[Legality Challenge] Resolution 393

[Glen-Rhodes]

EP, I realize that when you go onto the UN website, you will get a lot of different programs under the Peacekeeping banner. Trust me when I say that it's not correct. The people who do this stuff don't call it "Peacekeeping" as a whole. There's traditional vs multidimensional peacekeeping, and the latter is an umbrella phrase for very legally distinct activities. Multidimensional Peacekeeping is broken up into peace enforcement (basically military intervention), peace building, and post-conflict reconstruction. Your proposals have consistently focused on traditional peacekeeping (interpositional missions & observation) and disarmament, but again not the way it would happen in the real world. You're seeking to have the WA involved when the conflict is ongoing, not simply before or after a conflict happens.

The simple fact of the matter is that Rights & Duties doesn't allow the bulk of activities we would consider to be either traditional or multidimensional peacekeeping. That's because R&D has an incredibly wide and unforgiving neutrality requirement. The WA can't get involved in armed conflicts, if doing so would require breaking neutrality in any way. That's defined as "organizing, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in" the conflicts. I don't see any way that the WA can get involved before or during a conflict. There's just no way to do anything to directly prevent or to directly end a conflict without denouncing it or ratifying some kind of intervention.

That leaves the post-conflict. There's much more flexibility here. This is where you get into DDR, political reforms, civil society reforms, democracy promotion, post-conflict justice, etc. That's the bulk of real-world Peacekeeping. The catch is, if you structure it in a proposal that's about an ongoing conflict, you break the strict neutrality of the WA. Do these things in resolutions just addressing broader peace issues and it *may* be legal.

But as has been said before, the kind of peacekeeping you want to do isn't allowed. There's no point in trying. Focus your efforts on repealing Rights & Duties.

And lastly, please don't try to rules lawyer us. We all recognize the snippet tactic you're using. It's not going to work out.

[Excidium Planetis]

EP, I realize that when you go onto the UN website, you will get a lot of different programs under the Peacekeeping banner. Trust me when I say that it's not correct.

I'm going to trust you when you say the UN is not correct about what UN Peacekeeping is, even after I cited a UN commissioned report and you have given me no evidence of your claims?

people who do this stuff don't call it "Peacekeeping" as a whole. There's traditional vs multidimensional peacekeeping, and the latter is an umbrella phrase for very legally distinct activities. Multidimensional Peacekeeping is broken up into peace enforcement (basically military intervention), peace building, and post-conflict reconstruction.

That's nice.

Your proposals have consistently focused on traditional peacekeeping (interpositional missions & observation) and disarmament, but again not the way it would happen in the real world. You're seeking to have the WA involved when the conflict is ongoing, not simply before or after a conflict happens.

Correct me if I am wrong, but conflict prevention is prior to a conflict, is it not? And ending a conflict results in post-conflict? My proposal has always aimed at pre and post conflict actions. Disarmament doesn't usually occur during a conflict, but afterwards. Treaty monitoring occurs post-conflict. Maybe some aspects include activities during conflict... but as I have pointed out, past precedent (especially, as I have pointed out, GA#5 and Convention on Ceasefires) shows that WA action during conflict and in conflict zones has been legal as long as it is not active participation in those conflicts.

The simple fact of the matter is that Rights & Duties doesn't allow the bulk of activities we would consider to be either traditional or multidimensional peacekeeping. That's because R&D has an incredibly wide and unforgiving neutrality requirement. The WA can't get involved in armed conflicts, if doing so would require breaking neutrality in any way. That's defined as "organizing, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in" the conflicts. I don't see any way that the WA can get involved before or during a conflict. There's just no way to do anything to directly prevent or to directly end a conflict without denouncing it or ratifying some kind of intervention.

I hold to a literal interpretation of denouncing. Unless the WA publicly declares a conflict to be wrong or evil, it hasn't denounced anything.

That leaves the post-conflict. There's much more flexibility here. This is where you get into DDR, political reforms, civil society reforms, democracy promotion, post-conflict justice, etc. That's the bulk of real-world Peacekeeping. The catch is, if you structure it in a proposal that's about an ongoing conflict, you break the strict neutrality of the WA. Do these things in resolutions just addressing broader peace issues and it *may* be legal.

Noted.

But as has been said before, the kind of peacekeeping you want to do isn't allowed. There's no point in trying.

There isn't a kind of peacekeeping I want to do. I want to pass a legal resolution. I will defend the legality of my resolutions as long as it takes, and will try again until I succeed one day.

Focus your efforts on repealing Rights & Duties.

What do you think I've been trying to do this whole time?

And lastly, please don't try to rules lawyer us. We all recognize the snippet tactic you're using. It's not going to work out.

I don't even know what a snippet tactic is, and if people are going to try and strike down my resolutions because of rules, I am going to rules lawyer. That's how it works.

[Bears Armed]

My previous opinion was based on the fact that the personnel being both armed and supposed to help protect other people's WA-guaranteed rights might see them drawn into 'police actions'. Those personnel are now no longer armed nor given that particular duty, so -- No -- the situation is not the same and the previous opinion is not applicable to this draft.
And also "No", before you ask, I do not regard the protection of the WA personnel themselves if they are attacked [by non-state actors] as constituting participation in a 'police action': In fact, isn't there precedent for such a situation in at least one previous resolution?

How is fighting, in the middle of an armed conflict, on behalf of and at the request of the WA not a violation of GAR#2's prohibition of "organizing or ratifying" military/police actions "under the WA banner"? You're only addressing the proposal as if the only thing prohibited by GAR#2 is the WA itself marching in.

Those forces would neither be fighting on behalf of either side in the conflict -- by the permission of both of which the actual WA personnel involved would be present, after all -- nor to impose some sort of "WA new world order", merely to defend those actual WA personnel [& themselves] if attacked. Purely reactive, rather than proactive... and as I do not regard self-defence against unprovoked attacks as "participation" in the attacks I would not count this clause as involving "otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities".

If you do regard self-defence [by people who are legitimately present wherever they currently are] against unprovoked attacks upon themselves during "armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities" as participation in those conflicts/actions/activities, then what happens if WA personnel [employed under any previously passed resolution] happen to be present somewhere that a terrorist attack takes place? Would you say that GAR#2 denies them the right to defend themselves? (If a majority of the GA Secretariat do think that GAR #2 does that, then that looks to me like another good argument for a repeal of GAR #2...)

What about the "necessary security" at WA Headquarters, do you regard that as a breach of GAR #2?

[Separatist Peoples]

Placing oneself in a situation where lethal force is likely necessary isn't reactive. You can't get away with a self defense claim if you waded into a bar fight, how is this different?

Taken in total, WA personnel entering a fight with an armed entourage to potentially fight other forces is participation, regardless of their permission to be present, because they have willfully placed themselves in a situation where military force is or should be anticipated as necessary.

Even if the WA had nations act as proxies and had no forces present, that would be a ratification of action that anticipates or should anticipate the use of military force in a conflict. It just isn't possible to make this legal by my view.

[Bears Armed]

Placing oneself in a situation where lethal force is likely necessary isn't reactive. You can't get away with a self defense claim if you waded into a bar fight, how is this different?

They'd only be going in after the fight is supposed to be over, by the consent of both sides' leaderships, with self-defence needed only against what we might call "renegade" non-state actors.
If you're going to read GAR#2 as forbidding self-defence under those circumstances then I think that by logical extension you'd also have to read GAR#2 as forbidding self-defence by WA personnel if they happen to be attacked while present in any other situations where anybody else's actions could be classed as falling within "armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities" too... and if you're reading "police actions" as "actions [potentially] involving the police", as some GenSec members were, then you'd have to bar WA personnel from self-defence even against muggers & other non-political criminals.

[Excidium Planetis]

Placing oneself in a situation where lethal force is likely necessary isn't reactive. You can't get away with a self defense claim if you waded into a bar fight, how is this different?

If your buddies Eddie and Joe invited you to a bat to make sure that neither of them start a fight while they are drunk, and then Ralph decides to beat you up because he doesn't like you and Eddie and Joe are both almost blacked out right now, and Alphonso (who only came to the bar to watch your back) beats up Ralph, can Alphonso claim self defense?

Taken in total, WA personnel entering a fight with an armed entourage to potentially fight other forces is participation, regardless of their permission to be present, because they have willfully placed themselves in a situation where military force is or should be anticipated as necessary.

So the WA cannot travel to any conflict zones? Can't travel to any crime-ridden areas? Any place at all where terrorist or criminal activity has a high chance of endangering them and forcing them to fight in self defense?

Don't say that it's okay if they don't have armed escorts. An unarmed group if WA personnel being deployed to go beat people up would still be WA participation in conflict even by my viewing of it, so under your view of (being in the conflict zone doing stuff), even without escorts, WA personnel being attacked by terrorists in a terrorist hotpot is participation in armed conflict against terrorists because they willfully placed themselves there knowing they could be attacked.

Even if the WA had nations act as proxies and had no forces present, that would be a ratification of action that anticipates or should anticipate the use of military force in a conflict. It just isn't possible to make this legal by my view.

GA#2 gave formal consent to nations engaging in wars. That's a ratification of armed conflict in general. I therefore argue that GA#2, to prevent self contradiction, only bans ratification of specific conflicts. The actions taken by national troops being condoned by the WA is ratification of conflict in general, not specifically.

[Glen-Rhodes]

But as has been said before, the kind of peacekeeping you want to do isn't allowed. There's no point in trying.

There isn't a kind of peacekeeping I want to do. I want to pass a legal resolution. I will defend the legality of my resolutions as long as it takes, and will try again until I succeed one day.

I'm not sure you're playing under the right frame, then. The WA shouldn't just be about passing resolutions. You should believe peacekeeping is good and want to promote the idea in the game. To that end, if something you're trying to do isn't legal, then you should go back to the drawing board to see what it is you can get done. At this point, my advice is to face the fact that if you're writing a proposal trying to introduce the Blue Helmets to the WA, it's probably gonna be illegal. The bulk of the UN's activities actually happen after a conflict is well over! Write proposals on security sector reform, civil society promotion, elections, humanitarian aid, etc. There are dozens of other proposals you could be writing.

Focus your efforts on repealing Rights & Duties.

What do you think I've been trying to do this whole time?

Obviously not repealing Rights & Duties, if you're spending so much time trying to write around it!

Those forces would neither be fighting on behalf of either side in the conflict -- by the permission of both of which the actual WA personnel involved would be present, after all -- nor to impose some sort of "WA new world order", merely to defend those actual WA personnel [& themselves] if attacked. Purely reactive, rather than proactive... and as I do not regard self-defence against unprovoked attacks as "participation" in the attacks I would not count this clause as involving "otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities".

Sorry Bears, I just don't see the logic here. "Participation" doesn't have any meaning, if it doesn't mean being there and doing things that require needing military protection.

Placing oneself in a situation where lethal force is likely necessary isn't reactive. You can't get away with a self defense claim if you waded into a bar fight, how is this different?

They'd only be going in after the fight is supposed to be over, by the consent of both sides' leaderships, with self-defence needed only against what we might call "renegade" non-state actors.

The proposal doesn't actually stipulate this. It's explicitly saying the WA is going in before, during, and after conflicts. There's also nothing about how it's only against "renegade non-state actors." The phrase "non-state actor" doesn't even appear in the proposal...

If you do regard self-defence [by people who are legitimately present wherever they currently are] against unprovoked attacks upon themselves during "armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities" as participation in those conflicts/actions/activities, then what happens if WA personnel [employed under any previously passed resolution] happen to be present somewhere that a terrorist attack takes place? Would you say that GAR#2 denies them the right to defend themselves? (If a majority of the GA Secretariat do think that GAR #2 does that, then that looks to me like another good argument for a repeal of GAR #2...)

What about the "necessary security" at WA Headquarters, do you regard that as a breach of GAR #2?

None of this is taking place under the context of the WA injecting itself into an active and ongoing armed conflict.

[Excidium Planetis]

I'm not sure you're playing under the right frame, then. The WA shouldn't just be about passing resolutions.

No, it isn't just about passing resolutions. It's about roleplay.

You should believe peacekeeping is good and want to promote the idea in the game.

Should you? There are certainly many players who don't believe peacekeeping is good and don't want to promote it either ICly or OOCly.

To that end, if something you're trying to do isn't legal, then you should go back to the drawing board to see what it is you can get done.

That's what I am going to do. Did you miss the part where I vowed to pass a legal resolution if it took me five years?

The bulk of the UN's activities actually happen after a conflict is well over! Write proposals on security sector reform, civil society promotion, elections, humanitarian aid, etc. There are dozens of other proposals you could be writing.

You didn't like me writing about at least one of those topics, and I gave grave doubts about the legality of humanitarian activities resolutions considering that handing out aid in a warzone probably counts as participation in armed conflict these days.

What do you think I've been trying to do this whole time?

Obviously not repealing Rights & Duties, if you're spending so much time trying to write around it!

Have you already forgotten why I wrote WA Peacekeeping Charter in the first place?

Roleplay is the focus of my involvement in the WA (not that you would understand, as you don't RP). What is Blackbourne's agenda in trying to pass this resolution? Is it because he love love loves the global community and wants to see everyone peaceful and disarmed?

[Glen-Rhodes]

Is it really that difficult to understand that you *don't* need to be writing proposals about *active* conflicts? That you can write good proposals abou *other* things, and still those proposals would do a lot of good? You just completely ignored my advice about how much of peacekeeping IRL happens when a conflict is well over.

[Araraukar]

Are you guys (especially G-R) going to stop arguing with EP (and each other) on this thread at some point, and actually get on with making a ruling? Would you make it quicker if he submitted it?

[Separatist Peoples]

Are you guys (especially G-R) going to stop arguing with EP (and each other) on this thread at some point, and actually get on with making a ruling? Would you make it quicker if he submitted it?

Last I checked, the community wanted us to engage with them.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Are you guys (especially G-R) going to stop arguing with EP (and each other) on this thread at some point, and actually get on with making a ruling? Would you make it quicker if he submitted it?

Last I checked, the community wanted us to engage with them.

SP, don't you understand? It*'s real! (The pronoun in question being the inability for people to be happy with any outcome.)

[Sciongrad]

Are you guys (especially G-R) going to stop arguing with EP (and each other) on this thread at some point, and actually get on with making a ruling? Would you make it quicker if he submitted it?

So you want us to engage with you guys except when we do, in which case you want us to stop engaging with you...?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Honestly, what I want to see is Roman peacekeeping. Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant. To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace. It goes without saying that if there is nobody there, there can't be a conflict.

[Araraukar]

Last I checked, the community wanted us to engage with them.

So you want us to engage with you guys except when we do, in which case you want us to stop engaging with you...?

I think Gruen already explained it the last time councilors complained about it.

I've never wanted the extensive arguing on these legality challenge threads. You guys were chosen for a reason and in the ideal case in my opinion a challenge is posted, you guys acknowledge it, ask for any clarifying things you want to know, the challenge maker, challenged person and whoever wants to say something on it, all post their things, then you guys talk about it on your own forum - if something comes up that needs clarifying, you post on the thread, but if not, you then post the ruling in a reasonable timeframe.

And even for those who prefer further interaction, there must at some point be a cut-off point where you stop going around in circles and come to a conclusion, because it's starting to look like the only way to get a legality challenge in any kind of sensible timeframe is to submit your thing, and it'll be equally uncomfortable and unfair to you guys, whether or not [violet] gets you that hold function.

This not being a challenge I made, I haven't poked peeps here before, but it looks like you're not only getting nowhere with EP, but you're also arguing with one another on here. You have a whole subforum in which to argue with one another!

[Separatist Peoples]

We are capable of working in two places at the same time. We haven't been totally idle here. Most of the arguments up to this point have been valid legal arguments worth exploring, not worthless back and forth.

If you would like to see a harder timeframe for decisions, bring it up with us in a different thread. I, for one, am always up for constructive conversation. Its just that this is a bad place for it.

[Excidium Planetis]

Is it really that difficult to understand that you *don't* need to be writing proposals about *active* conflicts?

I still have not been convinced that writing about active conflicts is illegal. Nobody has explained why (or not) GA#5 is illegal.

That you can write good proposals abou *other* things, and still those proposals would do a lot of good?

Maybe, but they wouldn't help repeal GA#2 so they're no good to me.

You just completely ignored my advice about how much of peacekeeping IRL happens when a conflict is well over.

That's because it has nothing to do with this discussion. Peacekeeping isn't mentioned in my proposal. Disarmament is a post conflict activity. So is monitoring treaties. Argue about ceasefires all you want, but treaties do end conflicts, so monitoring them is post conflict.

We haven't been totally idle here. Most of the arguments up to this point have been valid legal arguments worth exploring, not worthless back and forth.

Really? I thought I was arguing in bad faith just to waste your time.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Nothing is going to "help" repeal Rights & Duties except writing a repeal for Rights & Duties...

And even for those who prefer further interaction, there must at some point be a cut-off point where you stop going around in circles and come to a conclusion, because it's starting to look like the only way to get a legality challenge in any kind of sensible timeframe is to submit your thing, and it'll be equally uncomfortable and unfair to you guys, whether or not [violet] gets you that hold function.

Here's a simple idea: if you want a quick drafting to get a resolution under your belt, don't write proposals of ambiguous legality. Otherwise, be prepared to engage in a possibly lengthy debate about the interpretation of the rules and any relevant resolutions.

[Sciongrad]

Nothing is going to "help" repeal Rights & Duties except writing a repeal for Rights & Duties...

And even for those who prefer further interaction, there must at some point be a cut-off point where you stop going around in circles and come to a conclusion, because it's starting to look like the only way to get a legality challenge in any kind of sensible timeframe is to submit your thing, and it'll be equally uncomfortable and unfair to you guys, whether or not [violet] gets you that hold function.

Here's a simple idea: if you want a quick drafting to get a resolution under your belt, don't write proposals of ambiguous legality. Otherwise, be prepared to engage in a possibly lengthy debate about the interpretation of the rules and any relevant resolutions.

Forgive me for anticipating a potential response, but before anyone says "but aren't you guys the ones that suggested we make legal queries for our proposals before we submit them if there's even a shadow of a doubt that there's some illegal component, and therefore shouldn't you be responsible for ensuring the process runs smoothly," I would preemptively counter that we do our best to ensure a ruling is delivered in a reasonable amount of time, but that one must be prepared to go through a lengthy discussion process if they are knowingly and deliberately trying to wade successfully through a legal mire (e.g., GAR#2 Article 10!). So be patient. When we said that EP is arguing in bad faith, we meant to say that EP knows they're trying to force us to find a workaround for GAR#2, not that their arguments are groundless. We can engage you to better inform our opinion even if we believe you're not arguing because you're super interested in the policies behind peacekeeping.

I think Gruen already explained it the last time councilors complained about it.

Doesn't matter if two different players are asking us for different things, the fact is that we're being asked to do two mutually exclusive things.

[Araraukar]

Doesn't matter if two different players are asking us for different things, the fact is that we're being asked to do two mutually exclusive things.

Yes, and you guys need to find the balance somewhere in the middle. You can argue for weeks and get nowhere. I know full well what EP is trying to do, but what I don't get is why you (plural, not just you, Scion) apparently keep trying to change his mind as it's obviously not going to happen?

If EP was to submit his proposal tomorrow and campaigned for it, you'd have about 4 days of time to produce a ruling. Do you think you can get a ruling done in 4 days? If so, you can do it without him needing to submit it to force your hand.

Obviously I don't know if EP is planning to submit this at all or not, but it's been 10 days already. If you can get a ruling out in 4, that'd be two weeks. If submitting will get a ruling in 4 days, less patient people might not want to wait the two weeks. I'm not saying this in a UFoC-type threat, but rather just pointing it out as a warning, because if I've thought of this, you can bet that most/all regulars will have. And like it or not, sooner or later someone will try it out.

(And not wishing to get thwapped for threadjack or something, I'm lurching off to Gielinor. Link just to tease SP. )

[States of Glory WA Office]

challenged person

Poor choice of words there.

Anyway, I understand that the Council wants to engage with EP, but are you guys absolutely sure that this debate is going anywhere? All I'm saying is that if it is going somewhere, it ought to be mentioned in the ruling. Otherwise, I'd have to assume that this was a waste of time (and you know WA members' attitudes towards unneeded bureaucracy).

[Glen-Rhodes]

It wasn't a waste of time, and in fact the debate here honed my argument about why this proposal is illegal. We will issue our opinion when there's a majority for one. What's happened here is the way things should go--- the author having ample opportunity to defend themselves and refute arguments.

[Excidium Planetis]

Nothing is going to "help" repeal Rights & Duties except writing a repeal for Rights & Duties...

That's an extremely narrow-minded way of thinking.

Here's a fun little game for you: Why was GA#15 repealed? Not just because a repeal was written for it, why was the repeal written? In other words, what helped get GA#15 repealed?

Here's a simple idea: if you want a quick drafting to get a resolution under your belt, don't write proposals of ambiguous legality.

This seems to imply that I'm a badge hunting idiot who doesn't know how to write non-controversial resolutions. That was GA#338-era EP. These days I'm not looking for a quick resolution to get under my belt. I've already authored 4 and co-authored another.

Otherwise, be prepared to engage in a possibly lengthy debate about the interpretation of the rules and any relevant resolutions.

I'm not the one complaining here. When my resolution was At Vote, I complained, and I complained afterwards because it had already been declared illegal and no ruling had been made, but this time there is no pressing time frame and no official declaration of legal/illegal (not that it will be a surprise) has been made yet. I'm not complaining about the length of the discussion this time. I think it actually helped me out more than hurt, I seemed to have swayed one GenSec member to the Legal side.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Here's a simple idea: if you want a quick drafting to get a resolution under your belt, don't write proposals of ambiguous legality.

Bah, that's where the real fun is.

[Araraukar]

challenged person

Poor choice of words there.

Intentional choice of words to lure you into nitpicking, in this case. Also was tired and couldn't think of another word for it. Can you?

We will issue our opinion when there's a majority for one.

I thought the mods would act as tiebreakers if you're stuck with a 3-3.

What's happened here is the way things should go--- the author having ample opportunity to defend themselves and refute arguments.

We can agree to disagree, because having been on actual real-life councils that needed to decide on things quickly because real life stuff like construction was on hold (and costing money to the people involved) until a decision was made, the argument here has dragged on far longer than it ought to have. It's possible to hear out the counter-argument and ask for a clarification or two, and still be speedy.