[Challenge] Gruenberg v Compliance Commission

[Bears Armed]

I'll quote the Rules:

Contradiction: From the verb 'to contradict' - to state [the] opposite or deny a concept or idea. Proposals which conflict with explicit clauses within an active resolution will be removed.

In my opinion, a requires clause doesn't "state the opposite" or "deny" an encourages clause.

In my opinion, in that context, it would: Requiring that member nations not do something that an existing resolution encourages them to do certainly seems contradictory enough for illegality.

Anyway, although I still hold by the opinion that I gave in the post Gruen quoted in the Challenge (namely that a resolution banning a type of action requires member nations' governments to refrain from such actions themselves and to try preventing the performance of such actions by anybody else within their jurisdictions, but doesn't automatically require that they prosecute -- or impose serious sentences on -- people who do perform such actions) -- despite Mouse having ruled to the contrary -- I think that the evidence-gathering which this proposal "strongly encourages" member nations to conduct is something that they almost certainly should (and, at least in most nations, would) already doing as a part of good-faith compliance.
Therefore I hold that that encouragement alone is not enough to make the proposal legal under "Not just 'Committee Only'" rule, and that if it is re-submitted without a significant change in that respect then it should be deemed Illegal on that basis.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Where are we on the original question, that is, is noncompliance legal or illegal to acknolwedge?

So far, I count:

GR+SL+Sciograd+SP: Legal, per this opinion
CD: ??? (hasn't said one way or another on the noncompliance question)
Bears: Illegal, per this opinion

[Sciongrad]

Most of my explanation can be found in the actual thread. Here is a summary of my thoughts on the metagaming rule as it applies to non-compliance from the thread:

[...] When Ard ruled that resolutions can't mention non-compliance because it would force a roleplaying paradigm on everyone, the only possible rule that could violate is the metagaming rule. But it doesn't. [...] My only question was whether or not there is a difference between forcing nations to recognize nuclear weapons and the possibility of noncompliance. If there is not, it is not illegal to force roleplaying paradigms on players through the WA by the metagaming rule, and therefore, I believe this proposal is legal on those grounds. So would a proposal that recognizes humans or FT.

I believe that recognizing non-compliance is totally legal and I don't think it violates the metagaming rule to adopt roleplaying paradigms. I'll sign on with your opinion.

[Separatist Peoples]

I disagree with the notion that the Compliance Commission clearly references the telegram entity. Unlike Gruen's SC reference, this is distinct enough from the OOC entity that I am willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. If somebody were to create a Security Council committee that was relatively distinct from the SC as an OOC entity, I might also find that sufficiently distinct.

I also disagree that even reasonable nations necessarily follow their own laws. History is rife with nations ignoring their own laws to further their agenda, and I don't see why that wouldn't be the case here, where the consequences for not following the rules is so very much lower than it would be for a real government.

In my own war crimes resolutions, I've dealt explicitly with instances of noncompliance, outlining a requirement for nations to consider certain actions illegal and prosecute them. It would be unreasonable of me to find such a reference illegal when nearly all of my resolutions do something similar. As such, I join GR's opinion with Scion and SL.

This isn't a concurrence, just an explanation.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Alright, that makes a majority!

Here's what I've got. Bears & CD still need to write their official opinions, if they want to give one. I think I've got their positions right, though?

*** General Assembly Secretariat Decision ***
Challenged Proposal: Compliance Commission
Date of Decision: 5 December 2016
Decision: Proposal is legal, 4-2
Rules Applied: Metagaming

Concerned that nations are unwilling to prosecute violators of World Assembly legislation and actively destroying evidence of crimes against humanity,

Asserting that members have an obligation to comply with policies enacted by the democratic mandate of the World Assembly as they have consented into its jurisdiction, and

Believing that cases of non-prosecution or destruction of evidence ought be investigated and archived so that a more objective conception of the truth can be established for future reference,

This august World Assembly hereby:

1. Establishes and empowers the WACC, hereafter referred to as the Compliance Commission, to conduct investigations on matters vis-à-vis observance with World Assembly resolutions and thereby establish an impartial and objective factual basis for future claims of jurisdiction and prosecutions thereof;
   
   
2. Requires both civilian and military police forces to create a liaison point with the Commission to provide evidence on war crimes in particular and adherence to WA legislation in general, and to those ends, demands that documents requested by the Commission not to be destroyed and to be handed over promptly so long as state security permits;
   
   
3. Permits the Compliance Commission, in specific investigations, to accept information and data which are presented by non-member nations and nations not party to that investigation; allows the Compliance Commission to request the assistance of nearby nations to more accurately assess and access the facts of the matter under investigation;
   
   
4. Strongly encourages nations to cooperate with the Compliance Commission on matters relevant to their security and conduct their own investigations into compliance with World Assembly resolutions as soon as possible; mandates the Compliance Commission inform nations of the passage of legislation, promulgation of regulations, or enactment of administrative policies relevant to their nation; and
   
   
5. Reminds member nations that this resolution establishes the Compliance Commission as a truth-seeking commission and does not grant it the ability to enforce or compel warrants, subpoenas, or judicial action on any nation, its leaders, or its citizens.

Majority Opinion (Glen-Rhodes)
Joined by Sciongrad, Separatist Peoples, and Sierra Lyricalia

Mentioning the possibility of noncompliance with a duly passed resolution is not a violation of the Metagaming rule. Given that there is no explicit rule in the General Assembly Rules for Proposals against it, and that the only justification for a ban on acknowledging noncompliance rests upon Metagaming itself, we rule that it is entirely legal to acknowledge the possibility of noncompliance in resolutions. We reaffirm this moderator ruling: viewtopic.php?p=29588233#p29588233.

To explain in more detail:

The question raised today is whether or not it is a violation of the Metagaming rule to mention the possibility of noncompliance with duly passed resolutions. “Compliance Commission” acknowledges the possibility of noncompliance with war crimes-related resolutions, in that it uses the possibility of destroying evidence as its justification. This presupposes that member states engage in crimes against humanity (a violation of Prevention of Torture) and that they’re destroying evidence of it (a violation of On Universal Jurisdiction).

The idea of noncompliance being impossible rests upon the game coding, specifically stat changes that occur when a resolution passes. There is no universally recognized in-character explanation for “mandatory compliance,” as it’s more widely known. Some use the idea of “magical gnomes” that force compliance with resolutions, but this isn’t officially sanctioned in the rules. We’re hesitant to obligate players to recognize these gnomes, or any other magical elements of roleplay, into their own canon. We're also hesitant to accept that stat changes are relevant to this question. After all, those changes can be reversed by answering Daily Issues, and those issues themselves often contradict GA resolutions.

While application of this idea has been inconsistent at times, past Mod rulings have declared proposals illegal for “trying to further enforce compliance when compliance is already enforced by the game mechanism.” ( http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic ... 8#p6177108 ) Mods have also contemplated the idea of levying fines for non-compliance with provisions in law, and ruled them to be illegal “because it [would] accept non-compliance as possible.” ( http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic ... 4#p3688994 ) This last ruling was, in fact, overturned by the Mods themselves: viewtopic.php?p=29588233#p29588233. We reaffirm that ruling.

Let's look at an instance where acknowledging noncompliance has been on the books for some time now. WAR#7 Workplace Safety Standards Act, contains the following provision:

13) Requires that each nation ensure that within it there exist at least one adequately funded governmental body that inspects work sites and ensures compliance with this act throughout its territory.

If noncompliance with the provisions of the act is impossible, why was this resolution not deleted for requiring the creation of bodies to ensure that noncompliance doesn’t happen? Many other resolutions include innocuous references to the possibility of noncompliance, often in ways that aren’t immediately apparent. This is why they likely didn’t raise flags with the Mods. Proposals deleted for acknowledging noncompliance, prior to the recent overturning of this convention, tended to be blatant in their acknowledgement. But any time a resolution creates a committee or tasks member states with “ensuring compliance” or “certifying compliance”, we are acknowledging at least the possibility of noncompliance by member states (or actors within).

In the end, what is more reasonable? That a government can’t cover up a war crime, because a resolution says it can’t, and for some reason we can’t explain in in-world terms, it’s just an impossibility? Or that a government can indeed flout the terms of resolutions with impunity, especially if there’s no enforcement mechanism in a resolution? The latter is not only realistic, but it’s the current state of affairs in many resolutions. We see no reason why acknowledging noncompliance is or should be impossible.

Member states have an obligation to follow laws, but so do the criminals who break them. Good faith obligations are broken all the time, and it’s beholden upon the law-writers to think of ways to prevent it and/or punish it. That being said, not every resolution needs a court or committee to enforce its terms. As in the real world, the international system itself can have a way of doing this. But if authors wish for something more guaranteed, they are free to create enforcement mechanisms in their proposals.

Bears Armed, Dissenting
(Opinion pending. Illegal for metagaming & committee-only rule violations.)

Christian Democrats, Dissenting
(Opinion pending. Illegal for metagaming due to the committee name.)

[Christian Democrats]

In the spoilered text of the proposal, you should include the category and strength.

Here's my opinion:

I respectfully dissent from today's decision. In my view, it's an obvious Metagaming violation for a GA author to name his committee after a body that already exists gameside. The proposal challenged in this case steals the name "Compliance Commission" from the organization that regularly sends telegrams to WA member nations. Likewise, I think it would be a clear Metagaming violation if a GA author sought to name a committee the "Security Council," the "Secretariat," the "Moderation Team," or anything of the sort. My reason for holding this position is largely pragmatic. In the same way that the widely accepted theatrical convention against "breaking the fourth wall" prevents confusion among the audience, the Metagaming Rule is, in part, supposed to prevent confusion among ordinary players. By giving their tacit approval to the name "Compliance Commission" in the majority opinion, my colleagues are opening up a can of worms.

[Bears Armed]

Bears: Illegal, per this opinion

That's an initial comment. My actual 'opinion', to be posted in the GA forum, will be phrased differently (and is under work).

[Separatist Peoples]

Ok, looks like they don't want us to let them know where we are in deliberations henceforth. Let 'em wonder about the numbers on decisions until we make the ruling.

[Sciongrad]

Ok, looks like they don't want us to let them know where we are in deliberations henceforth. Let 'em wonder about the numbers on decisions until we make the ruling.

Gladly. I can't help but feel that some complaints are just made for the sake of making complaints, though.

[Separatist Peoples]

Ok, looks like they don't want us to let them know where we are in deliberations henceforth. Let 'em wonder about the numbers on decisions until we make the ruling.

Gladly. I can't help but feel that some complaints are just made for the sake of making complaints, though.

If they want less information from us, then turn around and demand more, I'm happy to point them at that conversation. Complaining to complain has consequences. Like us listening. *shrug*

[Bears Armed]

So, it's been allowed to go to vote.
What about my other complaint about it?
The only bit that isn't just about the committee consists of 'strong encouragement' to do something that member nations probably should -- and in most cases would -- be doing under "good faith compliance" anyway, and any nations that aren't doing so already would probably ignore this encouragement too... so is it really enough to justify even a 'Mild' strength?
Or are we officially dropping the "must tell (or at least ask) member nations to do something that doesn't include the committee" aspect of the way in which that rule has [normally] been interpreted since before my first GA resolution?

[Separatist Peoples]

So, it's been allowed to go to vote.
What about my other complaint about it?
The only bit that isn't just about the committee consists of 'strong encouragement' to do something that member nations probably should -- and in most cases would -- be doing under "good faith compliance" anyway, and any nations that aren't doing so already would probably ignore this encouragement too... so is it really enough to justify even a 'Mild' strength?
Or are we officially dropping the "must tell (or at least ask) member nations to do something that doesn't include the committee" aspect of the way in which that rule has [normally] been interpreted since before my first GA resolution?

I ever liked that formulation of the Committee Only rule. Member states are acted upon, even if it involves the committee. I think that should be enough. The requirement to get beyond just having a committee should only be that the resolution act directly on member states, and not just establish and empower the committee.

Its probably the mildest of mild proposals, but it does anything, and that's enough for me.

[Bears Armed]

So, it's been allowed to go to vote.
What about my other complaint about it?
The only bit that isn't just about the committee consists of 'strong encouragement' to do something that member nations probably should -- and in most cases would -- be doing under "good faith compliance" anyway, and any nations that aren't doing so already would probably ignore this encouragement too... so is it really enough to justify even a 'Mild' strength?
Or are we officially dropping the "must tell (or at least ask) member nations to do something that doesn't include the committee" aspect of the way in which that rule has [normally] been interpreted since before my first GA resolution?

I ever liked that formulation of the Committee Only rule. Member states are acted upon, even if it involves the committee. I think that should be enough. The requirement to get beyond just having a committee should only be that the resolution act directly on member states, and not just establish and empower the committee.

Its probably the mildest of mild proposals, but it does anything, and that's enough for me.

I don't particularly like that formulation of the rule either, but I didn't recall it officially being discarded.
Vote?