[Legality Challenge] internet Act

[Thyerata]

Resolution thread: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=415923
Resolution text:

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY,

Concerned that many member states are limiting their citizens from using the Internet;

Believing that the Internet is an essential component of a modern society, promoting freedom of expression, more accountable government, increased economic development and stronger civic societies and institutions.

HEREBY,

Defines:

(a) SMU as the abbreviated form of Standard Monetary Units;

(b) Internet as a computer network providing a variety of information and communication facilities, consisting of interconnected data networks using standardised communication protocols;

(c) Internet Service Provider as an entity that operates services providing Internet access and usage.

Mandates member states with a GDP per capita exceeding 40,000 SMU to fund the construction and maintenance of data networks to increase Internet access for all its citizens;

Establishes the Internet Funding Authority;

Implements a progressive rate of capital redistribution, to be presided over by the Internet Funding Authority, to fund the construction and maintenance of data networks as per the following guidelines:

(a) Member states with a GDP per capita between 0 and 10,000 SMU to receive 100% of their total data network project cost;

(b) Member states with a GDP per capita between 10,000 and 20,000 SMU to receive 75% of their total data network project cost;

(c) Member states with a GDP per capita between 20,000 and 30,000 SMU to receive 50% of their total data network project cost;

(d) Member states with a GDP per capita between 30,000 and 40,000 SMU to receive 25% of their total data network project cost;

(e) Member states with a GDP per capita exceeding 80,000 SMU to be charged an amount as a ratio to their GDP per capita so that the total funds received are equivalent to the total funds required;

Orders Internet Service Providers to provide free Internet access to citizens with an income lower than 25,000 Standard Monetary Units.

Rules broken: optionality
Question posed: Must every clause in a resolution apply to every member state of the WA?
Argument:
This joint challenge, presented by Thyerata and The Sheika, poses one simple question. It deals with the fundamental aspects of WA law - the binding nature of WA resolutions. In brief, we say this resolution is illegal because of these clauses:

Mandates member states with a GDP per capita exceeding 40,000 SMU to fund the construction and maintenance of data networks to increase Internet access for all its citizens;

[...]
Implements a progressive rate of capital redistribution, to be presided over by the Internet Funding Authority, to fund the construction and maintenance of data networks as per the following guidelines:

(a) Member states with a GDP per capita between 0 and 10,000 SMU to receive 100% of their total data network project cost;

(b) Member states with a GDP per capita between 10,000 and 20,000 SMU to receive 75% of their total data network project cost;

(c) Member states with a GDP per capita between 20,000 and 30,000 SMU to receive 50% of their total data network project cost;

(d) Member states with a GDP per capita between 30,000 and 40,000 SMU to receive 25% of their total data network project cost;

(e) Member states with a GDP per capita exceeding 80,000 SMU to be charged an amount as a ratio to their GDP per capita so that the total funds received are equivalent to the total funds required;

We say that these clauses violate the optionality rule since they seem to apply on a selective basis. Specifically, their application depends on a nation's GDP. So far as we understand precedent, such selectively is prohibited, as clauses must apply to all member states irrespective of their circumstances. This, we say that the correct answer to the question posed is Yes.

[Bananaistan]

As stated by the author, the proposal is still in drafting. I believe you were recently told in another one of these incredibly premature legal challenges to continue discussion in the debate thread.

[Thyerata]

As stated by the author, the proposal is still in drafting. I believe you were recently told in another one of these incredibly premature legal challenges to continue discussion in the debate thread.

I'd be grateful if you dropped the "you're a petulant child" approach. GenSec haven't set out rules on when something is ripe for challenge, so I think I'm perfectly entitled to Lodge what I consider to be a proper challenge.

[Bears Armed]

Question posed: Must every clause in a resolution apply to every member state of the WA?

No. All that's required is that enough clauses be non-optional to justify the designated category & strength, and that the proposal be one that doesn't explicitly exclude any types of nations from its scope. After all, resolutions on maritime matters are allowed even though some member nations are landlocked, resolutions on modern technology are allowed even though some member nations are Past Tech, resolutions on nuclear weapons are allowed even though some member nations totally reject the idea of having any weapons at all, resolutions on abortion are allowed even though some member nations' inhabitants are oviparous, and so on...

We say that these clauses violate the optionality rule since they seem to apply on a selective basis. Specifically, their application depends on a nation's GDP. So far as we understand precedent, such selectively is prohibited, as clauses must apply to all member states irrespective of their circumstances.

That isn't optionality, it's selectivity... which, as an earlier resolution declared all member nations to be equal under GA law, might be illegal for contradiction of that earlier resolution. Unfortunately I don't have enough time available this evening to study the situation more deeply now, though...

[Imperium Anglorum]

Equal before the law means that each nation possesses equivalent legal rights. Expansion to 'we must pretend all nations are the same' would be absurdist theatre.

[Sciongrad]

I agree with BA here, but also don't think GenSec will hear this. We exist to resolve legality disputes. There can be no dispute if no one attempts to resolve the question on their own first. If no consensus emerges in the debate thread, we'll consider hearing this.

[Thyerata]

I agree with BA here, but also don't think GenSec will hear this. We exist to resolve legality disputes. There can be no dispute if no one attempts to resolve the question on their own first. If no consensus emerges in the debate thread, we'll consider hearing this.

In that case, can you insert something into your rules that sets out, categorically, when you consider a legality challenge to be properly made? To put it another way, under what circumstances will you consider a legality challenge? As far as I am concerned, this challenge is proper, since there is a dispute over those clauses between me and the author, meaning that I am entitled to have it heard and decided by GenSec?

[Llorens]

Equal before the law means that each nation possesses equivalent legal rights. Expansion to 'we must pretend all nations are the same' would be absurdist theatre.

Thank you, it would be quite problematic if all clauses had to apply to each and every nation.

[Llorens]

Also, it should be noted that the following is the exact wording of the Optionality rule:

GA Proposals are not optional. Don't try to make one that is. Many 'Mild' Proposals will have phrases such as "RECOMMENDS" or "URGES", which is just fine. The optionality ban refers to when language such as "Nations can ignore this Resolution if they want," which is right out.

Not a single clause "recommends" or "urges" members states to abide by it. No nation can ignore this resolution as all member states are bound to it in some way:

1. Nations with a GDP per capita below 40,000 SMU are able to have part of their Internet construction and maintenance project covered.
2. Nations with a GDP per capita above 40,000 SMU must fully fund their own project.
3. Nations with a GDP per capita above 80,000 SMU must provide some funding to the Internet Funding Authority to aid other nations eligible for full or partial project subsidisation.

[Bears Armed]

I've thought further about this, and if I remember rightly then there was actually a ruling on such a point some years ago. As I recall, Modly opinion was that because national GDP values can & do change any single nation could pass [at least in theory] through two or more of those categories over time, with the effects of the proposed resolution on that nation changing accordingly in the process, and so clauses that set out scale of effect like this do apply [at least in theory] equally to all member nations. That makes sense to me. Thus, it is my opinion that, on this point, this proposal is legal.

[The Sheika]

I've thought further about this, and if I remember rightly then there was actually a ruling on such a point some years ago. As I recall, Modly opinion was that because national GDP values can & do change any single nation could pass [at least in theory] through two or more of those categories over time, with the effects of the proposed resolution on that nation changing accordingly in the process, and so clauses that set out scale of effect like this do apply [at least in theory] equally to all member nations. That makes sense to me. Thus, it is my opinion that, on this point, this proposal is legal.

This sufficiently answers any questions I had on the case. Thank you for your time.