NationStates

Posted: **Mon Sep 23, 2019 5:36 pm**

Subject State Enforcement Act

Political Stability - Significant

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 it does not hold itself,

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,

Defines the following, for the purposes of this resolution:
"Subject state" as any state which totally or partially lacks sovereignty, especially with regards to its military, economic, or political aspects; and
"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;
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;
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;
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;
Clarifies that any subject state which is currently a member of the World Assembly, under the dominion of a non-member-state, need not appeal to their parent state to follow World Assembly Law;

Demands that the above provisions supplied by the resolution be equally applied to any subject states whose parent states are subject states to a member-state; and

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.

A slightly deranged man, one who is obviously not an ambassador, passes around the pamphlet, hastily drawn on a napkin with a map of Morover on the back, an excited gleam in his eyes.

"Fellas - boy do I have a business opportunity for you. Listen up - or don't. But read up, at the very least. Let me know what you think."

He grins excessively and watches the ambassadors as they begin to read.

OOC: I know this is pretty much on the line of the metagaming rule, honestly. I think it's still feasible without breaking the metagaming rule, but I'm obviously at the will of GenSec. I do think it's an interesting concept to toy around with, at the very least.

It should also be noted that this is an early draft. I legitimately am looking forward to seeing all of your responses. Be harsh, it has a lot of work to go.

DRAFTS:

Concerning Vassals and Subsidiaries

Political Stability - Significant

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 would hold a subject state at any standard which they do not hold their own state to,

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,

Defines the following, for the purposes of this resolution:
"Subject State" as any state which is under the direct control of a member-state, or under the direct control of any other subject state of a member-state,
"Subsidiary" as any company or corporation which is run partly or entirely by the government of any member-state or subject state.
Demands that all member-states hold all of their subject states to the same laws as the parent state, both national and international,
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,
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 international law and will not cause undue harm to residents or visitors to the subject state.
Requires all member-states to hold subsidiaries to all international legislation,

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 all international legislation,
Notes, however, that if there are in further subject states which are subject to the authority of the member-state, the member state must apply all provisions supplied by this resolution unto the subject states.
Urges all non-member-states, even if not affected by this resolution, to follow international law, either partially or fully.

Concerning Vassals and Subsidiaries

Political Stability - Significant

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 would hold a subject state at any standard which they do not hold their own state to,

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,

Defines the following, for the purposes of this resolution:
"Subject State" as any state which has another state hold 50% or more of a share in any of the following categories of the priorly mentioned state:
Economic wellbeing of the state,
Political stability of the state,
Military presence working in collaboration with the government of the state,
Any other acts which create a reliance on the more dominant state, or that create an essential component for sovereignty.
"Subsidiary" as any company or corporation which is run partly or entirely by the government of any member-state or subject state.
Demands that all member-states hold all of their subject states to the same laws as the parent state, both national and international,
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,
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.
Requires all member-states to hold subsidiaries to all World Assembly Law,

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,
Notes, however, that if there are in further subject states which are subject to the authority of the member-state, the member state must apply all provisions supplied by this resolution unto the subject states.
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.
[/list][/list]

Concerning Vassals and Subsidiaries

Political Stability - Significant

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 would hold a subject state at any standard which they do not hold their own state to,

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,

Defines the following, for the purposes of this resolution:
"Subject State" as any state which lacks sovereignty and has another nation be the primary controller of militaristic, economic, or political aspects of said subject state.
"Subsidiary" as any company or corporation which is run partly or entirely by the government of any member-state or subject state.
Demands that all member-states hold all of their subject states to the same laws as the parent state, both national and international,
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,
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.
Requires all member-states to hold subsidiaries to all World Assembly Law,

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,
Notes, however, that if there are in further subject states which are subject to the authority of the member-state, the member state must apply all provisions supplied by this resolution unto the subject states.
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.

Concerning Vassals and Subsidiaries

Political Stability - Significant

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 not hold themselves,

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,

Defines the following, for the purposes of this resolution:
"Subject State" as any state which
lacks sovereignty, and
has another nation as the primary controller of its military, economic, or political aspects;
"Subsidiary" as any company or corporation which is run partly or entirely by the government of any member-state or subject state.
Demands that all member-states hold all of their subject states to the same laws as the parent state, both national and international,
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,
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.
Requires all member-states to hold subsidiaries to all World Assembly Law,

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,
Notes, however, that if there are in further subject states which are subject to the authority of the member-state, the member state must apply all provisions supplied by this resolution unto the subject states.
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.

Concerning Vassals and Subsidiaries

Political Stability - Significant

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 not hold themselves,

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,

Defines the following, for the purposes of this resolution:
"Subject State" as any state which totally or partially lacks sovereignty, especially with regards to its military, economic, or political aspects of the state,
"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 control,
"Subsidiary" as any company or corporation which is run partly or entirely by the government of any member-state or subject state.
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,
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,
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.
Requires all member-states to hold subsidiaries to all World Assembly Law,

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,
Notes, however, that if there are in further subject states which are subject to the authority of the member-state, the member state must apply all provisions supplied by this resolution unto the subject states.
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.

Concerning Vassals and Subsidiaries

Political Stability - Significant

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 it does not hold itself,

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,

Defines the following, for the purposes of this resolution:
"Subject State" as any state which totally or partially lacks sovereignty, especially with regards to its military, economic, or political aspects,
"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, and
"Subsidiary" as any company or corporation which is run partly or entirely by the government of any member-state or subject state;
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,
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,
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.
Requires all member-states to hold subsidiaries to all World Assembly Law,

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,

Demands that the above provisions supplied by the resolution be equally applied to any subject states whose parent states are subject states to a member-state,

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.

Concerning Vassals and Subsidiaries

Political Stability - Significant

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 it does not hold itself,

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,

Defines the following, for the purposes of this resolution:
"Subject state" as any state which totally or partially lacks sovereignty, especially with regards to its military, economic, or political aspects;
"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; and
"Subsidiary" as any company or corporation which is run partly or entirely by the government of any member-state or subject state;
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,
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;
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;
Requires all member-states to hold subsidiaries to all World Assembly Law;

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

Demands that the above provisions supplied by the resolution be equally applied to any subject states whose parent states are subject states to a member-state; and

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.

Concerning Vassals and Subsidiaries

Political Stability - Significant

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 it does not hold itself,

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,

Defines the following, for the purposes of this resolution:
"Subject state" as any state which totally or partially lacks sovereignty, especially with regards to its military, economic, or political aspects;
"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; and
"Subsidiary" as any company or corporation which is run partly or entirely by the government of any member-state or subject state;
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,
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;
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;
Requires all member-states to hold subsidiaries to all World Assembly Law;
Allows subsidiaries to violate necessary World Assembly Law when operating in non-member-states, following a request from the member-state which runs the subsidiary to the Compliance Commission (henceforth known as the WACC), and the WACC deems it absolutely necessary for such a violation to occur; and
Demands that privately-owned corporations not owned by the government of a member-state but instead by high-ranking officials of the member-state must be held to the same standards as subsidiaries;

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

Demands that the above provisions supplied by the resolution be equally applied to any subject states whose parent states are subject states to a member-state; and

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.

Concerning Vassals and Subsidiaries

Political Stability - Significant

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 it does not hold itself,

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,

Defines the following, for the purposes of this resolution:
"Subject state" as any state which totally or partially lacks sovereignty, especially with regards to its military, economic, or political aspects; and
"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;
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,
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;
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;
Clarifies that any subject state which is currently a member of the World Assembly, under the dominion of a non-member-state, need not appeal to their parent state to follow World Assembly Law;

Demands that the above provisions supplied by the resolution be equally applied to any subject states whose parent states are subject states to a member-state; and

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.

Posted: **Mon Sep 23, 2019 11:25 pm**

(OOC: Given that ‘urges’ has been considered an active clause, clause 5 may be disallowed under the metagaming rule.)

Posted: **Tue Sep 24, 2019 12:53 am**

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: Given that ‘urges’ has been considered an active clause, clause 5 may be disallowed under the metagaming rule.)

OOC: I suggest replacing it with 'recommends' or 'advises'. Support.

Posted: **Tue Sep 24, 2019 3:54 am**

OOC: While I like the idea, your definition of subject state feels circular and risks applying to no-one (Complete control being indistinguishable from being a part of the dominant nation). I know that some RP as subject states and the distinct nature of NS states allow for that, but in any usual definition of state would leave zero subject states to be affected. For what I think is slightly more operative (As in, currently in academic use), check out V-Dems version, the data and codebook of which can be found here. Others do exist, I'm just a fan of V-Dem.

Posted: **Tue Sep 24, 2019 5:00 am**

Marxist Germany wrote:
Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: Given that ‘urges’ has been considered an active clause, clause 5 may be disallowed under the metagaming rule.)

OOC: I suggest replacing it with 'recommends' or 'advises'. Support.

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: Given that ‘urges’ has been considered an active clause, clause 5 may be disallowed under the metagaming rule.)

OOC: Fixed.

Attempted Socialism wrote:OOC: While I like the idea, your definition of subject state feels circular and risks applying to no-one (Complete control being indistinguishable from being a part of the dominant nation). I know that some RP as subject states and the distinct nature of NS states allow for that, but in any usual definition of state would leave zero subject states to be affected. For what I think is slightly more operative (As in, currently in academic use), check out V-Dems version, the data and codebook of which can be found here. Others do exist, I'm just a fan of V-Dem.

Question: Domestic autonomy (C) (v2svdomaut)

Is the state autonomous from the control of other states with respect to the conduct of domestic policy?

Clarification: The question of domestic autonomy does not include restrictions emanating from treaties (e.g., NATO), international organizations (e.g., the WTO), or confederations (e.g., the European Union) if these agreements are freely negotiated by the state and if the state is free to exit from that treaty, organization, or confederation. Nor does it include restrictions on policymaking emanating from international market forces and trans-national corporations.

Responses: 0: Non-autonomous. National level authority is exercised by an external power, either by law or in practice. The most common examples of this are direct colonial rule and military occupation (e.g. quadripartite occupation of Germany in 1945). It also includes situations in which domestic actors provide de jure cover for de facto control by a foreign power (e.g. Vichy France). However, control of some part of the territory of a state by an enemy during war is not considered control by external actors if the sovereign government remains on scene and continues to wage conventional war (e.g., the USSR during WW II).
1: Semi-autonomous. An external political actor directly constrains the ability of domestic actors to rule, decides who can or cannot rule through formal rules or informal understandings, or precludes certain policies through explicit treaty provisions or well-understood rules of the game from which the subject state cannot withdraw. Examples include Soviet ~satellite~ states in Eastern Europe, and situations where colonial powers grant limited powers of national self-government to their possessions (e.g., protectorates and limited home government).
2: Autonomous. Domestic political actors exercise political authority free of the direct control of external political actors.

I do see what you mean. I’m a bit busy right now (and on my phone) to make a major change but I’ll make it whenever possible. Thanks for the feedback.

Posted: **Tue Sep 24, 2019 5:13 am**

OOC: The title is in essence no different from ''On X', I suggest changing it to 'Vassal Enforcement Accord', 'Vassal Compliance Convention', 'Enforcing Compliance upon Vassals', or 'Enforcement of Compliance upon Vassals' which sounds a bit clunky but I couldnt find somehing better.

Posted: **Tue Sep 24, 2019 5:22 am**

Morover wrote:
Marxist Germany wrote:OOC: I suggest replacing it with 'recommends' or 'advises'. Support.
Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: Given that ‘urges’ has been considered an active clause, clause 5 may be disallowed under the metagaming rule.)

OOC: Fixed.

Attempted Socialism wrote:OOC: While I like the idea, your definition of subject state feels circular and risks applying to no-one (Complete control being indistinguishable from being a part of the dominant nation). I know that some RP as subject states and the distinct nature of NS states allow for that, but in any usual definition of state would leave zero subject states to be affected. For what I think is slightly more operative (As in, currently in academic use), check out V-Dems version, the data and codebook of which can be found here. Others do exist, I'm just a fan of V-Dem.

Question: Domestic autonomy (C) (v2svdomaut)

Is the state autonomous from the control of other states with respect to the conduct of domestic policy?

Clarification: The question of domestic autonomy does not include restrictions emanating from treaties (e.g., NATO), international organizations (e.g., the WTO), or confederations (e.g., the European Union) if these agreements are freely negotiated by the state and if the state is free to exit from that treaty, organization, or confederation. Nor does it include restrictions on policymaking emanating from international market forces and trans-national corporations.

Responses: 0: Non-autonomous. National level authority is exercised by an external power, either by law or in practice. The most common examples of this are direct colonial rule and military occupation (e.g. quadripartite occupation of Germany in 1945). It also includes situations in which domestic actors provide de jure cover for de facto control by a foreign power (e.g. Vichy France). However, control of some part of the territory of a state by an enemy during war is not considered control by external actors if the sovereign government remains on scene and continues to wage conventional war (e.g., the USSR during WW II).
1: Semi-autonomous. An external political actor directly constrains the ability of domestic actors to rule, decides who can or cannot rule through formal rules or informal understandings, or precludes certain policies through explicit treaty provisions or well-understood rules of the game from which the subject state cannot withdraw. Examples include Soviet ~satellite~ states in Eastern Europe, and situations where colonial powers grant limited powers of national self-government to their possessions (e.g., protectorates and limited home government).
2: Autonomous. Domestic political actors exercise political authority free of the direct control of external political actors.

I do see what you mean. I’m a bit busy right now (and on my phone) to make a major change but I’ll make it whenever possible. Thanks for the feedback.

OOC: Sure, no rush. Feel free to send any reworked definition my way if you want my feedback.

I personally use a definition of state that mixes Webers definition and Eastons definition of politics. I don't know if it fits you, but it might be illustrative of my point even if it doesn't (My translation):
"A geographically defined area where there exists a powerstructure capable of: maintaining a monopoly on violence; coordinating common resources; and authoritatively distribute values."
If one of these was to be taken away by a foreign actor (Say, monopoly on violence) we would no longer talk about a state as a completely independent entity. While not fully absorbed either, it is crucially dependent on the dominant state for essential protection, against its own population and/or the dominant state. We would likely perceive such a state as some form of subject state.
While the exact phrasing is mine, the idea is certainly not unique. You can find similar examples online if you want.

Posted: **Tue Sep 24, 2019 5:27 am**

Satuga itself has a vassal, we've implemented democratic means into their government system and they have been prospering since. Satuga does have certain controls over them but does not pride itself in iron collaring another nation. In other words we allow vassals to have the national independence in many ways, of course if they were to violate a rule such as forced human experimentation or the such we would have a problem and step in, but certain rules such as airspace control is out of our hands.

Posted: **Tue Sep 24, 2019 8:03 am**

Morover wrote:3. Requires all member-states to hold subsidiaries to all international legislation,

"The term "all international legislation" would cover not only GA resolutions but also any legislation included in international treaties between unrelated nations. You might want to re-word this..."

Hwa Sue,
Legal Attaché,
Bears Armed Mission to the World Assembly
(and anthropomorphic male Giant Panda).

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

OOC

5. Recommends that all non-member-states, even if not affected by this resolution, to follow international law, either partially or fully.

"Recommends" would be enough of an action to make a 'Mild' proposal legal: It is therefore enough of an action to count as trying to have a direct effect on non-member nations, and thus Illegal. [one-sixth of GenSec]

Posted: **Tue Sep 24, 2019 8:09 am**

Bears Armed wrote:
Morover wrote:3. Requires all member-states to hold subsidiaries to all international legislation,

"The term "all international legislation" would cover not only GA resolutions but also any legislation included in international treaties between unrelated nations. You might want to re-word this..."

Hwa Sue,
Legal Attaché,
Bears Armed Mission to the World Assembly
(and anthropomorphic male Giant Panda)

*ignores the giant elephant with "Article 9 §" painted on it* :x

Posted: **Tue Sep 24, 2019 12:11 pm**

Bears Armed wrote:
Morover wrote:3. Requires all member-states to hold subsidiaries to all international legislation,

"The term "all international legislation" would cover not only GA resolutions but also any legislation included in international treaties between unrelated nations. You might want to re-word this..."

Hwa Sue,
Legal Attaché,
Bears Armed Mission to the World Assembly
(and anthropomorphic male Giant Panda).

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

OOC
5. Recommends that all non-member-states, even if not affected by this resolution, to follow international law, either partially or fully.

"Recommends" would be enough of an action to make a 'Mild' proposal legal: It is therefore enough of an action to count as trying to have a direct effect on non-member nations, and thus Illegal. [one-sixth of GenSec]

(OOC: How about ‘Recommends that member nations encourage non-members to...’ as a clause? This is enough of a mandate for member nations, but is only indirect with regard to non-members.)

Posted: **Wed Sep 25, 2019 6:54 am**

Kenmoria wrote:
Bears Armed wrote:"The term "all international legislation" would cover not only GA resolutions but also any legislation included in international treaties between unrelated nations. You might want to re-word this..."

Hwa Sue,
Legal Attaché,
Bears Armed Mission to the World Assembly
(and anthropomorphic male Giant Panda).

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

OOC

"Recommends" would be enough of an action to make a 'Mild' proposal legal: It is therefore enough of an action to count as trying to have a direct effect on non-member nations, and thus Illegal. [one-sixth of GenSec]

(OOC: How about ‘Recommends that member nations encourage non-members to...’ as a clause? This is enough of a mandate for member nations, but is only indirect with regard to non-members.)

Yes, doing it that way would be legal... although including a suggestion that the member nations attempt this through peaceful persuasion might be a good idea.

Posted: **Sun Sep 29, 2019 9:05 am**

OOC: Alrighty, I changed some things. Honestly, I'm not anywhere near satisfied with my current definition of "subject state" - but it's on the right track. I fixed clause five, as well.

I'll begin to look into a new name for the proposal, but I'll keep this for now.

Posted: **Sun Sep 29, 2019 9:16 am**

OOC: I don't see how you'd measure the shares in economic wellbeing, stability or any other acts that create reliance. Even defining and measuring stability or economic wellbeing is hard in our world (Just look at indices like Human Development Index, Fragile State Index, Corruption Perception Index, Polity, V-Dem...), who exactly has a "share" in it is impossible.
I don't know where you plan to go with this, but I don't think any "50% share"-style is the right way.

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2019 2:24 am**

OOC: A nation gets 50% of its national income from another nation, via direct trade, tourism, taxes and their nationals working there sending money home. Poof, they're a subject state. Also RL Israel, and depending how you count, any officially Catholic nation is a subject state of Vatican (and it itself is also subject state of Italy). In fact this can fairly easily create situations where states are subject states to one another, because of the word "any" in the definition list.

Posted: **Sun Oct 13, 2019 9:42 am**

OOC: I've updated the definition again. I can't seem to get it quite right.

Posted: **Sun Oct 13, 2019 10:00 am**

“I don’t see the reason for clause 2, especially since it means that member nations can’t respect the different cultures of their subsidy states.”

Posted: **Sun Oct 13, 2019 10:15 am**

Kenmoria wrote:“I don’t see the reason for clause 2, especially since it means that member nations can’t respect the different cultures of their subsidy states.”

"While I can understand your point for the lack of need for it, I would like to point out that cultural backlash is covered by clause 2a."

Posted: **Mon Oct 14, 2019 11:03 am**

OOC: Make the main clauses not list points. That is, give them their numbers in writing and don't use list code on them.

Then you can do this:

1. Defines the following, for the purposes of this resolution:
"Subject State" as any state which
lacks sovereignty, and
has another nation as the primary controller of its military, economic, or political aspects;
"Subsidiary" as any company or corporation which is run partly or entirely by the government of any member-state or subject state.

That way you're making it more clear that you need both of those things to apply for a subject state to be a subject state. Also changed "militaristic" (which Wiktionary says is about the use of military power) to "military" (which is about military-related things more generally).

Posted: **Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:16 pm**

“Your ‘believing’ clause could be better worded as ‘Believing that no reasonable state would hold a subject state at any standard to which they do not hold themselves’.”

Posted: **Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:16 pm**

Kenmoria wrote:“Your ‘believing’ clause could be better worded as ‘Believing that no reasonable state would hold a subject state at any standard to which they do not hold themselves’.”

"That this law is even needed would indicate that some nations do, in fact, hold subject states to a standard they do not hold themselves, which means the World Assembly cannot in good faith believe that no reasonable nation would do so. Rather, the World Assembly can believe that no nation should. I suggest, alongside this rephrasing, that the 'would' is changed for a 'should'."

Posted: **Fri Oct 18, 2019 5:27 pm**

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Make the main clauses not list points. That is, give them their numbers in writing and don't use list code on them.

Then you can do this:
1. Defines the following, for the purposes of this resolution:
"Subject State" as any state which
lacks sovereignty, and
has another nation as the primary controller of its military, economic, or political aspects;
"Subsidiary" as any company or corporation which is run partly or entirely by the government of any member-state or subject state.

That way you're making it more clear that you need both of those things to apply for a subject state to be a subject state. Also changed "militaristic" (which Wiktionary says is about the use of military power) to "military" (which is about military-related things more generally).

OOC: I'm fairly certain I can do that even as the main clauses are list points. I'll try to do it momentarily, as I agree that that form of formatting is ideal.

Kenmoria wrote:“Your ‘believing’ clause could be better worded as ‘Believing that no reasonable state would hold a subject state at any standard to which they do not hold themselves’.”

Attempted Socialism wrote:
Kenmoria wrote:“Your ‘believing’ clause could be better worded as ‘Believing that no reasonable state would hold a subject state at any standard to which they do not hold themselves’.”

"That this law is even needed would indicate that some nations do, in fact, hold subject states to a standard they do not hold themselves, which means the World Assembly cannot in good faith believe that no reasonable nation would do so. Rather, the World Assembly can believe that no nation should. I suggest, alongside this rephrasing, that the 'would' is changed for a 'should'."

The deranged man rubs his hands together, sniffs his left one (trying and failing to be inconspicuous in the process), grunts, and then says "Yeeesssssss...... Let me just change this real quickly. Thank you."

The man bows in an overly extravagant way, seemingly mocking the bureaucracy governing the headquarters.

Posted: **Sat Dec 14, 2019 10:12 am**

OOC: Bump. I do like the premise of this proposal.

Posted: **Tue Dec 24, 2019 11:51 am**

OOC: Hate to post three times in a row now, but I'm giving this another bump. I've edited the draft for the fifth time, and changed the name from "Concerning Vassals and Subsidiaries" to "Subject State Enforcement Act." Given the continued lack of feedback, I'm probably going to submit this soon - probably January 2nd.

Still open to a new title if someone comes up with something better that I like, and I also changed the definition a bit to hopefully give a better grasp of what the proposal is trying to do, while also adding a definition for parent state. I think it should be fine but still would like to hear some feedback.

Posted: **Thu Dec 26, 2019 12:50 pm**

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

Morover wrote: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,

Defines the following, for the purposes of this resolution:
"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 )
"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.)
"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)
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)
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,
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.
Requires all member-states to hold subsidiaries to all World Assembly Law,

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,
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)
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.

NationStates

[DEFEATED] Subject State Enforcement Act

[DEFEATED] Subject State Enforcement Act