[Legality Challenge] Resolution 393

[Excidium Planetis]

Per Glen-Rhodes criticizing me for not doing this last time (despite no stated expectations of authors doing this) I am filing a legality challenge against my own resolution.

The resolution in question (currently named Resolution 393, but the number will move up if more resolutions are passed before I can submit) stands on shaky legal ground, as its predecessor, WA Peacekeeping Charter, was unanimously ruled illegal. I have attempted to correct the illegality especially of the prior resolution.

For record, the text of the current draft:

Resolution 393
~Flavor Text~


Category: Global Disarmamen | 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.

I bring a number of challenges against my own proposal:

Firstly, does Resolution 393 contradict GA#2, specifically Article 10, which states:

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.

Secondly, by expanding the role of the WADB to supervise other committees, or by expanding the role of other committees to work together, constitute an illegal amendment to the resolutions establishing those committees? Does it, by relying on Committees established in prior resolutions, constitute a House of Cards violation?

Thirdly (Fourthly?), do the active clauses of the resolution merit the category Global Disarmament - Mild?

[Sciongrad]

In my opinion, this does not violate the amendment rule. However, I (and others) still feel that several provisions constitute "police action," even if WA bureaucrats are not permitted to engage in the conflict themselves. If you want to allow bureaucracy to engage in police action or generally involve itself in conflict, repeal GAR#2. Attempted workarounds will likely be rejected.

Also, this might be one of the most obnoxious names for a resolution I've ever seen. Not sure if it's illegal, but it's definitely annoying.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Can you explain how the World Assembly would not be "otherwise participating in" armed conflict, by engaging in the following duties:

- Determining plans of action for the WA to resolve or prevent conflicts at the request of member nations.
- Monitoring ceasefires

Can you explain what WA personnel are being "deployed" and what you mean by deployment? What "aid" from national militaries and police forces would be given?

My first opinion is that this proposal isn't different from your last one, the WA Peacekeeping Charter. Instead of creating a new Peacekeepers group, all you're doing here is assigning those duties to pre-existing committees.

[Excidium Planetis]

In my opinion, this does not violate the amendment rule. However, I (and others) still feel that several provisions constitute "police action," even if WA bureaucrats are not permitted to engage in the conflict themselves. If you want to allow bureaucracy to engage in police action or generally involve itself in conflict, repeal GAR#2. Attempted workarounds will likely be rejected.

Having read the GenSec discussion on my last resolution, GenSec did not seem to come to an agreement on whether police actions meant the actions of police or police actions in an international conflict setting.

In response to the first definition of police actions (actions typically undertaken by the police), no committee in this proposal is given power to enforce laws.

As for the other definition of police actions, military actions without a declaration of war, GenSec seemed to agree that the original resolution did not call for such police actions. I hope this one does not as well. WA personnel, in addition to being forbidden from engaging in offensives, are prohibited from carrying any weapons and using force in any situation except self defense. These are significantly stronger prohibitions on WA force than WA Peacekeeping Charter had.

Also, this might be one of the most obnoxious names for a resolution I've ever seen. Not sure if it's illegal, but it's definitely annoying.

This is a comment that should have been made on the drafting thread, unless you are seriously challenging my proposal on the grounds that naming it "Resolution 393" is illegal.

Can you explain how the World Assembly would not be "otherwise participating in" armed conflict, by engaging in the following duties:

- Determining plans of action for the WA to resolve or prevent conflicts at the request of member nations.
- Monitoring ceasefires

I don't consider planning ways of preventing or ending conflict "taking part in" it. If I was planning to prevent a football game from happening, I am not participating in the football game, by any means

If a ceasefire is in place, there isn't an armed conflict, is there?

Can you explain what WA personnel are being "deployed" and what you mean by deployment? What "aid" from national militaries and police forces would be given?

Deploy (verb): Bring into effective action (Oxford Dictionaries)
The WA personnel that need to be deployed would presumably be deployed.

The aid national militaries and police give could be aid in disarmament or ceasefires monitoring. They can also actively protect the WA from armed forces, and engage in police actions, if their nations allow them to do so. GA#2 Article 10 may forbid the WA from taking part in armed conflict, but specifically allows WA member nations to participate in armed conflicts.

My first opinion is that this proposal isn't different from your last one, the WA Peacekeeping Charter. Instead of creating a new Peacekeepers group, all you're doing here is assigning those duties to pre-existing committees.

The last resolution enabled Peacekeepers to use force and carry non-lethal weapons. I have forbidden both here. There are other major differences too.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I don't consider planning ways of preventing or ending conflict "taking part in" it.

Given the entire purpose of that clause is to enforce total neutrality, it's hard to convincingly argue that it allows the WA to plan anything about a specific conflict.

If a ceasefire is in place, there isn't an armed conflict, is there?

A ceasefire doesn't end a conflict. It merely pauses active hostilities for a set period of time, after which it's assumed hostilities will begin again if a peace treaty hasn't been signed. "Armed conflict" is synonymous with war. Taking GAR#2 at face value, the World Assembly cannot participate in any way, shape, or form, in any war or conflict, period. How do you argue against that?

Deploy (verb): Bring into effective action (Oxford Dictionaries)
The WA personnel that need to be deployed would presumably be deployed.

Cute, but I'm not asking for a dictionary definition. I'm asking why you're using the term "deployed," why anybody's being deployed, and what they're doing during their deployment. That was pretty obvious.

GA#2 Article 10 may forbid the WA from taking part in armed conflict, but specifically allows WA member nations to participate in armed conflicts.

It doesn't, however, allow the WA to accept "aid" that's just a roundabout way of facilitating activities the WA isn't allowed to do.

The last resolution enabled Peacekeepers to use force and carry non-lethal weapons. I have forbidden both here. There are other major differences too.

You've completely missed the point of why your last proposal was declared illegal, if you think it was just about use of force. This is partially GenSec's fault, because others wouldn't sign on to CD and my's obviously superior opinion. But either way, nobody's opinion focused solely on those clauses. Every opinion was concerned about the activities in toto. And all you're doing here is assigning those activities to different committees.

[Araraukar]

Every opinion was concerned about the activities in toto.

In toto?
I know that's not what you meant, but that's what first came to mind (and is likely to come to the mind of any Finn) when reading "toto" anywhere...

[Excidium Planetis]

Given the entire purpose of that clause is to enforce total neutrality, it's hard to convincingly argue that it allows the WA to plan anything about a specific conflict.

This isn't any kind of rebuttal or counterargument. How does planning to prevent an action equate to participation in that action? If you plan to prevent a crime, you don't participate in that crime.

A ceasefire doesn't end a conflict. It merely pauses active hostilities for a set period of time, after which it's assumed hostilities will begin again if a peace treaty hasn't been signed. "Armed conflict" is synonymous with war. Taking GAR#2 at face value, the World Assembly cannot participate in any way, shape, or form, in any war or conflict, period. How do you argue against that?

Past precedent. General Assembly Resolution # 5 "Coordinating Relief Aid" (passed, I may add, very soon after GA#2)

4.1. DEFINES a major disaster as an event which may threaten lives and livelihoods, such as natural disasters, terrorist attacks and war;

4.2. DEFINES the functions of the ICRC, whose role shall be to:
a) Provide international coordination of food, shelter, and humanitarian aid efforts in nations affected by a major disaster;
b) Co-ordinate the efforts of existing NGOs in member nations at an international level;
c) Provide training to volunteers of NGOs and the ICRC itself in preparedness for such disasters.

Coordinating relief in nations affected by war and training personnel to be prepared for war is not substantially different from coordinating disarmament and ceasefires.

Cute, but I'm not asking for a dictionary definition. I'm asking why you're using the term "deployed,"

I don't have any objections to using a different word. Would you like to suggest one?

why anybody's being deployed

Well, they have to get the nations requesting assistance somehow, do they not? How can you disarm weapons without being where the weapons are?

, and what they're doing during their deployment. That was pretty obvious.

What they were tasked with doing in the resolution. Monitoring ceasefires, disarming, etc.

GA#2 Article 10 may forbid the WA from taking part in armed conflict, but specifically allows WA member nations to participate in armed conflicts.

It doesn't, however, allow the WA to accept "aid" that's just a roundabout way of facilitating activities the WA isn't allowed to do.

Would you like to support that with quotations from the text? What part of GA#2 prevents member nations from aiding the WA? Especially as the WA has, in over 50 resolutions, requested or required member nations to take actions in armed conflict. It is clear that member nations are not only allowed to participate in armed conflict, but the WA has the ability to request that they take specific actions to prevent or end such conflicts.

You've completely missed the point of why your last proposal was declared illegal, if you think it was just about use of force. This is partially GenSec's fault, because others wouldn't sign on to CD and my's obviously superior opinion.

"Obviously superior opinion"? Wow.

I can't believe that you not only accuse me of misunderstanding why my resolution was declared illegal, when the discussion is publicly available, you then throw your fellow Council members under the bus by blaming them for my supposed ignorance and talking about your obviously superior opinion.

But either way, nobody's opinion focused solely on those clauses. Every opinion was concerned about the activities in toto. And all you're doing here is assigning those activities to different committees.

Sierra Lyricalia's position relied heavily on the ability of Peacekeepers to use force. I quote:

For me it comes down to: the Peacekeepers are permitted by Article II to carry non-lethal weapons and to use force on non-state actors, even where it is not strictly necessary for self-defense; and they are tasked further down in the same article with "Protection of the WA-recognized rights of citizens of member nations and support for the rule of law."

That's a police force, plain and simple.

And especially:

The only clear and unhandwaveable violation of GAR 2 I see is that this creates a WA police force, even if its remit is limited.

SP argued heavily that the police actions made WAPC illegal, saying:

They carry weapons and enforce WA regulation directly. I can't see any reasonable interpretation where they aren't police, regardless of their labels.

Bears Armed also argued it was illegal because of those clauses:

It's the fact that the ability to take armed action against non-state-actors in order to enforce WA-guaranteed rights could extend into 'police actions' in the above sense, effectively as a WA Military, for which I will call the proposal illegal.

And, as I noted, I eliminated the ability of WA personnel to take armed action in this new proposal.

Sciongrad did not make enough comments for me to deduce the exact reasons for viewing WAPC, but signed on to SL's opinion.

I wrote the new version in respect to the concurring opinion on WAPC. I heavily disagree with the opinion CD wrote and you signed on to.

[Separatist Peoples]

For the record, my arguments for illegality went well beyond just the police issue. I did argue that heavily. I also argued that it was a military violation heavily. I signed onto SL's opinion because, while I agree with CD's opinion that the challenged proposal violated the no military section, I felt SL'S opinion was narrower at the time and better addressed the issue with the depth I sought. I can't say I disagree with CD'S opinion, and in turn, GR's position.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Can you explain how the World Assembly would not be "otherwise participating in" armed conflict, by engaging in the following duties:

- Monitoring ceasefires.

Wait, is the mere act of monitoring ceasefires a contradiction all of a sudden? I mean, Clause Eleven of GA #348 a.k.a Convention on Ceasefires allows a WA committee to involve themselves in the ceasefire process, up to and including the issuance of binding arbitration, which if I'm not mistaken you consider to be participation in an armed conflict. Yes, the committee can only involve themselves in the process on request, but then again, the same restriction applies to the IMF in Resolution 393 as well.

tl;dr If monitoring ceasefires is illegal then GA #348 is/was/should have been illegal. If monitoring ceasefires is legal then Resolution 393 is/should be legal.

[Araraukar]

If monitoring ceasefires is illegal then GA #348 is/was/should have been illegal. If monitoring ceasefires is legal then Resolution 393 is/should be legal.

Unless it then counts as duplication (and depending on the text, possibly contradiction) of #348.

[Christian Democrats]

Determining plans of action for the WA to resolve or prevent conflicts at the request of member nations.

. . .

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

Resolution 2 prohibits the GA from "participating in armed conflicts." On December 1, four GenSec members signed onto an opinion that said:

One cannot "prevent and end" armed conflict without "participating" in it.

The above sentence is precedent.

[Calladan]

Determining plans of action for the WA to resolve or prevent conflicts at the request of member nations.

. . .

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

Resolution 2 prohibits the GA from "participating in armed conflicts." On December 1, four GenSec members signed onto an opinion that said:

One cannot "prevent and end" armed conflict without "participating" in it.

The above sentence is precedent.

Is that strictly true? If Nation A and Nation B are fighting, and Nation C supplies fuel, food and so on to either side, could it not endeavour to end the conflict by withholding said supplies to both sides? And if it sells weapons to either side, could it hold off on that as well? It doesn't have to get involved in the fighting directly, but it attempt to alter the outcome of the war by manipulating the conditions surrounding it?

Or would that class as participating as well?

[Separatist Peoples]

I disagree that Convention on Ceasefire is illegal and that that requires that this be legal. CoC involved itself in facilitating the negotiation process. It had nothing to do with the fighting part of an armed conflict, which was what GAR#2 has always, to my mind, sought to limit. I believe CoC is too attenuated a connection to the conflict and armed forces to involve itself, and that the only binding nature of the arbitration stems not from the WA holding a stick, but from member states and their obligation under GAR#2. It is distinguishable.

EP disagrees with my assessment. That's fine. It does mean, however, that I am unswayed by this argument.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Wait, is the mere act of monitoring ceasefires a contradiction all of a sudden? I mean, Clause Eleven of GA #348 a.k.a Convention on Ceasefires allows a WA committee to involve themselves in the ceasefire process, up to and including the issuance of binding arbitration, which if I'm not mistaken you consider to be participation in an armed conflict.

What I'm reading is that the IMF merely locates neutral locations for member states to negotiate themselves. I don't see anything in that resolution involving the WA in specific conflicts, and particularly in the act of having boots on the ground physically monitoring ceasefires.

The WA can set rules for war. But it can't get involved in specific conflicts. I don't see any way to read around GAR#2 on that front.

Is that strictly true? If Nation A and Nation B are fighting, and Nation C supplies fuel, food and so on to either side, could it not endeavour to end the conflict by withholding said supplies to both sides? And if it sells weapons to either side, could it hold off on that as well? It doesn't have to get involved in the fighting directly, but it attempt to alter the outcome of the war by manipulating the conditions surrounding it?

Or would that class as participating as well?

This actually happened in the real world before, and it was definitely considered participation.

[Excidium Planetis]

I disagree that Convention on Ceasefire is illegal and that that requires that this be legal. CoC involved itself in facilitating the negotiation process. It had nothing to do with the fighting part of an armed conflict, which was what GAR#2 has always, to my mind, sought to limit. I believe CoC is too attenuated a connection to the conflict and armed forces to involve itself, and that the only binding nature of the arbitration stems not from the WA holding a stick, but from member states and their obligation under GAR#2. It is distinguishable.

EP disagrees with my assessment.

I do? Maybe I missed something, but I think I agree with the above paragraph.

You said CoC involved negotiation facilitation. I agree. You said the fighting part was what GA#2 limits. I agree (I don't agree with CD and GR's opinion that any action trying to stop fighting counts as participating in the fighting).

What I'm reading is that the IMF merely locates neutral locations for member states to negotiate themselves.

What about this:

and shall issue binding arbitrations, with an appeals process, for all participants.

That's not member nations negotiating things for themselves, that's the IMF arbitrating for nations. That's a higher degree of involvement than just locating neutral locations for discussion.

The WA can set rules for war. But it can't get involved in specific conflicts. I don't see any way to read around GAR#2 on that front.

What about GA#5, which has a WA committee involved directly in wars (providing humanitarian aid)?

Is that strictly true? If Nation A and Nation B are fighting, and Nation C supplies fuel, food and so on to either side, could it not endeavour to end the conflict by withholding said supplies to both sides? And if it sells weapons to either side, could it hold off on that as well? It doesn't have to get involved in the fighting directly, but it attempt to alter the outcome of the war by manipulating the conditions surrounding it?

Or would that class as participating as well?

This actually happened in the real world before, and it was definitely considered participation.

That's the exact opposite of what Calladan was talking about. Calladan was talking about cutting off supplies, not providing them. If the US had tried to stop WW2 by ending all weapons trade, would that be participation in WW2?

Determining plans of action for the WA to resolve or prevent conflicts at the request of member nations.

. . .

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

Resolution 2 prohibits the GA from "participating in armed conflicts." On December 1, four GenSec members signed onto an opinion that said:

One cannot "prevent and end" armed conflict without "participating" in it.

The above sentence is precedent.

That's highly misleading, CD. One of those members who signed on said

I agree with SL's reasoning, but I'll sign on with CD's ruling just so that we have a controlling opinion.

And another:

Likewise. This can be considered my final opinion.

I focused on SL's (and BA's) reasoning because I believe that the sentence

One cannot "prevent and end" armed conflict without "participating" in it.

Is complete BS. One can easily prevent armed conflict without participating in it. You negotiate a peace treaty, you didn't participate in armed conflict, but you did prevent it.

[Separatist Peoples]

I disagree that Convention on Ceasefire is illegal and that that requires that this be legal. CoC involved itself in facilitating the negotiation process. It had nothing to do with the fighting part of an armed conflict, which was what GAR#2 has always, to my mind, sought to limit. I believe CoC is too attenuated a connection to the conflict and armed forces to involve itself, and that the only binding nature of the arbitration stems not from the WA holding a stick, but from member states and their obligation under GAR#2. It is distinguishable.

EP disagrees with my assessment.

I do? Maybe I missed something, but I think I agree with the above paragraph.

You said CoC involved negotiation facilitation. I agree. You said the fighting part was what GA#2 limits. I agree (I don't agree with CD and GR's opinion that any action trying to stop fighting counts as participating in the fighting).

You argued against my assessment that CoC didn't participate in conflict while still holding Peacekeeping Charter to be illegal. Perhaps that was only in the context of the previous holding.

[Excidium Planetis]

You argued against my assessment that CoC didn't participate in conflict while still holding Peacekeeping Charter to be illegal. Perhaps that was only in the context of the previous holding.

I agree with your reason for not holding CoC to be illegal. I don't know whether you hold this current proposal illegal or legal and for what exact reasons, but I maintain (as I did for WAPC) that monitoring ceasefires is not inherently participation in armed conflict.

[Christian Democrats]

Resolution 2 prohibits the GA from "participating in armed conflicts." On December 1, four GenSec members signed onto an opinion that said:

One cannot "prevent and end" armed conflict without "participating" in it.

The above sentence is precedent.

Is that strictly true? If Nation A and Nation B are fighting, and Nation C supplies fuel, food and so on to either side, could it not endeavour to end the conflict by withholding said supplies to both sides? And if it sells weapons to either side, could it hold off on that as well? It doesn't have to get involved in the fighting directly, but it attempt to alter the outcome of the war by manipulating the conditions surrounding it?

Or would that class as participating as well?

I think it's participation, but Resolution 2 prevents only the WA itself from participating in armed conflicts.

Otherwise, I agree with SP's and GR's posts here. I don't see them as inconsistent.

EDIT: Also, I'll just reiterate what happened to the last version of this proposal:

The Secretariat has unanimously ruled that the proposal is illegal.

The vote wasn't close. Nobody thought the proposal was legal. If you're trying to rewrite it, EP, substantial changes will be necessary.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

If a guy tries to end a bar fight by jumping into the middle of it and trying to separate the guys who are fighting, he may well find himself arrested along with the guys who started it, depending on circumstances and outcomes. I haven't figured out whether or not I think that's an appropriate analogy for trying to end a conflict without taking sides. Certainly sticking one's nose in without being asked would be "participating," even with a view to ending it; is coming in as an explicitly invited guest the same thing? Right now I can see arguments both ways.

[Christian Democrats]

If a guy tries to end a bar fight by jumping into the middle of it and trying to separate the guys who are fighting, he may well find himself arrested along with the guys who started it, depending on circumstances and outcomes. I haven't figured out whether or not I think that's an appropriate analogy for trying to end a conflict without taking sides. Certainly sticking one's nose in without being asked would be "participating," even with a view to ending it.

I agree. Here's what Resolution 348, Section 11 says:

Tasks the International Mediation Foundation (IMF) to, upon request, supply impartial arbitrators and locate neutral meeting locations open for all involved parties to access, and shall issue binding arbitrations, with an appeals process, for all participants.

To extend the bar fight analogy, the IMF is a woman who says: "You're both being idiots. Maybe, we should go outside and talk this out." To repeat the key sentence from our prior ruling, "One cannot 'prevent and end' armed conflict without 'participating' in it." I don't see the woman as "preventing and ending" the bar fight. She didn't jump in between the men. She simply offered them an alternative; and, by themselves, they chose to "prevent and end" the fight and to go outside, where she'd mediate between them.

Essentially, Resolution 2 requires the WA to be Switzerland in armed conflicts. It can't get involved in the action, directly attempting to stop armed conflicts; but it can offer willing nations an opportunity and a place to resolve their disagreement peacefully if they so choose.

[Sciongrad]

Essentially, Resolution 2 requires the WA to be Switzerland in armed conflicts. It can't get involved in the action, directly attempting to stop armed conflicts; but it can offer willing nations an opportunity and a place to resolve their disagreement peacefully if they so choose.

I agree entirely with this, although this seems fairly clear from a plain reading of GAR#10. An entire legality discussion seems superfluous, especially considering the clarity of our previous ruling. I would again suggest that EP either tries to repeal GAR#2 or stop trying to find a workaround.

[States of Glory WA Office]

To extend the bar fight analogy, the IMF is a woman who says: "You're both being idiots. Maybe, we should go outside and talk this out."

That analogy doesn't work because the intervention would be unrequested.

To repeat the key sentence from our prior ruling, "One cannot 'prevent and end' armed conflict without 'participating' in it."

You could prevent armed conflict by forbidding militaries to possess weapons. According to you, that's "participation".

She simply offered them an alternative; and, by themselves, they chose to "prevent and end" the fight and to go outside, where she'd mediate between them.

Except it's not by themselves and it's not mediation. It is arbitration that is binding. Apart from appealing, there's nothing that the guys/nations can do.

Also, why is it assumed that the brawlers are guys and that the 'mediator' is a woman? Seems a little sexist, don't you think?

[Excidium Planetis]

If a guy tries to end a bar fight by jumping into the middle of it and trying to separate the guys who are fighting, he may well find himself arrested along with the guys who started it, depending on circumstances and outcomes.

But that's not preventing it, nor ending it.

If the police showed up and no bar fight is occuring, because it was prevented in the first place, nobody gets arrested. Nobody participated in any bar fight because it was prevented from happening.

Going back to the proposal, How can the WA participate in an armed conflict that never happened? If the WA prevents a conflict, the conflict never occurs. Yet CD and GR say that preventing a conflict is participation in that conflict.

To extend the bar fight analogy, the IMF is a woman who says: "You're both being idiots. Maybe, we should go outside and talk this out." To repeat the key sentence from our prior ruling, "One cannot 'prevent and end' armed conflict without 'participating' in it." I don't see the woman as "preventing and ending" the bar fight. She didn't jump in between the men. She simply offered them an alternative; and, by themselves, they chose to "prevent and end" the fight and to go outside, where she'd mediate between them.

That's nice, CD, but what the eff does this have to do with the current proposal? What in Resolution 393 is analogous to the WA engaging in bar fights? The WA isn't using force, so it isn't even restraining people in the bar fight.

To take the bar fight analogy to what is happening with the IMF here, two people got into a bar fight, and then stopped and wrote out an agreement not to visit the bar on the same day of the week, and then asked Mr. WA to keep watch on the bar on Tuesday to make sure Bar Fighter A didn't stop by. How is Mr. WA participating in the bar fight, when the bar fight is A) not going on right now and B) Mr. WA isn't on any side?

Essentially, Resolution 2 requires the WA to be Switzerland in armed conflicts. It can't get involved in the action, directly attempting to stop armed conflicts; but it can offer willing nations an opportunity and a place to resolve their disagreement peacefully if they so choose.

1) How does my resolution violate this?
2) How is offering nations an opportunity to resolve disagreements not helping to end conflict?

I agree entirely with this, although this seems fairly clear from a plain reading of GAR#10. An entire legality discussion seems superfluous, especially considering the clarity of our previous ruling. I would again suggest that EP either tries to repeal GAR#2 or stop trying to find a workaround.

Suggest I repeal something is not helpful. Can you please explicitly detail which clauses in the current draft would render a proposal illegal of they were included in any other proposal?

EDIT: Also, I'll just reiterate what happened to the last version of this proposal:

The Secretariat has unanimously ruled that the proposal is illegal.

The vote wasn't close. Nobody thought the proposal was legal. If you're trying to rewrite it, EP, substantial changes will be necessary.

I made substantial changes. The WA has lost 90% of the power it was granted in the last proposal. I delegated much of it to member nations. That's substansive.

But I'll keep making substansive changes until this is legal.

[Sciongrad]

Suggest I repeal something is not helpful.

It is if there is no other option? The WA cannot be involved in peacekeeping or peacemaking efforts, period, while GAR#2 is active.

This is a comment that should have been made on the drafting thread, unless you are seriously challenging my proposal on the grounds that naming it "Resolution 393" is illegal.

Such an annoying title is likely to get a legality challenge. I'm giving you fair warning now so that you can change it before you submit the proposal.

[Bears Armed]

Secondly, by expanding the role of the WADB to supervise other committees, or by expanding the role of other committees to work together, constitute an illegal amendment to the resolutions establishing those committees? Does it, by relying on Committees established in prior resolutions, constitute a House of Cards violation?

Yes, in my opinion, giving a committee a supervisory role over any existing committees that were created without explicit provision being made at the time[s] of their creation for the later addition of such supervision would count as an amendment of the resolution[s] establishing those other committees.