Increased Sanctions Against Authoritarian Governments

[The Q Imperium et Populi]

NOTINGthe rise in the number of authoritarian governments.
ALARMED BYthe lack of sanctions against authoritarian governments.

DESIGNATESauthoritarian governments as threats to global security.
DECLARESnations under authoritarian governments should pay 15% of their GDP in sanctions.
ENDORSESthe sanctions implied here to be given to international charities.

[Kenmoria]

NOTINGthe rise in the number of authoritarian governments.

"You are lacking a space after 'noting' and I am not aware of any rise in authoritarian governments."

ALARMED BYthe lack of sanctions against authoritarian governments.

"You are also lacking a space after 'by'. This is also not very alarming, as you have not yet said why this is a bad thing."

DESIGNATESauthoritarian governments as threats to global security.

"'Designates' also needs a subsequent space. This clause has no justification as nowhere have you said why this is bad."

DECLARESnations under authoritarian governments should pay 15% of their GDP in sanctions.

"Same spacing issue and there should be a line break before this clause. In addition, this will never pass because every single authoritarian government will vote against, and they are a sizeable portion of the World Assembly."

ENDORSESthe sanctions implied here to be given to international charities.

"Spacing issue and the aforementioned line break issue are still at play here. I am also very confused about the inclusion of the word 'implies' in this sentence."

[Grays Harbor]

Sounds like an ideological ban type thing, overall.

DECLARESnations under authoritarian governments should pay 15% of their GDP in sanctions.

Pretty sure this is illegal as well, no taxing of nations by the WA.
"But it's a SANCTION, not a Tax!"
Same thing. It could also be argued, probably, as violating Game Mechanics, as the WA cannot Tax/Sanction game stats.

EDIT:
No category or strength, either.

[The New California Republic]

NOTINGthe rise in the number of authoritarian governments.
ALARMED BYthe lack of sanctions against authoritarian governments.

DESIGNATESauthoritarian governments as threats to global security.
DECLARESnations under authoritarian governments should pay 15% of their GDP in sanctions.
ENDORSESthe sanctions implied here to be given to international charities.

OOC: The General Assembly cannot impose sanctions. The closest thing you can get is condemnations in the Security Council, and even those have to be carefully targeted against a specific nation or region, general dragnet sanctions are not the order of the day anywhere in the World Assembly...

[Oresland]

"What do you even mean by authoritarian governments? Nations were there are dictatorships or nations that simply have an authoritarian leader? You would need to be more specific. Either way, I feel like I'm wasting my time here." Richards throws the draft in the nearby trash can.

[Xmara]

Isn’t this basically an ideological ban? Opposed on basis of legality.

[Bears Armed]

OOC post

DECLARESnations under authoritarian governments should pay 15% of their GDP in sanctions.

Pretty sure this is illegal as well, no taxing of nations by the WA.
"But it's a SANCTION, not a Tax!"
Same thing. It could also be argued, probably, as violating Game Mechanics, as the WA cannot Tax/Sanction game stats.

The resolution-set ban is on the WA interfering in member nationss' domestic taxation, not on its "taxing" the nations themselves: Consequently this wouldn't be illegal for Contradiction on that basis, but I agree that setting such a specific level of financial 'sanctions' would be illegal for trying to affect Game Mechanics.

Isn’t this basically an ideological ban? Opposed on basis of legality.

No. It isn't banning them, just fining them... although that's still illegal because proposals can't be so selectively applicable.

[Araraukar]

OOC post

No. It isn't banning them, just fining them... although that's still illegal because proposals can't be so selectively applicable.

OOC: First of all, I agree with that, but...

...singling out democratic nations is ok even in the game's opinion because of the Furtherment of Democracy category, so would fining them be ok?

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

Teran Saber: "I just want to ask something here. Nothing too important, just a bit of relevant banter."

"Ambassador of the Q Imperium... are you sure you know what the word 'Imperium' means? It's a Latin word meaning 'power to command'. That comes off to me as kinda... authoritarian, don't you think?"

*Ambassador Saber picks at the claws of his right hand*

"Here's why that's relevant. You have no definition of what legally constitutes an authoritarian government in your proposal, and there's essentially an entire spectrum of authoritarianism vs libertarianism. Will you be setting a specific threshold, or would this be essentially based on accusations? If the latter is true, then I could accuse your nation of being authoritarian on the grounds that its name implies an authoritarian regime."

"Of course, this is just one of MANY issues with this proposal. I suggest you reconsider this proposal entirely."