[DEFEATED] Popular Statecraft

[Tinhampton]

This resolution was at vote between the 12th and 16th of February, 2023.
It was defeated by a margin of 11,601 votes (about 76%) to 3,569 (about 24%).

---

This proposal has been filed to the General Assembly Global Disarmament Board.
NOTE: at 2013 GMT on the 23rd of January 2023, this proposal reached quorum with Arashiyama's approval, the 65th all told.

---

Character count: 689
Word count: 107

Susanna Bryant, fifth-in-line to the post of Delegate-Ambassador: Sir James' proposal has always concerned the Tinhamptonian delegation, to the extent that the right of members to choose their own government - once guaranteed without exception - is now subject to the whims of the World Assembly. This could open the door for some very dangerous proposals that would restrict national liberty.

OOC: Looking at a February submission - no sooner than January 20th or so - but the situation on the quorum floor is fluid. Submitted on the minor of Jan 22nd. This is GD/Significant owing to Article c.

Popular Statecraft
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.

Category: Global Disarmament

Strength: Significant

Proposed by: Tinhampton

---

Whereas the core principles of national self-determination should be fully and effectively restated in international law, the General Assembly hereby:

1. guarantees to each member the right to determine its preferred mode of government,
2. forbids members from seeking to change any other member's government or mode thereof without that member's full, informed consent,
3. demands that members not stir up armed conflicts in other members so they can bypass Article b, and
4. clarifies that the GA may forbid specific practices associated with a mode of government, unless its primary effect is to prevent member states adhering to that mode from continuing such adherence.

[Kenmoria]

Deputy Ambassador John Smith - “Is this intended to work alongside Sir James Lewitt’s proposal: whatever its title was?” He momentarily searches for the name, before abandoning the attempt. “Anyway, I think that this proposal is flawed in terms of policy. Many forms of government run contrary to the civil right of a population to elect its own leaders. An autocracy, for example, subjugates the citizens of a member-nations under a role which they could never acquire. Given that this would be contrary to upholding human - I mean sapient, sorry - rights, I do not think that the World Assembly should be preventing itself from acting on this.”

[Tinhampton]

Bryant: This does not conflict with the Rights and Lefts thing. But at the same time... I don't feel like the World Assembly should just unilaterally forbid a system of government just because it does not like it. The World Assembly is a pluralistic body and it should not really be pretending to be otherwise!

[Heidgaudr]

Bryant: This does not conflict with the Rights and Lefts thing. But at the same time... I don't feel like the World Assembly should just unilaterally forbid a system of government just because it does not like it. The World Assembly is a pluralistic body and it should not really be pretending to be otherwise!

"The World Assembly forbade many forms of government while GA#2 was still active - #23 for example makes it impossible to be a slaver empire, #38 makes it impossible for ideologies based on ethnic or national identity to properly function, and #232, 256, and the soon-to-be-repealed #394 in combination make it impossible to be communist or otherwise economically far left wing."

[Tinhampton]

Bryant: Congratulations on your new resolution, sir. But - with that said - this resolution is about modes of government, not government policies. "Slavery" and "ethnic consistency" are, by themselves, principles not sufficient around which to organise a government. Communism entails state ownership and... from what I've read, I don't think intellectual property regimes existing would prohibit its operation. Don't quote me, mind. Good Lord - what a cup of coffee does. Now I've stopped being terribly sarcastic...

[Heidgaudr]

Bryant: Congratulations on your new resolution, sir. But - with that said - this resolution is about modes of government, not government policies. "Slavery" and "ethnic consistency" are, by themselves, principles not sufficient around which to organise a government. Communism entails state ownership and... from what I've read, I don't think intellectual property regimes existing would prohibit its operation. Don't quote me, mind. Good Lord - what a cup of coffee does. Now I've stopped being terribly sarcastic...

"Government policies and modes of government are intrinsically tied to each other. One affects the other. For an example, communism is the complete lack or private property, class, and state. You can't be communist if private property still exists - and don't get me started on those vanguardists who brand themselves as communist. Bah!

"For another example, let's imagine a scenario the World Assembly passed several laws severely restricting a nation's ability to conduct elections to the point where it's not practicable. Could we not then say that the WA has effectively banned all democracies? The World Assembly can and has made certain ideologies effectively impossible to practice through piecemeal legislation.

"The World Assembly has always and will continue to always have the power to dictate national policy and governance of member states. It's a core part of the application and admission of our nations into this August and sometimes September Assembly."

[Tinhampton]

Bryant: Article d has been added in consultation with Mr Trelstad. I'm still interested in protecting self-determined government - I definitely wouldn't be here if I wasn't - and I accept that just about anything the World Assembly bans affects one form of government or another, but I do not want the WA to go about eroding particular systems of government while I'm doing that.

[Republic of Mesque]

This is looking good.
Shouldn't the first "and" at the end of b. be removed after d. was added?

[Tinhampton]

This is looking good.
Shouldn't the first "and" at the end of b. be removed after d. was added?

Yes. And thanks!

[Tinhampton]

I did say I was thinking of submitting on the 20th or so - but I might hasten submission by a couple of days absent substantiative feedback. If you have it, chuck it!

[Tinhampton]

Penultimate call, I guess...!

[PotatoFarmers]

Assuming there are 2 member states, country A and country B. Let us say that the country A's democratic government was overthrown in a coup and a junta government was installed. Let us then say country B decides to intervene to restore the democratic government and declare war on the junta government. If the democratic government is supportive of such a counter-coup, is country B allowed to do that, per this resolution?

[Tinhampton]

Assuming there are 2 member states, country A and country B. Let us say that the country A's democratic government was overthrown in a coup and a junta government was installed. Let us then say country B decides to intervene to restore the democratic government and declare war on the junta government. If the democratic government is supportive of such a counter-coup, is country B allowed to do that, per this resolution?

No: if B-istan is concerned about the situation in A-istan, it would ideally talk to the de jure government and work out a solution (or wait for the ousted government to take military action themselves).

[The Ice States]

"Opposed. The World Assembly should be able to prohibit the most harmful, arbitrary forms of government."

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

[Tinhampton]

Last call. Absent further comment, will push this through Wednesday on 5pm (GMT).

[Simone Republic]

Last call. Absent further comment, will push this through Wednesday on 5pm (GMT).

Two weeks seems a bit short on such a fundamental resolution if you ask me.

[Kenmoria]

Deputy Ambassador John Smith - “Pursuant to the comments of Ambassador… the delegation for Heidgaudr, would a definition of ‘mode of government’ be useful? Also, I am supposed to ask about preambles so, um, is there going to be one? If not, why not?”

[Heidgaudr]

Deputy Ambassador John Smith - “Pursuant to the comments of Ambassador… the delegation for Heidgaudr, would a definition of ‘mode of government’ be useful? Also, I am supposed to ask about preambles so, um, is there going to be one? If not, why not?”

Asgeir gets up from his seat and walks over to the Kenmorian delegation. "Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Asgeir Trelstad." He extends his hand out for a handshake. "I don't think I've had the pleasure of meeting you or the rest of your delegation. I've only ever interacted with Sir- uh, an individual I understand is not an official part of the Kenmorian team."

[The Ice States]

Last call. Absent further comment, will push this through Wednesday on 5pm (GMT).

Two weeks seems a bit short on such a fundamental resolution if you ask me.

Concurred -- my personal opposition notwithstanding.

[Kenmoria]

Deputy Ambassador John Smith - “Pursuant to the comments of Ambassador… the delegation for Heidgaudr, would a definition of ‘mode of government’ be useful? Also, I am supposed to ask about preambles so, um, is there going to be one? If not, why not?”

Asgeir gets up from his seat and walks over to the Kenmorian delegation. "Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Asgeir Trelstad." He extends his hand out for a handshake. "I don't think I've had the pleasure of meeting you or the rest of your delegation. I've only ever interacted with Sir- uh, an individual I understand is not an official part of the Kenmorian team."

Deputy Ambassador John Smith - “It’s a pleasure to meet you, Ambassador Trelstad. In terms of that individual: Sir Lewitt, yes, well, that is the situation: rather the situation indeed. Officially, the position of ambassador is vacant, so I suppose that, considering that Kenmoria has now joined the World… General Assembly, I am in charge of the Kenmorian delegation, at least on an official basis.”

“With that said, I’m not strictly serving in an official role myself, though I suppose that I could do so. Kenmoria is in a bit of a government pickle, or what one might call a revolution, recently, what with the sudden joining of the GA and the subsequent fines, sanctions, and other such business, so it’s not in a position to conduct full diplomacy. Sir Lewitt just - sort of - called me and told me to defend his proposal. However, I do suppose that I am now the official port of call for any Kenmorian enquiries.” He pauses for a moment, seeming rather perturbed with what he just said. “I was also instructed to support any drafts that partly replace other aspects of protocol #002, including this one presumably.”

(OOC: John Smith is interacting through videolink, which I probably should have made clearer, so I’ll assume that the handshake was a symbolic gesture.)

[Potted Plants United]

OOC: No support because of d. (the wording rather than the sentiment), but when it comes to vote I'll probably just not vote, rather than vote against, because I like causes a.-c.

[The Ice States]

OOC: No support because of d. (the wording rather than the sentiment)...

I also concur with this. If I wanted to ban monarchism, I would merely have to prohibit hereditary succession and insist in the preamble that the goal is not to ban monarchism; see also the Moderator precedent surrounding NEF's now-repealed blocker.

[Tinhampton]

This has been delayed by three days because:
1. International Patent Compact was submitted, which would delay this proposal's advancement to vote by four days anyway.
2. PPU and TIS raise good points. I'm talking to the latter about how to fix the issue with d (even though he's a known opponent-in-principle).

[Tinhampton]

A new Article d has been agreed after semi-protracted negotiations with The Ice States. Submission has now been delayed another day, to Sunday - although further delays may be introduced if further problems are highlighted!

(Article d was: "clarifies that the GA may forbid specific practices associated with a mode of government, so long as doing so is not aimed at preventing members from adopting such a mode.")

[Tinhampton]

Will submit at 5pm to follow hot on the heels of RWDP and CoMA.