[DEFEATED] Requiring Promulgation of National Laws

[Kenmoria]

To reiterate our position, this proposal does not have a compelling, international purpose that justifies the severe complications it imposes on legislative and judicial processes. It offers no increase in civil rights protection, puts an international judiciary in the position of judging whether a government's action to suppress civil disorder is legitimate, and the one slightly sensible idea it has to offer is hamfisted, micromanaging, and one that can safely be left to national governments.

Might I point out also, that the argument

to obey they must know what to obey, this is what this resolution seeks to accomplish

actually tells us why this is proposal is unnecessary: if states want people to follow laws, they need to be made public anyway.

Gérard Poullet
Ambassador to the WA

“You’ve convinced me, ambassador, and I have therefore changed my vote to be against this proposal. I think that this piece of legislation weighs two interests against each other: the interests of governments in seeing laws passed in a certain fashion, and the interests of citizens in being aware of laws. On balance, since governments also want their citizens to be aware of laws, this just ends up restricting governments for no reason.”

[Araraukar]

§ 4. The Judicial Committee of the Compliance Commission is empowered to review the declarations of national emergency by the member nations and revert their effects regarding the length of vacatio legis, when finding that such declarations were not justified by the danger that the member nation faced at the time. In particular, any "danger" caused by the legitimate actions taken by political parties or citizens' organizations will not be admitted as justification for declaring a national emergency.

"Against. No nation should have to have its priorities forcibly changed by an uninvolved bunch of foreigners sitting in a cozy office somewhere rather than being among the people suffering from sickness or famine or injuries and death when disaster strikes. Passing legislation on non-urgent issues, when the state's first priority should be to its people's wellbeing - as required by previously existing resolutions - should not be something mandated by the World Assembly. When lives are on the line, pushing paperwork around cannot be made the topmost priority."

[Christus Imperat]

Christus Imperat votes FOR.

A law that demands clarity and responsibility from the most august body that rules over nations is of the greatest importance. How could an authoritarian state carry the World Assembly's orders or know whether or not those orders contradict said state's mission? How could a libertarian state truly claim integrity and clarity, unless their laws promote it.

Vote FOR this law. Amend it, clarify its purpose, hammer it out, but support the law. Support this law, unless you hate honesty and order.

[Sterkistan]

"After looking through this proposal, I see little more than a red tape bomb for member nations to sift through. Giving a committee the power to simply veto laws if they believe the state of emergency wasn't enough of an emergency is a ballistic idea."

"In it's current state Sterkistan will not support this proposal. However, we may provide support should it be stripped back to only requiring clarity and availability of laws to the public. However the extra requirements of the proposal have dragged it down."

[Astrobolt]

"After looking through this proposal, I see little more than a red tape bomb for member nations to sift through. Giving a committee the power to simply veto laws if they believe the state of emergency wasn't enough of an emergency is a ballistic idea."

"If I understand it correctly, the committee wouldn't be able to veto laws passed by national governments, but simply increase the time between the passing of a law and the law coming into force."

[Sterkistan]

"After looking through this proposal, I see little more than a red tape bomb for member nations to sift through. Giving a committee the power to simply veto laws if they believe the state of emergency wasn't enough of an emergency is a ballistic idea."

"If I understand it correctly, the committee wouldn't be able to veto laws passed by national governments, but simply increase the time between the passing of a law and the law coming into force."

"Would that not effectively veto a law, who then decides how long the period of time is?"

[Sancta Romana Ecclesia]

"After looking through this proposal, I see little more than a red tape bomb for member nations to sift through. Giving a committee the power to simply veto laws if they believe the state of emergency wasn't enough of an emergency is a ballistic idea."

"If I understand it correctly, the committee wouldn't be able to veto laws passed by national governments, but simply increase the time between the passing of a law and the law coming into force."

This is correct.

"Would that not effectively veto a law, who then decides how long the period of time is?"

This competence would still fall in your government's hands, Ambassador. But your government would be required to determine this length of time in accordance with the rules set forth here. If JCC would rule that your nation has declared an emergency on unjustifiable grounds, you would be asked to delay implementation of the laws accordingly.

If you would not comply with this request, your case would be handled according to the procedures established by GAR#440: Administrative Compliance Act. Essentially you would be fined for non-compliance and, if you refused to pay the fine, sanctioned by other WA members.

Additionally, your government would be liable for any damages done to the entities (i.e. citizen, organizations) under WA jurisdiction by the premature implementation of laws. Such cases would be either tried by your own courts (if your nation allows its citizens to seek compensation for the damages caused by the government), or (if no such procedure exists in your country) by the courts of the World Assembly Judiciary Committee, in accordance with para. 4 of GAR#466: World Assembly Justice Accord.

Declares that any entity within the jurisdiction of any member state may bring charges against any other entity within the jurisdiction of any member state for damages done to them which violate the terms of extant World Assembly law, to the extent that such legal action does not contradict the mandates of previously passed and henceforward standing World Assembly resolutions,

But none of these measures would invalidate your law, creating and repealing them is solely the power of your government. You are however obliged to acknowledge the supremacy of international and WA law when making them.

[Sterkistan]

"If I understand it correctly, the committee wouldn't be able to veto laws passed by national governments, but simply increase the time between the passing of a law and the law coming into force."

This is correct.

"Would that not effectively veto a law, who then decides how long the period of time is?"

This competence would still fall in your government's hands, Ambassador. But your government would be required to determine this length of time in accordance with the rules set forth here. If JCC would rule that your nation has declared an emergency on unjustifiable grounds, you would be asked to delay implementation of the laws accordingly.

If you would not comply with this request, your case would be handled according to the procedures established by GAR#440: Administrative Compliance Act. Essentially you would be fined for non-compliance and, if you refused to pay the fine, sanctioned by other WA members.

Additionally, your government would be liable for any damages done to the entities (i.e. citizen, organizations) under WA jurisdiction by the premature implementation of laws. Such cases would be either tried by your own courts (if your nation allows its citizens to seek compensation for the damages caused by the government), or (if no such procedure exists in your country) by the courts of the World Assembly Judiciary Committee, in accordance with para. 4 of GAR#466: World Assembly Justice Accord.

Declares that any entity within the jurisdiction of any member state may bring charges against any other entity within the jurisdiction of any member state for damages done to them which violate the terms of extant World Assembly law, to the extent that such legal action does not contradict the mandates of previously passed and henceforward standing World Assembly resolutions,

But none of these measures would invalidate your law, creating and repealing them is solely the power of your government. You are however obliged to acknowledge the supremacy of international and WA law when making them.

"And this is what I don't understand, say a law is passed, implemented and enacted upon during a declaration of emergency. Following the implementation of said law or change, the JCC rules that the declaration of emergency was not valid. What happens then, does the aforementioned law have to be reverted in order to apply the waiting period? We cannot seriously expect the JCC to rule the instant a state of emergency is declared."

[Bigoted Libertarians]

Dear Ambassador, I thought that there were no laws in the ancap paradise anyway? They are made and enforced by the state, after all. Paulus scratches his head

Another great example of foreigners. They never even know the first thing about the greatness that is the Corporation, instead spouting off using their own preconceptions and their beady little eyes and ugly noses.

All you are doing is enforcing why this type of resolution should not be trusted.

Now get off my lawn...

[The Foxfyre Islands]

The Foxfyre Islands are against this proposal. This infringes on nations national sovereignty and will create more red tape for governments that are trying to reduce red tape and related issues.

[Heavens Reach]

actually tells us why this is proposal is unnecessary: if states want people to follow laws, they need to be made public anyway.

This is the only contention we disagree with. If a state needs an excuse to imprison the innocent, they could certainly withhold information about laws in order to arrest those, especially dissidents, who unwittingly break it.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Criminal laws are already exempted from such shenanigans due to No Penalty Without Law.

[Christian Democrats]

The Most Holy and Grand Empire has voted in favor of this proposal, both on its own behalf and on behalf of the nations of Catholic, where the vote is 17 to 2. As St. Thomas Aquinas teaches, promulgation is necessary for any law to be morally binding.

https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2090.htm#article4

[Lakshapura]

The Caliphate of Lakshapura votes against this Resolution.

We commend the Resolution's attempt to make laws more accessible to the public. We in Lakshapura strongly believe in public access to the laws, and we make every effort to widely disseminate them. All major public libraries in our great country carry the complete Lagul Code. Without public access to our laws, how can we expect the public to trust the monarchy? We also believe that laws should not be hidden behind a paywall, so we provide free access to all our laws, codified or not, and all their annotations. It appalls us that some nations continue to profit off of their own citizens' ignorance.

But the Resolution goes a step too far.

Sections 3 and 4 open the door to the absolute destruction of our national sovereignty. It removes the power of our Government to institute laws on its own schedule and places it in the hands of the World Assembly.

All of our legislation must include the date when it goes into effect, if only for logistical reasons, and it has no power before that date. But this World Assembly-imposed period of vacatio legis removes this firm schedule and replaces it with a strange and loosely defined "concerned person" standard -- a standard which ignores the practical problems of instituting new laws and puts our legislation at the mercy of the World Assembly. Our legislature would have to wait for foreign bureaucrats to stamp and sign every law we pass before those laws can have power. Perhaps the "concerned person" standard will be enforced fairly and appropriately, and perhaps it will change nothing for our legislature. But this Resolution would require our legislature to submit to a foreign body with every law. We cannot accept this in principle.

Furthermore, Section 4 impedes our ability to identify our own national emergencies and grants total power to a select Committee. Why is the World Assembly more qualified to identify national emergencies than the very nation that the emergency affects? If a nation abuses its emergency powers, then the Assembly can sanction that nation afterwards. Imposing an approval process at the start of national emergencies will slow the national response, harming ordinary citizens, and it will give the Assembly legislative power that erodes national sovereignty. This Resolution has noble goals, but it sacrifices too much.

We in Lakshapura recognize the importance of international regulation. To exist in this worldwide community, we must allow international bodies to have some influence over our laws. But we simply cannot support a Resolution that so needlessly infringes on nations' inalienable right to make their own laws, on their own timelines, for their own reasons.

[Sancta Romana Ecclesia]

All of our legislation must include the date when it goes into effect, if only for logistical reasons, and it has no power before that date. But this World Assembly-imposed period of vacatio legis removes this firm schedule and replaces it with a strange and loosely defined "concerned person" standard -- a standard which ignores the practical problems of instituting new laws and puts our legislation at the mercy of the World Assembly. Our legislature would have to wait for foreign bureaucrats to stamp and sign every law we pass before those laws can have power. Perhaps the "concerned person" standard will be enforced fairly and appropriately, and perhaps it will change nothing for our legislature. But this Resolution would require our legislature to submit to a foreign body with every law. We cannot accept this in principle.

Furthermore, Section 4 impedes our ability to identify our own national emergencies and grants total power to a select Committee. Why is the World Assembly more qualified to identify national emergencies than the very nation that the emergency affects? If a nation abuses its emergency powers, then the Assembly can sanction that nation afterwards. Imposing an approval process at the start of national emergencies will slow the national response, harming ordinary citizens, and it will give the Assembly legislative power that erodes national sovereignty. This Resolution has noble goals, but it sacrifices too much.

As previously stated, it's the nations that determine the moment when their laws come to force. You wouldn't need to go to the World Assembly to give you a date on which your law comes to force. This regulation just sets up general rules for nation's determining this date.

And you wouldn't need to ask the JCC for approval of an emergency either, your nation is empowered to make it. JCC would simply have the power to review such declaration and reverse it's effects regarding the length of vacatio legis. Doing so doesn't invalidate your laws, it doesn't even make them enforceable on a later date. The term, "vacatio legis", as it is defined and used in the resolution means the required time that must pass from the law's promulgation to its coming to force. It doesn't mean the actual time that passes between those two moments - a promulgated law that unjustifiably comes to force on the date of its publication is still a valid law. No committee is granted the power to invalidate it or delay its enforcement, if one would have done so it would be presuming authority where there is none given.

"And this is what I don't understand, say a law is passed, implemented and enacted upon during a declaration of emergency. Following the implementation of said law or change, the JCC rules that the declaration of emergency was not valid. What happens then, does the aforementioned law have to be reverted in order to apply the waiting period? We cannot seriously expect the JCC to rule the instant a state of emergency is declared."

The law doesn't need to be reverted (as in repealed and passed again), but the government should then treat it as if it was not in force at the time that would be required by this resolution. This could be achieved, for example, by granting amnesty to all those who committed the forbidden act in that period.

For example, if your nation criminalized smoking weed and declared it a national emergency for this law to come to force, and JCC found it unjustifiable, your country would be ask to: a) determine how long would this law not be in force; b) grant amnesty to all those that had a joint in that time (e.g. 14 days since promulgation).

Of course not every law can be treated like so. If you would not do this, then again, this case would be tried according to GAR#440 and it would be determined if it was possible for you to have treated the law as not being in force.

Criminal laws are already exempted from such shenanigans due to No Penalty Without Law.

OOC: This applies only to the natural persons, as I mentioned. Juridical persons can still be subject to penalties on the grounds of unpublished laws.

[Araraukar]

OOC: It's perhaps a bit too early to call this a lost vote, but what I predicted was going to be an issue, turned out to be an issue to others but me too. Author, is there any solid reason why that was actually included? Like, what function does it have? You could've thrown out all the fancy Legalese that has nothing to do with anything and simply mandate that WA nations need to make their citizens aware of any new national laws that have any effect on them, and left it at that. That would've satisfied what I've understood to be your main aim. Why were the randomizer committee and whateverthefuckitsmeanttobee legal vacation added? I strongly suggest removing those for the next try. I don't really see anyone (well, anyone who understands how WA works) protesting your main aim of making people aware of new laws that affect them.

[Sancta Romana Ecclesia]

OOC: It's perhaps a bit too early to call this a lost vote, but what I predicted was going to be an issue, turned out to be an issue to others but me too. Author, is there any solid reason why that was actually included? Like, what function does it have? You could've thrown out all the fancy Legalese that has nothing to do with anything and simply mandate that WA nations need to make their citizens aware of any new national laws that have any effect on them, and left it at that. That would've satisfied what I've understood to be your main aim. Why were the randomizer committee and whateverthefuckitsmeanttobee legal vacation added? I strongly suggest removing those for the next try. I don't really see anyone (well, anyone who understands how WA works) protesting your main aim of making people aware of new laws that affect them.

OOC: Ehh, I think you are correct in calling it - it's unlikely to pass. I admit that you were right. I don't believe that any regulation here is bad per se, but as it stands it's badly written - it's too fancy.

As for why these clauses were a thing, call it the newb effect. There's lots of single issue resolutions out there, I wanted to be ambitious and not write one that would tackle just a single issue, but several. That was a mistake on my part. As well as importing concepts that may not be familiar to people (such as that "legal vacation" lol). I forgot that when people have no idea what you're talking about they'll just fill in the blanks with an unfavorable interpretation.

Well, thanks for all your comments in this thread, I will attempt to heavily redraft this at some later date. Removing the two clauses that made the people vote against is the way to go.

[Tinhampton]

sniperoo

My condolenses(?); I promise to support Requiring Promulgation of National Laws II(??) just as fervently(???) as I support this one.

[Gogtopia]

I don't think it should pass.
It interferes with the rights of evil dictatorships, which are perfectly legitimate nations.
It was also poorly worded and mostly just repeats the same point. If it were more moderate I would support it.

This post puts it well:

The Caliphate of Lakshapura votes against this Resolution.

We commend the Resolution's attempt to make laws more accessible to the public. We in Lakshapura strongly believe in public access to the laws, and we make every effort to widely disseminate them. All major public libraries in our great country carry the complete Lagul Code. Without public access to our laws, how can we expect the public to trust the monarchy? We also believe that laws should not be hidden behind a paywall, so we provide free access to all our laws, codified or not, and all their annotations. It appalls us that some nations continue to profit off of their own citizens' ignorance.

But the Resolution goes a step too far.

Sections 3 and 4 open the door to the absolute destruction of our national sovereignty. It removes the power of our Government to institute laws on its own schedule and places it in the hands of the World Assembly.

All of our legislation must include the date when it goes into effect, if only for logistical reasons, and it has no power before that date. But this World Assembly-imposed period of vacatio legis removes this firm schedule and replaces it with a strange and loosely defined "concerned person" standard -- a standard which ignores the practical problems of instituting new laws and puts our legislation at the mercy of the World Assembly. Our legislature would have to wait for foreign bureaucrats to stamp and sign every law we pass before those laws can have power. Perhaps the "concerned person" standard will be enforced fairly and appropriately, and perhaps it will change nothing for our legislature. But this Resolution would require our legislature to submit to a foreign body with every law. We cannot accept this in principle.

Furthermore, Section 4 impedes our ability to identify our own national emergencies and grants total power to a select Committee. Why is the World Assembly more qualified to identify national emergencies than the very nation that the emergency affects? If a nation abuses its emergency powers, then the Assembly can sanction that nation afterwards. Imposing an approval process at the start of national emergencies will slow the national response, harming ordinary citizens, and it will give the Assembly legislative power that erodes national sovereignty. This Resolution has noble goals, but it sacrifices too much.

We in Lakshapura recognize the importance of international regulation. To exist in this worldwide community, we must allow international bodies to have some influence over our laws. But we simply cannot support a Resolution that so needlessly infringes on nations' inalienable right to make their own laws, on their own timelines, for their own reasons.

[Araraukar]

(such as that "legal vacation" lol)

OOC: I know that's not exactly what it means, but that's what it looks like it means.

But like I said, the main idea (that nations should make their people aware of laws passed in the nation) is like common sense, and no-one has seriously opposed it, so that bodes well for a re-drafting effort.

[Lakshapura]

As previously stated, it's the nations that determine the moment when their laws come to force. You wouldn't need to go to the World Assembly to give you a date on which your law comes to force. This regulation just sets up general rules for nation's determining this date.

Regardless, it places a review process over the institution of our laws -- not for reasons of regulation or international standards, but for all laws. We always comply with WA standards regarding health, safety, transport, and so on, but such a large and sweeping review process seems a step too far. This Resolution necessarily involves some review process to have any real effect; either we will be required to get approval for our laws before passing them, or we will have to pass them and then wait for judgment. Either way, our sovereignty comes under threat.

And you wouldn't need to ask the JCC for approval of an emergency either, your nation is empowered to make it. JCC would simply have the power to review such declaration and reverse it's effects regarding the length of vacatio legis. Doing so doesn't invalidate your laws, it doesn't even make them enforceable on a later date. The term, "vacatio legis", as it is defined and used in the resolution means the required time that must pass from the law's promulgation to its coming to force. It doesn't mean the actual time that passes between those two moments - a promulgated law that unjustifiably comes to force on the date of its publication is still a valid law. No committee is granted the power to invalidate it or delay its enforcement, if one would have done so it would be presuming authority where there is none given.

We are concerned by the logistical and political consequences of these powers. Say we declare a national emergency that the Committee does not approve. We will be able to address it with laws immediately, but then the Committee can come back and undo our work? Some national emergencies require ongoing treatment, and this reversal would only open the wound back up, restarting the emergency. And say we pass a criminal statute -- if the Committee decides to reverse our decision, will we have to release everyone arrested and convicted under that statute? Our understanding of this Resolution would lead to great instability and uncertainty in Lakshapura.

If a law that defies this Resolution is still valid, as you say, and vacatio legis has no practical effect, then why pass the Resolution? On the one hand, this Resolution oversteps our national sovereignty -- and on the other, it has no power at all. Interpreted that way, this Resolution serves little purpose other than to sit inside a glass case at the World Assembly. We broadly support this Resolution's attempt to make the laws accessible to everyone, but we regret to say that oppose it in its current form.

[Tinhampton]

"Requiring Promulgation of National Laws" was non-promulgated 13,362 votes to 9,437.

[Bigoted Libertarians]

"Requiring Promulgation of National Laws" was non-promulgated 13,362 votes to 9,437.

https://youtu.be/IVXJmfd3cmg
And nothing of value was lost...