[LEGALITY CHALLENGE] Ban on Secret Treaties

[States of Glory WA Office]

From the proposal rules:

Committees: Committees cannot be the sole purpose of the proposal. It is an addition to the proposal and designed to carry out specific duties related to the proposal.

I also point to Mod precedent stating that to avoid committee-only violations, proposals needs to task member states with something that's unrelated to the committee:

viewtopic.php?p=10962542&sid=ce631ce69c3d6b78b6b2b9f18b4f8868#p10962542
viewtopic.php?p=20223291&sid=01fa0470e41e2a241ce7b3cf34a312c5#p20223291

Let's look at the two active clauses of Ban on Secret Treaties:

1. All treaties and international agreements with the force of law, entered into by member nations shall be registered with the Compliance Commission, which shall publish those treaties and international agreements.
   
   
2. Member nations may not invoke treaties or international agreements that have not been registered with the Compliance Commission.

As you can see, both active clauses relate to the committee in some way. If you take out everything that's unrelated to the Compliance Commission, you're left with nothing, which is a textbook violation of the committee-only rule.

Ban on Secret Treaties
Category: Furtherment of Democracy | Strength: Mild

---

Whereas secret treaties have been observed to

1. cause national decision-makers to be left out of the loop of their own government's obligations during wartime, meaning that their decisions are fundamentally irrespective of the actual facts on the ground,
   
   
2. force other nations to miscalculate their intentions, the balance of power, their obligations, and their rewards, increasing the chances of widespread conflict, and
   
   
3. create misunderstandings between a government and the various factions of another government, leading to many disputes between governments which believe they have different or even contradictory obligations:

Now, therefore, be it enacted by this august and most excellent World Assembly, by and with the advice and consent of the Delegates and Members, in this present session assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

1. All treaties and international agreements with the force of law, entered into by member nations shall be registered with the Compliance Commission, which shall publish those treaties and international agreements.
   
   
2. Member nations may not invoke treaties or international agreements that have not been registered with the Compliance Commission.

[Auralia]

I hope GenSec takes this opportunity to change the committee rule. There should be nothing wrong with a proposal that merely establishes and describes member state interactions with a committee, so long as the likely effect of the resulting member state and committee activities corresponds to the category and strength of the proposal. I've made similar arguments before, including in discussions regarding one of the precedents that States of Glory cites.

In the case of Ban on Secret Treaties, member states are required to publish treaties, which increases government transparency and thereby allows voters to make more informed decisions when voting. This is a clear-cut mild Furtherment of Democracy proposal (see Freedom of Information Act for precedent). It shouldn't matter whether member states publish the treaties using a committee or publish them unilaterally. Whichever method is chosen, the effect of the proposal remains the same, making it a bizarre line to draw for legality.

[Imperium Anglorum]

It should be no surprise that I agree with Auralia. Furthermore, I believe that the redrafting of the rules recently effected has already effected a change to the interpretation he outlines above.

[Aclion]

I hope GenSec takes this opportunity to change the committee rule. There should be nothing wrong with a proposal that merely establishes and describes member state interactions with a committee, so long as the likely effect of the resulting member state and committee activities corresponds to the category and strength of the proposal. I've made similar arguments before, including in discussions regarding one of the precedents that States of Glory cites.

In the case of Ban on Secret Treaties, member states are required to publish treaties, which increases government transparency and thereby allows voters to make more informed decisions when voting. This is a clear-cut mild Furtherment of Democracy proposal (see Freedom of Information Act for precedent). It shouldn't matter whether member states publish the treaties using a committee or publish them unilaterally. Whichever method is chosen, the effect of the proposal remains the same, making it a bizarre line to draw for legality.

That "bizarre line" is the standard test used for committee only violations, and I believe that is the reason IA chose to structure the requirements in that way. He could easily avoid a violation by simply requiring nations publish all treaties, or by declaring that member nations cannot invoke any treaty that's not been published. The result would be identical. But he chose to direct everything through a committee.

[The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper]

It should be no surprise that I agree with Auralia.

Okay but what's life without surprises?

Here's one.

I agree with Auralia. And IA.

I've been quite vocal about the perils of using rulings that occurred before the rules package was rewritten last year, so I won't repeat that here.

In this case, it doesn't matter; take away the committee and a nation is still forced to do (or in this case, forced not to do) something. Namely, when both clauses are taken in combination, the proposal forbids nations from invoking treaties or agreements that have not been made public. That's quite enough to make this proposal legal and not a just-a-committee violation.

[Wallenburg]

It should be no surprise that I agree with Auralia.

Okay but what's life without surprises?

Here's one.

I agree with Auralia. And IA.

I've been quite vocal about the perils of using rulings that occurred before the rules package was rewritten last year, so I won't repeat that here.

In this case, it doesn't matter; take away the committee and a nation is still forced to do (or in this case, forced not to do) something. Namely, when both clauses are taken in combination, the proposal forbids nations from invoking treaties or agreements that have not been made public. That's quite enough to make this proposal legal and not a just-a-committee violation.

I'm sorry, but where does it say that? In my opinion, if you take away the committee then this proposal bans international treaties, since there is no committee to register treaties with.

[The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper]

Clause 1 says, treaties must be registered and published.

Clause 2 says nations cannot invoke unregistered treaties.

If nations cannot invoke unregistered treaties, and all registered treaties have been published, then nations cannot invoke any treaties that have not been published.

Take away the committee. Yes, there's no committee to register and publish the treaties. What I'm saying is it doesn't matter who registers or publishes the treaties; nations can't invoke unpublished treaties under this proposal. The committee is merely the method for making that requirement happen, or, as the rule states, it's the "addition to the proposal" that's "designed to carry out specific duties".

[Wallenburg]

Clause 1 says, treaties must be registered and published.

Clause 2 says nations cannot invoke unregistered treaties.

If nations cannot invoke unregistered treaties, and all registered treaties have been published, then nations cannot invoke any treaties that have not been published.

Take away the committee. Yes, there's no committee to register and publish the treaties. What I'm saying is it doesn't matter who registers or publishes the treaties; nations can't invoke unpublished treaties under this proposal. The committee is merely the method for making that requirement happen, or, as the rule states, it's the "addition to the proposal" that's "designed to carry out specific duties".

I suppose that's one way to look at it, even if it incorporates a more than generous deal of the "spirit" of the proposal rather than the text.

[Bears Armed]

In my opinion, if you take away the committee then this proposal bans international treaties, since there is no committee to register treaties with.

That is a fair point. I'm thinking about it.

I agree that requiring nations to take actions involving a committee that are enough to justify the Category & Strength/(or whatever) probably should be enough for legality, as used to be the case in the early days of the UNamed Organisation, but think that this needs clarification in the rules -- following public discussion about its desirability -- before it can be assumed.

[Separatist Peoples]

While I disagree with scrapping the Committee-Only rule, I also agree with Auralia, IA, and Wrapper. Which isn't really that much of a surprise.

SURPRISE!!!

[Thyerata]

I don't have any gripes with the committee-only rule, but we have had individual statements by GenSec on the status of the mods in relation to GenSec. I'm going to request a formal ruling on the matter since SOGWA, in his challenge, explicitly cites mod precedent, and I think at least one member of GenSec (possibly Scion?) has stated informally that mod precedent is no longer binding.

In relation to the Compliance Commission, I would submit that this resolution doesn't violate the rule because the Commission already exists, with a specified task (from another resolution). All this resolution seeks to do is add another task to the Commission's remit (maintaining a record of secret treaties).

[Araraukar]

All this resolution seeks to do is add another task to the Commission's remit (maintaining a record of secret treaties).

If that's all it does, then it's definitely committee-only violation.

EDIT: Also, the wording "Delegates and Members" in the proposal makes me think "regional Delegates and Member nations". That's a what, metagaming violation?

[Separatist Peoples]

I don't have any gripes with the committee-only rule, but we have had individual statements by GenSec on the status of the mods in relation to GenSec. I'm going to request a formal ruling on the matter since SOGWA, in his challenge, explicitly cites mod precedent, and I think at least one member of GenSec (possibly Scion?) has stated informally that mod precedent is no longer binding.

In relation to the Compliance Commission, I would submit that this resolution doesn't violate the rule because the Commission already exists, with a specified task (from another resolution). All this resolution seeks to do is add another task to the Commission's remit (maintaining a record of secret treaties).

That isn't how the rule works. A resolution that only adds duties to an existing resolution would also be illegal. This, however, does not. This has a measurable impact outside of the committee. Its small, but it's there.

All this resolution seeks to do is add another task to the Commission's remit (maintaining a record of secret treaties).

If that's all it does, then it's definitely committee-only violation.

EDIT: Also, the wording "Delegates and Members" in the proposal makes me think "regional Delegates and Member nations". That's a what, metagaming violation?

The rule of thumb that removes all lines involving the committee is just a rule of thumb. Its not very accurate, even if its a reasonable place to start. A line can reference or involve the committee and still be actionable on the member state, and that's what I would argue is the actual test. As such, I would call this legal, and the test that Ard used to be mere guidance in getting to the end decision.

The question of delegates is harder. I'd call it Metagaming, because I see nothing wrong with a presumption against such terms. But, one could argue that Delegates here means "ambassadors and staff." I'm leaning towards nixing it. Personally, I think its just an opportunity to shove more ugly clutter and unnecessary flourish into the draft.

[Sciongrad]

I agree wholeheartedly with the arguments presented by Auralia and IA given the current state of the rule, but frankly, I think that the entire purpose of the committee rule is sort of senseless. I've never heard a compelling argument justifying the rule -- it seems to be a case of keeping a rule solely because it's existed for a long time. Of course, I'll defer to the community, but I would very much like to hear thoughts on whether the rule should be reworked entirely.

[Araraukar]

I think that the entire purpose of the committee rule is sort of senseless. I've never heard a compelling argument justifying the rule

The rule, last I heard it explained (by Fris, possibly), was that because if you only establish a committee, the committee on its own does not have a justifiable stats effect (since the committee is part of the WA, not the nations), even if you mandated the nations to interact with the committee. It's only when the resolution has a direct effect on the nations (or their inhabitants) that the resolution is considered to have a stats effect.

I've been suggesting for a long time that the Bookkeeping category ought to be made reality. The obvious stat effect would be to raise government size (and possibly corruption), and if it had AoEs instead of strengths, the AoEs could be the current other categories, where it would have a smaller stat effect. That way the resolution still couldn't be just a committee, the nations would need to interact with it to get something done, but it'd allow for a lot of things like Interpol to be created, without stumbling into the current rule.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Honestly, I'm with Ara. Add a new category for committees and I'll be happy with scrapping the rule.

[Thyerata]

I'm going to ask my other question again. Sciongrad has stated at least once (informally) that mod precedent no longer applies, and Fris has also said that the mods have handed the primary responsibility for formulating and enforcing the GA rules to GenSec. Yet, because of how the challenge is put, there is effective reliance on two mod rulings to support the primary contention in the challenge. Can we get a definitive ruling on the status of moderator rulings now that we have GenSec?

[Separatist Peoples]

I'm going to ask my other question again. Sciongrad has stated at least once (informally) that mod precedent no longer applies, and Fris has also said that the mods have handed the primary responsibility for formulating and enforcing the GA rules to GenSec. Yet, because of how the challenge is put, there is effective reliance on two mod rulings to support the primary contention in the challenge. Can we get a definitive ruling on the status of moderator rulings now that we have GenSec?

You have the answer in your post. They aren't binding. That said, we often defer to them.

[Tzorsland]

That isn't how the rule works. A resolution that only adds duties to an existing resolution would also be illegal. This, however, does not. This has a measurable impact outside of the committee. Its small, but it's there.

Really?
A "measurable impact" ???
Kindly tell me what you think the stat wank economic effect is of publishing treaties from a central source.
This is clearly a committee only violation.
This is clearly a resolution that has zero stat wank and therefore cannot be expressed in any category (and should never be expressed in any category since the purpose of WA resolutions is global stat wank).

[The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper]

Kindly tell me what you think the stat wank economic effect is of publishing treaties from a central source.

What I'm saying is it doesn't matter who registers or publishes the treaties; nations can't invoke unpublished treaties under this proposal.

That seems like FoD to me. Same as GAR#196, but to a much lesser extent, thus the Mild strength.

[Fauxia]

I hope GenSec takes this opportunity to change the committee rule. There should be nothing wrong with a proposal that merely establishes and describes member state interactions with a committee, so long as the likely effect of the resulting member state and committee activities corresponds to the category and strength of the proposal. I've made similar arguments before, including in discussions regarding one of the precedents that States of Glory cites.

In the case of Ban on Secret Treaties, member states are required to publish treaties, which increases government transparency and thereby allows voters to make more informed decisions when voting. This is a clear-cut mild Furtherment of Democracy proposal (see Freedom of Information Act for precedent). It shouldn't matter whether member states publish the treaties using a committee or publish them unilaterally. Whichever method is chosen, the effect of the proposal remains the same, making it a bizarre line to draw for legality.

Does GenSec have that authority?

[Wallenburg]

I hope GenSec takes this opportunity to change the committee rule. There should be nothing wrong with a proposal that merely establishes and describes member state interactions with a committee, so long as the likely effect of the resulting member state and committee activities corresponds to the category and strength of the proposal. I've made similar arguments before, including in discussions regarding one of the precedents that States of Glory cites.

In the case of Ban on Secret Treaties, member states are required to publish treaties, which increases government transparency and thereby allows voters to make more informed decisions when voting. This is a clear-cut mild Furtherment of Democracy proposal (see Freedom of Information Act for precedent). It shouldn't matter whether member states publish the treaties using a committee or publish them unilaterally. Whichever method is chosen, the effect of the proposal remains the same, making it a bizarre line to draw for legality.

Does GenSec have that authority?

Aside from GenSec's authority to interpret "war crimes" as "vanilla custard" if it wants to, they can ask the mods to change proposal rules. Since the mods mostly don't care one way or another, they could make that happen.

[Excidium Planetis]

I agree wholeheartedly with the arguments presented by Auralia and IA given the current state of the rule, but frankly, I think that the entire purpose of the committee rule is sort of senseless. I've never heard a compelling argument justifying the rule -- it seems to be a case of keeping a rule solely because it's existed for a long time. Of course, I'll defer to the community, but I would very much like to hear thoughts on whether the rule should be reworked entirely.

I've been in favor of scrapping the rule for awhile, and many players don't appear to have much love for it, either.

The rule, last I heard it explained (by Fris, possibly), was that because if you only establish a committee, the committee on its own does not have a justifiable stats effect (since the committee is part of the WA, not the nations), even if you mandated the nations to interact with the committee. It's only when the resolution has a direct effect on the nations (or their inhabitants) that the resolution is considered to have a stats effect.

So it's a Category/Strength violation, simple. If nothing but a committee fails to have a stat effect, why can that not be covered under the Category and Strength rules? Why do we need a whole separate and useless rule for Committees?

Does GenSec have that authority?

In the GA, GenSec is God. A dysfunctional, unpredictable, and malevolent god, but a god nonetheless.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The rule, last I heard it explained (by Fris, possibly), was that because if you only establish a committee, the committee on its own does not have a justifiable stats effect (since the committee is part of the WA, not the nations), even if you mandated the nations to interact with the committee. It's only when the resolution has a direct effect on the nations (or their inhabitants) that the resolution is considered to have a stats effect.

Yup. But, 'the [committee] in the proposal actually does stuff'. It publishes documents, does labelling, and works those judicial matters that may be assigned to it from time to time. 'A committee only sets up rules - it doesn't do stuff. This one does stuff.'

Also, it seems clear to me that moderator precedent isn't on the Soggers' side, it's on mine.

I'm not seeing a committee there. I'm seeing a bureaucratic agency, which is not at all the same thing.

The rule is:

Committees (tribunals, agencies, organizations, bodies etc) are designed to carry out specific duties related to the proposals. Committees are additions to Proposals; they shouldn't be all the Proposal does.

The GMO food testing body in the proposal actually does stuff. It performs assessments, does labeling, and works with patents. A committee only sets up rules - it doesn't do stuff. This one does stuff.

[Araraukar]

Also, it seems clear to me that moderator precedent isn't on the Soggers' side, it's on mine.

OOC: Pfft, you know mod precedent is waved off (apparently, not that I agree) these days as a relic of the past that shouldn't be relied on.

Not that I didn't also agree to your proposal being a complete committee-only violation without clause 3... Now it perhaps skates through on the thinnest ice possible.