NationStates

Posted: **Tue Jun 29, 2021 10:33 am**

This is something that has concerned quite a few of us GAers over the years, and while the debate will likely rage on forever in the GA about non-compliance, creative compliance, and compliance commissions in general, I thought the declaration power might actually be a useful way of expressing a non-binding opinion of the World Assembly on nations that engage in the various forms of non-compliance. Since non-compliance is more of a RP thing (at a technical level all nations comply with GA resolutions that pass while they are a member of the WA as the stats change), I think the GA would be the wrong place for this kind of statement since it isn't really legislation at this point, moreso lofty ideals.

Declaration on Non-Compliance
A resolution to express a position on international affairs.

Category: Declaration | Type: Declare | Proposed by: Sanctaria

The Security Council,

RECOGNISING the General Assembly as a fellow chamber of the World Assembly dedicated to passing legislation across a myriad of different international topics or other areas deemed to be of international concern,

UNDERSTANDING that the legislation the General Assembly passes is intended to be binding on member states, to avoid abdication of the responsibilities of membership while retaining all of the rights and privileges,

ACCEPTING that translating and implementing international law across a membership consisting of hundreds of different societies, legal systems, and languages is not an easy feat,

BELIEVING, however, that such a sisyphean task does not, nor should not, allow member nations to wilfully ignore, in bad faith, legislation passed by the General Assembly,

Hereby

CATEGORISES non-compliance into two broad categories:
bad faith non-compliance: whereby a nation wilfully, deliberately, and knowingly, engages in total or near-total non-compliance with a resolution passed by the General Assembly, in an open, brazen, or otherwise disruptive manner,
creative compliance: whereby a nation interprets or applies a resolution or resolutions passed by the body strictly by the letter of the law, and not by the general spirit intended by the author(s) of said resolution(s), in order to avoid consequences deemed by that nation to be harmful;

OPINES that engaging in bad faith non-compliance to be a perfidious and dishonorable act, and one that should bear consequences;

SCOLDS member states that engage in bad faith non-compliance, and urges them to re-engage with the General Assembly and its resolutions in a good faith and constructive manner;

RECOMMENDS that member states refuse to vote to allow the Security Council bestow a commendation on a nation currently engaging in bad faith non-compliance, particularly where the proposed commendation for that nation predominately extolls their legislative history in the General Assembly;

REQUESTS that member states apply international consequences in a proportionate and reasoned manner on nations engaged in bad faith non-compliance, with severity of the consequences depending on the number of resolutions that nation is in bad faith non-compliance with, or the egregiousness of the breach of compliance;

UNDERSTANDS that such consequences may include, but are not limited to:
revocation of invitations to, or membership of, other international and/or intra-regional bodies or conferences,
sanctions, trade or otherwise, on the member state, and on its political, commercial, and financial classes,
consistent diplomatic and/or political pressure to coax the nation to re-comply with the General Assembly resolution(s) in question;

HOPES that member states engaging in creative compliance fully implement all resolutions passed by the General Assembly, including respecting the spirit of the resolution and not just the letter;

URGES member states engaging in creative compliance to cooperate constructively with the General Assembly, via the repeal, or the repeal-and-replace traditions of the body, to reduce occurrences of creative compliance;

TRUSTS the member states of the Security Council to determine themselves which category of non-compliance a member state engaged in such a practice may fall in to, however;

ADVISES member states of the Security Council to be considerate of the arguments made by delegations to the General Assembly when coming to such a determination.

Posted: **Tue Jun 29, 2021 10:50 am**

"Dear ambassador from Sanctaria, thank you for this. While our humble nation is one of many unknown entities throughout the World Assembly, we are happy to see someone stand up against the non-compliant members of this international body. One thing though, I think you might want to replace "CATEGORIES" with "CATEGORIZES"."

Posted: **Tue Jun 29, 2021 10:55 am**

From a legal point of view, I don't see any issues. I also want to note that I think this is an excellent idea for a Declaration proposal, and not one I had anticipated.

Posted: **Tue Jun 29, 2021 10:56 am**

Re "creative non-compliance", isn't that more usually keeping to the letter to the law but avoiding what the author considered to be its spirit?

Posted: **Tue Jun 29, 2021 11:02 am**

Full, unconditional support!

Posted: **Tue Jun 29, 2021 11:10 am**

Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: No. We should not be kicking national football teams out of the Multiverse Cup simply because their governments allow ships that do not comply with the recommendations of the Spill and Leak Disaster Administration into their ports!

Posted: **Tue Jun 29, 2021 11:14 am**

Bears Armed wrote:Re "creative non-compliance", isn't that more usually keeping to he letter to the law but avoiding what the author considered to be its spirit?

This was my understanding as well -- to me "creative non-compliance" (or, well, "creative compliance"

) was always about "complying" with a resolution that one opposes by finding some particularly inventive way to implement it.

Posted: **Tue Jun 29, 2021 11:16 am**

I don't mind this and I think it's a unique use of the upcoming declare mechanic but

"

Sanctaria wrote:RECOMMENDS that member states engage with bad faith non-compliant actors in the following manner:
refuse to vote to allow the Security Council bestow a commendation on the nation, even if for non-related meritorious actions or conduct,
apply sanctions, trade or otherwise, on the member state, and on its political, commercial, and financial classes,
shun the member states from regional or other international bodies in the realms of politics, finance, and sport;
[/box]

I hate recommendation "i" I do not see it as a good enough reason to vote against commendations, and I would really prefer to not validate that reason by codifying it. There are a lot of nations that have has massive positive impacts on the NS Multiverse that may disagree with 1 of the multitude of GA resolutions, and that disagreement does not outweigh the good those nations have done. I can't in good conscious recommend nor vote for this because of that clause.

Posted: **Tue Jun 29, 2021 11:18 am**

Tinhampton wrote:Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: No. We should not be kicking national football teams out of the Multiverse Cup simply because their governments allow ships that do not comply with the recommendations of the Spill and Leak Disaster Administration into their ports!

"Luckily the Ambassador does not have to. It's just recommended. Perhaps he can relay this to his government."

Goobergunchia wrote:
Bears Armed wrote:Re "creative non-compliance", isn't that more usually keeping to he letter to the law but avoiding what the author considered to be its spirit?

This was my understanding as well -- to me "creative non-compliance" (or, well, "creative compliance" ) was always about "complying" with a resolution that one opposes by finding some particularly inventive way to implement it.

D'oh! Made quite a few typos in this first draft, bad Editor. Got my letter if not the spirit the wrong way around.

Lenlyvit wrote:"Dear ambassador from Sanctaria, thank you for this. While our humble nation is one of many unknown entities throughout the World Assembly, we are happy to see someone stand up against the non-compliant members of this international body. One thing though, I think you might want to replace "CATEGORIES" with "CATEGORIZES"."

Yes, yes I do need to change that.

I'll do another draft tomorrow making the typo fixes people helpfully pointed out. Don't tell my colleagues on the Editing Team.

Posted: **Tue Jun 29, 2021 11:27 am**

Nova Vandalia wrote:I don't mind this and I think it's a unique use of the upcoming declare mechanic but

"
Sanctaria wrote:RECOMMENDS that member states engage with bad faith non-compliant actors in the following manner:
refuse to vote to allow the Security Council bestow a commendation on the nation, even if for non-related meritorious actions or conduct,
apply sanctions, trade or otherwise, on the member state, and on its political, commercial, and financial classes,
shun the member states from regional or other international bodies in the realms of politics, finance, and sport;
[/box]

I hate recommendation "i" I do not see it as a good enough reason to vote against commendations, and I would really prefer to not validate that reason by codifying it. There are a lot of nations that have has massive positive impacts on the NS Multiverse that may disagree with 1 of the multitude of GA resolutions, and that disagreement does not outweigh the good those nations have done. I can't in good conscious recommend nor vote for this because of that clause.

I am sorry to hear that. Unfortunately, I feel quite strongly in the other direction. That said, in the next draft I'll consider alternative language and maybe we can come to compromise?

Posted: **Tue Jun 29, 2021 11:31 am**

Sanctaria wrote:
Nova Vandalia wrote:I don't mind this and I think it's a unique use of the upcoming declare mechanic but

"

I hate recommendation "i" I do not see it as a good enough reason to vote against commendations, and I would really prefer to not validate that reason by codifying it. There are a lot of nations that have has massive positive impacts on the NS Multiverse that may disagree with 1 of the multitude of GA resolutions, and that disagreement does not outweigh the good those nations have done. I can't in good conscious recommend nor vote for this because of that clause.

I am sorry to hear that. Unfortunately, I feel quite strongly in the other direction. That said, in the next draft I'll consider alternative language and maybe we can come to compromise?

I would very much like that, because it is other wise a fantastic and well written proposal!

Posted: **Tue Jun 29, 2021 11:38 am**

Why "sister" chamber?

Additionally, I think i. should absolutely stay in.

Full support as written.

Posted: **Tue Jun 29, 2021 11:51 am**

Full support for the idea in principle, and a really well written draft so far.

I definitely agree that i. should stay in.

Posted: **Tue Jun 29, 2021 12:02 pm**

Yes, i. should stay in, as I think it's only fair that is the consequence of non-compliance.

Posted: **Tue Jun 29, 2021 12:09 pm**

Right the problem is nations go through IC moments. Sancteria actually has a really good example of why Recommendation "i" is bad.

This https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=532983 is an IC dispatch from Sancteria where an IC character declared abortions illegal in his nation.

and this https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=1 "Access to Abortions" by IA is the resolution he is now in non-compliance of.

Now that dispatch is 5 years old, but there is no dispatch disputing it or updating information on this, So despite everything Sancteria has done for the GA, despite already having a commendation, the SC's stance will become that we should in fact vote no on any new commendations for Sancteria given recommendation "i", if I am understanding it correctly? (Also I apologize you were just the most readily example of how easy it can be even by mistake or for story purposes to be seemingly in non-compliance)

Recommendation i, is going to disproportionately affect anyone who does any lore building or story telling with their nation.

Or is there another interpretation I'm missing,? (and I'm asking this genuinely let me know if I'm misinterpreting the clause because again being wrong is on brand for me, genuinely I can be an extreme blinkard at times)

Posted: **Tue Jun 29, 2021 12:24 pm**

Sanctaria wrote:bad faith non-compliance: whereby a nation wilfully

You missed an "l".

Sanctaria wrote:creative non-compliance: whereby a nation, accepting the limitations the General Assembly has in its aforementioned translation and implementation tasks, interprets or applies a resolution or resolutions passed by the body in a way that is not as intended by the body, but does so in a limited, good faith manner, while consistently keeping with the spirit if not the letter of the law;

Obviously (oh boy) I am not much of a GAer, but is this supposed to be separate from creative compliance, which, from my understanding, had almost the exact opposite definition? It makes sense, considering one is "compliance" and the other is "non-compliance", but isn't creative compliance more of a problem than creative compliance?

Sanctaria wrote:RECOMMENDS that member states engage with bad faith non-compliant actors in the following manner:
refuse to vote to allow the Security Council bestow a commendation on the nation, even if for non-related meritorious actions or conduct,

Emphasis mine.

Absolutely and unequivocally against while the bolded text remains in place. It is not up to GAers to decide which roleplayers, which gameplayers, which cards traders, which issue authors are worthy of a commendation or not. I object strenuously to this self-important attempt to hijack other communities to do the will of the General Assembly. Your section of the website is not harmed by uninvolved actors stating occasional noncompliance, nor does said noncompliance change whatever they have done that is many orders of magnitude greater than a couple of words about some resolutions.

Sanctaria wrote:apply sanctions, trade or otherwise, on the member state, and on its political, commercial, and financial classes,

Good. Roleplay here is good.

Sanctaria wrote:shun the member states from regional or other international bodies in the realms of politics, finance, and sport;

Here, once again, emerges the ever-growing ego of the General Assembly, attempting to rear its many heads into the realms of other players (emphasis on sport. While, obviously, sports players will enjoy their own game as they like before listening to the wailing of a few GAers, I still object to the implication, which on this website is just arrogant and silly).

Nova Vandalia wrote:Right the problem is nations go through IC moments. Sancteria actually has a really good example of why Recommendation "i" is bad.

This https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=532983 is an IC dispatch from Sancteria where an IC character declared abortions illegal in his nation.

For the record, that is a bill, and the dispatch seems to suggest it was not likely to pass. But you are right, it's silly to punish players for good roleplay.

Not that non-compliance is always good roleplay, obviously.

Posted: **Tue Jun 29, 2021 12:36 pm**

Nova Vandalia wrote:Now that dispatch is 5 years old

You're showing a dispatch from 5 years ago and saying that I'm not in compliance with a law passed 1 year ago?

If a law was passed by the GA after the dispatch then ... I am in compliance with that law unless otherwise stated obviously? Anyway, the bill didn't pass, it was defeated in the Senate. But I don't think Sanctaria was where I had my WA then anyway.

I was, and remain, willing to engage with you in good faith on the issue, but this is a strange tactic to use when someone is trying to work with you.

Fauxia wrote:You missed an "l".

Where? In wilfully? I don't think I did.

Fauxia wrote:Obviously (oh boy) I am not much of a GAer, but is this supposed to be separate from creative compliance, which, from my understanding, had almost the exact opposite definition? It makes sense, considering one is "compliance" and the other is "non-compliance", but isn't creative compliance more of a problem than creative compliance?

Already addressed to Bears and Goob. It was a typo, which I said will be addressed.

Fauxia wrote:Absolutely and unequivocally against while the bolded text remains in place. It is not up to GAers to decide which roleplayers, which gameplayers, which cards traders, which issue authors are worthy of a commendation or not

Sorry that you might be against it, but I'm not sure where I say it's up to GAers are worthy of a commendation. I mean firstly, our membership is to both bodies, so I'd be interested in you determining who is a GAer and who isn't - I haven't participated actively in the GA for 10 years, but I still vote on most resolutions. Just like I vote on most SC resolutions. So how would you classify me?

Secondly, we listen to input from people in NS Sports when someone from NS Sports is being commended, we listen to input from II when a great RP is being commended/condemned etc. The point is we listen to, and when we're doing our research reach out to, the communities they're most active in to see if it's warranted or a good idea. It sounds like you're the one who wants the GA treated differently.

Fauxia wrote:Here, once again, emerges the ever-growing ego of the General Assembly, attempting to rear its many heads into the realms of other players (emphasis on sport. While, obviously, sports players will enjoy their own game as they like before listening to the wailing of the General Assembly, I still object to the implication, which on this website is just arrogant and silly).

I would disagree it's telling NS Sport people what to do. It's written in an IC manner and, like in many RPs, you write what would be realistic. If an international body like the UN was to sanction someone they'd mention sporting events. If the sports bit is too much for you, I'll take it out, but it really wasn't written with NS Sports in mind.

It sounds like you don't really like the GA. I am sorry to hear that.

Posted: **Tue Jun 29, 2021 12:38 pm**

Fauxia wrote:
Nova Vandalia wrote:Right the problem is nations go through IC moments. Sancteria actually has a really good example of why Recommendation "i" is bad.

This https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=532983 is an IC dispatch from Sancteria where an IC character declared abortions illegal in his nation.

For the record, that is a bill, and the dispatch seems to suggest it was not likely to pass. But you are right, it's silly to punish players for good roleplay.

Not that non-compliance is always good roleplay, obviously.

Ope, thank you for pointing that out, Fauxia! (Genuinely! Lol Like I said on brand for me to miss things, and misread things and why I'm afraid I've misunderstood this clause .) But there are instances of it across NS, and I feel like we just need to be super careful about that when it comes to this clause, especially given the still new nature of Declarations.

Posted: **Tue Jun 29, 2021 12:43 pm**

Sanctaria wrote:
Nova Vandalia wrote:Now that dispatch is 5 years old

You're showing a dispatch from 5 years ago and saying that I'm not in compliance with a law passed 1 year ago?

If a law was passed by the GA after the dispatch then ... I am in compliance with that law unless otherwise stated obviously? Anyway, the bill didn't pass, it was defeated in the Senate. But I don't think Sanctaria was where I had my WA then anyway.

I was, and remain, willing to engage with you in good faith on the issue, but this is a strange tactic to use when someone is trying to work with you.

I mean I apologize if it cause any offense that wasn't my purpose I was trying to point out how easy non compliance with one of the hundreds of GA resolutions can be, I mean you're someone heavily evolved with the GA, it would be much easier for people often uninvolved with the GA, which is a lot of R/D folks, a lot of Card Collectors, a good portions of NSGP.

" I am in compliance with that law unless otherwise stated obviously?" depends because that's not included in initial resolution nor the declaration to make that delineation is it? I'm very unfamiliar with how GA resolutions would affect that kind of IC RP stance because well it's never come up in the SC before in a meaningful way like this.

Posted: **Tue Jun 29, 2021 12:45 pm**

Nova Vandalia wrote:I mean I apologize if it cause any offense that wasn't my purpose I was trying to point out how easy non compliance with one of the hundreds of GA resolutions can be, especially for people often uninvolved with the GA.

I absolutely appreciate that, and I know the GA isn't the easiest of places to jump in and get accustomed to. That's why I used the terms wilful and knowingly, so as to underline we're talking about the nations that deliberately set out to be non-compliant and do so in a bad-faith manner. If the definition isn't clear, I can revisit it.

Posted: **Tue Jun 29, 2021 12:48 pm**

Meh okay, my opinion on this is pretty neutral tbh. I've probably accidentally non-complied multiple times when I join WA, especially on puppets.

Posted: **Tue Jun 29, 2021 12:49 pm**

The Python wrote:I've probably accidentally non-complied multiple times when I join WA, especially on puppets.

This has come up enough times already that I may change the definition to include deliberate, but I had thought using the terms wilful, knowingly, and in bad faith were clear enough. That's noted for future drafts.

Posted: **Tue Jun 29, 2021 12:58 pm**

Sanctaria wrote:
Nova Vandalia wrote:I mean I apologize if it cause any offense that wasn't my purpose I was trying to point out how easy non compliance with one of the hundreds of GA resolutions can be, especially for people often uninvolved with the GA.

I absolutely appreciate that, and I know the GA isn't the easiest of places to jump in and get accustomed to. That's why I used the terms wilful and knowingly, so as to underline we're talking about the nations that deliberately set out to be non-compliant and do so in a bad-faith manner. If the definition isn't clear, I can revisit it.

Right so I think that may be what my brain isn't interpreting the same as everyone else! Thank you! and Thank you for being understanding about the example :oops:

bit embarrased there.

Because it seems like if you're in the WA, you have access and opportunity to the knowledge and you don't use it, that could be put in a bad light as wilful ignorance.

But I also understand that semantic like this can severely bog down a conversation and get nitpicky too, and don't want that.

Maybe something instead like "in open defiance of"? where the emphasis is put on it being explicitly clear (it will let some get by of course that might not comply but I think it would get more to the root of your aim)?

Posted: **Tue Jun 29, 2021 1:01 pm**

I'm in favor of keeping i. in the draft. The SC is supposed to be an IC branch of the WA, much like the GA, and I think it's a great idea to have declarations that deal with noncompliance and actually encourage ways to react to it. Note, Fauxia, that declarations are non-binding pieces of legislation and that you don't have to follow a mandate from one. It's an amazing IC chance the SC has.

Posted: **Tue Jun 29, 2021 1:14 pm**

Lenlyvit wrote:I'm in favor of keeping i. in the draft. The SC is supposed to be an IC branch of the WA, much like the GA, and I think it's a great idea to have declarations that deal with noncompliance and actually encourage ways to react to it. Note, Fauxia, that declarations are non-binding pieces of legislation and that you don't have to follow a mandate from one. It's an amazing IC chance the SC has.

I mean you're right on the bolded bit in theory, but we don't actually have any precedence for how the community is going to handle it and the actual power these are going to have to sway arguments. I think they're definitely going to shape things quite a bit more others are predicting at least for a while, and until we can see them in action over time that we need to be careful and precise. I mean this if passed has the potential to influence any and all future C&C's, how strongly we don't know yet, which is why I'm very tepid about giving full support quite yet.

We're going to have growing pains on declarations either way, but we might as well be cautious and having a hot water bottle ready just in case, ya know.

NationStates

[DRAFT] Declaration on Non-Compliance

[DRAFT] Declaration on Non-Compliance