[Legality Challenge] - Ban on World Assembly Conscription

[Simone Republic]

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=546649

Text of challenged resolution

Recognising the harms caused by conscription to innocent civilians, such that it has already been restricted for member nations through GA #660, "Protecting Objectors in Combative Military Service";

Wishing to extend these protections to conscription by the World Assembly itself, while further noting that, as conscription is not a "law enforcement action" inasmuch as it does not enforce any actual law, GA #698 does not bar the World Assembly from prohibiting the creation of such a law or extralegal action by itself;

The World Assembly enacts as follows.

Neither the World Assembly nor any committee or agent thereof may coerce, require, or otherwise compel any individual to:

serve in any military or police force; or

serve in any role in an armed conflict wherein that individual would be required to attempt to directly cause physical harm or injury to any other individual, should that individual have expressed a bona fide conscientious, moral, or religious objection against serving in that role.

No member nation, or administrative or political subdivision thereof, may penalise any individual for any act or omission, with regards to a World Assembly-run military or police force, for which the World Assembly is prohibited from penalising an individual under Section 1.

Clause 1 of this draft (I discussed this with Mage on this, obviously he can't rule so it would be an odd number of Gensec voting)

Quote from text:

Neither the World Assembly nor any committee or agent thereof may coerce, require, or otherwise compel any individual to:

1. serve in any military or police force; or
   
2. serve in any role in an armed conflict wherein that individual would be required to attempt to directly cause physical harm or injury to any other individual, should that individual have expressed a bona fide conscientious, moral, or religious objection against serving in that role.

Relevant rule:

"A proposal cannot define: who can/cannot staff the committee, how members are chosen, and term lengths"

Challenge

1: I plead the definition "how members are chosen" extends to "how members are excluded" (it's just plain English reading). A WA resolution excluding anyone unwilling to cause physical harm (1b of the proposal) is a violation of that rule.

2: I plead that the preceding clause is "who can/cannot staff the committee". I note the explicit use of the word "cannot". It is not up to a WA resolution to argue that those unwilling to cause physical harm (1b of the proposal) cannot serve in a committee.

3. The rule is applicable regardless of whether the committee has a plausible interest in using physical force, i.e., not just the IEC, but also say humanitarian transport, piracy, or (especially IC) the Office of Building Management ie WA Headquarters given the heavy IC use of weapons of mass destruction.

4. I also plead for a ruling that says all resolutions regarding terms of employment of WA employees (gnomes, hamsters, the single turtle keeping the lights on, etc.) to be illegal to rule out further challenges on the grounds that they are all "staff". This is regardless of which committee they work under.

[The Overmind]

Are you arguing that the correct reading of the committee staffing rule is that the WA can force people to be on a committee against their will?

[The Ice States]

I believe the plain reading of the rule, even the "who cannot staff a committee" wording, does not render the proposal illegal. The resolution is worded not in terms of conscripts being barred from serving on a WA military, it's restricting the WA military from forcing people to join instead. The same people can still staff the committee, the restriction is just on the IEC using particular tactics (coercion, compulsion, etc); this is a plain English reading. I don't see how 3 is relevant, and I'm not sure what 4 is asking for. There is also an argument that soldiers are not necessarily staff; eg [1].

I think it might also be worth raising a matter brought up by Lieutenant Columbo here, specifically whether it contradicts the blocker in #698. I don't believe it does, as argued in the preamble. That said it would be good to know this, both to advance this proposal and to inform repeal efforts against #698, particularly [2].

(As a note, to preempt any arguments about this, I am posting here as a player, not as a Gensec member, as obviously the challenged proposal is mine.)

[Simone Republic]

Are you arguing that the correct reading of the committee staffing rule is that the WA can force people to be on a committee against their will?

That's different. I am simply arguing that the WA cannot pass a resolution on who staffs, who cannot staff, whether they are dragged into a committee, or held at gunpoint to serve on whichever committee that bores people to tears (maybe IFO Seedbank or some of those really obscure ones) because that's what the rule says.

[Kenmoria]

The Moderator precedent, though it is only persuasive, seems to agree with this challenge: Flibbleites, WA Employment Act. This is an interesting one; it certainly deserves some consideration.

[The Overmind]

Are you arguing that the correct reading of the committee staffing rule is that the WA can force people to be on a committee against their will?

That's different. I am simply arguing that the WA cannot pass a resolution on who staffs, who cannot staff, whether they are dragged into a committee, or held at gunpoint to serve on whichever committee that bores people to tears (maybe IFO Seedbank or some of those really obscure ones) because that's what the rule says.

If the WA cannot make people join a committee forcibly, this does nothing to change that. And if it neither achieves that in words nor in practice, I think this falls far short of legislating the staffing of a committee. So, are you arguing that this makes a change to the way committees are staffed, because the WA can already compel people to join committees? And, if not, how does this proposal, which doesn't explicitly change the staffing of committees, set up any sort of rule about how committees are staffed?

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

I agree this is worth consideration. I am not very convinced by the Moderator precedent in this case.

The challenged proposal prohibits the WA (and any committee) from effectively forcing military or police service on an individual or from deploying a person into combat against their will.

There is a missing step in the logic of illegality, it seems to me, which requires that we equate "any military or police force" or "any role in an armed conflict" with "staffing a committee". It is not clear to me that this is true. To use the IEC as an example, it is established as a committee of the GA. This, my logic, implies that there are members of the committee. The most natural reading of "staff the committee" would seem to refer to such members who run the committee. I do not think there can be any argument that any requirements on the committee members are foreclosed by the rule as it currently exists.

What is less clear to me is whether this extends to the level the challenger is arguing. Continuing with the IEC as our example, it is tasked with providing Law Enforcement Officers upon request to fulfil certain tasks. It is not at all obvious to me that the actual law enforcement officers would be "staffing the committee" as it seems exceedingly unlikely the persons chosen as committee members would PERSONALLY go out to carry out such a mandate (nevermind the idea of having a committee with enough members to actually do that). It would be far more natural to assume that the committee would either directly hire a set of law enforcement officers, or borrow them from a member state.

It seems the real question here is "Is an employee of a committee or an organization or body created by a committee 'staffing' the committee within the meaning of that term in the ruleset?"


Concrete hypothetical: In more concrete terms, imagine the United States House Committee on Veteran's Affairs. Its members are, obviously, members of the House of Representatives. It employs several document clerks to push paper around. Is the document clerk "staffing" the Veteran's Affairs committee?

[Simone Republic]

That's different. I am simply arguing that the WA cannot pass a resolution on who staffs, who cannot staff, whether they are dragged into a committee, or held at gunpoint to serve on whichever committee that bores people to tears (maybe IFO Seedbank or some of those really obscure ones) because that's what the rule says.

If the WA cannot make people join a committee forcibly, this does nothing to change that. And if it neither achieves that in words nor in practice, I think this falls far short of legislating the staffing of a committee. So, are you arguing that this makes a change to the way committees are staffed, because the WA can already compel people to join committees? And, if not, how does this proposal, which doesn't explicitly change the staffing of committees, set up any sort of rule about how committees are staffed?

Again, that's not what I said. I am simply arguing that the GA may not even have the authority to legislate on this matter in the first place, unless Gensec rules otherwise.

[The Overmind]

If the WA cannot make people join a committee forcibly, this does nothing to change that. And if it neither achieves that in words nor in practice, I think this falls far short of legislating the staffing of a committee. So, are you arguing that this makes a change to the way committees are staffed, because the WA can already compel people to join committees? And, if not, how does this proposal, which doesn't explicitly change the staffing of committees, set up any sort of rule about how committees are staffed?

Again, that's not what I said. I am simply arguing that the GA may not even have the authority to legislate on this matter in the first place, unless Gensec rules otherwise.

You are simply arguing that the committee staffing rule is being violated. That's what's in the OP. So if this proposal neither explicitly nor in effect changes how the WA selects committee members, where is the foundation of your argument?

Edit: I am going to carefully reread your argument tomorrow taking on good faith that I am missing something. Response to follow.

[Simone Republic]

It is not at all obvious to me that the actual law enforcement officers would be "staffing the committee" as it seems exceedingly unlikely the persons chosen as committee members would PERSONALLY go out to carry out such a mandate (nevermind the idea of having a committee with enough members to actually do that).

I can think of at least one counterexample - the SEC rule on Section 21(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 requiring companies to report on certain matters regarding wrongdoing was notoriously drafted by Harvey Pitt, the then chairman of the SEC himself.

Another arguably example is Kevin Vickers of the Canada Parliament (in a way an administrator so more broadly similar to the WA head for the Office of Building Management) having to shoot dead an intruder himself back in 2014. It's very unlikely but not unprecedented.

It seems the real question here is "Is an employee of a committee or an organization or body created by a committee 'staffing' the committee within the meaning of that term in the ruleset?"

You are putting it more eloquently than I can, as usual.

Concrete hypothetical: In more concrete terms, imagine the United States House Committee on Veteran's Affairs. Its members are, obviously, members of the House of Representatives. It employs several document clerks to push paper around. Is the document clerk "staffing" the Veteran's Affairs committee?

That interpretation largely chimes with my understanding of American political jargon. But whether that's the standard to adopt is again for the Sexuality Ambiguous Boy Band Pink Brigade.

Edit: I kind of misunderstood the American terminology, re the comments from VH below.

[Verdant Haven]

Concrete hypothetical: In more concrete terms, imagine the United States House Committee on Veteran's Affairs. Its members are, obviously, members of the House of Representatives. It employs several document clerks to push paper around. Is the document clerk "staffing" the Veteran's Affairs committee?

That interpretation largely chimes with my understanding of American political jargon.

As someone who has worked for the US Federal Government for nearly 20 years... no. Being a non-member employee of a committee, or being a person who does the work dictated by a committee, or even being the chief advisor to a committee member and therefore being the one who actually does most of the research that committee member uses to make decisions... none of these are, in any circumstance, considered to be staffing that committee. "Staffing a committee" means being one of the committee members - full stop.

(Edit: just clarifying that this is meant as an explanation of how the term is used in the American government. It isn't a "modly" statement, nor should it be taken as "official" - the WA is not the American government, and GenSec makes that call!)

[Imperium Anglorum]

I agree that the only novel question here is whether the verb "staff" in "A proposal cannot define who can ... staff the committee" refers to all persons employed by the committee or only the decision-makers of the committee.

The GA canon, however, is that all persons who serve the GA pop into existence and perform their duties satisfactorily. There is no basis to regulate who is in the employ of the GA under this convention. Gnomes asked to go Helldiving™ onto foreign planets to save democracy have no conscientious objection issues because they are created solely to and have no compunctions with spreading GA democracy and freedom.

Because the canon assumes all GA committees already have sufficient employees to carry out their tasks, there is no basis for the proposal at all: the WA need not compel any WA member's nationals to serve in a military or police force. I note also that it also implies that the GA can successfully invade all non-member nations because this convention implies it has literally limitless manpower.

The Moderator precedent, though it is only persuasive, seems to agree with this challenge: Flibbleites, WA Employment Act. This is an interesting one; it certainly deserves some consideration.

This has nothing to do with the committee rule. It has to do with whether there is any effect at all on member nations. If there is no effect at all on member nations then the proposal cannot fit in any category.

[Wallenburg]

That interpretation largely chimes with my understanding of American political jargon.

As someone who has worked for the US Federal Government for nearly 20 years... no. Being a non-member employee of a committee, or being a person who does the work dictated by a committee, or even being the chief advisor to a committee member and therefore being the one who actually does most of the research that committee member uses to make decisions... none of these are, in any circumstance, considered to be staffing that committee. "Staffing a committee" means being one of the committee members - full stop.

(Edit: just clarifying that this is meant as an explanation of how the term is used in the American government. It isn't a "modly" statement, nor should it be taken as "official" - the WA is not the American government, and GenSec makes that call!)

That said, it seems rather unclear which way to go on this. Certainly contractors with WA committees do not "staff" those committees themselves, but we certainly agree that all US postal workers are staff of the USPS, even though they aren't on its board of governors. "Committee" in a WA sense isn't reserved for the equivalent of congressional committees, with a few individuals who then direct actions to occur outside the committee itself. Rather, WA committees include all sorts of organs. Where IEC officers are described as such, and the carriage of police action by IEC officers is described as the IEC carrying out law enforcement action, it's difficult to argue that these officers certainly aren't staff.

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

Gensec has voted to hear this challenge:

We are considering the following question:

Does the word "staff" in the rule "A proposal cannot define who can ... staff the committee" refers to all persons employed by the committee or only the decision-makers of the committee ?

[Simone Republic]

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=544624

I concurrently also challenge that the Local Demilitarization resolution from Mage is also potentially violating the same issue, since clause 5(a) of that resolution specifies the type of uniform in the first place worn by gnomes and I believe there is no grounds to specify the type of uniform WA staff wear if we are not able to specify the type of staff or employment conditions in the first place.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The Secretariat has found this proposal illegal. An opinion has been drafted and is forthcoming.

*** Opinion of the Secretariat ***
Proposal: Ban on World Assembly Conscription
Date: 9 April 2024
Decision: Proposal is illegal, 0–4
Action: Committees (0–4)

Imperium Anglorum wrote the opinion, joined by Separatist Peoples, Kenmoria, and Desmosthenes and Burke. Desmosthenes and Burke filed a concurring opinion, joined by Kenmoria. The Ice States took no part in this decision.

Opinion.

[1] The instant challenge is a committee action alleging that a prohibition on a committee conscripting people into its service violates the committee rule, specifically that "a proposal cannot define[] who can [or] cannot staff the committee". While it would first appear that the only relevant issue is what the verb "staff" means, analysis of this question requires taking into account the convention – here meaning a generally-agreed upon state of affairs in the General Assembly – that committees are all staffed by gnomes.

[2] This section of the committee rule emerges from a compromise almost twenty years old. In 2005, the Enodian ruleset was superseded. Moderators were initially insistent on banning the creation of all committees on game mechanics and metagaming grounds. After public opposition and a meaningful discussion with stakeholders, they took into consideration the GA community's position in the final outcome. It is from here that we get much of our pre-reform committee rule.

"Committees may be created, as long as certain things are kept in mind: nations do not sit on committees, they are staffed by mystical beings [gnomes] that instantly spring into existance [sic] and live only to serve on said committee. Committees are also bound by the above MetaGame rules. Also, keep in mind that Committees are additions to Proposals; they shouldn't be all the Proposal does". The Most Glorious Hack, Jolt archive (14 April 2005) (capitalisation original).

Emphasis in the past was much more on the staffing side. We are unaware of any substantive case on the committee staffing aspect in the last dozen years. Developments in committee jurisprudence have been focused on questioning what committees can do and how; in 2005 the whole quarrel from the 2015 consortium straw poll to Ban on Secret Treaties [2017] GAS 10 through to the ultimate 2018 reform was a seeming afterthought.

[3] Like in the past, committees today do many things: they investigate (GA 390 "Compliance Commission"); they do justice (GA 440 "Administrative Compliance Act"); they build abortion clinics (GA 499 "Access to Abortion"). The gnomes of the NS United Nations that conducted environmental research (HR 217 "Environmental Science"), settled trade disputes (HR 130 "Global Food Distribution Act" s 6), and conducted demining operations (HR 150 "UN Demining Survey" s 5) are the same gnomes we have today. The gnomes part of these committees were understood as "staff" then and under prior construction gives them that status now.

[4] The verb "staff" also carries a broad meaning inclusive of employees. Oxford Dictionary of English (3rd edn, OUP 2010) sv "staff" gives for the verb form "provide (an organisation, business, etc.) with staff [noun]" and defines the noun as "all the people employed by a particular organisation". This non-officer meaning is also reflected in the noun at Cambridge Business English Dictionary (2011) sv "staff": "all the people who work for a particular company or organisation".

[5] Soldiers in a GA army are staff. To exclude some people due to certain characteristics would be to define "who... cannot staff the committee". The why emerges from the gnome convention: the staff are "mystical beings [gnomes] that instantly spring into existence and live only to serve on [that] committee". The Most Glorious Hack, supra (quotation cleaned up). In effect, we have an exclusive story as to how committees are staffed; contradicting it by throwing in non-mystical beings is not permitted.

[6] While GA conventions via the committee rule restrict what authors can specify about who the staff are, they do not restrict what the staff are to do. The argument that some tasks per se preclude people who would not be willing to do them (eg conscientious objection to abortion or violence) is impossible under the gnome convention. The staff are all mystical beings ontologically inseparable from service and therefore have no such compunctions.

Concurrence (Desmosthenes and Burke).

[7] I join the majority opinion in full, as it accurately summarizes the history and current state of affairs in the General Assembly. I write separately solely to clarify why this state of affairs should continue, despite the limitation it poses on authors and the oddity of the GA having what amounts to an entire species of mythological creature slaves to enforce its every whim.

[8] Paragraph 2 accurately describes the history of the text of the committee rule. Naturally, the moderator's choice of rule is not binding upon GenSec, but to the extent it represents a reasoned choice and compromise, it is persuasive and worthy of strong consideration.

[9] When the reasoning for the portion of the committee rule prohibiting specifying staffing was questioned during the 2018 reform of the rule, moderator Frisbeeteria provided an explanation of the original drafters' reasons for formulating the rule as they did.

[10] In isolation, I would not find the proffered justification persuasive or sufficient. However, I believe there is an alternate justification for the rule.

[11] In my opinion, the gnome convention and attendant portion of the committee rule function as a pragmatic abstraction that allows committees to exist and function within the constraints that exist on GA proposals that do not apply to real world legislation.

[12] GA authors are challenged to limit their proposals to 5,000 characters or less, which is quite challenging to achieve on a complex topic, which partially explains why committees exist in the first place. By prohibiting authors from delving into the inner workings and logistics of committees, the rule serves the dual purpose of shielding authors from attack on the workings of their committee and ensuring the author's focus remains on enacting substantive policy in the resolution.

2024gas6

[The Ice States]

To exclude some people due to certain characteristics would be to define "who... cannot staff the committee".

How does the proposal do this? I don't think "only joining the WA army due to having been held at gunpoint" is a characteristic, especially when those same people can still join as long as they do so voluntarily. I have no strong objections to the rest of this.

[Simone Republic]

To exclude some people due to certain characteristics would be to define "who... cannot staff the committee".

How does the proposal do this? I don't think "only joining the WA army due to having been held at gunpoint" is a characteristic, especially when those same people can still join as long as they do so voluntarily. I have no strong objections to the rest of this.

I happen to think that "being held at gunpoint to join the WA army" is a characteristic.

Also can I assume that the Convention on Local Militarization about headgear discriminates against mystical gnomes that don't have heads, and is therefore also a characteristic that is also illegal?

[Bisofeyr]

How does the proposal do this? I don't think "only joining the WA army due to having been held at gunpoint" is a characteristic, especially when those same people can still join as long as they do so voluntarily. I have no strong objections to the rest of this.

Also can I assume that the Convention on Local Militarization about headgear discriminates against mystical gnomes that don't have heads, and is therefore also a characteristic that is also illegal?

I still don't understand this argument: wearing headgear is an action which a committee-member takes, and [6] explicitly states that resolutions can determine what the staff of a committee are to do. This is tantamount to claiming that the World Assembly Patent Office is discriminatory as to who can staff the committee because the duties inextricably require a background knowledge of patent law, so any staffers must have that knowledge.

[Simone Republic]

Also can I assume that the Convention on Local Militarization about headgear discriminates against mystical gnomes that don't have heads, and is therefore also a characteristic that is also illegal?

I still don't understand this argument: wearing headgear is an action which a committee-member takes, and [6] explicitly states that resolutions can determine what the staff of a committee are to do. This is tantamount to claiming that the World Assembly Patent Office is discriminatory as to who can staff the committee because the duties inextricably require a background knowledge of patent law, so any staffers must have that knowledge.

Obviously you can reverse my argument and say that gnomes being mystical can wear whatever they want using such means as whatever Catherine Gratwick determines. It's a mystical story anyway. I think that's the interpretation that they are taking.

[Imperium Anglorum]

To exclude some people due to certain characteristics would be to define "who... cannot staff the committee".

How does the proposal do this? I don't think "only joining the WA army due to having been held at gunpoint" is a characteristic, especially when those same people can still join as long as they do so voluntarily. I have no strong objections to the rest of this.

They can't join even if they wanted to do so voluntarily because they aren't gnomes. If they did join they would be staff, which falls within the scope of the committee rule definition, so they can't.

[The Ice States]

How does the proposal do this? I don't think "only joining the WA army due to having been held at gunpoint" is a characteristic, especially when those same people can still join as long as they do so voluntarily. I have no strong objections to the rest of this.

They can't join even if they wanted to do so voluntarily because they aren't gnomes. If they did join they would be staff, which falls within the scope of the committee rule definition, so they can't.

I guess I wasn't very clear in what I meant there; the proposal does not ban any particular class of persons, or persons holding some characteristic, from serving on a committee, it merely prohibits them from doing so involuntarily. The main question I was asking then is how the proposal does "exclude some people due to certain characteristics"; I'm not convinced that being conscripted is a characteristic.

[The Overmind]

-snip-

Seeking some clarification: if a committee is formed to coordinate the activity of non-WA staff, would that constitute a loophole in the enforcement of this decision? Here is a test case (assume that there is a non-committee operative clause elsewhere in the proposal):

1. Hereby forms the TEST committee to coordinate the staff of member nation coffee houses in order to:
   
   1. Ensure uniform standards of coffee quality across member nations,
   2. Implement the World Assembly proprietary coffee blend, and all required preparatory techniques,
   3. Uphold sacred pre-brewing rituals, and
   4. Certify that member nation coffee house staffing worthy of the World Assembly and its rigorous standards is maintained

[Simone Republic]

Re-submitting this challenge.

viewtopic.php?p=41497336#p41497336
Paragraph 12 of this ruling: what exactly is this supposed to mean here: "By prohibiting authors from delving into the inner workings and logistics of committees" - does "IPF personnel must wear headgear, such as military-grade helmets, of a standardised light blue colour at all times when on duty" count towards the "inner workings" of a committee?

Note that the final wording submitted (again) for clause 5(a) is "IPF personnel must wear headgear, such as military-grade helmets, of a standardised light blue colour at all times when on duty." (Underline mine.) I would give a tighter reading to the words "inner workings" given the "when on duty" qualifier.

[The Overmind]

Re-submitting this challenge.

viewtopic.php?p=41497336#p41497336
Paragraph 12 of this ruling: what exactly is this supposed to mean here: "By prohibiting authors from delving into the inner workings and logistics of committees" - does "IPF personnel must wear headgear, such as military-grade helmets, of a standardised light blue colour at all times when on duty" count towards the "inner workings" of a committee?

Note that the final wording submitted (again) for clause 5(a) is "IPF personnel must wear headgear, such as military-grade helmets, of a standardised light blue colour at all times when on duty." (Underline mine.) I would give a tighter reading to the words "inner workings" given the "when on duty" qualifier.

The rule reads as follows:

"Committees: Every proposal must affect member states in some fashion. A committee may be the primary agent of that effect, but forming it may not be the proposal's only action. Requiring member states to interact with the committee somehow is sufficient, provided the interaction creates a measurable burden - one more strenuous than simply filing paperwork.

• A proposal cannot define: who can/cannot staff the committee, how members are chosen, and term lengths
• A committee continues to exist after its resolution is repealed if it's used in another resolution
• A single-use committee that died when its resolution was repealed may be revived for a relevant new proposal"

As such, I think it's clear that "inner workings and logistics of committees" refers to "who can/cannot staff the committee, how members are chosen, and term lengths" and not what type of hats they wear.