NationStates

The Two Jerseys wrote:

Kilimantonian wrote:Ambassador Franklin checks the edited proposal over one more time. "Right, should be legal now. Anyone still have reservations over this? I would love to know..."

Let's see...

Category and strength?

Duplication of GAR#2.

Category; Strength = Global Disarmament; Mild

The "meat" of the proposal is the Recommends clause, which actually does something to WA member nations (encourages them to make peaceful relations with non-members). That would presumably have a small disarming effect by discouraging wars and the associated military spending. I don't see anything this duplicates but I am more concerned that the last clause as written may contradict GAR #2, which states "Whilst WA Member States may engage in wars, the World Assembly as a body maintains neutrality in matters of civil and international strife. As such, the WA will not engage in commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner"

Currently, the last clause seems to contradict that by suggesting the WA may support military activities against non-member nations if there has been "confirmation of a real and significant threat and attempts at diplomatic resolutions of conflict."

I'd like to hear other's take on this, though, as I might be excessively rules-lawyering...

The Two Jerseys wrote:

Kilimantonian wrote:Ambassador Franklin checks the edited proposal over one more time. "Right, should be legal now. Anyone still have reservations over this? I would love to know..."

Let's see...

Category and strength?

Duplication of GAR#2.

I'm going with Losthaven's category and strength - Global Disarmament, Mild.

As for a duplication of GAR 2, could you please specify where it suggests that the WA should a) Not have a specific policy geared towards the harm of non-WA nations, b) Attempt to establish peaceful relations with friendly non-WA nations, and c) Not sanction any action against non-WA members without "confirmation of a real and significant threat and attempts at diplomatic resolutions of conflict" ?

But I'm going to have to change the STATES clause because of contradiction of with GAR 2 Section 3 Article 10 where it states that the WA will never, ever "engage in commanding, organizing, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts". Not quite sure how I'm going to fix that...

Kilimantonian wrote:But I'm going to have to change the STATES clause because of contradiction of with GAR 2 Section 3 Article 10 where it states that the WA will never, ever "engage in commanding, organizing, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts". Not quite sure how I'm going to fix that...

You can change it from "that the WA will not support" to "that no member nation may support" or something to that effect. Legal, and accomplishes what we think you want to accomplish.

You realise that the 'Declares' clause which you've proposed (mostly to attack the calls of nuclear NatSov) doesn't actually do anything right? Nothing can endanger the existence of the WA... but things can endanger the existence of member nations... which means we don't have to change our advocacy at all. However it is, I am opposed to legislation that attempts to change the basis of argumentation.

Wrapper wrote:

Kilimantonian wrote:But I'm going to have to change the STATES clause because of contradiction of with GAR 2 Section 3 Article 10 where it states that the WA will never, ever "engage in commanding, organizing, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts". Not quite sure how I'm going to fix that...

You can change it from "that the WA will not support" to "that no member nation may support" or something to that effect. Legal, and accomplishes what we think you want to accomplish.

OOC:
Downside there is that it implies that not even the Member State engaged in the conflict is supporting it, which, isn't true, and could cause issues.

Tinfect wrote:

Wrapper wrote:You can change it from "that the WA will not support" to "that no member nation may support" or something to that effect. Legal, and accomplishes what we think you want to accomplish.

OOC:
Downside there is that it implies that not even the Member State engaged in the conflict is supporting it, which, isn't true, and could cause issues.

Perhaps "intervene" instead of "support" then.

Wrapper wrote:Perhaps "intervene" instead of "support" then.

OOC:
Which is absolute sillyness, Offensive warfare like that is exactly what a reasonable Nation should intervene in. Besides that, though, there is no reason to prevent Allied Nations from assisting eachother in Warfare, regardless of the cause or focus.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:You realise that the 'Declares' clause which you've proposed (mostly to attack the calls of nuclear NatSov) doesn't actually do anything right? Nothing can endanger the existence of the WA... but things can endanger the existence of member nations... which means we don't have to change our advocacy at all. However it is, I am opposed to legislation that attempts to change the basis of argumentation.

Things can totally endanger the existence of the WA. At the very least, a weapon that could destroy every WA member nation would qualify, as the WA depends for its existence on the existence of member nations. But you don't need to go to that extreme. I can think of a lot of military threats might rise to the level where the endanger the existence of the WA as an international association of free nations.

Not to mention a colossal fireball of extra-dimensional inanity. I know we haven't seen one of those since the one that destroyed the pre-WA organization that shall not be named, but we have international law recognizing the existence of such threats. (See GAR #1).

Put bluntly, your language policing isn't really appropriate here. It's perfectly meaningful to refer to something endangering the existence of the WA.

Tinfect wrote:

Wrapper wrote:You can change it from "that the WA will not support" to "that no member nation may support" or something to that effect. Legal, and accomplishes what we think you want to accomplish.

OOC:
Downside there is that it implies that not even the Member State engaged in the conflict is supporting it, which, isn't true, and could cause issues.

The current language is "ADVOCATES for the confirmation of a real and significant threat, and further for attempts at diplomatic resolutions, prior to the opening of hostilities with a non-WA nation" which is totally legal and probably not all that offensive.

Losthaven wrote:The current language is "ADVOCATES for the confirmation of a real and significant threat, and further for attempts at diplomatic resolutions, prior to the opening of hostilities with a non-WA nation" which is totally legal and probably not all that offensive.

OOC:
Well then, I guess that works.

Tinfect wrote:

Losthaven wrote:The current language is "ADVOCATES for the confirmation of a real and significant threat, and further for attempts at diplomatic resolutions, prior to the opening of hostilities with a non-WA nation" which is totally legal and probably not all that offensive.

OOC: Well then, I guess that works.

Quite acceptable.

Losthaven wrote:The current language is "ADVOCATES for the confirmation of a real and significant threat, and further for attempts at diplomatic resolutions, prior to the opening of hostilities with a non-WA nation" which is totally legal and probably not all that offensive.

Tinfect wrote:OOC:
Well then, I guess that works.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Quite acceptable.

Ambassador Franklin looks up form the comments on the draft. "Looks like this is finally getting some support. Thank you for helping me improve this proposal, my friends. I believe that, if there are no further objections, I will be submitting this tomorrow. Tomorrow will be Christmas Day, an ancient ritual that is celebrated by exchanging gifts. So, this will be my "Christmas gift" to the World Assembly. Kilimantonian thanks you for your contribution."

OOC: Third new proposal I've created. Thanks a lot, guys . I believe the language is now acceptable...? Also, just to prevent anyone thinking someone was proposal stealing, I'll be submitting it tomorrow with my WA puppet, Jiromania. Thanks again.

Kilimantonian wrote:OOC: Third new proposal I've created. Thanks a lot, guys . I believe the language is now acceptable...? Also, just to prevent anyone thinking someone was proposal stealing, I'll be submitting it tomorrow with my WA puppet, Jiromania. Thanks again.

OOC: I'm still opposed due to the argumentation-blocker in the first operative.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:OOC: I'm still opposed due to the argumentation-blocker in the first operative.

OOC: Uh... Argumentation blocker in the DECLARES clause? All it asks is that you don't go out of your way to suggest that we all build nukes to destroy non-WA nations, or specify how a specific policy will be used against them. Take a look at it again, maybe?

What it does is prevent the argumentation that non-WA members could threaten the security of WA nations which is why we need nuclear weapons. This is argumentation used in both Napa and NMS. I'm opposed because this proposal would prevent such argumentation.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:What it does is prevent the argumentation that non-WA members could threaten the security of WA nations which is why we need nuclear weapons. This is argumentation used in both Napa and NMS. I'm opposed because this proposal would prevent such argumentation.

I think I fixed it..?

DECLARES that henceforth the official WA policy shall be that no specific or general WA armament directly aimed towards combating non-WA nations is necessary, and further that no specific or general WA agenda is necessary to battle a non-WA nation menace without there being an obvious danger to the WA

There are no World Assembly armaments (at least, capable of combating nations), nor can the World Assembly establish an agenda to battle any nation. This is the only clause that technically does anything and it just reaffirms what GA#2 has established.

Wallenburg wrote:

and further that no specific or general WA agenda is necessary to battle a non-WA nation menace without there being an obvious danger to the WA

There are no World Assembly armaments (at least, capable of combating nations), nor can the World Assembly establish an agenda to battle any nation. This is the only clause that technically does anything and it just reaffirms what GA#2 has established.

'No specific or general WA agenda' includes an agenda in favour of the possession of nuclear weapons. It expands upon 2 GA. If it didn't expand upon 2 GA, as you and the author are claiming, then I would say that it therefore duplicates 2 GA and thus, is illegal.

Changed it a bit to be even further from a GAR 2 duplication. Any more critiques?

Kilimantonian wrote:Changed it a bit to be even further from a GAR 2 duplication. Any more critiques?

Ambassador Schultz pauses her little game of throwing wads of Christmas wrapping paper into a wastebasket and raises her hand.

"Yeah, one final criticism: This resolution is entirely unnecessary and ridiculous."

Excidium Planetis wrote:"Yeah, one final criticism: This resolution is entirely unnecessary and ridiculous."

Concurred. I don't see how the substance of argumentation in the WA is something the WA need legislate upon.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Excidium Planetis wrote:"Yeah, one final criticism: This resolution is entirely unnecessary and ridiculous."

Concurred. I don't see how the substance of argumentation in the WA is something the WA need legislate upon.

"The Imperium is also in agreement. We see absolutely no reason this legislation is necessary."

Excidium Planetis wrote:"Yeah, one final criticism: This resolution is entirely unnecessary and ridiculous."

To be fair, that can be said of the majority of drafted proposals as well as existing resolutions.

OOC: Especially if applying the rational nation theory.

Araraukar wrote:

Excidium Planetis wrote:"Yeah, one final criticism: This resolution is entirely unnecessary and ridiculous."

To be fair, that can be said of the majority of drafted proposals as well as existing resolutions.

OOC: Especially if applying the rational nation theory.

"The majority of resolutions actually do something for the good of WA nations, either by preventing many terrible civil rights abuses, or by assisting poorer nations with medical aid, or by encouraging nations to collaborate on research, et cetera.

"All this proposal does is make it clear the WA does not have some sort of Anti-non-WA agenda. That's completely pointless."

Excidium Planetis wrote:"The majority of resolutions actually do something for the good of WA nations, either by preventing many terrible civil rights abuses

OOC: Which an actually rational nation would do all on its own, but then the RNT tends to only get thrown at more unconventional RPers these days...

Note that this isn't personally directed at you, it's an OOC opinion of the balance of terror between OOC and IC.

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Which an actually rational nation would do all on its own, but then the RNT tends to only get thrown at more unconventional RPers these days...

OOC:
I thought Reasonable Nation Theory applied to how Member States interpret Resolutions, not the idea all Nations are reasonable?