[Legality Challenge] Open Internet Order

[Excidium Planetis]

I wasn't even aware this resolution existed until a few moments ago, and I quickly scanned the thread to see if anyone had brought it up. Apparently, nobody noticed it or thought it was an issue, so let me make a formal challenge.

At Vote Resolution:
https://www.nationstates.net/page=ga
Resolution Thread:
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=403412

For the record, resolution text is here:

The General Assembly,

Recognizing the essential role of the Internet in areas such as economic, social, and political activity;

Concerned that Internet Service Providers hold all the tools necessary to deceive subscribers and block or otherwise degrade content;

HEREBY:

1. Defines the following:

(a) "Internet Service Provider" as an entity that directly controls and operates facilities that are used to provide Internet access.
(b) "Reasonable Network Management" allows Internet Service Providers to temporarily throttle access to the network on legal grounds such as avoiding network congestion or contractual obligations.
(c) "Lawful" allowed by international law and/or national law (If international law and national law conflict, international law takes precedence over national law).
(d) "Internet" refers to the collection of technical protocols that allows different devices on different platforms to communicate with each other.
(e) "Subscriber" refers to a person who pays to receive and/or access a service.
2. Prohibits Internet Service Providers from:

(a) Arbitrarily blocking access to lawful content and/or access to the network; subject to reasonable network management.
(b) Arbitrarily throttling access to lawful content and/or access to the network; subject to reasonable network management.
3. Requires Internet Service Providers to disclose to new and existing subscribers:

(a) Any and all pricing information related to the service plan.
(b) Any and all caps related to the service plan as well as the consequences of exceeding such cap.
4. Permits Internet Service Providers to employ reasonable network management controls.

5. Establishes the Telecommunications Regulatory Authority.

6. Empowers the Telecommunication Regulatory Authority to issue fines, enforce provision(s) of this resolution and conduct investigations against Internet Service Providers. The Telecommunication Regulatory Authority may also issue declaratory rulings, at its discretion.

I assert that the proposal in question contradicts GA#2 by forming a committee with police powers. The final clause states:

6. Empowers the Telecommunication Regulatory Authority to issue fines, enforce provision(s) of this resolution and conduct investigations against Internet Service Providers. The Telecommunication Regulatory Authority may also issue declaratory rulings, at its discretion.

I ask GenSec the following questions:
1) Is the ability to enforce a WA resolution through a committee a contradiction of GA#2's Article 10, which prohibits police actions under the WA banner?
2) Is the ability to conduct investigations against private entities in member nations a contradiction of GA#2's Article 10?

[Frisbeeteria]

Not a ruling, but an opinion from the author of GAR #2.

Article 10 § Whilst WA Member States may engage in wars, the World Assembly as a body maintains neutrality in matters of civil and international strife. As such, the WA will not engage in commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner.

Article 10 was intended to be about wars, which are known by many names, including "police actions". It was never intended to restrict the policing ability of the World Assembly short of war.

However, the law is what the law says. GenSec will have to address this.

[Excidium Planetis]

Not a ruling, but an opinion from the author of GAR #2.

Article 10 § Whilst WA Member States may engage in wars, the World Assembly as a body maintains neutrality in matters of civil and international strife. As such, the WA will not engage in commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner.

Article 10 was intended to be about wars, which are known by many names, including "police actions". It was never intended to restrict the policing ability of the World Assembly short of war.

However, the law is what the law says. GenSec will have to address this.

Sierra Lyricalia, in a concurring opinion joined by Separatist Peoples and Sciongrad, wrote in the challenge against WA Peacekeeping Charter:

GAR #2, Article 10 refers to "police actions;" is this the RL international studies definition - military action undertaken without a formal declaration of war? This interpretation would ignore the entire history of GAR 2: not only a WA military, but WA police were forbidden. The entire point of that article was to rule out both military and police actions, the latter clearly meaning simply "actions taken by the police." If the phrase were solely used for the military sense, that would mean that a WA police force has actually been legal for most of a decade. I reject that absurd result and use the mundane "police action" = "actions of police."

The abundantly armed Peacekeepers are tasked with the "Protection of the WA-recognized rights of citizens of member nations and support for the rule of law." They also do not have many constraints on when they may use force. Not only the particular mandate, but the very nature of their deployment means the Peacekeepers are guaranteed to find themselves as the only legitimate law enforcement authorities in certain areas. Armistice and cease-fire agreements often involve the creation of neutral or demilitarized zones; even where national authority is retained, though, Peacekeepers will sooner or later find themselves acting as police...

There being several other rights which individuals in WA member states are guaranteed, it's clear that the Peacekeepers cannot possibly escape an obligation to act as a police force. Therefore the proposed resolution contradicts GAR 2, Article 10, and is thus illegal as drafted.

[Tzorsland]

I'll try to make my comment as short as possible: I don't think "Lovely Rita meter maid" is the definition of "police action." A committee that sends out inspectors to write out fines is not the same as a unit of people with battle armor and shields enforcing the peace.

[Excidium Planetis]

I'll try to make my comment as short as possible: I don't think "Lovely Rita meter maid" is the definition of "police action." A committee that sends out inspectors to write out fines is not the same as a unit of people with battle armor and shields enforcing the peace.

If it were just fines, maybe. But the resolution specifically says that the Telecommunications Regulatory Authority has the power to enforce provisions of this resolution... they very well may be a unit of people in battle armor and shields enforcing, if not the peace, open Internet access.

[The Free and Sovereign State of Thailand]

I'll try to make my comment as short as possible: I don't think "Lovely Rita meter maid" is the definition of "police action." A committee that sends out inspectors to write out fines is not the same as a unit of people with battle armor and shields enforcing the peace.

If it were just fines, maybe. But the resolution specifically says that the Telecommunications Regulatory Authority has the power to enforce provisions of this resolution... they very well may be a unit of people in battle armor and shields enforcing, if not the peace, open Internet access.

When it says "power to enforce provision(s) of this resolution" it means that resolution only. OOC: Wow, just look at how far you're going. Common-sense please.

[Excidium Planetis]

When it says "power to enforce provision(s) of this resolution" it means that resolution only.

What is the difference? Power to enforce one resolution versus power to enforce other resolutions... it's police powers either way.

Wow, just look at how far you're going. Common-sense please.

How will the TRA enforce the provisions of the resolution? Please explain.

The TRA has power to enforce the resolution. ISPs in my nation refuse to cooperate with your resolution. How will the TRA enforce the resolution? Through fines? They refuse to pay the fines. What now?

Inevitably, the TRA will need to resort to force to enforce the resolution. And because businesses in my nation tend to have heavily armed goons, then the TRA probably does need to send in armored shock troops to make people provide open Internet access.

[Bears Armed]

Sierra Lyricalia, in a concurring opinion joined by Separatist Peoples and Sciongrad, wrote in the challenge against WA Peacekeeping Charter:

GAR #2, Article 10 refers to "police actions;" is this the RL international studies definition - military action undertaken without a formal declaration of war? This interpretation would ignore the entire history of GAR 2: not only a WA military, but WA police were forbidden. The entire point of that article was to rule out both military and police actions, the latter clearly meaning simply "actions taken by the police." If the phrase were solely used for the military sense, that would mean that a WA police force has actually been legal for most of a decade. I reject that absurd result and use the mundane "police action" = "actions of police."

The abundantly armed Peacekeepers are tasked with the "Protection of the WA-recognized rights of citizens of member nations and support for the rule of law." They also do not have many constraints on when they may use force. Not only the particular mandate, but the very nature of their deployment means the Peacekeepers are guaranteed to find themselves as the only legitimate law enforcement authorities in certain areas. Armistice and cease-fire agreements often involve the creation of neutral or demilitarized zones; even where national authority is retained, though, Peacekeepers will sooner or later find themselves acting as police...

There being several other rights which individuals in WA member states are guaranteed, it's clear that the Peacekeepers cannot possibly escape an obligation to act as a police force. Therefore the proposed resolution contradicts GAR 2, Article 10, and is thus illegal as drafted.

As you see, I did not join that opinion and did consider GAR #2's use of the term "police actions" to have only the narrower meaning. Consequently I would not declare the proposed resolution illegal on that basis.

However it somehow escaped my attention that the author, despite discussion in the drafting thread, ended up submitting a draft that referred to the "Internet" -- with an upper-case first letter, and thus obviously intended as a 'proper noun' -- but without any definition of what this term was supposed to mean in the IC context of Nationstates: By my reckoning, as explained in the drafting thread, that makes it a RL Reference... and if I had noticed the omission of a definition in time then I would have classed it as 'Illegal' on that basis instead.
Oops!

[The Free and Sovereign State of Thailand]

As you see, I did not join that opinion and did consider GAR #2's use of the term "police actions" to have only the narrower meaning. Consequently I would not declare the proposed resolution illegal on that basis.

However it somehow escaped my attention that the author, despite discussion in the drafting thread, ended up submitting a draft that referred to the "Internet" -- with an upper-case first letter, and thus obviously intended as a 'proper noun' -- but without any definition of what this term was supposed to mean in the IC context of Nationstates: By my reckoning, as explained in the drafting thread, that makes it a RL Reference... and if I had noticed the omission of a definition in time then I would have classed it as 'Illegal' on that basis instead.
Oops!

Wait a moment, on my prior draft, you stated

Furthermore, the word 'Internet' should be capitalised (although its genericisation proceeds).

OOC: If it's capitalised (and its meaning within the NS multiverse isn't defined in the text) then it probably counts as a RL reference.

I did what you said... so it doesn't count as a RL reference, I defined "Internet" in the text. You said that...

[Araraukar]

I did what you said... so it doesn't count as a RL reference, I defined "Internet" in the text. You said that...

That's true, he actually did. The thing at vote has this:

(d) "Internet" refers to the collection of technical protocols that allows different devices on different platforms to communicate with each other.

[Tzorsland]

If it were just fines, maybe. But the resolution specifically says that the Telecommunications Regulatory Authority has the power to enforce provisions of this resolution... they very well may be a unit of people in battle armor and shields enforcing, if not the peace, open Internet access.

Now you are getting super silly. There are very few provisions to enforce. The first is the section on blocking and throttling and the second is on reporting. You don't need people in battle armor to "enforce" either of these provisions. Especially as per the way the WA works, if the resolution was passed those would be enforced by your own NATIONAL LAW.

And while a unit of layers can be more dangerous than a unit of people in battle armor, they don't count as a "military force" according to existing WA law.

[Excidium Planetis]

Now you are getting super silly. There are very few provisions to enforce. The first is the section on blocking and throttling and the second is on reporting.

It doesn't matter how many provisions there are. You are missing the point. Enforcing any provision of international law is a police action, is it not?

You don't need people in battle armor to "enforce" either of these provisions. Especially as per the way the WA works, if the resolution was passed those would be enforced by your own NATIONAL LAW.

Nice try, but GenSec has already ruled that acknowledging the possibility of non-compliance in WA resolutions is legal. We have a currently standing resolution empowering a WA committee to collect evidence of WA member nations willfully not complying with WA law. So it is indeed possible that certain nations would not be enforcing the provisions with their own NATIONAL LAW, thereby requiring the direct intervention of the TRA. And if the member nations in question are particularly willful, the TRA might need to use for to make them comply (especially with the fines).

And while a unit of layers can be more dangerous than a unit of people in battle armor, they don't count as a "military force" according to existing WA law.

I'm not even sure what a unit of layers is, but I highly doubt they could force a member nation to pay a single fine for Internet use if they really wanted to not comply with this proposal.

[Frisbeeteria]

Enforcing any provision of international law is a police action, is it not?

No, it isn't. The vast majority of regulatory actions are almost certainly done by non-police persons. Is every lawyer, accountant, inspector, baggage handler, or anyone else who touches some aspect of international enforcement automatically inducted into the police and handed a gun and a badge?

I'm sure there's some fallacy involved in your reasoning here, but I'm too tired to remember it. All I see is someone beating a dead horse.

[Excidium Planetis]

No, it isn't. The vast majority of regulatory actions are almost certainly done by non-police persons.

Those non-police persons are incapable of ensuring compliance with this proposal. Therefore, they cannot be the ones enforcing it.

Is every lawyer, accountant, inspector, baggage handler, or anyone else who touches some aspect of international enforcement automatically inducted into the police and handed a gun and a badge?

I'm sure there's some fallacy involved in your reasoning here, but I'm too tired to remember it. All I see is someone beating a dead horse.

Again, I point you to the earlier opinion by GenSec. A clause requiring a WA committee to protect the rights of citizens was declared illegal. Lawyers could do that too, but lawyers weren't specified as the ones who were upholding the rule of law, and they aren't the ones specified as enforcing provisions of this resolution either.

I'm afraid that if this resolution is allowed to pass, it sets a dangerous precedent of allowing committees to enforce WA resolutions with basically no limitation on what they can actually do, because the resolution doesn't set any limits. Nowhere in this proposal does it deny that the TRA can use weapons and lethal force to enforce the provisions of the resolution. It just says they have to enforce the resolution, and if the TRA concludes that the only way to carry out their mandate is with armored shock troops what is stopping them from doing so?

[Bananaistan]

I agree with EP on this. Sending in the heavies is the logical conclusion of enforcement when a member state refuses to get involved and use their own justice system and police to enforce this resolution. I believe that it is an option for member states not to get involved due to the unorthodox nature of this resolution making requirements on ISPs rather than member states. In fact, couldn't that also be seen as a breach of the format: operative clause rule? The rule states "Every proposal has to have some recognizable effect on member nations, such as requiring them to take action or encouraging them to support a policy change." This resolution does neither.

[Separatist Peoples]

I thought it was absolutely absurd as an argument at first, but since member states are supoosed to be the enforcement mechanism through which committees act, I'm surprisingly convinced. If the committee was designed to impact Member states rsther than ISPs, I could find that the enforcement was administrative and not military, but ISPs are not always government entities, and aren't necessarily subject to the same rules.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I think it's hard to argue that issuing fines for violating telecommunications regulation is the same type of thing as arresting people for crimes. And no, sending in SWAT isn't the logical conclusion to collecting those fines.

This new notion that committees only act through member state governments is unsupported by rules, precedent, past resolutions, and over a decade of practice. I'm not sure where this idea has come from. The WA is well within its jurisdiction to directly regulate anything it wants. The only limitations to that are ones it places on itself.

[Bananaistan]

The last time I tagged onto a legality challenge I got no ruling, I'd actually like a ruling this time please.

The format: operative clause rule states "every proposal has to have some recognizable effect on member nations, such as requiring them to take action or encouraging them to support a policy change." I maintain that this resolution does neither and is therefore illegal.

[Aclion]

Enforcing any provision of international law is a police action, is it not?

No, it isn't. The vast majority of regulatory actions are almost certainly done by non-police persons. Is every lawyer, accountant, inspector, baggage handler, or anyone else who touches some aspect of international enforcement automatically inducted into the police and handed a gun and a badge?

I'm sure there's some fallacy involved in your reasoning here, but I'm too tired to remember it. All I see is someone beating a dead horse.

The problem is that multiple resolutions have been pulled for including provisions on enforcing WA law. Regardless of intent of the author "police action" has been interpreted to mean law enforcement, not military action without a formal declaration of war.

The "dead horse" in the case is precedent.

[Sciongrad]

The last time I tagged onto a legality challenge I got no ruling, I'd actually like a ruling this time please.

The format: operative clause rule states "every proposal has to have some recognizable effect on member nations, such as requiring them to take action or encouraging them to support a policy change." I maintain that this resolution does neither and is therefore illegal.

I have been making the same argument. I believe it's illegal for lacking an operative clause that acts on member nations.

[Tzorsland]

It doesn't matter how many provisions there are. You are missing the point. Enforcing any provision of international law is a police action, is it not?

NO and you are missing my point. A "Police Action" consists of men in riot gear.

Wikipedia states: "Police action in military/security studies and international relations is a euphemism for a military action undertaken without a formal declaration of war."
It also states, "The earliest appearance of the phrase was in 1883, referring to attempts by Netherlands forces and English forces to liberate the 28-man crew, of the SS Nisero, who were held hostage."

One does not need men in riot gear or military grade equipment to "enforce" trade agreements and other elements of WA resolutions. A lawyer is perfectly acceptable. Last time I checked the US doesn't send in the marines every time there is a trade disagreement.

[Excidium Planetis]

I think it's hard to argue that issuing fines for violating telecommunications regulation is the same type of thing as arresting people for crimes. And no, sending in SWAT isn't the logical conclusion to collecting those fines.

Notice how I didn't mention those fines in the OP, nor are they part of the main argument. Is the clause, which specifically says that the TRA has power to enforce the provisions of this resolution (not through fines, those were a separately listed power), empowering the TRA to take police actions?

Let us be clear: The resolution says that the TRA can enforce the resolution. It never says they cannot do so with SWAT teams. If the TRA decides that sending in SWAT teams is necessary to enforce the resolution, why is that not what they will do?

NO and you are missing my point. A "Police Action" consists of men in riot gear.

Wikipedia states: "Police action in military/security studies and international relations is a euphemism for a military action undertaken without a formal declaration of war."[
It also states, "The earliest appearance of the phrase was in 1883, referring to attempts by Netherlands forces and English forces to liberate the 28-man crew, of the SS Nisero, who were held hostage."

One does not need men in riot gear or military grade equipment to "enforce" trade agreements and other elements of WA resolutions. A lawyer is perfectly acceptable. Last time I checked the US doesn't send in the marines every time there is a trade disagreement.

1) The US in this case has many bargaining chips that give force to the lawyers. For example, the US can cut off trade with a nation that violates trade agreements, which is a large blow to the other nation. The WA doesn't have that kind of power. The only way WA lawyers will convince a non-compliant nation to comply is if they bribe them with WA funds or use force.
2) I already quoted the GenSec opinion maintaining that the definition of police actions you used right there is not what half of GenSec interpret GA#2 as prohibiting. And I'm inclined to agree, since Article 10 was meant to be the no WA Army rule, which included police. Of course, if GenSec does an about face here and says police are a-ok, then I'll be happy with that.

[Tzorsland]

The only way WA lawyers will convince a non-compliant nation to comply is if they bribe them with WA funds or use force.

WA Nations MUST be in compliance. Entities within WA Nations may not be in compliance, but they are in turn in violation of National Law (WA Resolutions are written into national laws) and thus it is only necessary to use the national compliance mechanisms. WA lawyers can use whatever legal means are at their disposal in the WA nation, including civil lawsuits if such things exist in the WA nation.

"Internet Service Provider" as an entity that directly controls and operates facilities that are used to provide Internet access.

Enforcement is to the Internet Service Provider which by definition is an "entity" not a "NationState."

[Imperium Anglorum]

WA Nations MUST be in compliance.

Really? How?

[Bears Armed]

As you see, I did not join that opinion and did consider GAR #2's use of the term "police actions" to have only the narrower meaning. Consequently I would not declare the proposed resolution illegal on that basis.

However it somehow escaped my attention that the author, despite discussion in the drafting thread, ended up submitting a draft that referred to the "Internet" -- with an upper-case first letter, and thus obviously intended as a 'proper noun' -- but without any definition of what this term was supposed to mean in the IC context of Nationstates: By my reckoning, as explained in the drafting thread, that makes it a RL Reference... and if I had noticed the omission of a definition in time then I would have classed it as 'Illegal' on that basis instead.
Oops!

Wait a moment, on my prior draft, you stated

OOC: If it's capitalised (and its meaning within the NS multiverse isn't defined in the text) then it probably counts as a RL reference.

I did what you said... so it doesn't count as a RL reference, I defined "Internet" in the text. You said that...

Oops again!
You're right: Presumably I noticed that originally, which is why I didn't mark it as illegal before it went to vote, but then missed it when re-reading the proposal after this challenge was made. It's a poor definition, but it is a definition.
Objection dropped.
(I really haven't been getting enough sleep lately...)