Illegal GA Proposals 2nd edition

[New Cla]

Repeal: “Convention On Internet Neutrality”

A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal

Resolution: GA#407

Proposed by: Daramainia

General Assembly Resolution #407 “Convention on Internet Neutrality” (Category: Free Trade; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

A resolution to Repeal "Convention On Internet Neutrality"

I can't say anything.

[Essu Beti]

Security In One Country Could Be Security For All

A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Category: International Security

Strength: Strong

Proposed by: Hantaly

Security in a nation could be important depends on who controls the nation. My proposal is to create an efficient security company for all nations belonging to the World Assembly with headquarters of 2 or more in each country, ensuring a benefit for all by reducing crime in all nations but that will depend on the laws in the nation. Each facility will have powerful last-resort pursuit cars, state-of-the-art helicopters and lethal weapons, and build a search scale from low-level crimes to acts of terrorism and mass crime

Doesn't actually have an operative clause, branding.

Also lol at the idea of pursuit cars in Essu Beti, the land of swamp muck and a distinct lack of roads.

A Proposal To Expand Trade

A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade

Strength: Mild

Proposed by: Black Havens

Understanding that free trade benefits all nations and peoples across the world,

Recognizing that economic interdependence promotes peace and cooperation worldwide,

Understanding that intellectual property laws and profit motive drive innovation and prosperity,

The Respected Nations of the World Assembly hereby:

Institute a 10% per year reduction in import duties and tariffs, giving domestic industries and manufacturers time to adjust,

Create the World Assembly Intellectual Property Panel (WAIPP) to resolve disputes arising from allegations of state-sponsored intellectual property theft,

Mandate that any and all products and manufacturers do not violate domestic regulations of the nations in which they do business,

Make a tentative promise to keep lines of communication open between governments specifically regarding international trade and possible disparities in regulations.

Is it legal to essentially outlaw tariffs entirely? A 10% reduction per year would eventually bring it down to zero and then possibly down to negative depending on whether the 10% was simple or compound.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Socialism Security in one country.

[Essu Beti]

Repeal: “Convention On Internet Neutrality”

A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal

Resolution: GA#407

Proposed by: Dasa Rodiland

General Assembly Resolution #407 “Convention on Internet Neutrality” (Category: Free Trade; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Vvhsgs yvsvysvy gayvsyggsy yvavayvay h h usbsubs husbusbh o o ushnauhs.

What the actual fuck is supposed to be being said here?

[Manaime]

Repeal: “Convention On Internet Neutrality”

A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal

Resolution: GA#407

Proposed by: Dasa Rodiland

General Assembly Resolution #407 “Convention on Internet Neutrality” (Category: Free Trade; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Vvhsgs yvsvysvy gayvsyggsy yvavayvay h h usbsubs husbusbh o o ushnauhs.

What the actual fuck is supposed to be being said here?

Bet it's a troll.

[Bears Armed]

Inhumane Weapons Act
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: The Peninsular

The World Assembly,

Concerned that some weapons are designed to cause permanent damage or a slow, painful death,

Convinced that the use of such weapons is unnecessary cruelty and has no place in a civilized society,

Worried that such weapons may be used not only by criminals but sometimes even the armed forces as weapons of terror,

Hereby,

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, a “victim” as a living being that:

possesses basic forms of nervous systems and/or can feel pain and/or other impulses and

possesses the ability to distinguish specimen of his own kind from other species and

possesses the ability to overcome not only minor problems by thought rather than brute force and

possesses the ability to form lasting social structures or societies with more than 20 participants and

possesses the ability to communicate on a level higher than only emotional signals or intimidation through brute force,

or has the potential of gaining these attributes within its life span.

and an "inhumane weapon" as a weapon or weapon system that has been designed with the specific aim to

not to kill the victim, but instead to inflict permanent physical damage,

not to kill the victim quickly, but rather to cause a painful death over a long period of time,

2. Requires member nations to search for and seize all inhumane weapons within their borders to be destroyed,

3. Bans possession of inhumane weapons in all member nations, with the exception of state-appointed officials while they seize, transport, store or destroy the inhumane weapons,

4. Bans production of inhumane weapons in all member nations.

5. Additionally bans the use of inhumane weapons by government officials, law enforcement officers, members of the armed forces as well as all civilians of member nations,

6. Forbids selling or trading inhumane weapons to non-member nations instead of destroying them,

7. Mandates that member nations criminalize all actions violating any of the clauses in this resolution, and prosecute the violators accordingly.

Author was helped by Araraukar

Approvals: 0

GenSec Status: ILLEGAL — HELD

Info
Illegal (1): Bears Armed
4 minutes ago: Bears Armed: Illegal — Contradiction of existing legislation (GA Resolution #267 'Sensible Limits ion Hunting' only URGES member nations to ban "unnecessarily cruel" methods, so they could choose to allow weapons that you're classing as 'inhumane' here).

Status: Lacking Support (requires 86 more approvals)

Voting Ends: in 3 days 2 hours

Sorry, but there it is...

[States of Glory WA Office]

-snip-

Since when was it illegal to urge something and require something at the same time?

[Bears Armed]

-snip-

Since when was it illegal to urge something and require something at the same time?

Since forever.
"Urges" includes the option not to do as urged, which the "Requires" would take away.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Since when was it illegal to urge something and require something at the same time?

Since forever.
"Urges" includes the option not to do as urged, which the "Requires" would take away.

If I urge you to declare a proposal illegal and someone says that you have to declare a proposal illegal, would that be a contradiction?

[Araraukar]

Illegal (1): Bears Armed
4 minutes ago: Bears Armed: Illegal — Contradiction of existing legislation (GA Resolution #267 'Sensible Limits ion Hunting' only URGES member nations to ban "unnecessarily cruel" methods, so they could choose to allow weapons that you're classing as 'inhumane' here).

Considering how the attributes described in the proposal basically only fit sapient beings, I don't see how GA #267 gets triggered.

And also wasn't there a ruling once about how you can tighten up regulations where something was merely encouraged in a previous one and how you can make it mandatory later on?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Since forever.
"Urges" includes the option not to do as urged, which the "Requires" would take away.

Great. I think it should probably be repealed by next Tuesday.

[Wallenburg]

Since when was it illegal to urge something and require something at the same time?

Since forever.
"Urges" includes the option not to do as urged, which the "Requires" would take away.

This has never been the case. It has never been illegal to effectively expand upon the recommendations of previous resolutions by setting mandates in new ones.

[Bears Armed Mission]

Since forever.
"Urges" includes the option not to do as urged, which the "Requires" would take away.

This has never been the case. It has never been illegal to effectively expand upon the recommendations of previous resolutions by setting mandates in new ones.

Yes. It. Has.
That's why proposals with "Urges" clauses can be used -- and have been used -- as blockers against the possibility of proposals with "Requires" clauses on the same subject.

"Urges" = "We would like you to do this, but you don't have to if you don't want to"
"Requires" = "We are telling you to, and you don't have any choice."
Clear contradiction.

[Araraukar]

Yes. It. Has.
That's why proposals with "Urges" clauses can be used -- and have been used -- as blockers against the possibility of proposals with "Requires" clauses on the same subject.

"Urges" = "We would like you to do this, but you don't have to if you don't want to"
"Requires" = "We are telling you to, and you don't have any choice."
Clear contradiction.

Good thing then that past precendent is not binding precedent, unless made by the GenSec specifically... Just watch IA write a proposal that forces GenSec's hand on the issue...

But I honestly don't remember it being dealt with that way in past disagreements...

[States of Glory WA Office]

It appears that the proposal in question has been marked 'Legal'. I applaud GenSec for their wise decision.

[Oresland]

Repeal: “Convention On Internet Neutrality”

A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal
Resolution: GA#407
Proposed by: Candelli
General Assembly Resolution #407 “Convention on Internet Neutrality” (Category: Free Trade; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Internet freedoms are something that cannot be taken away or heavily monitored, as it is the duty of the employer, teacher, director, etc., to take charge of their workers/students habits and internet usage, and not that of all WA nations to have jurisdiction upon.

Good argument, but written as a blogposal

[Imperium Anglorum]

It appears that the proposal in question has been marked 'Legal'. I applaud GenSec for their wise decision.

I agree. (the proposal)

Approvals: 14 (Derpstronaca, New Legland, Pilarcraft, Evve Terre, Poseidons Depth, Uruguistan, Very Good Lesbians, Romellan, Eltandis, AngrEthia, Meatball Land, Vermont of America, Cheeksam, Ademre)

GenSec Status: LEGAL
Info
Legal (3): Sierra Lyricalia, Separatist Peoples, Bananaistan

Illegal (1): Bears Armed

1 day 7 hours ago: Bananaistan: Legal
2 days 1 hour ago: Separatist Peoples: Legal
2 days 1 hour ago: Sierra Lyricalia: Legal
2 days 1 hour ago: Bears Armed: Illegal — Contradiction of existing legislation (GA Resolution #267 'Sensible Limits ion Hunting' only URGES member nations to ban "unnecessarily cruel" methods, so they could choose to allow weapons that you're classing as 'inhumane' here).
Status: Lacking Support (requires 72 more approvals)

Voting Ends: in 1 day

[Bears Armed Mission]

Illegal (1): Bears Armed
4 minutes ago: Bears Armed: Illegal — Contradiction of existing legislation (GA Resolution #267 'Sensible Limits ion Hunting' only URGES member nations to ban "unnecessarily cruel" methods, so they could choose to allow weapons that you're classing as 'inhumane' here).

Considering how the attributes described in the proposal basically only fit sapient beings, I don't see how GA #267 gets triggered.

Although that proposal defines the weapons in terms of their effects on one category of potential victims (which, incidentally, I as a Zoology graduate would interpret as including a range of sentient-but-not-actually-sapient species as well truly sapient ones), instead of just banning the use of those weapons against that type of victims it then bans them totally within member nations... even in any cases where those member nations, using their rights (guaranteed under 'Sensible Limits on Hunting') to regulate the hunting of non-endangered animals within their jurisdiction, have issued regulations saying that such weapons are allowed for that purpose.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

That's why proposals with "Urges" clauses can be used -- and have been used -- as blockers against the possibility of proposals with "Requires" clauses on the same subject.

"Urges" = "We would like you to do this, but you don't have to if you don't want to"
"Requires" = "We are telling you to, and you don't have any choice."
Clear contradiction.

I dunno. This kind of sticks in my craw a bit. Do you have an example of an urge clause that was specifically used as a blocker against a future requirement? I can see it if the clauses themselves were in opposition: the WA cannot both urge something and forbid it. But to require the same conduct previously urged doesn't strike me as a contradiction. In both cases the WA wants nations to do a certain thing; the only difference is how badly. An urge clause implies that the WA doesn't think it's important enough to send the gnomes in to force the legislative change, but doesn't say anything about any principle or intent that the question should be left to member states. I don't see a contradiction where the two clauses clearly envision member states doing the same conduct.

[Grays Harbor]

Muslim Women For Sale

A resolution to legalize or outlaw gambling.

Category: Gambling

Legalize/Outlaw: Legalize

Proposed by: Habibi land

let's legalize gambling for hot muslim women let's legalize gambling for hot muslim women let's legalize gambling for hot muslim women let's legalize gambling for hot muslim women let's legalize gambling for hot muslim women let's legalize gambling for hot muslim women let's legalize gambling for hot muslim women let's legalize gambling for hot muslim women let's legalize gambling for hot muslim women let's legalize gambling for hot muslim women let's legalize gambling for hot muslim women let's legalize gambling for hot muslim women let's legalize gambling for hot muslim women let's legalize gambling for hot muslim women let's legalize gambling for hot muslim women let's legalize gambling for hot muslim women

u can pay cash to bean-bang a hot muzzie

Is it possible to get more offensive? I mean, seriously, this is absolutely 100% disgusting and horrific.

[Kaboomlandia]

Aexnidaral found it over Discord, I passed it on to Sep, and he discarded it immediately.

[Wallenburg]

This has never been the case. It has never been illegal to effectively expand upon the recommendations of previous resolutions by setting mandates in new ones.

Yes. It. Has.
That's why proposals with "Urges" clauses can be used -- and have been used -- as blockers against the possibility of proposals with "Requires" clauses on the same subject.

Cite the resolutions.

"Urges" = "We would like you to do this, but you don't have to if you don't want to"
"Requires" = "We are telling you to, and you don't have any choice."
Clear contradiction.

Prove it. Where is the GenSec precedent?

[Essu Beti]

Remove The Freedom Of Speech

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights

Strength: Mild

Proposed by: Superior Indonesia

It is clear that due to freedom of speech the people of the world have become entitled and stupid. It is time we as an association of nations have removed this and improved and restored our world and its population to what it was before. Simply look at USA to see what I am talking about. This must be stopped. This is necessary.

Blogpost, real-world references, no operative clause, apparently trying to be a repeal of something without actually being listed as one?

[New Cla]

Allow Nuclear Weapons

A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Category: International Security

Strength: Strong

Proposed by: Anglo Republics

The General Assembly,

NOTING the destructive power of a nuclear bomb and how it may harm a nation or region intensely.

UNDERSTANDING nuclear bombs and weapons can cause suffering to a populace dropped onto, but also hereby understanding that nuclear weapons can be used as a political deterrent at war, with Mutually Assured Destruction coming into play.

DECLARING a nuclear weapon to be:
1. A bomb that releases nuclear energy or radiation that is harmful.
2. A missile or a bomb with a nuclear warhead attached.
3. A purposely caused meltdown of a nuclear factory.
3a. Whether by government or terrorism.

REITERATING that chemical weapons are NOT included in this legislation, referring that this is only atomic and nuclear legislation.

STATING that nuclear bombs are a decent last resort strategy, and can be used if a liberation war or a general war does not end quick and decisively.

ALSO STATING that condemned nations in the Security Council are hereby prohibited to owning nuclear and atomic missiles, bombs or any type of nuclear or atomic, as it is an incredibly dangerous thing to place in the hands of a disliked nation.

HEREBY DECLARING the right to own, produce and use nuclear and atomic bombs, missiles or any kind of weapon with a nuclear or atomic warhead attached as a last resort weapon, while keeping who have the right to own such destructive weapons away to a limited few people.

Does this duplicate napa?

[New Cla]

Remove The Freedom Of Speech

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights

Strength: Mild

Proposed by: Superior Indonesia

It is clear that due to freedom of speech the people of the world have become entitled and stupid. It is time we as an association of nations have removed this and improved and restored our world and its population to what it was before. Simply look at USA to see what I am talking about. This must be stopped. This is necessary.

Blogpost, real-world references, no operative clause, apparently trying to be a repeal of something without actually being listed as one?

How is this human rights And how is it mild?