[Draft] World Assembly Border Rights

[Tinfect Diplomatic Enclave]

World Assembly Diplomatic Exchange

Category: International Security

Strength: Significant

---

The General Assembly,

Acknowledging that Member-States have the essential right and obligation to demarcate, respect, and protect their territorial boundaries and jurisdictions, as well as those of other Member-States,

Believing that infringements upon the upholding of this right and obligation constitute an existential threat to Member-States,

Hereby,

Mandates;

1. That Member-States not attempt to enforce national laws outside of their respective jurisdictions except by mutual agreement between relevant Member-States, or where requireed by standing legislation,
2. That Member-States refrain from making unreasonable border claims in an attempt to place political, economic, military pressure on a Member-State with which they are not at war, or other such bad-faith territorial claim

Reserves to Member States;

1. The right to define their own borders except where restricted by standing legislation, including this legislation, or where such border conflicts with that of another Member-State, unless the relevant Member-States are in a state of war,
2. The right to determine the legal permeability of their borders, including, but not limited to, the areas of Immigration, Refugees, or International Trade, except where restricted by standing legislation, including this legislation,

Constructs the World Association (of) Land Labellers (WALL), with the following mandates,

1. Assisting Member-States in coming to mutual agreements regarding border control disputes between Member-States,
2. Determining what border-claims constitute 'bad-faith' claims through independent investigation, negotiation, and arbitration,
3. Reducing border aggression through monitoring and limiting the use of 'bad-faith' border claims,
4. Redefining border-claims according to independent social and political research in the event that Member-States are unable to reach a mutual resolution to border conflicts, or 'bad-faith' claims,

States that all resolutions reached by the WALL regarding its above mandates are to be considered binding for a period of no less than 10 years, after which point the issue may be submitted by relevant national authorities for renegotiation, arbitrated by the WALL.

OOC:
Yeah. Something-Something the positions espoused in this draft may not represent my actual political beliefs.

[Bears Armed]

OOC

That Member-States not attempt to enforce national laws outside of their respective jurisdictions except by mutual agreement between relevant Member-States,

When a GA Resolution passes it becomes "national law" in all member nations, so this would bar member nations from trying to enforce GA resolutions outside of their respective jurisdictions... which would illegally Contradict several of them.

[Tinfect Diplomatic Enclave]

OOC

That Member-States not attempt to enforce national laws outside of their respective jurisdictions except by mutual agreement between relevant Member-States,

When a GA Resolution passes it becomes "national law" in all member nations, so this would bar member nations from trying to enforce GA resolutions outside of their respective jurisdictions... which would illegally Contradict several of them.

OOC:
*cough*
Yeah, I'll fix that now.

[Mallorea and Riva]

You seem to imply a difference between political boundaries and jurisdiction. Care to elaborate? It's difficult to know whether to support when you don't define where a member state has jurisdiction.

[Secundus Imperium Romanum]

Giulia Maccini: On setting up a department for arbitration we even accept, but at the outset, regarding the nations and their legislations we disagree, we expect better answers on this.

[Tinfect Diplomatic Enclave]

OOC:
Let's just kick this a bit higher up the page...

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC:

That Member-States not attempt to enforce national laws outside of their respective jurisdictions except by mutual agreement between relevant Member-States, or where requireed by standing legislation,

You misspelled Required at the end there. Also, how does this work when a member state is trying to combat international crime? You get somebody in, say, Canada sitting just over the border from the US and who is hacking US bank accounts of US citizens. If Canada and the US were WA members and Canada didn't give the US permission to extend their legal jurisdiction, it looks like the US has to just sit there and take it.

If you're going to make a provision that seems to limit a state's ability to address cross-border crimes that are becoming so popular in today's digital age (especially where many states have an interest in ignoring it...*coughrussiacough*) I really think you'll need to enforce extradition or cooperation requirements, no matter how unpopular they may be. Otherwise, you're probably best off leaving this prickly question out entirely.

[Bakhton]

"There's no purpose to this resolution except to legislate what's already de facto precedent or legal precedent (GAR #2) in order to stop any border opening resolutions. We are opposed."