Draft: Sanctions on Condemned Nations

[Killerustan]

I believe you will find support for this to be scant.

Maybe so but it's pretty clear its within the rules. Just look right there:

World Assembly Resolution #23

Section 10. Goods produced, in whole or in part, through servitude shall be permanently embargoed, and all investment and material support to nations, legal entities and persons practicing servitude immediately ended, except as transition assistance or compensated manumission to free people from such conditions;\

Now if this resolution is allowed to embargo trade of slave countries which by the way are usually not WA member states then it is certainly legal for my motion to do the same. There is no violation of any rule by this proposal. This argument that you can not force by GA resolution member states to conduct an embargo against a class of nations is a fiction. Its been done!

World Assembly Resolution #23 proves all your arguments against this resolution invalid. Certainly section 10 is a trade sanction the same thing my resolution does and it is not directed at every country equally but at a class of countries and only affects countries that would in fact practice slavery. Whether those countries are WA members or not.

[Ilharessa]

World Assembly Resolution #23

Section 10. Goods produced, in whole or in part, through servitude shall be permanently embargoed, and all investment and material support to nations, legal entities and persons practicing servitude immediately ended, except as transition assistance or compensated manumission to free people from such conditions;\

Now if this resolution is allowed to embargo trade of slave countries which by the way are usually not WA member states then it is certainly legal for my motion to do the same. There is no violation of any rule by this proposal. This argument that you can not force by GA resolution member states to conduct an embargo against a class of nations is a lie. Its been done!

Because I am still awake due to the caffeine I ended up intaking to help the pain meds out, I guess I shall have to deal with this one.

The problem with what you are saying is that the Ban on Slavery and Trafficking resolution did not actually target and specific nation or nation class as its writeup. For one thing, under the terms it gives, slavery is still technically legal within the World Assembly. Just that certain types of slavery were not banned. Other types of slavery, the types that fit the definition given within the proposal, were. As such, technically, a World Assembly nation may freely trade with a slave nation without being in violation of that proposal as long as the slave nation itself has structured its slavery system so that it is not in violation of #23. As such, they did not go after an entire class of nations, but only ones exploiting people.

In addition, resolution #23 was not designed specifically around the purpose of going after a specific type of nation. It was designed specifically around going after a type of exploitation of people, one which is probably not even universal within slave nations. As such, your argument that it targetted an entire class of nations does not apply; if mine wanted to slip into a slavery system right now, it could do so and manage to still be in compliance with #23 by simply structuring the slavery system a certain way. If the way is not obvious, I must politely suggest you look again at the resolution you are quoting.

As for it affecting nonmembers back then: Let me be clearer on that.

MetaGaming is a difficult to understand category at times, especially since it often shares jurisdiction with Game Mechanics violations. Essentially, a MetaGaming violation is one that breaks "the fourth wall", or attempts to force events outside of the WA itself. Proposals dealing with Regions, with other nations, Moderators, and requiring activities on the Forums are examples. This also includes proposals that try to affect non-WA nations.

Whether or not #23 was legal back then does not change whether or not your proposal is illegal now. In fact, your proposal has even been ruled illegal by a mod on this very thread. Look for the name in red text. Also, note that all you have done is provide an argument for why #23 should be repealed, though it is a weak one, and not for why your own should be legal.

Secondly, your proposal presents a problem in that it affects any nation which is condemned by the WASC. Since the WASC can condemn nonmember nations, this creates the problem that your resolution then becomes one which specifically targets nonmember nations. That is explicitely illegal, no matter the legality of #23, as well as the fact that your's targets specific nations (which is also a Game Mechanics violation).

World Assembly Resolution #23 proves all your arguments against this resolution invalid. Certainly section 10 is a trade sanction the same thing my resolution does and it is not directed at every country equally but at a class of countries and only affects countries that would in fact practice slavery. Whether those countries are WA members or not.

So that proves that my saying your proposal is illegal due to multiple game mechanics violations (with you only disputing one of them), being the wrong category, being the wrong strength, and for being bloody stupid all incorrect? I must say I honestly doubt that you have proven that.

[Grays Harbor]

I believe you will find support for this to be scant.

Maybe so but I it's pretty clear its within the rules.

(Except that the Mods have already ruled that its not.)

Whether it is within the rules or not is not the point for my nation, however. The fact that it is an intrusive mandate requiring our nation to join in on a one-size-fits-all piece of WA micromanagement of who we may and may not do business with. That your nation may want to embargo, fine, that is your decision, but to attempt to force everybody else to embargo to fit with your idea of "how it should be" will get you little support.

[The Magic Spirit]

Condemnations and commendations are a waste of time. We're here to make legislation. We don't need to encourage the madness.

[Killerustan]

a World Assembly nation may freely trade with a slave nation without being in violation of that proposal as long as the slave nation itself has structured its slavery system so that it is not in violation of #23. As such, they did not go after an entire class of nations, but only ones exploiting people.

Ones exploiting people are a class and my resolution only goes after those nations condemned by the SC, a class. You can claim you are going after the action and I can say that too. I am going after the reprehensible actions that got that state specifically named in a SC condemn resolution.Its the same thing and disingenuous to argue otherwise.

Whether or not #23 was legal back then does not change whether or not your proposal is illegal now. In fact, your proposal has even been ruled illegal by a mod on this very thread. Look for the name in red text. Also, note that all you have done is provide an argument for why #23 should be repealed, though it is a weak one, and not for why your own should be legal.

it being legal is legal precedent and unless there is some new rule you can point to in the interim we must consider it legal today.

Secondly, your proposal presents a problem in that it affects any nation which is condemned by the WASC. Since the WASC can condemn nonmember nations, this creates the problem that your resolution then becomes one which specifically targets nonmember nations. That is explicitely illegal, no matter the legality of #23, as well as the fact that your's targets specific nations (which is also a Game Mechanics violation).

There is no game mechanics issue and it is a misreading of the English language to say the resolution targets specific nations. It targets a class. Just like the class of slave countries targeted here:

Section 10. Goods produced, in whole or in part, through servitude shall be permanently embargoed, and all investment and material support to nations, legal entities and persons practicing servitude immediately ended, except as transition assistance or compensated manumission to free people from such conditions

As you notice the resolution uses the term nations, legal entities and persons. Same effect on WA and non-WA countries. It imposes a trade sanction on both!

So that proves that my saying your proposal is illegal due to multiple game mechanics violations (with you only disputing one of them), being the wrong category, being the wrong strength, and for being bloody stupid all incorrect? I must say I honestly doubt that you have proven that.

Your fallacious argument is pretty bloody stupid. Here is a trade sanction being enforced in a previously passed WA resolution. There is no logical argument you can make against that. Fact is trade sanctions can be imposed on nations. Its right there in black and white in world assembly resolution 23. You can try manipulating the language all you want but it doesn't change the fact that it has been done before and it was legal then it is legal now.

Your arguments over category , strength and it being "stupid" is your opinion not fact. Allemande looked at it and followed my logic with out too much trouble so really it just looks like you have some ulterior motive why you don't want us to impose sanctions. It has zero to do with being against the rules.

[Slaytesics]

No to this, this could destabilze economies. Many Nations will choose to quit the WA, if this passes, and their friend is condemned. Two, this is against rights of Nations. You can be condemned, but have the right to trading and such. So, No, just no.

[Bears Armed]

Your fallacious argument is pretty bloody stupid. Here is a trade sanction being enforced in a previously passed WA resolution. There is no logical argument you can make against that. Fact is trade sanctions can be imposed on nations. Its right there in black and white in world assembly resolution 23. You can try manipulating the language all you want but it doesn't change the fact that it has been done before and it was legal then it is legal now.

Your arguments over category , strength and it being "stupid" is your opinion not fact. Allemande looked at it and followed my logic with out too much trouble so really it just looks like you have some ulterior motive why you don't want us to impose sanctions. It has zero to do with being against the rules.

OOC: Please calm down a bit.

As to legality, I'm in general agreement with Allemande and with you. We we do indeed have precedent for proposals and resolutions that tell the WA members how they must treat non-members, and it has been ruled that this (as distinct from trying to pass resolutions that would actually be legally binding on the governments of those non-member nations themselves) is perfectly legal. The category looks right, too, and in my opinion the only problem (unless & until we get a Mod ruling that mention of the SC within a GA proposal counts as Meta-gaming, as has been claimed earlier in this thread, which sounds a bit silly to me when one considers that these two councils are supposed to be parts of a single organisation...) is that with no nations actually condemned yet the effects on any WA member nation would be so slight that even a 'Mild' strength seems excessive: Maybe this could be expanded to cover members' dealings with ALL nations that are "proven" -- whether in a condemnation or just through their own RP -- to practice genocide, slavery, the use of child soldiers, the use of biological warfare, the support of international terrorism and/or international piracy, and perhaps some other forms of reprehensible behaviour against which the WA/GA has already legislated?

As to those of you who want their nations to remain free to trade with the agents of atrocities: A plague on your houses!

[Killerustan]

No to this, this could destabilze economies. Many Nations will choose to quit the WA, if this passes, and their friend is condemned. Two, this is against rights of Nations. You can be condemned, but have the right to trading and such. So, No, just no.

You one time tried to stand up against slavers Slaytestics. And this resolution isn't targeting region condemnations which are often silly but its targeting specific class of countries that behave so crazily that the security council condemns them. Like nations raping children, enslaving people and committing genocide. Nations that go so far that we actually vote to condemn them specifically. Why should any WA member trade with them? Why would you want to?

Shouldn't the WA stand for something other than the silly legislation tell you to plant trees and liberate regions? This resolution says our nations stand for some ethics and human rights. If nations want to hang with cut throats and genocidal thugs let them. But those that are here would truly try to make our world a little bit better.

[Slaytesics]

Fine, you got me there, but why did they Condemn Nazi Europe? It didn't commit any 'crimes' so to speak. Yet again, it denies Nations Basic Rights. Maybe Nazi Europe's name meant Europe in the time of the world wars.
THough i do agree, nations condemned because of cruel unethical acts should have this law imposed upon them. I hereby support 'Sanctions on Condemned Nations'

How did you know about the Slavers thing?

[Ilharessa]

Ones exploiting people are a class and my resolution only goes after those nations condemned by the SC, a class. You can claim you are going after the action and I can say that too. I am going after the reprehensible actions that got that state specifically named in a SC condemn resolution.Its the same thing and disingenuous to argue otherwise.

In this, we have to disagree. The SC is not an IC body, while the GA is. The different may be minute to you, but by the rules, it's a massive difference. Your proposal supporting anything the SC does is an automatic game mechanics violation simply because it, as is noted in the metagaming section of the rules that I quoted, "breaks the fourth wall." In addition, it's already been ruled a metagaming violation because it seeks to affect only specific people. I am arguing it is a further metagaming violation on top of that because it targets a specific class of nation in its entirety; one which, realistically, no resolution, including the one banning slavery, has actually done.

So, no, it is not the same thing in this case. You are going after the entire class; the slavery proposal did not. And, as I have said, all you are doing is casting doubt on the legality of a pass resolution, and legality issues with one or two would not be surprising, instead of successfully proving that your own is legal, specifically in the number of violations it has been accused of.

it being legal is legal precedent and unless there is some new rule you can point to in the interim we must consider it legal today.

I would suggest you try this rule:

MetaGaming is a difficult to understand category at times, especially since it often shares jurisdiction with Game Mechanics violations. Essentially, a MetaGaming violation is one that breaks "the fourth wall", or attempts to force events outside of the WA itself. Proposals dealing with Regions, with other nations, Moderators, and requiring activities on the Forums are examples. This also includes proposals that try to affect non-WA nations.

Note the bolding and underlining of one sentence. The rule itself is found in Rules for GA Proposals, which you should have already read prior to coming here. If you had, you would have recognized the distinctive naming of certain rules.

There is no game mechanics issue and it is a misreading of the English language to say the resolution targets specific nations. It targets a class. Just like the class of slave countries targeted here:

Section 10. Goods produced, in whole or in part, through servitude shall be permanently embargoed, and all investment and material support to nations, legal entities and persons practicing servitude immediately ended, except as transition assistance or compensated manumission to free people from such conditions

As you notice the resolution uses the term nations, legal entities and persons. Same effect on WA and non-WA countries. It imposes a trade sanction on both!

So you are saying that the mod who ruled your proposal to be illegal, based off your own words, is wrong?

Secondly, your proposal does target specific nations. It targets any nation the SC condemns. As such, it will mostly be on an individual basis. This could mean your proposal only ever affects one nation. By WA rules, that is illegal (look above at the Metagaming aspect I have quoted). In addition, you are not proving the legality of your own proposal, but potentially showing that another needs to be repealed due to a slightly illegal section. Whether or not that proposal is illegal does not change whether or not your's is. Finally, that proposal was written specifically to target only an issue of exploitation; your's is written, despite your attempts to claim otherwise, simply to punish nations that are condemned by the SC. The SC which is OOC and, thus, a metagaming violation to even try to pass resolutions in relation to within the General Assembly.

Your fallacious argument is pretty bloody stupid. Here is a trade sanction being enforced in a previously passed WA resolution. There is no logical argument you can make against that. Fact is trade sanctions can be imposed on nations. Its right there in black and white in world assembly resolution 23. You can try manipulating the language all you want but it doesn't change the fact that it has been done before and it was legal then it is legal now.

Your arguments over category , strength and it being "stupid" is your opinion not fact. Allemande looked at it and followed my logic with out too much trouble so really it just looks like you have some ulterior motive why you don't want us to impose sanctions. It has zero to do with being against the rules.

"Bloody stupid" is a category of proposal rule violations. Let me quote it for you.

Bloody Stupid

Every now and then a Proposal crops up that, for lack of a more tactful description, is stupid. This is clearly a judgment call, but if you're going to mandate that all cars be pink, you're gonna have a dead proposal on your hands. This includes things that are unworthy of WA consideration (such as mandating allowances for children who eat their vegetables).

I do not feel this to be worth the WA's time. That, realistically, makes it bloody stupid if I am proven correct. So far, I have been.

And, finally, note what I have said repeatedly: Whether or not #23 is legal or not has no effect upon whether or not your's is legal. Different circumstances, different era, different considerations. The thought I am trying to argue against that being a trade sanction in a previous resolution is not a fallacy on my end, and I ask you just this once to not sit there and lie through your teeth about what I am actually saying, especially when you try to make it sound like I am challenging the legality of a past resolution when everything I have said is based upon the current one. I try to be nice, but my patience with those who prefer to alter what I have said to become something it is not and never has been tends to run dry very quickly.

As for my argument: You have called it fallacious. Prove it.
My manipulating the language: Prove it.
My ulterior motive: Prove it.
My opposition to your proposal not being based on rules problems: Prove it.
If you cannot prove all of your claims related to those four items above, then feel free to be silent about them from now on.

I admit that my arguments over its category, strength, and general lack of worthiness to the WA is based upon opinion... just as your own are. And none of them matter, since your proposal idea is already illegal. But, then, I do not mind an argument.

As for the trade sanctions themselves: Notice I never argued that trade sanctions were illegal. My one mentioning of them with any real attention was to focus upon the fact that there was the possibility that your proposal fit in a different category than you had put it; there is some basis within the category description itself for you to market this as a social justice proposal. I'm pretty sure you could, if you bothered to try, actually pull it off. But, then, that's my opinion, and I've already seen within this that I should not waste money on any betting to back it.

Finally, let me note that Allemande is not a WA nation and that, really, if you want to call upon the old game of "I have an older nation that backs me," let's look at the fact that I was not the first one to call the idea of doing anything with the SC proposals a metagaming violation. You might want to go back and look over this topic again and see just how many different challenges to your proposal left unanswered.

The category looks right, too, and in my opinion the only problem (unless & until we get a Mod ruling that mention of the SC within a GA proposal counts as Meta-gaming, as has been claimed earlier in this thread, which sounds a bit silly to me when one considers that these two councils are supposed to be parts of a single organisation...)

The claim is based off the metagaming rule part about breaking the fourth wall. The SC itself breaks it just about every resolution, while the GA is not allowed to with a single one. A GA proposal that calls upon the SC presents a conundrum in which you have part of the organization that is not allowed to break the fourth wall making legislation in relation to legislation that breaks it regularly. A mod ruling is necessary, but for now, it currently sounds illegal.

[Enn]

OOC:

As to the SC being OOC: Kindasortamaybe at the moment. We're seeing a few tentative attempts at RP-based commendations and condemnations, which I regard as an awesome development. Those threads are most assuredly IC, with ambassadors, reports being written, and statements from national governments.

As regarding this draft proposal: I suspect there is another illegality, but this one's a bit hidden. Should this be put in place, it would have a definite impact on any non-WA member who was condemned by the SC. GA resolutions cannot affect non-members.

[Ilharessa]

As regarding this draft proposal: I suspect there is another illegality, but this one's a bit hidden. Should this be put in place, it would have a definite impact on any non-WA member who was condemned by the SC. GA resolutions cannot affect non-members.

Not that hidden. I counted at least seven mentionings of it, and at current there's an actual argument going on over whether or not that rule actually applies in this case. Unfortunately, thank resolution #23 for providing the argument.

[Bears Armed]

"GA resolutions can not affect non-members

Actually, according to past rulings, what that clause means is "Resolutions can not be, or claim to be, legally binding on non-members' governments". There are precedents for resolutions, and for proposals that didn't end up getting pased but that were agreed by the Mods to be legal, telling the member nations how to treat non-members. Apart from the example of slave-owning nations, which Killerustan has already mentioned, look at WA (GA) Resolution #20: 'Suppression of International Piracy' which "Urges and authorises" member nations to take action against international pirates' bases "wherever those are located"... implicitly including any such bases that are located within non-member nations.

As for the argument that this only affects specific nations, that also fails: The WA telling its members how to deal with a specific situation (such as nations that have been condemned, for example, or nations that are hosting international pirates) is perfectly legal as long as it tells ALL of its member nations to do so... which this proposal does. What that rule prohibits, OOC because the stat-changing effects of resolutions apply to all nations that are members when those measures pass, is creating proposals/resolutions that (for example) only apply to members that follow particular ideologies &/or systems of government, or that have economies of specified strengths, or that have names beginning with 'Z', or things like that...

[Killerustan]

I've already proved it with resolution number 23. Furthermore, you are manipulating by stretching the requiring of WA member states to perform certain actions as metagaming and saying to make member states follow certain rules is the same as passing legislation on non-wa countries. It is not. We pass legislation on member states requiring actions all the time. The words you are reading about affecting non-member states only prevent a resolution that would for example say something along the lines of "non-member states are required to do x, y, and z" This is simple english and its wording is easily understood. it doesn't prevent us saying a member state can't give biological weapons to other states...some of which would obviously be non-member states. And I could show in numerous resolution similar restrictions on member states activities.

it doesn't prevent this:

Section 10. Goods produced, in whole or in part, through servitude shall be permanently embargoed, and all investment and material support to nations, legal entities and persons practicing servitude immediately ended, except as transition assistance or compensated manumission to free people from such conditions

And that is the same thing I want to do with the addition that I want to specify an arms embargo and cut of military assistance.

[Ardchoille]

Killerustan, if you disagree with a mod ruling there's a way to challenge it, and it's not the way you're going about it.

You should either post in Moderation asking for a second opinion, if you don't mind the question being discussed publicly, or make a Getting Help Request, if it's sensitive enough to require a degree of privacy.

What you should not be doing is continuing to argue the point, since this tends to drive both you and your opponents into more entrenched positions and make it difficult for either side to give way or accept a negative ruling gracefully.

To save time, I'll provide the second opinion here: Flib's ruling is correct, the proposal is illegal.

Enn's explanation -- that condemnations affect both WA and non-WA nations, but GA proposals can affect only WA nations -- is the one that first struck me, too, but in fact I think this argument and Flib's are just different sides of the same coin.

I'm going to lock this thread for a while to let it cool, When I reopen it, I'll post a more detailed explanation of the illegalities (yes, more than one). I think it's worth doing so because I'd be very glad to see you continue submitting GA proposals of this calibre. GA members don't argue this strongly over proposals they truly think worthless or silly, so the fact that you've copped this much opposition is a compliment.

[Ardchoille]

Okay, smallest problem first:

Category violation: The category "global disarmament" is for "a resolution to slash worldwide military spending". The discussion makes clear that it refers to lowering nations' actual spending on purchasing arms. Seems to me you've handwaved this away.

However, if we accept your creative interpretation that it refers also to actual sales of arms, I can't see that they'll be slashed worldwide. Arms that aren't sold to condemned nations will be sold to uncondemned nations. There appears to be no rational limit to NS nations' appetite for arms, and no controls on an arms blackmarket. So arms produced will still be sold.

So far, the resolution would be viable if you rewrote it somewhat to fit an appropriate category.

Legality of sanctions, specifically, in #23. It is/was within the GA's (NSUN's, WA's) remit to tell WA nations what to do; in this case, impose sanctions. It is not in the WA's remit to do it itself; that is, the WA doesn't impose the sanctions, the nations do, because the WA resolution has told them to. WA resolutions order, WA nations act. All #23 does is order WA nations to impose sanctions. The sanctions themselves may affect non-WA nations, but the resolution affects only the WA nations. So #23 is still legal.

On that basis, provided your wording confines your proposal's area of effect to WA nations, telling WA nations to impose sanctions is legal. The resolution applies only to WA nations; the sanctions apply to whatever group is named, which can include non-WA nations, or rabbits, or blue velvet chairs, or ... nations condemned by the SC? No.

Because no actual nations have been condemned yet? No; eventually individual nations will be, and it is legal for WA resolutions to be written so that they will apply to future situations.

It's because GA proposals can affect SC proposals, but SC proposals can't affect GA proposals.

GA proposals have to be written to apply to all WA nations. The GA cannot make resolutions that apply only to a specific nation. So the GA can't respond to an SC resolution (unless a general application can be deduced and a new proposal written).

But SC proposals have to be written to apply to individual nations or regions. It's the way they're designed. So the SC can respond directly to a GA resolution in terms of the individual nation under discussion.

If a WA member nation is in breach of a GA resolution, that could be a reason for the SC to condemn that individual nation. It could even be a (rhetorical) reason to condemn a non-WA nation, arguing that the WA's opinion represents "community standards". But it is not the only reason nations are condemned.

The category "condemned nations" is not homogenous. Nations are condemned for Gameplay actions (which the GA ambassadors can't "see"; they're performed by players, and to mention them is metagaming). They're also condemned for political reasons, sometimes devious, sometimes sheer "popularity contest" reasons. Further, the condemnations may not always be just.

So even if you narrowed your proposal down to "WA nations condemned for breaches of WA law", you still risk committing the WA nations to applying sanctions to nations that may have been unjustly condemned. If you try for further definition -- "WA nations justly condemned" -- then you put the GA in the position of being able to rule on whether the SC's decisions are just. But, sInce the two chambers are separate but equal, one can't diminish the other's "sovereignty" in such a way.

What this means for your proposal is: one illegality can be fixed, one aspect isn't illegal, but the basic concept isn't achievable.

On the other hand, if you note a series of SC condemnations based on a particular (RPd, not Gameplay) action, and the GA doesn't have a proposal about that particular action, you could conceivably write a legal proposal telling WA nations to apply sanctions to nations that perform that action. Just not mentioning the SC or Condemnations.

--------------------------------

I've gone on at inordinate length here because it's the first time I've really tried to clarify the relationship between SC proposals and GA proposals. DON'T anyone try quoting that part of the ruling back at me to justify other proposals here or in the SC. I've asked Hack to, er, hack it, since he has a talent for saying things simply, but it's not canon yet.

[Killerustan]

Thank you for your clarification. I will seek some co-sponsors and resubmit a sanctions motion based on the reprehensible actions of rogue regimes.

[Ardchoille]

Thank you. I've been trying to push myself into attacking that GA/SC angle, and this gave me the impetus.

There's more to say on that, and details keep coming to mind (witness the number of edits on my previous post ). But it would be better in a new thread, to avoid threadjack. If someone else starts one, sorry, I have to do stuff most of tomorrow and won't be able to comment in it for about 24 hours.

[Community Property]

Two questions:

• First - and this is not to doubt you, but I have to ask this - can you point me to the rule that says that the GA can't mention, reference, acknowledge, or otherwise have anything at all to do with the SC? It's been a long time since the PDRCP tried to write a proposal, and I'd like to see that particular section, since it must be relatively recent.
  
  
• Second, you seem to imply that WA-imposed trade restrictions can only be applied against member nations. That strikes me as both new and counter-intuitive, and quite outside the matter in question would have profound consequences. In particular, it would make it illegal for the WA to pass (just to offer a few examples):
  
  
  • A global ban on the sale of handguns to private parties, both domestically and internationally (as a Gun Control resolution); not that such a ban could ever pass, but I'm surprised to hear that it would be illegal.
    
    
  • A nuclear non-proliferation treaty that banned the sale of nuclear weapons, materials, and relevant technologies to nations that did not have such weapons already (as a Global Disarmament resolution, albeit a mild one); again, I'm a bit surprised to here that we can ban such sales among ourselves, but we can't ban sales by member states to non-members who present a proliferation risk (not that we ever will).

I also still see a contradiction in your position on the legality of Resolution #23. Completely aside from arguments that a nation who uses slaves can structure things in such a way as to avoid the consequences of that resolution (which seems peripheral to the main question we've addressed here), I'm hearing two sides to the question of whether #23 does or does not, or legally can or cannot, restrict members from purchasing products manufactured with slave labor where those products are offered by non-members.

On the one hand, you appear to be saying that it does indeed ban such purchases because we, as the WA, have the right to tell our members what they can and cannot buy; on the other hand, I seem to hear you saying that it doesn't (or can't) be applied to such sales because that would impinge on the rights on non-member states. It can't be both, and it very much matters which it is.

As for whether or not this does enough "cutting" to furnish the basis for even a "Mild" Global Disarmament proposal, there's an element of your logic I find disturbing, and again I find it so because it has far broader consequences than this issue.

Aside from focusing on the sale of arms instead of non-sale transfers (aid), which was also banned, you seem to be saying that halting the sale of weapons isn't really disarmament. This suggests that cutting spending on one set of arms isn't really disarmament, either, since militaries will just go spend that money on something else ("If we can't have germs, we'll build nukes, by Gum!"). How far does that logic go? Does this mean that no ban on just a single weapon or group of weapons that doesn't forbid increased spending in other areas can ever pass muster as Global Disarmament resolution?

Finally (and I am sorry for the length of this post), I think this points up a fundamental problem with the Free Trade/Social Justice dichotomy. We can always pursue Free Trade for its own sake, but we must justify every trade restriction on the basis of reducing income inequality. This presents a lopsided situation: There's no way to restrict trade for non-economic reasons, which seems somehow incomplete.

[Grays Harbor]

It has always been that resolutions passed by the WA (and the NSUN before it) only effect nations which are members of the WA. That does not make a proposal illegal for disarmament or whatever because it only effects WA nations.

[Community Property]

No, it has always been that:

• We ignore the effects of WA resolutions on non-members (that's a consequence of the game engine).
  
  
• We don't let people write resolutions telling non-members what to do (partly as a consequence of the foregoing).

What I'm hearing suggested now is the notion that our resolutions must essentially have a "zero footprint" when it comes to non-members. That was never the rule before; it the past, we simply pretended that non-members didn't exist, and that was quite enough to address the legal issues.

Now, I'm hearing (from some people, not the mods) that we have to write non-member exceptions, which is just plain daft.

EDIT: In other words, if you could look at the resolution and say, "What non-members? There are no non-members!" and the resolution made perfect sense in that context, it was fine.

[Bears Armed]

As for whether or not this does enough "cutting" to furnish the basis for even a "Mild" Global Disarmament proposal, there's an element of your logic I find disturbing, and again I find it so because it has far broader consequences than this issue.

Aside from focusing on the sale of arms instead of non-sale transfers (aid), which was also banned, you seem to be saying that halting the sale of weapons isn't really disarmament. This suggests that cutting spending on one set of arms isn't really disarmament, either, since militaries will just go spend that money on something else ("If we can't have germs, we'll build nukes, by Gum!"). How far does that logic go? Does this mean that no ban on just a single weapon or group of weapons that doesn't forbid increased spending in other areas can ever pass muster as Global Disarmament resolution?

That's what I was going to say: The precedent that's being set here would seem to pretty well kill off the whole 'Global Disarmament' category.
And the proposal does also say that "-All WA member states shall immediately cease military cooperation, assistance, protection or defense of all condemned nations", which would seem to fit the category according to past precedent...

Finally (and I am sorry for the length of this post), I think this points up a fundamental problem with the Free Trade/Social Justice dichotomy. We can always pursue Free Trade for its own sake, but we must justify every trade restriction on the basis of reducing income inequality. This presents a lopsided situation: There's no way to restrict trade for non-economic reasons, which seems somehow incomplete.

Well, there is the 'Protective Tariffs' option within 'Advancement of Industry'... or even the potential 'Moral Decency' argument, if you want to promote "Fair" trade instead...

[Killerustan]

I believe he said that it could fit in Global Disarmament so long as there is a clause actually demanding a reduction somewhere. So it could be worded to do that, to say something like member nations will remove from their military budgets all monies to support defense of, armament of or training of foreign military forces that violate the resolutions provisions.

[Community Property]

Sadly, Moral Decency only relates to the civil rights of the citizens of a member state; it can only be used to restrict their individual freedom, so it won't work for this.

What you'd need for that is a category that doesn't exist: "International Justice" or something of that sort.

[Ardchoille]

Two questions:

• First - and this is not to doubt you, but I have to ask this - can you point me to the rule that says that the GA can't mention, reference, acknowledge, or otherwise have anything at all to do with the SC? It's been a long time since the PDRCP tried to write a proposal, and I'd like to see that particular section, since it must be relatively recent.
  

No, I can't, because it hasn't been written yet. I've been watching how the two chambers' proposals are going, and I'm on the verge of writing a thread setting out how to tippy-toe round the metagaming possibilities that arise. As I said, this is the first time I've tried to sort it out properly. In objecting to the specific proposal, I was mainly focussing on metagaming. It may come down to a simple mod housekeeping fiat, like the one that prevented repeals with nothing but national sovereignty as their argument. But my remarks about SC=individual, GA=general were based on the structure of their existing proposal categories.

Second, you seem to imply that WA-imposed trade restrictions can only be applied against member nations. That strikes me as both new and counter-intuitive, and quite outside the matter in question would have profound consequences. In particular, it would make it illegal for the WA to pass (just to offer a few examples):

• A global ban on the sale of handguns to private parties, both domestically and internationally (as a Gun Control resolution); not that such a ban could ever pass, but I'm surprised to hear that it would be illegal.
  
  
• A nuclear non-proliferation treaty that banned the sale of nuclear weapons, materials, and relevant technologies to nations that did not have such weapons already (as a Global Disarmament resolution, albeit a mild one); again, I'm a bit surprised to here that we can ban such sales among ourselves, but we can't ban sales by member states to non-members who present a proliferation risk (not that we ever will).

No, I'm saying the opposite of that (I think). I'm saying that what the WA has done in #23 is tell WA nations, and only WA nations, what to do. Fair enough, because WA nations are the only admissible audience for WA resolutions. But it's the WA nations that apply those instructions contained in the resolution. So it's the WA nations, not the WA resolution, that affect the non-WA nations by imposing sanctions. A bit like when the WA tells its members to ban something: the WA says "do this", but doesn't give the details on how to do it. So one nation might ban it with fines for failure to comply, another might jail, another might excommunicate, another might conscript, another might just ban with no penalties.

I also still see a contradiction in your position on the legality of Resolution #23. Completely aside from arguments that a nation who uses slaves can structure things in such a way as to avoid the consequences of that resolution (which seems peripheral to the main question we've addressed here), I'm hearing two sides to the question of whether #23 does or does not, or legally can or cannot, restrict members from purchasing products manufactured with slave labor where those products are offered by non-members.

On the one hand, you appear to be saying that it does indeed ban such purchases because we, as the WA, have the right to tell our members what they can and cannot buy; on the other hand, I seem to hear you saying that it doesn't (or can't) be applied to such sales because that would impinge on the rights on non-member states. It can't be both, and it very much matters which it is.

The rights of non-member states aren't the WA's concern. The rights of member states have been voluntarily limited by their agreeing to do as WA resolutions tell them to do. The WA can tell its member states what to do.

As for whether or not this does enough "cutting" to furnish the basis for even a "Mild" Global Disarmament proposal, there's an element of your logic I find disturbing, and again I find it so because it has far broader consequences than this issue.

Aside from focusing on the sale of arms instead of non-sale transfers (aid), which was also banned, you seem to be saying that halting the sale of weapons isn't really disarmament. This suggests that cutting spending on one set of arms isn't really disarmament, either, since militaries will just go spend that money on something else ("If we can't have germs, we'll build nukes, by Gum!"). How far does that logic go? Does this mean that no ban on just a single weapon or group of weapons that doesn't forbid increased spending in other areas can ever pass muster as Global Disarmament resolution?

I'm not sure whether this query applies to me or Killerustan. I focussed on armaments because he focussed on armaments, and that's what I was commenting on. I'm not talking about a single group of weapons, whether buying or selling; I'm talking about a single group of customers. No matter how large the group "Condemned by the SC" becomes, it's still going to remain so small that stopping WA-member arms sales to or purchases from them is not going to be worldwide disarmament.

Finally (and I am sorry for the length of this post), I think this points up a fundamental problem with the Free Trade/Social Justice dichotomy. We can always pursue Free Trade for its own sake, but we must justify every trade restriction on the basis of reducing income inequality. This presents a lopsided situation: There's no way to restrict trade for non-economic reasons, which seems somehow incomplete.

Care to try your hand at writing a new category or rejigging old ones? Cobdenia had a go at one for International Standardisation while we were on Jolt, and I think it could work just as it stands. Fris suggested a Health category and I've been kicking that around a bit offsite, and the Guns, Drugs and Gambling categories get little use and might be more successful merged or just eliminated.

I''d rather delay harrassing the admins over categories until we've got the separation of the proposal queues up and running, so I'm not looking at any fast action, lbut there's no harm in playing with ideas. (Turns out it's not as easy as it looks to write a really comprehensive category.)