[Draft] Resolution 412

[Excidium Planetis]

"Second verse, same as the first... or so they say." Blackbourne begins. "I have made several major changes to the resolution which was defeated, taking a new and different approach, and you won't even find the word peacekeeping in here. The overall proposal is a bit rough looking, for now, but I hope you get the general idea of what is being accomplished, and I will take any recommendations to heart."

Draft 2.3.1

Resolution 400
~Flavor Text~


Category: Global Disarmament | Mild | Proposed by: Excidium Planetis

---

The Assembly of Worlds,

Believing that furthering global peace and international security are some of the foremost goals of this Assembly,

Affirming prior resolutions dedicated to international mediation, disarmament,

The General Assembly,

Article I - Restrictions on WA Force

Prohibits any WA organizations or committees (not member nations) from engaging in offensive military actions with any WA member states, or affiliated organizations, for any reason;

Prohibits WA committee members and employees of the WA itself (not national delegations) from carrying weapons while in the jurisdiction of WA member nations;

Article II - Scope of Operations and Standards

Expands the role of the WA Disaster Bureau (WADB) to include the following duties:

• Identifying potential or real causes of international conflict, especially factors leading to armed conflict, before those conflicts occur.
• Determining plans of action for the WA to prevent conflicts before they occur, at the request of member nations. The WADB shall not provide preference for any WA member nations which request aid in conflict prevention plans.
• Sharing information between WA agencies to promote inter-agency cooperation and more effectively fulfill the mandates of this resolution.
• Requesting the aid of national militaries and police forces who have volunteered to protect WA personnel deployed to post-conflict areas of member nations.
• Dismissing units of the above volunteer forces which are not necessary for WA efforts or which pose a hazard to the fulfillment of these efforts.
• Forming clear and achievable mandates in its efforts.

Tasks the World Assembly Demining Agency, World Assembly Chemical Weapons Commission, and World Assembly Commission on Biological Agents, with working together to assist member nations, at the request of those nations, with disarmament of military weapons after the conclusion of, or to prevent before it occurs, armed conflict, and to assist nations in fulfillimg disarmament obligations arising from international treaties;

Also tasks the Explosive Remnants of War Action Subcommittee with inspecting such disarmament operations to ensure their safety;

Expands the role of the International Mediation Foundation to include, at the request of involved parties, monitoring peace treaties and international pacts, especially to investigate as to whether the terms of these treaties are being followed in good faith, and to liaise with the above WA committees where their work is directly involved in the terms of the treaties;

• The IMF shall be authorized to inform parties of treaties of any breaches in the terms of those treaties.
• The IMF shall inform the WADB where breaches of international treaties may lead to the necessity of further WA efforts.

Mandates that the WADB, in the efforts it coordinates, shall be held to the following standards:

• Consent of all parties involved in its operations. No effort shall be made without the consent of all WA member nations involved, and without the request of at least one member nation involved.
• Impartiality in proceedings and conflicts. WA personnel shall maintain professionalism at all times and give equal consideration to the involved parties.
• Non-use of force. Except in cases of self defense, WA personnel are to refrain from using force, and shall be prohibited from carrying lethal weapons.
• Adherence to existing WA resolutions. Actions, even if allowed by this resolution, are not to be taken by the WADB if such actions would conflict with other existing resolutions.

Authorizes the WADB to:

• request appropriate WA funds to support its operations,
• conduct research into safe and effective armor and defense technologies to increase the security of WA personnel,
• enforce provisions of this resolution, as allowed by existing international law;

Clarifies that none of the above committees are military forces, nor are they ever to be used as such,

Article III - Responsibility of Member Nation-States

Encourages WA Member nations to make a genuine commitment to maintaining peace, maintain a Unity of Purpose with the WA, actively support WA efforts where possible, refrain from hindering WA operations or movement, and communicate effectively with WA personnel;

Strongly Urges WA member nations to volunteer military or police units for the defense of WA efforts in conflict zones, as described in Article II, Clause 1 of this resolution;

Requires military and police units involved in WA efforts to abide by WA law, and, where reasonable, the laws of the nations they are deployed to, and to protect the rights of civilian non-combatants;

Prohibits member nations from using WA organizations or committees to defend themselves from other nations, from fraudulently requesting WA efforts, and from intentionally launching military, terrorist, or criminal attacks against WA property or officials.

Resolution 393
~Flavor Text~


Category: Global Disarmament | Mild | Proposed by: Excidium Planetis

---

The Assembly of Worlds,

Believing that furthering global peace and internarional security are some of the foremost goals of this Assembly,

Affirming prior resolutions dedicated to international mediation, disarmament, and

Article I - Restrictions on WA Force

Prohibits any WA organizations or committees (not member nations) from engaging in offensive military actions with any WA member states, or affiliated organizations, for any reason;

Prohibits WA committee members and employees of the WA itself (not national delegations) from carrying weapons while in the jurisdiction of WA member nations;

Article II - Scope of Operations and Standards

Expands the role of the WA Disaster Bureau (WADB) to include the following duties:

• Identifying potential or real causes of international conflict, especially factors leading to armed conflict.
• Determining plans of action for the WA to resolve or prevent conflicts at the request of member nations.
• Sharing information between WA agencies to promote inter-agency cooperation and more effectively fulfill the mandates of this resolution.
• Requesting the aid of national militaries and police forces who have volunteered to protect WA personnel deployed to member nations which are in a state of armed conflict or at risk of armed conflict.
• Dismissing units of the above volunteer forces which are not necessary for WA efforts or which pose a hazard to the fulfillment of these efforts.
• Forming clear and achievable mandates in its efforts.

Tasks the World Assembly Demining Agency, World Assembly Chemical Weapons Commission, and World Assembly Commission on Biological Agents, with working together to assist member nations, at the request of those nations, with disarmament of military weapons at the conclusion of, or to prevent, armed conflict, and to assist nations in fulfillimg disarmament obligations arising from international treaties;

Also tasks the Explosive Remnants of War Action Subcommittee with inspecting such disarmament operations to ensure their safety;

Expands the role of the International Mediation Foundation to include, at the request of involved parties, monitoring ceasefires and international pacts, especially to investigate as to whether the terms of these treaties are being followed in good faith, and to liaise with the above WA committees where their work is directly involved in the terms of the treaties;

• The IMF shall be authorized to inform parties of treaties of any breaches in the terms of those treaties.
• The IMF shall inform the WADB where breaches of international treaties may lead to the necessity of further WA efforts.

Mandates that the WADB, in the efforts it coordinates, shall be held to the following standards:

• Consent of all parties involved in its operations. No effort shall be made without the consent of all WA member nations involved, and without the request of at least one member nation involved.
• Impartiality in proceedings and conflicts. WA personnel shall maintain professionalism at all times and give equal consideration to the involved parties.
• Non-use of force. Except in cases of self defense, WA personnel are to refrain from using force, and shall be prohibited from carrying lethal weapons.

Authorizes the WADB to:

• request appropriate WA funds to support its operations,
• conduct research into safe and effective armor and defense technologies to increase the security of WA personnel

Clarifies that none of the above committees are military or police forces, nor are they ever to be used as such,

Article III - Responsibility of Member Nation-States

Encourages WA Member nations to make a genuine commitment to maintaining peace, maintain a Unity of Purpose with the WA, actively support WA efforts where possible, refrain from hindering WA operations or movement, and communicate effectively with WA personnel;

Strongly Urges WA member nations to volunteer military or police units for the defense of WA efforts in conflict zones, as described in Article II, Clause 1 of this resolution;

Requires military and police units involved in WA efforts to abide by WA law, and, where reasonable, the laws of the nations they are deployed to, and to protect the rights of civilian non-combatants;

Prohibits member nations from using WA organizations or committees to defend themselves from other nations, from fraudulently requesting WA efforts, and from intentionally launching military, terrorist, or criminal attacks against WA property or officials.

Resolution 388
~Flavor Text~


Category: International Security | Mild | Proposed by: Excidium Planetis

---

The Assembly of Worlds,

Believing that the member nations of the World Assembly really need help,

Reaffirming prior resolutions seeking to rectify delegation literacy and promote comprehensive reading of resolutions in order to make informed voting decisions,

Resolving to make this resolution as readable as possible,

Article I - Restrictions on WA Force

Prohibits any WA organizations or committees (not member nations) from engaging in offensive military actions with any WA member states, or affiliated organizations, for any reason;

Prohibits WA committee members and employees of the WA itself (not national delegations) from carrying lethal weapons while in the jurisdiction of WA member nations;

Article II - Scope of Operations and Standards

Expands the role of the WA Disaster Board (WADB) to include the following duties:

• Identifying potential or real causes of international conflict, especially factors leading to armed conflict.
• Determining plans of action for the WA to resolve or prevent conflicts at the request of member nations.
• Sharing information between WA agencies to promote inter-agency cooperation and more effectively fulfill the mandates of this resolution.
• Coordinating the efforts of national militaries and police forces who have volunteered to protect WA personnel deployed to member nations which are in a state of armed conflict or at risk of armed conflict.
• Dismissing units of the above volunteer forces which are not necessary for WA efforts or which pose a hazard to the fulfillment of these efforts.
• Forming clear and achievable mandates in its efforts.

Tasks the World Assembly Demining Agency, World Assembly Chemical Weapons Commission, and World Assembly Commission on Biological Agents, with working together to assist member nations, at the request of those nations, with disarmament of military weapons at the conclusion of, or to prevent, armed conflict;

Also tasks the Explosive Remnants of War Action Subcommittee with inspecting such disarmament operations to ensure their safety;

Extends the mandate of the Organization for Electoral Assistance to include assisting nations in rebuilding or restructuring their governments, if requested by those nations, where such government reordering comes at the conclusion of hostilities or carries the risk of igniting international conflict;

Expands the role of the International Mediation Foundation to include, at the request of involved parties, monitoring ceasefires and international pacts, especially to investigate as to whether the terms of these treaties are being followed in good faith, and to liaise with the above WA committees where their work is directly involved in the terms of the treaties;

Mandates that the WADB, in the efforts it coordinates, shall be held to the following standards:

• Consent of all parties involved in its operations. No effort shall be made without the consent of all WA member nations involved, and without the request of at least one member nation involved.
• Impartiality in proceedings and conflicts. WA personnel shall maintain professionalism at all times and give equal consideration to the involved parties.
• Non-use of force. Except in cases of self defense, WA personnel are to refrain from using lethal force, and shall be prohibited from carrying lethal weapons. WA Personnel are to refrain from using force on state actors, except in self defense.

Authorizes the WADB to:

• request appropriate WA funds to support its operations,
• conduct research into safe and effective non-lethal weapons systems, armor, and defense technologies to increase the security of WA personnel

Clarifies that none of the above committees are military or police forces, nor are they ever to be used as such,

Article III - Responsibility of Member Nation-States

Encourages WA Member nations to make a genuine commitment to maintaining peace, maintain a Unity of Purpose with the WA, actively support WA efforts where possible, refrain from hindering WA operations or movement, and communicate effectively with WA personnel;

Strongly Urges WA member nations to volunteer military or police units for the defense of WA efforts in conflict zones, as described in Article II, Clause 1 of this resolution;

Requires military and police units involved in WA efforts to abide by WA law, and, where reasonable, the laws of the nations they are deployed to, and to protect the rights of civilian non-combatants;

Prohibits member nations from using WA organizations or committees to defend themselves from other nations, from fraudulently requesting WA efforts, and from intentionally launching military, terrorist, or criminal attacks against WA property or officials.

Draft 2.1.3

Resolution 388
~Flavor Text~


Category: International Security | Mild | Proposed by: Excidium Planetis

---

The Assembly of Worlds,

Believing that the member nations of the World Assembly really need help,

Reaffirming prior resolutions seeking to rectify delegation literacy and promote comprehensive reading of resolutions in order to make informed voting decisions,

Resolving to make this resolution as readable as possible,

Article I - Restrictions on WA Force

Prohibits any WA organizations or committees (not member nations) from engaging in offensive military actions with any WA member states, or affiliated organizations, for any reason;

Prohibits WA committee members and employees of the WA itself (not national delegations) from carrying lethal weapons while in the jurisdiction of WA member nations;

Article II - Scope of Peacekeeping Operations and Standards

Expands the role of the Global Emigration, Security, Travel And Passport Organisation, referred until the end of this clause as the Global Security Organisation to include the following duties:

• Coordinating efforts of the World Assembly Demining Agency, World Assembly Chemical Weapons Commission, and World Assembly Commission on Biological Agents, to assist member nations, at their request, with disarmament of military weapons at the conclusion of, or to prevent, armed conflict. The Explosive Remnants of War Action Subcommittee shall inspect such disarmament operations to ensure their safety.
• Coordinating the efforts of the International Mediation Foundation to negotiate ceasefires or the the end of conflict for member nations, at the request of those nations.
• Coordinating the efforts of the Organization for Electoral Assistance in assisting in reorganizing governments or overseeing elections, at the request of member nations desiring such assistance.
• Coordinating the efforts of national militaries and police forces who have volunteered to protect WA personnel deployed to member nations which are in a state of armed conflict or at risk of armed conflict.
• Dimissing units of the above volunteer forces which are not necessary for WA efforts or which pose a hazard to the fulfillment of these efforts.

Mandates that the Global Security Organization, in the efforts it coordinates, shall be held to the following standards:

• Consent of all parties involved in its operations. No effort shall be made without the consent of all WA member nations involved, and without the request of at least one member nation involved.
• Impartiality in proceedings and conflicts. WA personnel shall maintain professionalism at all times and give equal consideration to the involved parties.
• Non-use of force. Except in cases of self defense, WA personnel are to refrain from using lethal force, and shall be prohibited from carrying lethal weapons. Peacekeepers are to refrain from using non-lethal force on state actors.

Further tasks Global Security Organization with:

• Maintaining the legitimacy of WA actions
• Upholding WA law in WA territory
• Coordinating with other WA committees where practical and beneficial for achieving mandates,
• Forming clear and achievable mandates in its efforts;

Authorizes the Global Security Organization to:

• request appropriate WA funds to support its operations,
• conduct research into safe and effective non-lethal weapons systems, armor, and defense technologies to increase the security of WA personnel

Clarifies that the GESTAPO is not a military or police force, nor are they ever to be used as such,

Article III - Responsibility of Member Nation-States

Encourages WA Member nations to make a genuine commitment to maintaining peace, maintain a Unity of Purpose with the WA, actively support WA efforts where possible, refrain from hindering WA operations or movement, and communicate effectively with WA personnel;

Strongly Urges WA member nations to volunteer military or police units for the defense of WA efforts in conflict zones, as described in Article II, Clause 1 of this resolution;

Requires military and police units involved in WA efforts to abide by WA law, and, where reasonable, the laws of the nations they are deployed to, and to protect the rights of civilian non-combatants;

Prohibits member nations from using WA organizations or committees to defend themselves from other nations, from fraudulently requesting WA efforts, and from intentionally launching military, terrorist, or criminal attacks against WA property or officials.

OOC:
Following Unibot's idea of a volunteer coalition military, however, to ensure that the Global Security Organization does not run afoul of GA#2, I have delegated nearly all its activities to existing WA committees already tasked with pretty much what they are being tasked with here.

[Western Evilly]

And I am afraid this is just as illegal as your last attempt.

[Excidium Planetis]

And I am afraid this is just as illegal as your last attempt.

OOC :
1) Care to explain why?
2) We will see. I will file a Legality Challenge against my own draft this time, because apparently some people think that kinda thing is necessary before submitting proposals these days.

[Wallenburg]

Expands the role of the Global Emigration, Security, Travel And Passport Organisation, hereafter referred as the Global Security Organisation....

Clarifies that the GESTAPO is not a military or police force, nor are they ever to be used as such,

"Lies! We have been fed lies!"

[Western Evilly]

And I am afraid this is just as illegal as your last attempt.

OOC :
1) Care to explain why?

Why would I want to waste my time? It was explained a multitude of times in the legality challenge. You simply chose to plug your ears and claim that you were right and everyone else was wrong. Why would this time be any different? Unless GA #2 is repealed any attempt to create a WA army or police force in any shape or form remains illegal. I really fail to see why you are having such a hard time comprehending this.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Opposed for not using the moniker 'Passport Organisation'. </s>

[Excidium Planetis]

Expands the role of the Global Emigration, Security, Travel And Passport Organisation, hereafter referred as the Global Security Organisation....

Clarifies that the GESTAPO is not a military or police force, nor are they ever to be used as such,

"Lies! We have been fed lies!"

"How is the new draft?" Blackbourne asks Ogenbond, as he makes a quick edit.

OOC:
I couldn't resist making the joke that the GESTAPO was not a police force.

Why would I want to waste my time?

"It's illegal but I can't explain why!"

It was explained a multitude of times in the legality challenge.

No, actually it has not yet been explained why my resolution was illegal. GenSec declared that they had ruled, but their formal opinions (the explanation) has not been given yet.

You simply chose to plug your ears and claim that you were right and everyone else was wrong. Why would this time be any different?

Because this time I am not tasking a committee with the defense of WA peacekeeping missions. I am urging WA member nations themselves to defend the WA.

Unless GA #2 is repealed any attempt to create a WA army or police force in any shape or form remains illegal. I really fail to see why you are having such a hard time comprehending this.

Because I have been here long enough to know that clauses are subject to multiple interpretations, and until the current group of players responsible for making rulings on legality declare that something falls afoul of the rules, those interpretations are a matter of debate.

Opposed for not using the moniker 'Passport Organisation'.

That's not only ridiculous, it is ridiculous twice: Why would an organization that is responsible for coordinating WA disarmament, diplomatic, and government organization efforts be called the Passport Organization?

[HighHaar]

"As new to the international scene as I am, I think I'm having a bit of a headache trying to figure out how this:

Coordinating the efforts of national militaries and police forces who have volunteered to protect WA personnel deployed to member nations which are in a state of armed conflict or at risk of armed conflict.

paired with this:

Requires military and police units involved in WA efforts to abide by WA law, and, where reasonable, the laws of the nations they are deployed to, and to protect the rights of civilian non-combatants;

can not to be in discordance with this (GA #2):

Article 10 § 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.

The problem arises because it's hard to understand how peacekeepers are meant to protect the rights of civilians without it becoming a police or military action. Use of either lethal or non-lethal force isn't the point, tasering someone to protect someone else is still a police action, as is a shield wall to keep someone away from someone else.
I see how you tried to amend the problem by having volunteers from other Nations to do the job, but no matter what, these forces are still being coordinated by a WA committee or WA personnel and as such are under WA banner, even if they don't show one. They are WA coordinated personnel engaging in police actions and as such, are in violation of Art. 10 of GA #2, even if their main task is to protect WA personnel.
If I could make a suggestion, a possible way to get around this could be to drop the idea of a WA committee coordinating military/police forces of any kind. Member Nations may volunteer to help solve the problems and protect WA personnel under their own responsibility and in good faith (as of GA#2 art. 9) and coordinate said operations by themselves, abiding to this resolution standards, and the committee could oversee these operations to ensure no mischief is carried out and ask any violator to refrain from further participating in the operations.
I sincerely hope I didn't miss any crucial information while interpreting the proposal.
Best regards"

Kronin, Ambassador of Highhaar

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Leo enters the chamber, glancing around as if to gauge its decor. He shows no visible reaction, however, and simply approaches the Lyrical desk and gets his papers and laptop arranged with little fuss. Once set up, he glances at his notes one last time, and then stands to speak.

"Ambassador - Blackbourne, is it? - Greetings. My government is on record fully supporting the idea of bundling new jobs into existing committees where the new job is somewhat related or even tangential to the committee's current responsibilities. But I think tasking a passport oversight group with coordinating all these other committees is a bridge too far."

"The 'security' contemplated in the Passport Organization's full name is nothing approaching what you're talking about here, and I don't see why they should get operational oversight of these massive efforts in place of one of the committees being coordinated. I don't even see why they should be involved, beyond maybe establishing field offices in former conflict zones to assist refugees and newly stateless persons. You're talking about the WA's customs agency, basically, being put in charge of cleaning up the shattered lands and shattered lives after a war."

"If you're going to put an existing committee in charge of this, it should be the WA Disaster Board. At least they have expertise in multiple flavors of disaster. But I honestly think a new organization would fit better. Politically, maybe that's another story..."

"I'm also not sure why the IMF would need someone else sticking their noses into their talks with the warring parties - 'coordinate the efforts of the IMF' with whom, exactly? They're already in direct contact with the belligerents. Who else do they need to talk to? Same question as regards the OEA."

"Now, if your idea is that these committees need to coordinate with the WADB, Demining Agency, etc. in order to faithfully do their jobs and hold the belligerents accountable to their promises and claims, that makes sense. Like, maybe Thrashlandia claims they placed no mines in Area X, so WADA can check the claim and say actually, this is a Thrashlandic MD-4 antipersonnel mine from coordinates y,z inside Area X, so that IMF can call bullshit during the negotiations; or maybe the Lilliputian Midget Party claims no ties with atrocities committed by Neo-Dwarfist militias against ethnic Brobdingnagians, but there are witnesses otherwise and the OEA can make that known. That's all fine, but these activities don't come through in the clauses dealing with those committees. It should be more explicitly stated."

---

I love that one-liner. But the shoehorning necessary to keep it is... a bit of a reach tbh. And there's a question which is the less popular - creating a new committee of obviously peacekeeping coordinators, or referring to the GESTAPO by acronym.

I'll read this a bit more in-depth later (late, outright) this week.

[Excidium Planetis]

The problem arises because it's hard to understand how peacekeepers are meant to protect the rights of civilians without it becoming a police or military action. Use of either lethal or non-lethal force isn't the point, tasering someone to protect someone else is still a police action, as is a shield wall to keep someone away from someone else.
I see how you tried to amend the problem by having volunteers from other Nations to do the job, but no matter what, these forces are still being coordinated by a WA committee or WA personnel and as such are under WA banner, even if they don't show one. They are WA coordinated personnel engaging in police actions and as such, are in violation of Art. 10 of GA #2, even if their main task is to protect WA personnel.
If I could make a suggestion, a possible way to get around this could be to drop the idea of a WA committee coordinating military/police forces of any kind. Member Nations may volunteer to help solve the problems and protect WA personnel under their own responsibility and in good faith (as of GA#2 art. 9) and coordinate said operations by themselves, abiding to this resolution standards, and the committee could oversee these operations to ensure no mischief is carried out and ask any violator to refrain from further participating in the operations.
I sincerely hope I didn't miss any crucial information while interpreting the proposal.
Best regards"

Kronin, Ambassador of Highhaar

"Ambassador, could you explain the distinct difference between coordinating and overseeing, specifically in regards to why one makes the force under a WA banner and the other one not so?"

"Ambassador - Blackbourne, is it? - Greetings. My government is on record fully supporting the idea of bundling new jobs into existing committees where the new job is somewhat related or even tangential to the committee's current responsibilities. But I think tasking a passport oversight group with coordinating all these other committees is a bridge too far."

"The 'security' contemplated in the Passport Organization's full name is nothing approaching what you're talking about here, and I don't see why they should get operational oversight of these massive efforts in place of one of the committees being coordinated. I don't even see why they should be involved, beyond maybe establishing field offices in former conflict zones to assist refugees and newly stateless persons. You're talking about the WA's customs agency, basically, being put in charge of cleaning up the shattered lands and shattered lives after a war."

"If you're going to put an existing committee in charge of this, it should be the WA Disaster Board. At least they have expertise in multiple flavors of disaster. But I honestly think a new organization would fit better. Politically, maybe that's another story..."

"I'm also not sure why the IMF would need someone else sticking their noses into their talks with the warring parties - 'coordinate the efforts of the IMF' with whom, exactly? They're already in direct contact with the belligerents. Who else do they need to talk to? Same question as regards the OEA."

"Now, if your idea is that these committees need to coordinate with the WADB, Demining Agency, etc. in order to faithfully do their jobs and hold the belligerents accountable to their promises and claims, that makes sense. Like, maybe Thrashlandia claims they placed no mines in Area X, so WADA can check the claim and say actually, this is a Thrashlandic MD-4 antipersonnel mine from coordinates y,z inside Area X, so that IMF can call bullshit during the negotiations; or maybe the Lilliputian Midget Party claims no ties with atrocities committed by Neo-Dwarfist militias against ethnic Brobdingnagians, but there are witnesses otherwise and the OEA can make that known. That's all fine, but these activities don't come through in the clauses dealing with those committees. It should be more explicitly stated."

"Your comments are very helpful," Blackbourne briefly looks down at his datatab for help, "Representative. I certainly do feel that the coordination between committees can be improved, with new tasks such as you described explained.

"I see how the WADB could very well be used, especially as their mandate does not specify natural disasters, so political disasters could well already be within their oversight."

I love that one-liner. But the shoehorning necessary to keep it is... a bit of a reach tbh. And there's a question which is the less popular - creating a new committee of obviously peacekeeping coordinators, or referring to the GESTAPO by acronym.

I'll read this a bit more in-depth later (late, outright) this week.

OOC:
Funny thing is, when looking through WA Committees for one to take up the task of coordinating all these efforts, it came down to the WADB and GESTAPO. Both, I felt, had sufficiently vague names to potentially be used. I ultimately went with GESTAPO because I could reduce it to the Global Security Organisation, which is a way better name for this committee than WA Disaster Board.

I want to use an existing committee because I think it may reduce claims of a WA army (kinda, maybe?) if the committee already did something and making a new committee just for assisting the cooperation of other committees is pretty dumb.

[Bears Armed]

Assigning a committee to coordinate any preexisting committees/agencies, when no provision for the addition of such supervision was included in the resolutions that established them, is arguably illegal as an attempted amendment of those resolutions.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Frankly, can we *not* extend the life of such an incredibly offensive and disgusting committee name?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Assigning a committee to coordinate any preexisting committees/agencies, when no provision for the addition of such supervision was included in the resolutions that established them, is arguably illegal as an attempted amendment of those resolutions.

I don't see how this can be the case given that we can write in changes to the duties to such committees and extend them as necessary.

[Excidium Planetis]

Frankly, can we *not* extend the life of such an incredibly offensive and disgusting committee name?

OOC:
Ugh, fine, I'll make the WA Disaster Board the one in control.
(Even if the GESTAPO is already on the books in an unrepealed resolution and thus is extending its own life.)

Assigning a committee to coordinate any preexisting committees/agencies, when no provision for the addition of such supervision was included in the resolutions that established them, is arguably illegal as an attempted amendment of those resolutions.

I don't see how this can be the case given that we can write in changes to the duties to such committees and extend them as necessary.

I agree with IA here. Extending the duties of existing committees has never been illegal as amendments, as far as I recall. None of the new duties contradict their existing duties, and this resolution can stand on its own, so I don't see how tasking a committee with organizing additional activities is illegal.

IC:
"Alright, I have clarified the roles of the involved WA committees here, and the WADB is now in charge. I hope that we can continue to refine the process here."

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: In regards to GA #388 a.k.a Reso...Oh, wait.

This draft is so tongue-in-cheek that I'm almost tempted to bring in Neville and Fairburn, but I will do what any lazy sitcom does and add a new character. Ladies and gentlemen, meet Harold the Clown!

IC: Barbera: Once again, the Peacekeepers, as they are referred to in Article II Clause Six, are allowed to use lethal force on state actors, yet they cannot use non-lethal force. We cannot support this proposal while this oversight remains. Also, why does the title of Article II refer to peacekeeping operations?

Harold the Clown: (cartwheels into the chamber) Hey, hey, hey! Forget that nonsense! I like this WA bureaucracy reunion, but I would like it even more if the Office of Building Management, the WA Trade Commission and the International Trade Administration, the WA Nautical Commission, EPARC, the International Postal Union, the Museums of Musical Heritage, the World Microcredit Foundation, the Microgrant Institute and the World Space Administration were all invited to the party!

Barbera: It is worth noting that the World Space Administration is no longer in existence.

Harold the Clown: Why on earth not? It was easily the greatest WA committee ever established! (pinches nose) Anyway, I'm off to make a giraffe! Buh-bye! (cartwheels out of the chamber)

[Glen-Rhodes]

Assigning a committee to coordinate any preexisting committees/agencies, when no provision for the addition of such supervision was included in the resolutions that established them, is arguably illegal as an attempted amendment of those resolutions.

I don't see how this can be the case given that we can write in changes to the duties to such committees and extend them as necessary.

Really, there's no reason for the committees to even be mentioned. All that clause is doing is restating what they already do, and asking them to "work together" somehow. I'm not sure what help a chemical weapons expert can give in, say, the best demining practices. It's very redundant, and is an opening for a legality challenge now that Bears has raised the question. (Whether you think it is or not, somebody is likely to jump on the opportunity.)

As for the use of the OEA, I'd politely request the author to not relegate such an important aspect of post-war rebuilding to a single line in a proposal. I've pleaded numerous times for the author to actually spend some time researching these issues, and to not rob the World Assembly of the ability and opportunity to actually take them seriously. I would rather not see a committee I care about personally be used in a shoddy manner. Post-war restructuring deserved more than 42 words. As do many of the issues this proposal (like its soundly defeated predecessor) barely touches on, but yet precludes future in-depth policy-making.

[Excidium Planetis]

Really, there's no reason for the committees to even be mentioned. All that clause is doing is restating what they already do, and asking them to "work together" somehow.

Incorrect. The Commission on Biological Agents was never tasked with disarmament before. The International Mediation Foundation was not tasked with checking to make sure ceasefires were being followed. The WADB was not tasked with anything I have tasked it to do here, really. I am expanding the role of these committees.

I'm not sure what help a chemical weapons expert can give in, say, the best demining practices.

That's because you can't read. I never tasked the WACWC with demining, I tasked them with assisting in disarmament. That includes chemical weapons, presumably.

It's very redundant, and is an opening for a legality challenge now that Bears has raised the question. (Whether you think it is or not, somebody is likely to jump on the opportunity.)

Good. I will mention that when I file a Legality Challenge against my own proposal.

As for the use of the OEA, I'd politely request the author to not relegate such an important aspect of post-war rebuilding to a single line in a proposal. I've pleaded numerous times for the author to actually spend some time researching these issues, and to not rob the World Assembly of the ability and opportunity to actually take them seriously. I would rather not see a committee I care about personally be used in a shoddy manner. Post-war restructuring deserved more than 42 words.

What makes the OEA so special? The World Assembly Commission on Biological Agents got a whole two lines in the resolution that created it. Is post war rebuilding so much more important than aiding populations hit with an environmental warfare attack?

As do many of the issues this proposal (like its soundly defeated predecessor) barely touches on, but yet precludes future in-depth policy-making.

I had in depth policy ready for after the original. Unfortunately, the original was defeated at vote so further policy on Peacekeeping was pointless. Why establish a system of WA embassies when we don't even have the Peacekeepers to staff them?

[The Candy Of Bottles]

I'd change out the World Assembly Disaster Board for the World Assembly Disaster Bureau- the former was created, I believe mistakenly, by GA 296, while the latter was intentionally created by GA 105. I don't want to see a mistake perpetuated.

[Western Evilly]

I'm not sure what help a chemical weapons expert can give in, say, the best demining practices.

That's because you can't read. I never tasked the WACWC with demining, I tasked them with assisting in disarmament. That includes chemical weapons, presumably.

How can you task a committee with a task it is already tasked to carry out?

The World Assembly Chemical Weapons Commission (WACWC) shall be re-tasked with the following mandate:

To develop and maintain a library of known chemical weapons, and to share this information with any nations that request it,

To assist member nations in establishing effective programs meant to defend against chemical weapons,

To assist member nations in the voluntary decommissioning and destruction of their chemical weapons,

To provide medical and humanitarian assistance to member nations subject to unprovoked offensive chemical weapon attacks, in cooperation with the International Humanitarian Aid Coordination Committee.

As a bonus the WACWC already works in coordination with the IHACC to provide humanitarian assistance, so I would say that you are in effect duplicating the duties of a committee.

[Imperium Anglorum]

As a bonus the WACWC already works in coordination with the IHACC to provide humanitarian assistance, so I would say that you are in effect duplicating the duties of a committee.

"Proposals may elaborate in specific areas of policy, where broad legislation exists but may not replicate specific policy". It does not say that committees cannot do so.

[Western Evilly]

As a bonus the WACWC already works in coordination with the IHACC to provide humanitarian assistance, so I would say that you are in effect duplicating the duties of a committee.

"Proposals may elaborate in specific areas of policy, where broad legislation exists but may not replicate specific policy". It does not say that committees cannot do so.

Has it ever come up before? If not, it would be great to know for the future.

[Separatist Peoples]

As a bonus the WACWC already works in coordination with the IHACC to provide humanitarian assistance, so I would say that you are in effect duplicating the duties of a committee.

"Proposals may elaborate in specific areas of policy, where broad legislation exists but may not replicate specific policy". It does not say that committees cannot do so.

"It's a rather wasted effort. Statutory actions on member states may have value in repetitious reinforcement, but regulatory agencies under the World Assembly's umbrella shouldn't need layered protections for the same tasks."

[Glen-Rhodes]

I'm not sure what help a chemical weapons expert can give in, say, the best demining practices.

That's because you can't read. I never tasked the WACWC with demining, I tasked them with assisting in disarmament. That includes chemical weapons, presumably.

You're asking them to work together. WACWC and WADC already do disarmament individually. What help is WACWC going to give to WADC, or vice-versa? Maybe you ought to re-read your own proposal before accusing me of illiteracy. (And then don't attack people like that in the future, for no reason.)

What makes the OEA so special?

I wrote the resolution creating it, and have an interest IRL in the promotion of democracy in post-war countries. I'm asking you to not sully the committee with a low-energy proposal. You should research the complexities involved in post-war institution building, if you want to write a proposal on it.

I genuinely don't understand the aversion you have to committing one idea per proposal. You'll get a higher quality draft that's more likely to a) survive a legality challenge, b) be respected by the community, and c) actually pass.

The World Assembly Commission on Biological Agents got a whole two lines in the resolution that created it. Is post war rebuilding so much more important than aiding populations hit with an environmental warfare attack?

This isn't a good argument for why you should put as little effort as possible into studying a complex issue.

I had in depth policy ready for after the original. Unfortunately, the original was defeated at vote so further policy on Peacekeeping was pointless. Why establish a system of WA embassies when we don't even have the Peacekeepers to staff them?

Why on earth didn't you actually write targeted proposals with this "in depth policy" that you have at your disposal? Why aren't you doing that now? This proposal isn't going to pass, obviously. It's nearly identical to the one that just failed by a 9000 vote margin. I really do encourage you to drop this all-encompassing approach and follow the advice I gave nearly two months ago. You really will get a better proposal by narrowing your focus.

[Excidium Planetis]

I'd change out the World Assembly Disaster Board for the World Assembly Disaster Bureau- the former was created, I believe mistakenly, by #296]GA 296, while the latter was intentionally created by GA 105. I don't want to see a mistake perpetuated.

"An excellent point." Blackbourne nods in agreement. "WA Disaster Bureau sounds better, anyways."

You're asking them to work together. WACWC and WADC already do disarmament individually. What help is WACWC going to give to WADC, or vice-versa? Maybe you ought to re-read your own proposal before accusing me of illiteracy. (And then don't attack people like that in the future, for no reason.)

If the WADC discovers a cache of chemical weapons that someone forgot about, they aren't currently obligated to do anything about it. This proposal, however, would have them get help from the WACWC to disarm the weapons. That's not to mention the mutual cooperation of disarming chemical mines.

What makes the OEA so special?

I wrote the resolution creating it, and have an interest IRL in the promotion of democracy in post-war countries. I'm asking you to not sully the committee with a low-energy proposal. You should research the complexities involved in post-war institution building, if you want to write a proposal on it.[/quote]
So, you want me to do something because you personally have an interest in it. If this is a personal thing for you, why don't you write a resolution on it yourself?

I genuinely don't understand the aversion you have to committing one idea per proposal.

I have one idea per proposal. You want me to take write three separate resolutions on that one idea.

You'll get a higher quality draft that's more likely to a) survive a legality challenge,

How will this fail to survive a legality challenge because I only dedicated one line to an organization you personally created? I don't want to accuse you of ruling on personal bias, but this sounds a lot like saying that because I didn't write a whole resolution on your committee, my proposal will be illegal.

This isn't a good argument for why you should put as little effort as possible into studying a complex issue.

It's a good argument against writing whole resolutions on assigning a committee one task.

Why on earth didn't you actually write targeted proposals with this "in depth policy" that you have at your disposal?

I did. They were drafted on this forum and commented on by players. You were absent both discussions.

Why aren't you doing that now?

If you want, I can remove the OEA from this anD draft a separate resolution. Unlike the Peacekeepers, I have not prohibited the WA from expanding the duties of the WADB (which would be nonsense, obviously, as I am alexpnading them myself), so I can safely leave the OEA out and include them later.

This proposal isn't going to pass, obviously. It's nearly identical to the one that just failed by a 9000 vote margin.

The first one failed for a great number of factors, notably a complete lack of super delegate support (and an early stomp by IA), reading comprehension failure, a category that certainly didn't help me out, and a legality challenge hanging over it. One major region recommended an against vote partly because of the legality challenge, and one player in another region voted against because I hadn't preemptively filed a challenge against myself.

I really do encourage you to drop this all-encompassing approach and follow the advice I gave nearly two months ago. You really will get a better proposal by narrowing your focus.

To what do you want me to narrow my focus? I can't accomplish everything I am doing here in multiple proposals, some of them would simultaneously be impossible to pass and utterly ineffective, and many would be illegal if I broke this apart.

[HighHaar]

"Ambassador, could you explain the distinct difference between coordinating and overseeing, specifically in regards to why one makes the force under a WA banner and the other one not so?"

(OOC: i may be mistaken here, since i'm not aware of the nuances of english words so i may have chosen the wrong terms. If that's the case, i apologize but i hope i can still communicate my idea)

IC: "Of course, this is how I interpreted the difference in my previous speech:
Coordinating means that a WA committee is actively saying who should do what in order to achieve a given objective, and is as such an operational role: the WA committee is in charge of directing the operations in some form, going against GA #2.
Overseeing, on the other hand, means that the same WA committee simply looks upon the deployement and operation of the voluntary forces (who coordinate themselves) and keeps an eye out for improper usage of force, inviting transgressors to exit said operations. This makes the committee not directly involved in organizing and operating the policing force, thus not in contrast with GA #2."

Kronin, Ambassador of Highhaar