(DRAFT) condemn the government of Mizuzora

[Azadistan-land of the free]

Considering that Mizuzora first waged aggressive war and then shot a prisoner of war showing their contempt of the prisoner of war accord https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=1 as well as destroyed property and endangered lives in Munkchester indiscriminately.
And
believing that they have henceforth escaped wide-spread condemnation and that this sends a
a message favourable to the government of Mizuzora to continue to wreck the international goals of peace and justice despite them not being WA members and so not prosecutable.
Azadiland requests a formal condemnation of this regime.

[Armaros]

Eh, no. To me it doesn't seem like the nation in question has done anything worthy of condemnation. Strongly against.

[Azadistan-land of the free]

Eh, no. To me it doesn't seem like the nation in question has done anything worthy of condemnation. Strongly against.

They murdered a prisoner of war.

[Armaros]

Eh, no. To me it doesn't seem like the nation in question has done anything worthy of condemnation. Strongly against.

They murdered a prisoner of war.

Which sounds role-play to me. Also, you seem to have only 1 reason.

[Azadistan-land of the free]

They murdered a prisoner of war.

Which sounds role-play to me. Also, you seem to have only 1 reason.

Oh is this condemning people OOC.

[Armaros]

Which sounds role-play to me. Also, you seem to have only 1 reason.

Oh is this condemning people OOC.

Not necessarily. Mostly on gameplay basis, although role-play condemnations are legal (I think). Also, you normally end the resolution with a "Hereby condemns <nation>", so you might want to fix that.

[The New California Republic]

Which sounds role-play to me. Also, you seem to have only 1 reason.

Oh is this condemning people OOC.

OOC: No. It'd be a sad day when we start condemning people via the WA for things they had done in real life...

Also, I don't think that the reasons given are enough to condemn the nation in question.

[Marilyn Manson Freaks]

No.

Against.

[Azadistan-land of the free]

No.

Against.

On what grounds?

[The New California Republic]

No.

Against.

On what grounds?

OOC: Probably for similar reasons that I gave.

[Wallenburg]

Mizuzora is not a member of the WA, and so has no obligation to adhere to its mandates. You have absolutely no basis for a condemnation. Sorry.

[The New California Republic]

Mizuzora is not a member of the WA, and so has no obligation to adhere to its mandates. You have absolutely no basis for a condemnation. Sorry.

OOC: Good catch, I never even noticed that! Well Mizuzora isn't going to join just so that they can be the target of a condemnation by the OP, so I guess the thread just became pointless.

[Azadistan-land of the free]

Mizuzora is not a member of the WA, and so has no obligation to adhere to its mandates. You have absolutely no basis for a condemnation. Sorry.

OOC: Good catch, I never even noticed that! Well Mizuzora isn't going to join just so that they can be the target of a condemnation by the OP, so I guess the thread just became pointless.

So the world assembly cannot condemn non-members?
Does the international law in this game only apply to members?

[Tinhampton]

OOC: Good catch, I never even noticed that! Well Mizuzora isn't going to join just so that they can be the target of a condemnation by the OP, so I guess the thread just became pointless.

So the world assembly cannot condemn non-members?
Does the international law in this game only apply to members?

No (non-members have been condemned in the past) and yes (WA law applies to all WA member states and no non-WA states).

[The New California Republic]

OOC: Good catch, I never even noticed that! Well Mizuzora isn't going to join just so that they can be the target of a condemnation by the OP, so I guess the thread just became pointless.

So the world assembly cannot condemn non-members?
Does the international law in this game only apply to members?

No to the former, yes to the latter. You can condemn them but not on the basis of not adhering to a WA Resolution, since they have no obligation to adhere to them anyway...

[Wallenburg]

OOC: Good catch, I never even noticed that! Well Mizuzora isn't going to join just so that they can be the target of a condemnation by the OP, so I guess the thread just became pointless.

So the world assembly cannot condemn non-members?
Does the international law in this game only apply to members?

If you want to condemn this nation, you'll have to find a better argument than "they did not comply with laws they didn't have to comply with". Edgy teens build their own quasifascist hellscape or anime gulag on NationStates every 5 minutes. The SC can't go around condemning them all.

[Azadistan-land of the free]

So the world assembly cannot condemn non-members?
Does the international law in this game only apply to members?

If you want to condemn this nation, you'll have to find a better argument than "they did not comply with laws they didn't have to comply with". Edgy teens build their own quasifascist hellscape or anime gulag on NationStates every 5 minutes. The SC can't go around condemning them all.

True.my argument is that these leaders are still in power and will continue waging aggressive war.

[Wallenburg]

True.my argument is that these leaders are still in power and will continue waging aggressive war.

That's an even worse argument. I highly suggest you just give up on this.

[The New California Republic]

If you want to condemn this nation, you'll have to find a better argument than "they did not comply with laws they didn't have to comply with". Edgy teens build their own quasifascist hellscape or anime gulag on NationStates every 5 minutes. The SC can't go around condemning them all.

True.my argument is that these leaders are still in power and will continue waging aggressive war.

Insufficient. If such a flimsy pretext was the norm, then half the nations on NationStates would have condemnations against them for some similar threadbare reason.

[Cosmopolitan borovan]

For

[The New California Republic]

For

Pointless. It's likely illegal for wanting to condemn a non-member nation on the basis of non-compliance with a WA resolution...

[Cosmopolitan borovan]

For

Pointless. It's likely illegal for wanting to condemn a non-member nation on the basis of non-compliance with a WA resolution...

Ok I'm switching stance

[Marilyn Manson Freaks]

For

Lol. This proposal is extremely illegal and terrible. It probably won't even reach quorum. Why do you support it?

[Azadistan-land of the free]

Pointless. It's likely illegal for wanting to condemn a non-member nation on the basis of non-compliance with a WA resolution...

Ok I'm switching stance

It’s not purely on that grounds it is on the grounds of Azadiland and it’s allies having to cope with non-stop war because people will keep international support.

[The New California Republic]

Ok I'm switching stance

It’s not purely on that grounds it is on the grounds of Azadiland and it’s allies having to cope with non-stop war because people will keep international support.

Still not good enough. Your previous reason wasn't valid, and the new reason could be applied to many nations on NationStates, the threshold of what constitutes sufficient reason is set pretty high because of that.