[DEFEAT] The Rights, Wrongs, Duties, and Powers of WA States

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

*Box containing compromise*

"We hope this may be viewed as a compromise, although we understand that extreme elements on both sides of this issue may be hard to please."

"This is no compromise. The war party could easily propose and dupe voters into passing a subsequent resolution barely restraining or controlling either national or international forces. "

"The Princess will, of course, join your Banananess in attempting to defeat any proposed organization of a World Assembly military. And you are certainly right that anything short of an outright ban allows the possibility of clever future authors trying to skirt the edges and gut what we're trying to do here."

"Nonetheless, we believe this language - or something substantively similar - would be a valuable compromise between the War Party and the Peace Party, for several reasons. First, something more pro-peace seems politically untenable at the moment, particularly because the author is a member of the War Party and has emphatically stated that they will not include an outright ban on WA members waring eachother, or on a WA military, in this proposal.

"Secondly, on the level of philosophical principle, this language declares the WA's commitment to peace between WA members, and by the WA as a whole, as our expected presumptive status quo. Absent such a declaration of intent, there would be an uncomfortable silence in this proposal that might one day be filled with a much less pleasant noise."

"Third, this language would be easily consistent with any future WA resolution restraining members from warring on each other or otherwise attempting to prevent the formation of a WA military. Put differently, this language does not guarantee a right to 'consensual' war like we had before. Presumably a win for both the Peace Party and the less-maniacal members of the War Party."

"Finally, pragmatically, this language would require future authors to make an open declaration of the extraordinarily compelling cause to justify a proposed use of force against other members or by the WA. Hopefully the requirement to justify will be an impediment against more radical or stupid warmongering. Granted, use of such force would remain possible as a compromise to the War Party. But how is that result different from what we would have in the world where this amendment is not included? "

Deputy Ambassador John Smith - “That is a very intriguing proposal. I will have to confer with my… colleagues about it, but it seems supportable. Those are just the sorts of statements of principle that are important for the General Assembly to state here. At least, they are in my opinion.”

"Thank you for your consideration. Please let us know what you and your shadow counsel decide. We would like the opportunity to respond to your decision before this is submitted for a vote, if possible."

- Ambassador K. Twinklebright

[Kenmoria]

Deputy Ambassador John Smith - “I have had a substantial ponder over adopting the wording of the Princess. Given that Sir Lewitt is currently absent, along with the entirety of my shadow counsel, or rather any counsel at all, uh - where was I? - oh, yes, given that I am making this decision alone, I have decided to introduce that wording, albeit with slight variations in written expression. Thank you for your feedback. With that done, I shall try to submit fairly shortly. The General Assembly probably would benefit from having compliance in good faith mandated in a codified document.”

[Istastioner]

Alright, I`d like to say that it`s looking good so far.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"Clause 11 is frankly alarming, ambassador. Or more precisely, everything after the third comma ought to be removed or at least seriously reworked. What is 'an extraordinarily compelling cause' for which we should welcome the Imperium singling out a Great House of the Landsraad for the Sardau... uh... excuse me, I drifted away for a moment there. What is such a cause that justifies the military intervention of the World Assembly into one of its own member states? No doubt there is much support for the enforcement of resolutions forbidding genocide and other heinous crimes. And yet this assembly has made a point of going far out of its way to protect so-called 'intellectual property' rights; for countries that fetishize rent extraction, enforcement of such rights may well be 'extraordinarily compelling.' Are we to fear military intervention over insufficiently zealous promotion of beekeeping? This clause needs a scalpel and a lot of stitching, or - far better - a hatchet right down the middle."

[Kenmoria]

"Clause 11 is frankly alarming, ambassador. Or more precisely, everything after the third comma ought to be removed or at least seriously reworked. What is 'an extraordinarily compelling cause' for which we should welcome the Imperium singling out a Great House of the Landsraad for the Sardau... uh... excuse me, I drifted away for a moment there. What is such a cause that justifies the military intervention of the World Assembly into one of its own member states? No doubt there is much support for the enforcement of resolutions forbidding genocide and other heinous crimes. And yet this assembly has made a point of going far out of its way to protect so-called 'intellectual property' rights; for countries that fetishize rent extraction, enforcement of such rights may well be 'extraordinarily compelling.' Are we to fear military intervention over insufficiently zealous promotion of beekeeping? This clause needs a scalpel and a lot of stitching, or - far better - a hatchet right down the middle."

Deputy Ambassador James Smith - “Thank you for your feedback - Ambassador. The purpose of this clause is neither to mandate nor to expressly permit the World Assembly to engage in military action. Indeed, were a subsequent proposal, or, rather, resolution, to be passed that prohibited the WA from engaging in military action entirely, that would be entirely consistent with Article 11. The purpose of this article is to prevent a subsequent resolution from allowing the WA to engage in any military activity for a non-compelling purpose. The article restricts, rather than expands, the scope of WA military activity. I feel as though any attempt to define more precisely acceptable or unacceptable behaviour, including complete prohibition, would be better handled in a separate resolution.”

[Attempted Socialism]

I support ending clause 11 just prior to the exception. Any opening that can include a WA military, even if proposed in order to restrict, will find me in opposition.

[The Ice States]

"We believe that Section 11 should be left as-is or removed; preferably the former. We would be strongly opposed if the exception is removed, though we remain in opposition due to the removal of the 'Rights Lefts' in the title."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Communal Union of the Ice States.

[Kenmoria]

I support ending clause 11 just prior to the exception. Any opening that can include a WA military, even if proposed in order to restrict, will find me in opposition.

(OOC: I don’t see the utility in completely preventing people from legislating about a WA military. Putting this matter into my proposal would mean that there’s no chance for a substantive vote and discussion solely about a WA military. Also, on the grounds of IC policy, I would have to oppose an attempt to completely restrict the WA from military action.)

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

"While we join the other members of the Peace Party in opposition to a WA military, we would remind everyone that GAR #2's Article 10 (mandating WA neutrality and prohibiting WA military or police actions) was one of the clauses identified as a flaw in this Assembly's recent and overwhelmingly popular decision to repeal that resolution."

"It would be appropriate, given the mandate expressed by the voters in Repeal GAR #2, that any purported replacement of GAR #2 not make its same mistakes."

- Amb. K. Twinklebright

[Attempted Socialism]

I support ending clause 11 just prior to the exception. Any opening that can include a WA military, even if proposed in order to restrict, will find me in opposition.

(OOC: I don’t see the utility in completely preventing people from legislating about a WA military. Putting this matter into my proposal would mean that there’s no chance for a substantive vote and discussion solely about a WA military. Also, on the grounds of IC policy, I would have to oppose an attempt to completely restrict the WA from military action.)

Then I would suggest removing the clause. When I return I intend to take up EP's mantle and write a military blocker, so if you believe it needs a public debate, it will get it. I know that you'll get opposition from some regardless of what you do, so at this point I think you have to make a policy decision for yourself and a political evaluation of what will garner the most critique.

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

While we doubt this surprises anyone, the Roman Republic will vote no on any proposal containing clauses 6, 7, and the exception portion of clause 11. We also unequivocally oppose and deny the assertion of suzerain power by this body in the enacting clause.

[Kenmoria]

While we doubt this surprises anyone, the Roman Republic will vote no on any proposal containing clauses 6, 7, and the exception portion of clause 11. We also unequivocally oppose and deny the assertion of suzerain power by this body in the enacting clause.

Deputy Ambassador John Smith - “I would like to ask the ambassador for the Roman Republic what the purpose of the General Assembly would be, if member-nations were not obligated to comply with its provisions. That would be a functionally useless assembly.”

(OOC: I don’t see the utility in completely preventing people from legislating about a WA military. Putting this matter into my proposal would mean that there’s no chance for a substantive vote and discussion solely about a WA military. Also, on the grounds of IC policy, I would have to oppose an attempt to completely restrict the WA from military action.)

Then I would suggest removing the clause. When I return I intend to take up EP's mantle and write a military blocker, so if you believe it needs a public debate, it will get it. I know that you'll get opposition from some regardless of what you do, so at this point I think you have to make a policy decision for yourself and a political evaluation of what will garner the most critique.

(OOC: That makes sense. I’ll remove the clause.)

Deputy Ambassador John Smith - “Following some consultation with, well, myself, and also with Lewitt’s notes, I have decided to remove the clause that I recently added, with apologies for the confusion caused. This proposal is far better without trying to address a whole other area of legislation. Evidently, even the mention of it will cause dissent to arise.”

[Kenmoria]

Deputy Ambassador John Smith - Smith checks his watch. He doesn’t know particularly why. The time isn’t going to change to suit his will. Instead, quite contrary to his will, it has marched forwards. Consequently, it has become necessary for him to submit. Lewitt’s instructions were unambiguous, that Smith was to submit by now unless he heard instructions to the contrary, and Smith had heard no such instructions.

Smith isn’t been quite sure of how to do it, but then he sees the notes. They’ve been labelled for him, in a separate folder, labelled that it was in case of emergency. He reads them, trying to decipher the unique cryptography that they use, just in case the Kenmorian Government managed to find a way into the system. All he needs to do is press a button. It’s big, with a helpful label in bold: “DO NOT PANIC”. Lewitt always did like his humour. Smith presses it.

Is it working? Smith looks around, seeing a green light flickering on the desktop. Oh, it is working. He clears his throat, speaking into the microphone from Kenmoria. His voice would relay across the interdimensional network, to where a tablet is showing his worried features. “I would like to announce that I have submitted this, er, proposal. Approvals are appreciated, along with any supportive comments. It seems as though it was truncated slightly in submission.” That isn’t supposed to happen. “However, the content remains the same.”

(OOC: It was about 600 characters over the limit. Therefore, I had to knock it down to 4998, before submitting it. However, nothing substantive has changed.)

[Kenmoria]

Deputy Ambassador John Smith - “It appears that this is now at vote. I will endeavour to answer any questions about the proposal to the best of my ability. Though this proposal may seem to be merely a declaratory statement of purpose, which I admit that it is, it also bears real, practical effects. The proposal mandates compliance in good faith with all passed legislation, thereby preventing the use of malicious, vexatious, or pernicious loopholes as a way to bypass the declarations of the General Assembly. It also protects the equality of member-nations, by mandating respect in international affairs and preventing the use of unjust sanctions as a diplomatic tool.”

Smith was interacting through a tablet, held aloft by a gnome unluckily conscripted for the purpose. The screen occasionally flickered, as the wireless connection between the WAHQ and Kenmoria faltered, but it remained steady enough for a consistent output. Behind him, a dark and cramped room was sometimes visible, usually a result of Smith accidentally knocking his own display. When that happened, an array of scattered notes, written in a mixture of purple and red, could sometimes be seen fluttering off an iron desk. Now, however, he seemed to have fix that recurrent issue, one hand gripped against the edge of the monitor, to hold it in place. Those fingers curled onto the edge of the projected screen. If one were unaware of the context, it might look as if he were trying to escape.

[Holy Patagonia]

Victoria Pokes - heir-apparent to the Democratic People's Empire of Holy Patagonia and Ambassador to the World Assembly - straightened the stack of papers before her. Contained was an unnecessarily verbose report of the Supreme People's Parliament of Holy Patagonia's issues with the proposed resolution. Some concerns were just, some weren't, all could be expressed in just a handful of paragraphs, something she would presently attempt to do.

"Before the People of Holy Patagonia can, in good faith, vote to ratify this proposal, there are many concerns that need to be addressed."

"Firstly, it is not within the best interests of the Holy Patagonian nation to accept limitations on whom they may or may not declare war on. It is the belief of the Holy Patagonian government and people that if a neighboring country is exploiting its people, it is the duty of Holy Patagonia to resist them wherever and however possible. While we more than respect the establishment and enforcement of the rules of war, we will not accept any provision that forces us to justify such conflicts to a global body."

"Moving on, we must ask whether the wording of Clause 7 includes national constitutions within its frameworks? If it does, we will have no choice but to fervently oppose this resolution until it is resolved. While we appreciate that the World Assembly must have some power in order to be useful, the ability for Holy Patagonia's constitution to be overridden has the potential to cause national instability or even let elements of fascism creep in between the cracks. As such, we find such a possibility to be unacceptable."

"Finally, there are some questions regarding the wording of Clause 8. Will advocating for WA membership be enforced in any way, or is this just merely a guideline?"

Having rattled off all her questions, Victoria took her seat once more to await Kenmoria's answers.

[Kenmoria]

Victoria Pokes - heir-apparent to the Democratic People's Empire of Holy Patagonia and Ambassador to the World Assembly - straightened the stack of papers before her. Contained was an unnecessarily verbose report of the Supreme People's Parliament of Holy Patagonia's issues with the proposed resolution. Some concerns were just, some weren't, all could be expressed in just a handful of paragraphs, something she would presently attempt to do.

"Before the People of Holy Patagonia can, in good faith, vote to ratify this proposal, there are many concerns that need to be addressed."

"Firstly, it is not within the best interests of the Holy Patagonian nation to accept limitations on whom they may or may not declare war on. It is the belief of the Holy Patagonian government and people that if a neighboring country is exploiting its people, it is the duty of Holy Patagonia to resist them wherever and however possible. While we more than respect the establishment and enforcement of the rules of war, we will not accept any provision that forces us to justify such conflicts to a global body."

Deputy Ambassador John Smith - “With regards to your first point, nothing in this proposal addresses the use of military force. This legislation contains no mandate about warfare in any form, leaving that part of a replacement for Rights and Duties to a future proposal.”

"Moving on, we must ask whether the wording of Clause 7 includes national constitutions within its frameworks? If it does, we will have no choice but to fervently oppose this resolution until it is resolved. While we appreciate that the World Assembly must have some power in order to be useful, the ability for Holy Patagonia's constitution to be overridden has the potential to cause national instability or even let elements of fascism creep in between the cracks. As such, we find such a possibility to be unacceptable."

“With regards to your second point, yes, this proposal ensures that all law of the General Assembly supersedes any and all national law. This applies regardless of any constitutional, entrenched, international, founding, basic, or other status of that law. As your delegation has mentioned, this is necessary in order for the law of the General Assembly to have any function at all. Otherwise, fascist nations would be free to have provisions about fascism in their constitutions, which the General Assembly would be powerless to override. However, I must comment that it is exceptionally unlikely that the General Assembly would pass legislation to promote fascism. Doing so would arguably contradict numerous pieces of basic law.” Smith searches through his notes for a while. “GA #35 is an example of this.” He finally says.

"Finally, there are some questions regarding the wording of Clause 8. Will advocating for WA membership be enforced in any way, or is this just merely a guideline?"

“With regards to your third point, this clause is non-binding. As such, it will not be enforced.”

[Kaphellonia]

The Community of Kaphellonia will support this resolution as it seems entirely reasonable. Our goal here is to work together for the benefit of us all and this proposal seems to encourage that in a way that is not too restrictive of our individual political freedoms.

[Excidium Planetis]

As a very new WA member, I recognize that I could be misunderstanding or missing something and am open to having my mind changed. However, this resolution seems fairly reasonable. Our goal here is to work together for the benefit of us all and this proposal seems to encourage that in a way that is not too restrictive of our individual political freedoms. I'd love to hear from nations who are voting against this resolution and their reasons for doing so.

"As a not-so-new member of Assembly, your assessament is completely reasonable, Ambassador." Adelia Meritt replies. "It's a shame that some people take life a little too seriously and are voting against this because it is not the most perfect resolution of all time."

[Kaphellonia]

As a very new WA member, I recognize that I could be misunderstanding or missing something and am open to having my mind changed. However, this resolution seems fairly reasonable. Our goal here is to work together for the benefit of us all and this proposal seems to encourage that in a way that is not too restrictive of our individual political freedoms. I'd love to hear from nations who are voting against this resolution and their reasons for doing so.

"As a not-so-new member of Assembly, your assessament is completely reasonable, Ambassador." Adelia Meritt replies. "It's a shame that some people take life a little too seriously and are voting against this because it is not the most perfect resolution of all time."

"Thank you. The way I see it, the Assembly should agree to follow a certain set of rules. If a nation does not wish to follow international law, then why be a member?"

[HM Queen Elizabeth III]

One of the most concerning provisions of this Resolution is Section 7, which states, "All member nations must recognise the supremacy of the law of the General Assembly over all their national and subnational law, regardless of the type or nature of that law. Furthermore, the law of the General Assembly shall be regarded by member nations as supreme over all other bodies of law that may otherwise be deemed to affect those nations" (Kenmoria).

The concern is that this creates a supraconstitutional provision which interferes with the sovereignty of member nations. Just as a military incursion presents a physical interference of a nation's sovereignty, this is a legal incursion of sovereignty.

[Comfed]

One of the most concerning provisions of this Resolution is Section 7, which states, "All member nations must recognise the supremacy of the law of the General Assembly over all their national and subnational law, regardless of the type or nature of that law. Furthermore, the law of the General Assembly shall be regarded by member nations as supreme over all other bodies of law that may otherwise be deemed to affect those nations" (Kenmoria).

The concern is that this creates a supraconstitutional provision which interferes with the sovereignty of member nations. Just as a military incursion presents a physical interference of a nation's sovereignty, this is a legal incursion of sovereignty.

This is how the General Assembly has always worked. No one should pretend that this is a new provision.

[Kaphellonia]

The concern is that this creates a supraconstitutional provision which interferes with the sovereignty of member nations. Just as a military incursion presents a physical interference of a nation's sovereignty, this is a legal incursion of sovereignty.

"May I ask then, what is the purpose of being a member of the WA if not to create and follow international law? Shouldn't all member nations agree to follow a certain set of rules so as to unite us? If absolute sovereignty is what you want, go off on your own and don't be a member. As members, we already agree to abide by the legislation the WA passes, how does this make it any different?"

[Kaphellonia]

One of the most concerning provisions of this Resolution is Section 7, which states, "All member nations must recognise the supremacy of the law of the General Assembly over all their national and subnational law, regardless of the type or nature of that law. Furthermore, the law of the General Assembly shall be regarded by member nations as supreme over all other bodies of law that may otherwise be deemed to affect those nations" (Kenmoria).

The concern is that this creates a supraconstitutional provision which interferes with the sovereignty of member nations. Just as a military incursion presents a physical interference of a nation's sovereignty, this is a legal incursion of sovereignty.

This is how the General Assembly has always worked. No one should pretend that this is a new provision.

"Exactly! This is the whole point of the WA. If you do not want to follow international law then resign. We are here to be united under a certain set of laws and this proposal is not at all as extreme as others are making it out to be."

[HM Queen Elizabeth III]

I believe there to be a difference in enforcing, and agreeing to enforce, the law that has been passed by the General Assembly and having provisions which make the General Assembly supraconstitutional, which is anathema to many democracies and a variety of other diverse forms of governance.

Additionally, even if it is true, that this is how the World Assembly has always worked, that does not make it right, just because that's always how we have done it. To quote one of my favourite books, “But merely being tradition does not make something worthy, Kadash. We can’t just assume that because something is old it is right" (Oathbringer, Brandon Sanderson).

[Comfed]

I believe there to be a difference in enforcing, and agreeing to enforce, the law that has been passed by the General Assembly and having provisions which make the General Assembly supraconstitutional, which is anathema to many democracies and a variety of other diverse forms of governance.

Additionally, even if it is true, that this is how the World Assembly has always worked, that does not make it right, just because that's always how we have done it. To quote one of my favourite books, “But merely being tradition does not make something worthy, Kadash. We can’t just assume that because something is old it is right" (Oathbringer, Brandon Sanderson).

This resolution does not change the fact the supremacy of World Assembly law. It is already supreme. That is not going to change. If you don't like that, well, World Assembly membership is entirely voluntary.