Page 1 of 1

[PASSED] Repeal "Supporting and Valuing the Humanities"

PostPosted: Fri Sep 11, 2020 1:13 pm
by Imperium Anglorum
The World Assembly finds as follows:

  1. Subtle unintended consequences should not be ignored or dismissed just because they are difficult to understand. The target resolution (GA 495) has subtle unintended consequences that need explanation at length.

  2. GA 495 establishes a fundamentally broken control mechanism which states that another committee will '[ensure] that money accepted by nations or organisations from the WHF is used for the above established purpose'. It also states that 'if incorrect use of funds is reported, the GAO will cease the allowance of funds to the transgressing nation or organisation' (emphasis not in original). This anti-corruption mechanism creates massive harms. The passive construction of the section 5 suggests that the mere reporting of an incorrect use of funds triggers an embargo on General Accounting Office money. The Office has no explicit statutory authority to reject false or malicious reports. The Assembly supports many projects in member nations: GAO money in GA 263 'Uranium Mining Standards Act' s 8 helps prevent radiological accidents, GAO funds given in GA 97 'Quality in Health Services' support universal healthcare in poor countries, and funds disbursed by GA 80 'A Promotion of Basic Education' ensure that disadvantaged children are educated (including in the humanities).

  3. The target embargoes money until a member nation receives a favourable verdict, instead of ordering funds to stop only when a tribunal determines a violation has occurred. The extent of the embargo is also not limited to the specific project which is allegedly corrupt, as the resolution applies to the 'transgressing nation'. An education department buying school supplies with money allocated for building repairs can thus defund health services and schools on the opposite side of a nation.

  4. GA 495 also states '[t]he WHF shall exist to provide funding to constituent nations and non profit organisations within them to accomplish either in part or in full the following objectives'. There is no clause requiring that requestors only get money for projects which they could not pay for themselves, suggesting indirect diversion of funds, as nations can purposefully defund their schools, fill holes in the budget with General Fund money, and pocket the difference. Member nations should not be allowed to take Assembly funds dishonestly.

  5. The kinds of projects the WHF approves are not limited only to projects which have a primary effect in achieving the goals listed in the resolution. Section 3's 'accomplish either in part or in full' does not put a floor on how little is accomplished, opening the sewer doors to:

    1. Building a lazy river for university students to relax on, as the project in part helps to 'strengthen the academic enrichment of courses and create [humanities] electives', if people may paint murals on the walls or a chapel is attached.

    2. Organisations sending theology professors from across the country to theme parks, as it in part helps to 'hold nationwide symposiums to put on ... advancements in the various areas of the humanities'.

    3. A nation defunding its own humanities departments and shuffling the freed-up money to foreign bank accounts would create a need to 'support university degree programs that fall within the definition of the humanities', a problem at which this committee could then throw money.
  6. '[E]nsuring that money accepted by nations or organisations from the WHF is used for the above established purpose' in section 4(a) does nothing when the money is given for wasteful purposes. The clause seems as if it is supposed to stop nations from taking the money they receive and directly diverting it to other purposes. The clause does not stop indirect diversion as described above.

  7. Wasteful spending programs mean less money for food aid, pandemic relief, and basic education. Feel-good resolutions should not be supported when they are coupled with draconian punishments and provisions which leave open massive doors for squandering limited Assembly funds. Nor is it just to deprive member nations – without due process and, at best, on minor irregularities – of what they need to educate, heal, and protect their citizens. Repeal of GA 495 also will cause no substantial harm due to the provisions of GA 80 'A Promotion of Basic Education', which promote the same goals, without the overbearing penalties or the deficient anti-graft mechanisms of the target resolution.
Now, therefore, be GA 495 'Supporting and Valuing the Humanities' repealed.

PostPosted: Fri Sep 11, 2020 1:14 pm
by Imperium Anglorum
See also Spending without controls (2020) WA L Rev working paper 2020/01; Interpreting committee provisions (2020) WA L Rev working paper 2020/02 (TNP Symposium version here).

I find it very annoying that the problems with the target resolution are subtle to the point that they are difficult to explain within the word limit. When adapting from my working paper to this proposal, I flew straight to 5300 characters. I'll try to put a shortened explanation for a few concepts here.

Indirect diversion. A how-to:

  1. Start by giving 100 million pounds to the humanities programmes at universities
  2. Take away 100 million pounds from the humanities programmes
  3. Get funds for your now-impoverished professors from the WHF, which is not permitted to make determinations on whether your nation has any need for this money
  4. Spend the money for the WHF purposes only on the professors in line with section 4
  5. Put (100 million – what you got from the WHF) into your personal bank account
Does this happen in real life? Yes. Eg Spending without controls (2020) WA L Rev working paper 2020/01, 2 (citing Dambisa Moyo, Dead Aid (2009) 52–3):

[Aid of this sort] release[s] tax receipts that are “then diverted to unproductive and often wasteful programmes rather than productive public expenditure (education, health infrastructure) for which they were ostensibly intended”.

How would the committee interpret the clauses? This question emerges a lot. If you assume the WA committees are not only perfect, but also entirely benevolent, then you might find yourself in the position where you would try to make that work. I would counter with two things. First, the law does what the law says. If a committee could undivert funds or take actions outside what they are permitted to do, the resolution would say so. It does not. Important to note here is that the text of the target does not embargo funds by project. It embargoes funds by nation: "if incorrect use of funds is reported, the GAO will cease the allowance of funds to the transgressing nation or organisation". The text of the target does not give the GAO discretion to reject reports. If it did, it would say so.

Second, even if we throw into the bin the textualist view that the World Assembly has long adopted,

we have held to the convention that there exists some kind of executive in the World Assembly. Regardless of its structure – be it feuding separately headed directories or a single unitary executive under a Secretary-General – turnover at any level would necessarily create different interpretations at different times, in the same way that new leadership in government changes how the government interprets legislation. Interpreting committee provisions (2020) WA L Rev working paper 2020/02, 2–3.


Version at 2020-09-11 20:24 NS time is 4547 characters long.

PostPosted: Fri Sep 11, 2020 2:15 pm
by Refuge Isle
Does this draft intend to signal that you do not support the queued repeal proposal on which you are presently listed as a co-author?

PostPosted: Fri Sep 11, 2020 2:16 pm
by Kenmoria
“I believe there was a typing error with regards to the appearance of ‘s 8’ in clause 4. This is regardless a well-argued and persuasive repeal, and I have no other issues with it.”

PostPosted: Fri Sep 11, 2020 2:48 pm
by Imperium Anglorum
Refuge Isle wrote:Does this draft intend to signal that you do not support the queued repeal proposal on which you are presently listed as a co-author?

I intend to support the queued proposal.

Kenmoria wrote:“I believe there was a typing error with regards to the appearance of ‘s 8’ in clause 4. This is regardless a well-argued and persuasive repeal, and I have no other issues with it.”

Could you clarify?

PostPosted: Fri Sep 11, 2020 3:05 pm
by Kenmoria
Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Kenmoria wrote:“I believe there was a typing error with regards to the appearance of ‘s 8’ in clause 4. This is regardless a well-argued and persuasive repeal, and I have no other issues with it.”

Could you clarify?

(OOC: Looking back, I somehow didn’t recognise ‘s 8’ as being ‘section 8’, and assumed it was just random symbols that had been put into the draft. With that sorted, I can’t see anything wrong with the current draft.)

PostPosted: Sat Sep 12, 2020 3:39 am
by Graintfjall
Are you willing to attempt an in-character argument in favor of your proposal?

PostPosted: Sat Sep 12, 2020 4:01 pm
by Araraukar
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Building a lazy river for university students to relax on counts

"...we should petition the Building Management to build one for the ambassadors here. That sounds very relaxing. Oh and support for the repeal."

PostPosted: Sun Oct 25, 2020 5:16 pm
by Imperium Anglorum
Bump. Pope, Wondress, and I also are working on a replacement which addresses the identified flaws.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 19, 2020 1:56 am
by Refuge Isle
This is at vote and has been for an amazing 28 hours without getting a reply here. :blink:

PostPosted: Thu Nov 19, 2020 1:58 am
by Honeydewistania
Refuge Isle wrote:This is at vote and has been for an amazing 28 hours without getting a reply here. :blink:

Smh broke the streak

PostPosted: Thu Nov 19, 2020 5:09 am
by Desmosthenes and Burke
We support the repeal and encourage the Empire of the Angles to not put forth any replacement resolution.

PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2020 8:55 am
by Republica JIM
Republica JIM apoya la derogacion!