NATION

PASSWORD

[DRAFT] Administrative Compliance Act

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.

Remove ads

User avatar
Auralia
Senator
 
Posts: 4766
Founded: Dec 15, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Auralia » Thu Dec 07, 2017 1:06 pm

We reiterate our prior condition for our support: punishments for non-compliance must be proportionate to the violation.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly
Catholic Commonwealth of Auralia
Also known as Railana

"Amor sequitur cognitionem."

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 12491
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:01 pm

Auralia wrote:We reiterate our prior condition for our support: punishments for non-compliance must be proportionate to the violation.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

"This delegation has not forgotten, ambassador."

Purveyor of contracts so one-sided, you'll be surprised there's text on the back of the page!

Second year law student, homebrewer, and cat worshiper

User avatar
States of Glory WA Office
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1921
Founded: Jul 26, 2016
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby States of Glory WA Office » Fri Dec 08, 2017 8:01 pm

Fairburn: I have a question: Does this proposal empower the World Assembly to write strongly-worded letters of complaint to non-compliant member states?
Ambassador: Bartholomew Harper Fairburn Rowan Flowerhaze Souldream Bartholomew Harper Fairburn
Assistant: Neville Lynn Robert
#MakeLegislationFunnyAgain

Other ambassadorial staff include but are not limited to Barbera Warner and Harold "The Clown" Johnson.

User avatar
Kenmoria
Minister
 
Posts: 2747
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Sat Dec 09, 2017 4:26 am

"For the 'giving credence' clause, 'damning' is slightly informal for a law. Perhaps 'incriminating' would be a better word choice."
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Currently centre-right on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts our democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Port Solent
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 7
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Port Solent » Sun Dec 10, 2017 3:43 pm

First, I'm new to this side of the game, so please be gentle with me, but isn't this a HoC violation, not because #GAR390 is mentioned, but because Article 1 of the current draft establishes a subcommission of the commission set up in #GAR390 so quite literally relies on it. If 390 is repealed, then this subcommission falls apart as it's got nothing to be "sub" to?

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 12491
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Sun Dec 10, 2017 3:53 pm

Port Solent wrote:First, I'm new to this side of the game, so please be gentle with me, but isn't this a HoC violation, not because #GAR390 is mentioned, but because Article 1 of the current draft establishes a subcommission of the commission set up in #GAR390 so quite literally relies on it. If 390 is repealed, then this subcommission falls apart as it's got nothing to be "sub" to?


Not per the current reading of the rule. See the ongoing challenge.

Kenmoria wrote:"For the 'giving credence' clause, 'damning' is slightly informal for a law. Perhaps 'incriminating' would be a better word choice."

Damning, in this context, is actually pretty formal. "Damn" might not be, but "damning" is an old synonym for "condemning," really.

Purveyor of contracts so one-sided, you'll be surprised there's text on the back of the page!

Second year law student, homebrewer, and cat worshiper

User avatar
The Candy Of Bottles
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 498
Founded: Jan 01, 2015
Democratic Socialists

Postby The Candy Of Bottles » Sun Dec 10, 2017 3:55 pm

Port Solent wrote:First, I'm new to this side of the game, so please be gentle with me, but isn't this a HoC violation, not because #GAR390 is mentioned, but because Article 1 of the current draft establishes a subcommission of the commission set up in #GAR390 so quite literally relies on it. If 390 is repealed, then this subcommission falls apart as it's got nothing to be "sub" to?

Actually, no. The rules for Committees:
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.
A proposal cannot define: who can/cannot staff the committee, how members are chosen, and term lengths
Committees continue to exist after its resolution is repealed if it's used in another resolution
Single-use committees that died when its resolution was repealed, may be revived for a relevant new proposal

viewtopic.php?p=8133407#p8133407

Emphasis mine.
Last edited by The Candy Of Bottles on Sun Dec 10, 2017 3:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Nation May also be called Ebsas Shomad.
WA Delegate: Tislam Timnärstëlmith (Tislam Taperedtresses)
Operates on EST/EDT
1.) Ignore them, they want attention. Giving it to them will only encourage them.
2.) Keep a backup region or two handy, with a password in place, in case you are raided. You can move there if needed.

User avatar
Port Solent
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 7
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Port Solent » Mon Dec 11, 2017 12:30 am

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Port Solent wrote:First, I'm new to this side of the game, so please be gentle with me, but isn't this a HoC violation, not because #GAR390 is mentioned, but because Article 1 of the current draft establishes a subcommission of the commission set up in #GAR390 so quite literally relies on it. If 390 is repealed, then this subcommission falls apart as it's got nothing to be "sub" to?


Not per the current reading of the rule. See the ongoing challenge.

I actually took the current challenge into account - that's why I said "not because GAR390 is mentioned" but it doesn't matter here now anyway because

The Candy Of Bottles wrote:Actually, no. The rules for Committees:
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.
A proposal cannot define: who can/cannot staff the committee, how members are chosen, and term lengths
Committees continue to exist after its resolution is repealed if it's used in another resolution
Single-use committees that died when its resolution was repealed, may be revived for a relevant new proposal

viewtopic.php?p=8133407#p8133407

Emphasis mine.


Thanks, I missed this - I've been trying to familiarize myself with the rules & existing GARs before contributing. But this obviously slipped through.

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 12491
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Wed Dec 20, 2017 5:40 am

Bumpity

Purveyor of contracts so one-sided, you'll be surprised there's text on the back of the page!

Second year law student, homebrewer, and cat worshiper

User avatar
Greater Gilead
Diplomat
 
Posts: 635
Founded: May 25, 2017
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Greater Gilead » Thu Jan 04, 2018 6:46 pm

I have been holding my peace, but I will now speak. Have you ever heard the term "Civil Disobedience"? That is half the reason I violate the ones I do.
The other half of the reason is there aren't any real consequences. I haven't gotten embargoed, or anything.
Before jumping to conclusions, look at my FAQ fact book. FAQ here:FAQ Ask Questions Here
Proudly violating WA resolutions since May 25, 2017!
( -_- ) My nation does support my political views...deal with it.
Quotes I like:
Deropia wrote:Jason can't help but laugh as the scotch bottle, followed soon after by the pie, fly through the air of the chamber. "Ah, this place may be a mad-house...but its the best damn posting I've ever had...".

The Bible Baptist Republic wrote:Ambassador Conklin reads the proposal, blinks twice, and mutters "There ain't enough whiskey to deal with this crap."

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 12491
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Thu Jan 04, 2018 6:50 pm

Greater Gilead wrote:I have been holding my peace, but I will now speak. Have you ever heard the term "Civil Disobedience"? That is half the reason I violate the ones I do.
The other half of the reason is there aren't any real consequences. I haven't gotten embargoed, or anything.

"I don't understand your point. This hasn't passed, so of course there have been no consequences. Frankly, your protest means nothing to me."

Purveyor of contracts so one-sided, you'll be surprised there's text on the back of the page!

Second year law student, homebrewer, and cat worshiper

User avatar
Greater Gilead
Diplomat
 
Posts: 635
Founded: May 25, 2017
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Greater Gilead » Thu Jan 04, 2018 7:01 pm

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Greater Gilead wrote:I have been holding my peace, but I will now speak. Have you ever heard the term "Civil Disobedience"? That is half the reason I violate the ones I do.
The other half of the reason is there aren't any real consequences. I haven't gotten embargoed, or anything.

"I don't understand your point. This hasn't passed, so of course there have been no consequences. Frankly, your protest means nothing to me."

Currently there are no consequences. If there were, I might be a bit more creative than blatant non-compliance.
That's what I meant.
Last edited by Greater Gilead on Thu Jan 04, 2018 7:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Before jumping to conclusions, look at my FAQ fact book. FAQ here:FAQ Ask Questions Here
Proudly violating WA resolutions since May 25, 2017!
( -_- ) My nation does support my political views...deal with it.
Quotes I like:
Deropia wrote:Jason can't help but laugh as the scotch bottle, followed soon after by the pie, fly through the air of the chamber. "Ah, this place may be a mad-house...but its the best damn posting I've ever had...".

The Bible Baptist Republic wrote:Ambassador Conklin reads the proposal, blinks twice, and mutters "There ain't enough whiskey to deal with this crap."

User avatar
Stoskavanya
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 177
Founded: Aug 08, 2014
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Stoskavanya » Thu Jan 04, 2018 7:05 pm

Greater Gilead wrote:Currently there are no consequences. If there were, I might be a bit more creative than blatant non-compliance.
That's what I meant.

Is that good or bad?

User avatar
Liagolas
Envoy
 
Posts: 342
Founded: Dec 18, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Liagolas » Thu Jan 04, 2018 7:38 pm

"It is the pleasure of the Dominion to report that it sees no glaring problems in the draft's content," the Mouth says. "It seems legal, and it looks effective. It does, however, offer the following grammatical feedback.

"The first sentence (the preambulatory clauses) lacks a subject. The proposal ought either to start with 'The World Assembly' or some other like nominative, or the 'Hereby enacts' clause ought to include such at the beginning.

"Additionally, in Article II, the third clause ('Coordinate...') ends with a period instead of a semicolon. As the Dominion understands it, there ought to be a semicolon, as otherwise the fourth clause ('Remain...') demarcates a new sentence that now lacks a subject. However, it is the concession of the Dominion that list under the third clause may be introducing some grammatical nuance it is unfamiliar with. If so, the Dominion asks that its error be forgiven.

"The very last clause ('No member...') is missing an apostrophe and should read 'No member states' sanction of any kind...'

"Finally, as a stylistic point, the Dominion would be interested in seeing the use of either 'Article' or 'Art' made consistent across the entire draft. As it is, half the articles read 'Article [X]' and half read 'Art. [X]', and it is the confusion of the Dominion as to why."

"That aside, however, the Dominion sees no other error. It finds this legislation rather interesting and it is the thought of the Dominion that it is a worthy aim. Thus, the Dominion offers its moral support."

"Of course, the Dominion argues that there are soft-power incentives for compliance regardless, but that is neither here nor there, and evidently has not been true for all member states."
Official Factbook (Mostly okay now)
Unofficial Guide to Liagolas (Coming like never!)
Leader: The Liagolas of the Dominion
Goodwill Ambassador: The Mouth of the Dominion
Aide: The First Hand for the Mouth of the Dominion ("Sam"?)
Official Tourist: The Inquiry of the Dominion
~MT. The proud wannabe hivemind with a representative all too aware of the nation's myriad shortcomings.
(Main nation of Baizou)

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 12491
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Thu Jan 04, 2018 7:50 pm

Ooc: Liagolas, the reason for the issues is that this is a Frankenstein's monster of multiple proposals. XD

Will correct later!

Purveyor of contracts so one-sided, you'll be surprised there's text on the back of the page!

Second year law student, homebrewer, and cat worshiper

User avatar
Kenmoria
Minister
 
Posts: 2747
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Fri Jan 05, 2018 3:10 pm

Greater Gilead wrote:I have been holding my peace, but I will now speak. Have you ever heard the term "Civil Disobedience"? That is half the reason I violate the ones I do.
The other half of the reason is there aren't any real consequences. I haven't gotten embargoed, or anything.

"I would hardly call breaching basic human rights law 'civil disobedience'; the term is usually applied when the rules are unjust, not the entity refusing to follow them, ambassador."

(OOC: I was a bit unsure whether this post was IC or OOC, but I've answered in IC)

"On the subject of the draft, the character limit for proposals is something this delegation believes to be 3500, however your draft currently clocks in at 3,687."
Last edited by Kenmoria on Fri Jan 05, 2018 3:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Currently centre-right on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts our democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 12491
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Fri Jan 05, 2018 7:03 pm

Liagolas wrote:"It is the pleasure of the Dominion to report that it sees no glaring problems in the draft's content," the Mouth says. "It seems legal, and it looks effective. It does, however, offer the following grammatical feedback.

"The first sentence (the preambulatory clauses) lacks a subject. The proposal ought either to start with 'The World Assembly' or some other like nominative, or the 'Hereby enacts' clause ought to include such at the beginning.
"Additionally, in Article II, the third clause ('Coordinate...') ends with a period instead of a semicolon. As the Dominion understands it, there ought to be a semicolon, as otherwise the fourth clause ('Remain...') demarcates a new sentence that now lacks a subject. However, it is the concession of the Dominion that list under the third clause may be introducing some grammatical nuance it is unfamiliar with. If so, the Dominion asks that its error be forgiven.

"The very last clause ('No member...') is missing an apostrophe and should read 'No member states' sanction of any kind...'

"Finally, as a stylistic point, the Dominion would be interested in seeing the use of either 'Article' or 'Art' made consistent across the entire draft. As it is, half the articles read 'Article [X]' and half read 'Art. [X]', and it is the confusion of the Dominion as to why."

"That aside, however, the Dominion sees no other error. It finds this legislation rather interesting and it is the thought of the Dominion that it is a worthy aim. Thus, the Dominion offers its moral support."

"Of course, the Dominion argues that there are soft-power incentives for compliance regardless, but that is neither here nor there, and evidently has not been true for all member states."


Kenmoria wrote:"I would hardly call breaching basic human rights law 'civil disobedience'; the term is usually applied when the rules are unjust, not the entity refusing to follow them, ambassador."

(OOC: I was a bit unsure whether this post was IC or OOC, but I've answered in IC)

"On the subject of the draft, the character limit for proposals is something this delegation believes to be 3500, however your draft currently clocks in at 3,687."


"We have addressed your concerns."
Last edited by Separatist Peoples on Fri Jan 05, 2018 7:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Purveyor of contracts so one-sided, you'll be surprised there's text on the back of the page!

Second year law student, homebrewer, and cat worshiper

User avatar
Greater Gilead
Diplomat
 
Posts: 635
Founded: May 25, 2017
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Greater Gilead » Sun Jan 21, 2018 2:29 pm

Kenmoria wrote:
Greater Gilead wrote:I have been holding my peace, but I will now speak. Have you ever heard the term "Civil Disobedience"? That is half the reason I violate the ones I do.
The other half of the reason is there aren't any real consequences. I haven't gotten embargoed, or anything.

"I would hardly call breaching basic human rights law 'civil disobedience'; the term is usually applied when the rules are unjust, not the entity refusing to follow them, ambassador."

One could say resolutions like On Abortion and Reproductive Freedoms unjustly restrict freedom of religion, ambassador.
Before jumping to conclusions, look at my FAQ fact book. FAQ here:FAQ Ask Questions Here
Proudly violating WA resolutions since May 25, 2017!
( -_- ) My nation does support my political views...deal with it.
Quotes I like:
Deropia wrote:Jason can't help but laugh as the scotch bottle, followed soon after by the pie, fly through the air of the chamber. "Ah, this place may be a mad-house...but its the best damn posting I've ever had...".

The Bible Baptist Republic wrote:Ambassador Conklin reads the proposal, blinks twice, and mutters "There ain't enough whiskey to deal with this crap."

User avatar
Attempted Socialism
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 445
Founded: Feb 21, 2011
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Attempted Socialism » Mon Jan 22, 2018 3:35 am

Greater Gilead wrote:
Kenmoria wrote:"I would hardly call breaching basic human rights law 'civil disobedience'; the term is usually applied when the rules are unjust, not the entity refusing to follow them, ambassador."

One could say resolutions like On Abortion and Reproductive Freedoms unjustly restrict freedom of religion, ambassador.
"You already lost that pathetic argument. Your particular religious beliefs ought to be not just restricted, but made entirely illegal to act upon. Your 'freedom of religion' arguments are illogical, inconsistent and inhuman. Just like your home nation, your arguments are complete failures."
Represented in the World Assembly by
Ambassador and Chairperson of the Executive International Relations Committee
Marcie Elizabeth 'MacBeth' Illum
Ivory Tower Critical-Realistic Sardonic Marxist Curmudgeon
Danish Political Scientist Seeks True Love Tenure
Specialities: State development; corruption; IR theory; Vodka
Experiences: Office-running; political campaigns; navigating byzantine academia politics
Qui benefacit animae custodire custodes?

User avatar
Aclion
Minister
 
Posts: 2108
Founded: Apr 12, 2016
New York Times Democracy

Postby Aclion » Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:09 am

Greater Gilead wrote:
Kenmoria wrote:"I would hardly call breaching basic human rights law 'civil disobedience'; the term is usually applied when the rules are unjust, not the entity refusing to follow them, ambassador."

One could say resolutions like On Abortion and Reproductive Freedoms unjustly restrict freedom of religion, ambassador.

If a person has a religious objection to abortion they can just not get one.

User avatar
Wallenburg
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17974
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wallenburg » Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:17 am

Greater Gilead wrote:
Kenmoria wrote:"I would hardly call breaching basic human rights law 'civil disobedience'; the term is usually applied when the rules are unjust, not the entity refusing to follow them, ambassador."

One could say resolutions like On Abortion and Reproductive Freedoms unjustly restrict freedom of religion, ambassador.

"Does either resolution require those with religious objections to abortion to have their pregnancies aborted?"
PROFESSIONAL CRITIC OF ALL THINGS GENSEC
There never has been, nor will there ever be, such thing as a wallenburger.
PRO: GOOD || ANTI: BAD

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7543
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:39 am

Section (b)(u)(1)(1) requires it, yes.

Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate

User avatar
Liagolas
Envoy
 
Posts: 342
Founded: Dec 18, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Liagolas » Wed Jan 24, 2018 10:59 am

OOC:

I have a concern with the draft.

The draft imposes fines on non-compliant nations. I've been aware of this, and up to this point I've been fine with it. The way I saw it, a nation could continue to be non-compliant with legislation it disagreed with; it would just become incredibly expensive to do so.

The reason I now have a concern is that I have re-read this clause:

Coordinate with the WA General Accounting Office (GAO) to assess and levy a fine and schedule calculated proportionately to the violation but in no case less than what will reasonably coerce compliance from member states;


The committee is instructed to levy fines that will coerce compliance. And the committee is staffed by that so lovable conceit, the gnomes, which means they are incorruptible and highly efficient at doing their jobs well. Or, to use less silly terminology, it is presumed that the committee does what the legislation tells it to do.

My concern is that this inevitably clashes with the RP of some of GA's players. Players RPing non-compliance to reflect their nation's disagreement with GA legislation and their willingness to refuse to comply based on such disagreement will probably continue to do so. That would suggest the gnomes have failed at their job, as the fine they have levied failed to coerce the nation. But that means that the gnomes are insufficiently efficient. And because the gnomes are sufficiently efficient to do that the legislation tells them to do, the nation must have been fined sufficiently to coerce compliance. So they can't possibly be non-complaint. Except they are. Even though supposedly they can't.

I get that this is a bit weird. But if the committee is being instructed to levy fines that will reasonably coerce compliance, and the committee is supposed to be capable of doing what it's told to do, but players want to roleplay their nations as being so fundamentally opposed to WA laws that they're willing to refuse to comply while also so utterly dedicated to membership that they don't wish to exit, then we're left with either

  1. A situation in which the committee isn't actually capable of doing what it's told to do, which would be some kind of exception from or contradiction with what we generally assume about GA committees; or
  2. A justification within the game to tell people "Your roleplay is wrong, you can't be non-compliant" which hardly seems like it would end well.

The proposal both acknowledges and thus to some degree legitimizes deliberate non-compliance while simultaneously trying to make it so that you can say no, you can't not comply, and by so doing it inadvertently makes this bizarre tension between assumptions about committees in legislation and the way in which some persons play the game. This feels... weird.
Official Factbook (Mostly okay now)
Unofficial Guide to Liagolas (Coming like never!)
Leader: The Liagolas of the Dominion
Goodwill Ambassador: The Mouth of the Dominion
Aide: The First Hand for the Mouth of the Dominion ("Sam"?)
Official Tourist: The Inquiry of the Dominion
~MT. The proud wannabe hivemind with a representative all too aware of the nation's myriad shortcomings.
(Main nation of Baizou)

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 12491
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Wed Jan 24, 2018 11:36 am

Liagolas wrote:OOC:
A justification within the game to tell people "Your roleplay is wrong, you can't be non-compliant" which hardly seems like it would end well.

OOC: this is the goal. Non-compliant roleplay is used almost exclusively in a way to denigrate the work of authors. "Your resolution is terrible, so we're not gonna listen." The OOC motivation here is to make such arguments ICly impossible and provide OOC justification to ignore it.

It is true that there is roleplay of noncompliance which does not deliberately denigrate authors or participants in the shared illusion of the game. I use a little bit of it (arguing a prolonged series of legal disputes), and players like Auralia often manage to roleplay noncompliance without harming the group experience. I don't see this as incompatible with the presumptive competence of WA committees.

There are many actions taken by competent experts and organizations that are intended to bring about a behavior that nonetheless fail. As Captain Picard once said, it is possible to make no mistakes and still fail. Assuming this passes, a player could theoretically roleplay a nation who remains non-compliant at the cost of the serious penalties imposed. After all, there are ways to evade sanctions, and WA members are the minority in the world. To be realistic, however, I suspect such nations would have to roleplay the serious impacts of those sanctions.

So, tl;dr, I don't think that the possibility of the committee failing to accomplish a specific goal upset the presumption of effectiveness and competency. I do think it seriously affects non-compliant roleply, and that is the goal.

The proposal both acknowledges and thus to some degree legitimizes deliberate non-compliance while simultaneously trying to make it so that you can say no, you can't not comply, and by so doing it inadvertently makes this bizarre tension between assumptions about committees in legislation and the way in which some persons play the game. This feels... weird.

There is a legal defense to criminal (and certain civil) charges of necessity. Noncompliance from a situation where it simply isn't possible to comply is not a new concept, and since the committee is specifically directed to consider it, is reasonably applicable.

A good example comes from the law of not passing the double yellow line on a road. If you are driving at night in a storm and have suddenly swerve around a disabled vehicle in the road, and you are for some reason charged, you can argue that it was impossible for you to not cross the line, as you had insufficient room to stop, despite driving appropriately in the conditions, and not hit the disabled vehicle.

So, too, could nations defend. A nation that fails to offer adequate sanitation under GAR#288 because they were the subject of an aggressive military invasion, catastrophic earthquake, or economic emergency argue that it was literally impossible to comply, or was so impractical as to be impossible. The committee is authorized to consider a variety of factors, such as intent and ability to comply. Since the law is designed to operate in the real world and not the kind of theoretical plane where engineering exercises exist, I don't see a conflict.

Purveyor of contracts so one-sided, you'll be surprised there's text on the back of the page!

Second year law student, homebrewer, and cat worshiper

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11445
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Wed Jan 24, 2018 12:31 pm

OOC: So, if this passes, SP, your nation will actually start paying its mandatory donations to the General Fund? :P
"I've come to appreciate boring bureaucracy much more after my official execution..." - Johan Milkus, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

PreviousNext

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Remove ads