[Legality Challenge] Resolution 393

[Excidium Planetis]

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.

That's not true. GA#2 doesn't ban the WA from disarmament actions (many resolutions do this), doesn't ban the WA from being involved in ceasefires (at least one resolution does this), and doesn't ban WA member nations from using force to uphold such actions (in fact, explicitly allows member nations to be involved in conflict). That's all my proposal does.

Again: which clauses, were they included in any other proposal, would make them illegal? You can't say a proposal is illegal and refuse to state which clauses fall afoul of the rules.

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.

I hope GenSec throws out such a challenge immediately. What rule would it violate?

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.

1) What precedent is there for such a ruling?

2) Can you then state that the following would be illegal:

GA#44

5. EXPANDS the mission of the World Health Authority and its offices in WA member states to include:

a. providing universal access to abortion reduction services in accordance with national and local laws,

b. actively researching the subjects of the epidemiology of abortion and abortion reduction services and making public the results of such research in a non-political manner,

c. facilitating the sharing of technology among member states concerning abortion reduction services

GA#288

EXPANDS the mandate of the World Health Authority (WHA) to include the following:
a) Directing all appropriate funds towards investigating the causes of poor sanitation in member nations, researching solutions, and utilizing all appropriate resources to assist member nations in dealing with poor sanitary conditions and the consequences thereof,
b) Sharing all research and relevant information with member nations in an effort to mitigate the causes of poor sanitation,
c) Advising member nations based on the aforementioned research measures,
d) Funding and directing education measures, in coordination with the governments of member nations and other relevant institutions that promote improving sanitation;

GA#346

4. Expands the duties of the World Assembly Science Program (WASP) to include:

a. Monitoring global climate changes to identify unique ecosystems under threat, and to notify nations of said threat to their unique ecosystems,

b. Storing and providing access to raw data from nations who have shared with the WASP,

c. Raising and providing funds and scientific support for nations who do not have the capacity to conduct a reasonable scientific expedition;

GA#369

5. Expands the mission of the World Health Authority to include assisting member states in the adequate education of sapient beings on reproduction, in order to minimize the risk of international epidemics caused by pathogens communicated through reproduction;

6. Directs the World Health Authority to allocate sufficient funds toward reproductive education in those member states that are unable to meet the mandates of this resolution, even in a good faith effort, without supranational aid;

GA#386

Expands the remit of the Global Emigration, Security, Travel And Passport Organisation, hereafter referred as the Passport Organisation, to include the issuance of World Assembly identification documents and passports to the former nationals of member states who have been deprived of their nationality by their government;

I will make further note that this is not even the first time the WADB had its role expanded, you even did it yourself in GA#296:

3). Instructs the WA Disaster Board to study and to distribute as appropriate information about fire hazards and fire-control methods; urges member nations to share all relevant data that they possess with the WADB; and offers this service to any non-WA nations that are interested (and are willing to pay reasonable fees, share their relevant date with the WADB, and meet clause #1’s terms to the same extent that would be necessary if they were WA members) too.

And another GenSec member:
GA#354:

4. Instructs WASP, ULC, and WADB to offer consultations with WA states on best practices of machine/network security and command & control dependability, including programming and construction assistance; and to run wargames and bench tests for heavily networked nations to test response scenarios to runaway mechanisms, matter, or hostile AIs;

In other words, overwhelming precedent for expanding the role of committees exists. Why would it not be legal to expand the role of the WADB in this case? Also note that a GenSec member recommended I use the WADB.

[Araraukar]

EP, you know as well as anyone else that anything passed before GA council came to life can not be held up as 100% perfect precedent, no matter who argued what and when.

[Bakhton]

EP, you know as well as anyone else that anything passed before GA council came to life can not be held up as 100% perfect precedent, no matter who argued what and when.

But surely the reasoning for prior resolutions being allowed should hold some weight. The opposite, to gut past decisions completely, would be controversial to me.

[Araraukar]

The opposite, to gut past decisions completely, would be controversial to me.

So? We have a new bunch of people deciding on these (instead of the mods) matters, and mods have said they're ok with the council revoking past mod rulings on legality issues.

And yeah, sure, you can use past examples to argue your case, but you shouldn't come armed with a stack of them and say the case can't go against your point of view because of them.

[Separatist Peoples]

I think the difference here is that we read the proposal as placing the WADB in charge of other committees, when their original resolutions placed them in no such subordinate role. This is a material alteration of the original resolutions, where merely expanding their duties without affecting the committee's organizational standing is not. None of us believe that expanding the duties of existing committees is against the rules.

There is a possibility that we are viewing this in a context that the author intended. If that is the case, clarification is necessary.

[Excidium Planetis]

I think the difference here is that we read the proposal as placing the WADB in charge of other committees, when their original resolutions placed them in no such subordinate role. This is a material alteration of the original resolutions, where merely expanding their duties without affecting the committee's organizational standing is not. None of us believe that expanding the duties of existing committees is against the rules.

There is a possibility that we are viewing this in a context that the author intended. If that is the case, clarification is necessary.

Would you like to point to which part of the text grants the WADB authority over the other committees, or puts it "in charge"? Perhaps I can explain better if you tell me what part of the resolution you are reading that way.

In the mean time, I'll go hunt for past precedent on tasking committees with working with other committees in an advisory fashion.

[Excidium Planetis]

Okay, as promised, I dug up past precedent regarding inter-committee cooperation. In my proposal, the WADB is tasked with forming plans for WA action, sharing info between committees, and working with committees to achieve its goals.

The last of these has precedent specifically for the WADB itself. When it was established, GA#105 included a clause:

VIII. Instructs the WADB to collaborate with all World Assembly organizations to achieve its goals,

All WA organizations includes any future WA organizations.

But what about cooperation that wasn't part of the original mandate? GA#272 Chemical Weapons Accord states:

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

...

D. 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.

And GA#322 On Scientific Cooperation tasks the WASP (probably the most overused and expanded committee of all time):

(e) To coordinate with the ULC in order to maintain multiple and redundant backup copies of this archive at various locations to prevent loss due to a disaster or other calamity.
(f) To work with the ULC to ensure that only relevant data necessary to the scientific process makes its way into the archive in order to prevent confusion and excess.

Coordinate is the, If I may point out, the exact word I use in my proposal.

I hope this helps GenSec out.

[Glen-Rhodes]

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.

I think the line here is easy to draw in the big picture, really. The World Assembly is limited to setting the general laws of war, like the real-world laws of war. The neutrality requirement in GAR#2 is incredibly strict, and as such prevents the World Assembly from taking any kind of action on a specific basis. So while the World Assembly can generally create its own humanitarian missions, I think GAR#2 precludes any kind of direct peace enforcement, including participation in negotiations or any of what we consider to be peacekeeping activities. What that leaves us with, in terms of how the World Assembly can promote peace in the world, is what we know as peacebuilding.

I would boil it down to this: If the action the World Assembly is taking puts it between opposing sides in an unresolved war, then it's highly likely to violate GAR#2. The sense of being a party to the conflict, even if it's a party seeking to resolve it through diplomatic means, is the important part of this phraseology. It allows humanitarian missions, while recognizing that most other activities in the midst of a conflict break the neutrality GAR#2 seeks to impose.

[Excidium Planetis]

I think the line here is easy to draw in the big picture, really. The World Assembly is limited to setting the general laws of war, like the real-world laws of war. The neutrality requirement in GAR#2 is incredibly strict, and as such prevents the World Assembly from taking any kind of action on a specific basis. So while the World Assembly can generally create its own humanitarian missions, I think GAR#2 precludes any kind of direct peace enforcement, including participation in negotiations or any of what we consider to be peacekeeping activities.

The World Assembly already participates in negotiations. It even issues binding arbitration on those negotiations and accepts appeals. Why is the WA allowed to do that?

What that leaves us with, in terms of how the World Assembly can promote peace in the world, is what we know as peacebuilding.

From the article you linked to:

Successful peacebuilding activities create an environment supportive of self-sustaining, durable peace; reconcile opponents; prevent conflict from restarting; integrate civil society; create rule of law mechanisms; and address underlying structural and societal issues.

Didn't you say the WA could not prevent conflict without participating in it?

I would boil it down to this: If the action the World Assembly is taking puts it between opposing sides in an unresolved war, then it's highly likely to violate GAR#2. The sense of being a party to the conflict, even if it's a party seeking to resolve it through diplomatic means, is the important part of this phraseology. It allows humanitarian missions, while recognizing that most other activities in the midst of a conflict break the neutrality GAR#2 seeks to impose.

How does checking to see that ceasefires are being followed make the WA a party to the conflict? How does it break WA neutrality?

[Bears Armed]

Would you like to point to which part of the text grants the WADB authority over the other committees, or puts it "in charge"? Perhaps I can explain better if you tell me what part of the resolution you are reading that way.

I've re-read the proposal, now that I have [slightly] more time available than I did when I posted my previous comment.
Okay, the current text doesn't say that...
... but you did ask about the legality of it doing so in your request for a ruling, right?

So, if you don't try to add a supervisory role like that, I'll accept this draft as legal.

[Excidium Planetis]

Would you like to point to which part of the text grants the WADB authority over the other committees, or puts it "in charge"? Perhaps I can explain better if you tell me what part of the resolution you are reading that way.

I've re-read the proposal, now that I have [slightly] more time available than I did when I posted my previous comment.
Okay, the current text doesn't say that...
... but you did ask about the legality of it doing so in your request for a ruling, right?

So, if you don't try to add a supervisory role like that, I'll accept this draft as legal.

Well, I did ask that. It was probably because I had said in my thread I would request a ruling on it, so I rephrased the question here (Also note that I included a House of Cards violation... also something I told someone I would request a ruling on to cover as many points of contention as possible).

[Glen-Rhodes]

The World Assembly already participates in negotiations. It even issues binding arbitration on those negotiations and accepts appeals. Why is the WA allowed to do that?

First, let me make this clear, since it seems to be a recurring issue. I don't place much weight on past rulings by mods. I don't consider the existence of a passed resolution to mean that something is automatically legal, either. So even if I were to accept your understanding on the Convention on Ceasefires, it wouldn't mean I consider that interpretation to be legal. I wouldn't.

Now, the way I understand the Convention on Ceasefires, the WA isn't injecting itself into a conflict and actively negotiating a peace. It's providing the facilities for member states to do so themselves. That is functionally the equivalent of setting general laws of war. The WA is not becoming a party itself to a conflict. The same cannot be said if the WA is dumping hundreds of its own personnel to oversee activities during armed hostilities. It's not coming up with "plans of action" to stop conflicts. It's not breaking neutrality. The Switzerland metaphor is useful here.

The bottom line is this: you cannot do peacekeeping. Period, end of story. If you want to be able to do that, you need to repeal Rights & Duties. People have been saying this for a long time. Attempts far more creative than yours have been tried and have failed, and this attempt isn't passing muster either.

It's clear that you're not interested in having an actual debate on the rules. You're interested in trying to catch GenSec members in "gotcha" moments. You haven't put forth any kind of legal theory for why your proposal doesn't violate the hardcore neutrality Rights & Duties imposes on the WA. All you've done is point to other resolutions and go, "But seeeeeeeee!" That's not a winning strategy, dude.

[Excidium Planetis]

Now, the way I understand the Convention on Ceasefires, the WA isn't injecting itself into a conflict and actively negotiating a peace. It's providing the facilities for member states to do so themselves. That is functionally the equivalent of setting general laws of war.

What makes my resolution different from that? My resolution explicitly states that the WADB can only act at the request of member nations and with the consent of all member nations involved. That's not injecting itself in, it's being invited into a conflict to help member nations settle a dispute.

The WA is not becoming a party itself to a conflict. The same cannot be said if the WA is dumping hundreds of its own personnel to oversee activities during armed hostilities.

The WA already does that through humanitarian efforts. It dumps personnel to oversee humanitarian efforts during armed hostilities. What makes my resolution any different?

It's not coming up with "plans of action" to stop conflicts. It's not breaking neutrality. The Switzerland metaphor is useful here.

You don't think Switzerland made any plans for armed conflict? They may have remained neutral through World War II, but they weren't stupid. Making plans =/= violating neutrality.

But if you insist on this petty grievance, I'll simply remove that clause later and we can go at this a third time. I'll keep drafting resolutions all year until I get a legal one.

The bottom line is this: you cannot do peacekeeping. Period, end of story. If you want to be able to do that, you need to repeal Rights & Duties. People have been saying this for a long time. Attempts far more creative than yours have been tried and have failed, and this attempt isn't passing muster either.

I thought mod rulings don't count? What happened to that?

But I don't care. I will keep going. You'll need to find an actual reason to rule my proposal illegal, other than you just not liking the idea, or I will continue to add, change, and remove clauses to make this legal.

It's clear that you're not interested in having an actual debate on the rules.

That's because you aren't arguing from the rules. You aren't even arguing from the text of GA#2, you are using a metaphor for Switzerland as an argument, despite the precedent of passed resolutions and basic common sense. Preventing conflict is not participating in it.

You're interested in trying to catch GenSec members in "gotcha" moments. You haven't put forth any kind of legal theory for why your proposal doesn't violate the hardcore neutrality Rights & Duties imposes on the WA.

The burden of proof is not on me. You (and others) are making the claim that my proposal is illegal. Your whole legal basis for this is the ruling CD wrote last time. I have attacked the basic premise of that ruling multiple times: How can preventing conflict be participation in conflict when there is no conflict to participate in? Can you explain that?

You and CD have both stated multiple times that preventing conflict is a violation of GA#2. Neither of you have explained how the WA can participate in a conflict that (because it was prevented) doesn't exist.

All you've done is point to other resolutions and go, "But seeeeeeeee!" That's not a winning strategy, dude.

This may be a game, but there is no such thing as a "winning" strategy. You can't "win" the GA.

[Bakhton]

My reasoning for IC claiming this was illegal was that it would necessarily lead to excessive entanglement between the GA and member nations. I know my argument isn't worth as much as other people more aware of the rules, but I stand by that judgment call. Particularly, this would make governments and militaries have to more readily interact with GA bureaucracy in Article II's clause 2, and 4 in expanding the role of the WADB. The first 'Tasks' clause under Article II also directly involves itself with disarmament, possibly contravening the nation's ability to run their own militaries and post-conflict defenses. Article III's first clause as well prohibits actions of the military. I really like this proposal, however, I cannot in good faith state it does not violate Rights and Duties Section 10. I understand the frustration, but that is my completely irrelevant opinion on the matter to clarify my previous opinion.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Now, the way I understand the Convention on Ceasefires, the WA isn't injecting itself into a conflict and actively negotiating a peace. It's providing the facilities for member states to do so themselves. That is functionally the equivalent of setting general laws of war.

What makes my resolution different from that? My resolution explicitly states that the WADB can only act at the request of member nations and with the consent of all member nations involved. That's not injecting itself in, it's being invited into a conflict to help member nations settle a dispute.

No, it's quite literally "determining plans of action for the WA to resolve or prevent conflicts at the request of member nations." It's putting the WA right the middle of an ongoing armed conflict, monitoring troop movements and the like. Nobody thinks the UN isn't taking part in a conflict when the UNSC authorizes a peacekeeping mission. It's not being neutral. The WA must be totally neutral.

You and CD have both stated multiple times that preventing conflict is a violation of GA#2. Neither of you have explained how the WA can participate in a conflict that (because it was prevented) doesn't exist.

The reason we haven't reversed our ruling based on your argument here is because your argument shows ignorance in the subject, and obvious bad faith on your part. If you want to help prevent conflicts by bolstering rule of law, building up civil society, rebuilding infrastructure, etc., that's great. Do that! But that's not what your proposal is doing, and it's not what you're addressing when you write that the WA will "resolve or prevent" conflict by taking all these military measures. The "prevention" of conflict you're talking about is more akin to the UNSC holding an emergency meeting to try to halt an imminent breakout of war. That's not neutrality.

You don't think Switzerland made any plans for armed conflict? They may have remained neutral through World War II, but they weren't stupid. Making plans =/= violating neutrality.

This is the exact kind of response that doesn't help you at all. First of all, you're absolutely wrong. Second, you're completely missing the point. Third, you're apparently missing what you've written in your own proposal-- the WA isn't defending itself; it's literally planning wars. Lastly, you're not actually making any kind of argument for why your proposal is legal. You're just arguing for the sake of arguing, and trying to find "gotcha" moments.

This discussion is no longer useful for me. I've already made up my mind and will post my thoughts in the GenSec forum. Feel free to try again.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Now, the way I understand the Convention on Ceasefires, the WA isn't injecting itself into a conflict and actively negotiating a peace.

You heard it here first, folks! Issuing binding arbitration does not count as negotiating a peace! I guess that "the law does everything except what the law says" has become the new legal standard.

No, it's quite literally "determining plans of action for the WA to resolve or prevent conflicts at the request of member nations."

Yet issuing binding arbitration is totally not determining a plan of action to resolve conflicts.

You and CD have both stated multiple times that preventing conflict is a violation of GA#2. Neither of you have explained how the WA can participate in a conflict that (because it was prevented) doesn't exist.

The reason we haven't reversed our ruling based on your argument here is because your argument shows ignorance in the subject, and obvious bad faith on your part.

If EP is so obviously arguing in bad faith then why doesn't the Council just lock this thread and refuse to issue a ruling?

You don't think Switzerland made any plans for armed conflict? They may have remained neutral through World War II, but they weren't stupid. Making plans =/= violating neutrality.

This is the exact kind of response that doesn't help you at all. First of all, you're absolutely wrong. Second, you're completely missing the point.

Citation needed on both of those claims.

This discussion is no longer useful for me. I've already made up my mind and will post my thoughts in the GenSec forum. Feel free to try again.

Try again for what? For the Council to shoot it down again on faulty reasoning? I disagree with IA on a lot of matters, but I'm beginning to think that he's right about all this hyper-legalistic nonsense.

[Sciongrad]

Try again for what? For the Council to shoot it down again on faulty reasoning? I disagree with IA on a lot of matters, but I'm beginning to think that he's right about all this hyper-legalistic nonsense.

I agree with IA that the GA has become hyperlegalistic and agreed to participate on the GenSec experiment because I wanted to streamline the process. GR's reasoning, however, is not hyperlegalistic. It's just the logical application of previous GenSec precedent, which itself was literally no more complicated than "GAR#2 blocks peacekeeping." The only question being asked here is whether or not the proposal requires WA action that constitutes peacekeeping or peacemaking. Literally every member of the GenSec believes that it does. As GR stated, we will not tolerate any workarounds. If EP wants to pass a resolution on peacekeeping, they need to repeal GAR#2. Until then, we will continue to strike down attempted workarounds. GenSec is literally just a group of regular players that have been here a while. If we all agree on a particular interpretation, that should be quite telling.

[Bakhton]

I'm fairly confused about the direction this thread has taken. We should be discussing specifically whether or not Resolution 393 violates GA #2, not comparing the political and military positions of Switzerland, and the efficacy of legality challenges. These topics either belong on other threads or to be discussed via TG, in my opinion.

*snip*

Right.

[Excidium Planetis]

GR's reasoning, however, is not hyperlegalistic. It's just the logical application of previous GenSec precedent, which itself was literally no more complicated than "GAR#2 blocks peacekeeping." The only question being asked here is whether or not the proposal requires WA action that constitutes peacekeeping or peacemaking. Literally every member of the GenSec believes that it does.

1) GA#2 does not ban peacekeeping. It doesn't even mention peacekeeping. The WA Army rule banned peacekeeping forces, but that rule no longer exists.
2) Even if it did, it is irrelevant. Resolution 393 does not mention peacekeeping.

I ask again: which clauses in my proposal are illegal? Which ones, if inserted into an otherwise legal proposal, would render a proposal illegal?

If you rule this proposal illegal, I'll just try again. I'll even make several separate mini resolutions if you really want.

As GR stated, we will not tolerate any workarounds. If EP wants to pass a resolution on peacekeeping, they need to repeal GAR#2.

That's not going to happen. I will pass a legal resolution, if it takes me 5 years.

Until then, we will continue to strike down attempted workarounds. GenSec is literally just a group of regular players that have been here a while. If we all agree on a particular interpretation, that should be quite telling.

But you didn't. Stop acting like no one can see the discussion from your secret lair. There were 4 different positions on my last resolution, and you only signed on to the one you did so that there could be a controlling opinion.

[Christian Democrats]

I don't care. I will keep going. You'll need to find an actual reason to rule my proposal illegal, other than you just not liking the idea, or I will continue to add, change, and remove clauses to make this legal.

Not a great attitude to have.

[Sciongrad]

1) GA#2 does not ban peacekeeping. It doesn't even mention peacekeeping. The WA Army rule banned peacekeeping forces, but that rule no longer exists.

GAR#2 precludes the possibility of WA participation in conflict. Peacekeeping is a type of participation. Every single attempt at peacekeeping will be shot down for violating GAR#2.

That's not going to happen. I will pass a legal resolution, if it takes me 5 years.

That's your prerogative. But the basis of your proposal - attempting to insert the WA into peacekeeping or peacemaking - is against the rules. If you continue to submit proposals that seek to circumvent GAR#2, you'll probably get dinged with a warning.

But you didn't. Stop acting like no one can see the discussion from your secret lair. There were 4 different positions on my last resolution, and you only signed on to the one you did so that there could be a controlling opinion.

But we did. Not a single person thought your proposal was legal. The differences were simply semantic - how broadly should police action be interpreted, mainly - but not a single GenSec member thought your proposal was compatible with GAR#2. And here we are again, where every GenSec member believes your proposal is illegal for the same reason. But out of pride, you won't give it up. But that's okay, because it's your time you're wasting.

[Bears Armed]

Now, the way I understand the Convention on Ceasefires, the WA isn't injecting itself into a conflict and actively negotiating a peace. It's providing the facilities for member states to do so themselves. That is functionally the equivalent of setting general laws of war.

What makes my resolution different from that? My resolution explicitly states that the WADB can only act at the request of member nations and with the consent of all member nations involved. That's not injecting itself in, it's being invited into a conflict to help member nations settle a dispute.

Agreed. In my opinion, this draft is legal.

The only question being asked here is whether or not the proposal requires WA action that constitutes peacekeeping or peacemaking. Literally every member of the GenSec believes that it does.

Where did I say that about this version of the proposal?
In my opinion, now that the possibility of the WA personnel getting drawn into peace actions has been removed (by disarming them, as well as by removal of the clause about helping to enforce other people's WA-guaranteed rights; personally I'd actually have accepted their remaining armed, as long as their right to use those arms was restricted to self-defence...), this proposal is indeed -- as I said in my reply to E.P., just above this -- legal.

[Excidium Planetis]

1) GA#2 does not ban peacekeeping. It doesn't even mention peacekeeping. The WA Army rule banned peacekeeping forces, but that rule no longer exists.

GAR#2 precludes the possibility of WA participation in conflict. Peacekeeping is a type of participation. Every single attempt at peacekeeping will be shot down for violating GAR#2.

Peacekeeping includes disarmament operations. The WA has an entire category on that. If you rule peacekeeping illegal, you rule any resolution on disarmament illegal as peacekeeping.

What about government rebuilding and elections? That's part of peacekeeping. Should we also close of parts of the Furtherment of Democracy and Political Stability categories?

According to Wikipedia, peacekeeping actions even include economic development.

Ruling that peacekeeping is illegal means that a large number of resolutions are now irreplaceable. You can repeal them, but their replacements would be illegal.

That's your prerogative. But the basis of your proposal - attempting to insert the WA into peacekeeping or peacemaking - is against the rules. If you continue to submit proposals that seek to circumvent GAR#2, you'll probably get dinged with a warning.

The rules do not ban peacekeeping. They banned peacekeeping forces at one time, but don't anymore, and I'll argue until I die that they never banned peacekeeping efforts because we kept passing resolutions on peacekeeping efforts.

But we did. Not a single person thought your proposal was legal. The differences were simply semantic - how broadly should police action be interpreted, mainly - but not a single GenSec member thought your proposal was compatible with GAR#2.

Last proposal. This one is not the same.

And here we are again, where every GenSec member believes your proposal is illegal for the same reason. But out of pride, you won't give it up. But that's okay, because it's your time you're wasting.

At least one GenSec member doesn't believe this is illegal anymore. That's forward progress. It isn't wasted time if I went from a 6-0 ruling to a 5-1 ruling.

If I don't give up, I may eventually get a resolution that 4 GenSec members believe is legal. That's all I need.

[Tzorsland]

Peacekeeping includes disarmament operations. The WA has an entire category on that. If you rule peacekeeping illegal, you rule any resolution on disarmament illegal as peacekeeping.

You realize that to a casual observer you keep diving off the tallest diving board and into the drained swimming pool.

Any resolution on disarmament is based solely on the assumption that WA members in and of themselves apply disarmament laws in their own nations and enforces them accordingly. There is no international force that enforces WA resolutions.

What about government rebuilding and elections? That's part of peacekeeping.

Is this an attempt to shove your foot into the door? Just because a group performs multiple functions in the real world and in nation states a portion of what a real world group type would do is illegal that everything that group type would do is illegal or if not then everything is legal.

Here is the problem. You don't rebuild governments during an armed conflict. (And doing so is absolutely violating neutrality.) You do that AFTER the conflict, "a consensual act between two or more NationStates," and so any attempt at POST conflict rebuilding or elections completely falls off of the critical line (Article 10) that specifically talks about armed conflicts.

[Glen-Rhodes]

In my opinion, now that the possibility of the WA personnel getting drawn into peace actions has been removed (by disarming them, as well as by removal of the clause about helping to enforce other people's WA-guaranteed rights; personally I'd actually have accepted their remaining armed, as long as their right to use those arms was restricted to self-defence...), this proposal is indeed -- as I said in my reply to E.P., just above this -- legal.

I think this may be inconsistent with the logic of your previous opinion. You believed the last one was illegal because the peacekeepers would end up engaging in "police actions," based on the known history of how peacekeeping in the real world unfolds. Here, we have the same WA personnel engaging in the same activities. The only difference is that this proposal has member states volunteering their own military and police to follow around these personnel. Just as your previous opinion highlighted, the eventual conclusion here is engaging in military and/or police actions. In fact, this proposal anticipates it explicitly, as the volunteer forces are called up to protect WA personnel from harm. This would still violate GAR#2, wouldn't it? Those volunteer forces would still be engaging in military and/or police actions "under the WA banner" and the WA would be explicitly organizing and ratifying those actions.