future.