[DRAFT] Limitations on Compliance Enforcement

[United Massachusetts]

"Auralia, I have yet to find a resolution of yours that I oppose. Full support."

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

"Auralia, I have yet to find a resolution of yours that I oppose. Full support."

Teran Saber: "Seriously? Due to clause 2c, this proposal makes the World Assembly completely pointless. Natural Law is undefined in the proposal and Auralia's stated definition is completely subjective and based on philosophical and religious beliefs. They might as well have written a proposal that gets rid of the World Assembly entirely."

"Now, the rest of this proposal I can agree with. It basically takes a huge amount of work off my hands by protecting nations from legislation that they are unable to follow due to technology, economic situation or other issues outside their control. However, clause 2c is the dealbreaker."

[Aclion]

Look at 2. again, it doesn't state that member nations aren't still required to comply, only that the WA cannot take action for noncompliance. By your reasoning most proposals are already optional.

(OOC: If the World Assembly can't take any action against noncompliance, it may as well be optional. Besides, it is generally expected that member states comply with resolutions due to clauses like, "PROHIBITS xxxx in all member states;" having little room for optionality.)

If you want to make legal arguments there exist resolutions(like Ban on Slavery and Trafficking which imposes sanctions on slavery practicing states) which this resolution contradicts by forbidding the WA from sanctioning nations in some cases.

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

(OOC: If the World Assembly can't take any action against noncompliance, it may as well be optional. Besides, it is generally expected that member states comply with resolutions due to clauses like, "PROHIBITS xxxx in all member states;" having little room for optionality.)

If you want to make legal arguments there exist resolutions(like Ban on Slavery and Trafficking which imposes sanctions on slavery practicing states) which this resolution contradicts by forbidding the WA from sanctioning nations in some cases.

OOC: Just going to note, clause 2c is the only one that actually technically forbids the WA from doing anything about voluntary non-compliance. Clause 2a would only affect a situation where a nation is unable to comply for reasons outside their control (for example, a nomadic space-faring nation ignoring a resolution that declares that a nation must maintain farmland, or a completely landlocked nation ignoring a resolution that requires nations to maintain a fleet of ships for martime law enforcement). Clause 2b, in turn, only applies in extremely niche situations where a GA resolution causes more problems for a particular nation than non-compliance normally would (for example, an independent city-state ignoring a resolution that declares that a nation must maintain farmland, or a nation suffering from a fuel crisis ignoring a resolution that requires nations to maintain a fleet of ships for martime law enforcement).

[Wallenburg]

"Auralia, I have yet to find a resolution of yours that I oppose. Full support."

I hope that's sarcasm.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: If the World Assembly can't take any action against noncompliance, it may as well be optional. Besides, it is generally expected that member states comply with resolutions due to clauses like, "PROHIBITS xxxx in all member states;" having little room for optionality.)

If you want to make legal arguments there exist resolutions(like Ban on Slavery and Trafficking which imposes sanctions on slavery practicing states) which this resolution contradicts by forbidding the WA from sanctioning nations in some cases.

(OOC: Well, that makes clause 2c illegal anyway. So Auralia will have to change it. That could make a proposal I could support.)

[Imperium Anglorum]

This has been submitted.

If it is in fact in earnest, I will probably argue that it is illegal (which is a surprise, since I almost never argue that), vis-à-vis GA 2. If GA 2 requires us to comply in good faith, and we continue to interpret, as we have in the past, encouragements or other optional clauses to some action as mechanisms to establish (1) the ability to take that action and (2) the ability to block bans on that action, the proposal is pretty obviously illegal when it says:

Member states are urged to carefully consider the moral, legal, social, and economic implications of refusing to comply with General Assembly resolutions, and to respect the will of their respective national populations with respect to any action they may take in this regard.

---

Also, the world if this resolution were to pass:

Now that this has passed, I will starve my serfs to death and deny them food aid because I have a higher obligation. First, to my own power. Second, to my noble leige, to whom I have sworn my feudal obligations.

Ha ha! Now that this has passed, I will eliminate Catholicism and the Orthodox (insert other religions as necessary here) heresies from my realm! Our higher obligation to the purity of God's fire demands it! Let the burnings begin!

Our higher obligation is to our race and our blood. We must kill all the (insert minorities here) and redeem the Fatherland for its children. We start at midnight.

And the Assembly's response is nothing. And why? Because will have tied its own hands to do nothing. An absurd proposition, and one we must reject.

[Wallenburg]

Unacceptable. Against.

[Auralia]

If it is in fact in earnest, I will probably argue that it is illegal (which is a surprise, since I almost never argue that), vis-à-vis GA 2. If GA 2 requires us to comply in good faith, and we continue to interpret, as we have in the past, encouragements or other optional clauses to some action as mechanisms to establish (1) the ability to take that action and (2) the ability to block bans on that action, the proposal is pretty obviously illegal when it says:

Member states are urged to carefully consider the moral, legal, social, and economic implications of refusing to comply with General Assembly resolutions, and to respect the will of their respective national populations with respect to any action they may take in this regard.

I think this analysis is correct. I have amended the proposal accordingly such that it does not even implicitly call for non-compliance. The category and strength should still be justified by the transparency requirement, which has also been amended so that it does not fall afoul of the Committee rule.

And the Assembly's response is nothing. And why? Because will have tied its own hands to do nothing. An absurd proposition, and one we must reject.

These scenarios are absurd. The Assembly will not consider the provided rationales to be legitimate appeals to a higher law, and will continue to use whatever enforcement mechanisms are at its disposal -- such as they are.

Not that it matters, for even if they did not, the vast majority of member states will not consider the provided rationales to be legitimate either, and will act accordingly. That is all that really matters, given that any Assembly enforcement mechanism is by nature dependent on the participation of individual member states anyways.

In other words, this proposal will not make it easier to disregard World Assembly legislation for which there is a strong consensus. It codifies into law what everybody already knows: the Assembly possess no genuine sovereignty, it is ultimately subject to individual member states for whatever enforcement powers it possesses, and even individual member states are subject to a higher law that binds all.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Uan aa Boa]

Ambassador Russell, we all know that Reproductive Freedoms is the reason for this proposal, and the consensus behind that is pretty damn broad. That's why all the attempts to repeal it have failed.

It must be comforting to believe that your higher cause, and yours alone, is legitimate. You can't, however, assume that legislation based on that prejudice will work in practice as you intend.

[Kiravian WA Mission]

"Believing that legislation to this effect is both sorely needed and long overdue, the KWAM strongly supports this proposal."

[Cosmopolitan borovan]

No I am against resolution WA nations should comply otherwise they have to resign or get the fine or military action like war. Or trade sanctions

[Imperium Anglorum]

Okay then, the Assembly will then ignore Auralia’s appeal to magic sky man and force it to comply with RF. You can’t have it both ways.

[Bears Armed]

OOC
This has been submitted.
Current status:

Legal (1): Bananaistan
Illegal (1): Bears Armed

9 minutes ago: Bears Armed: Illegal — '2.c', by preventing any penalties for noncompliance if the nation's government claims "a higher obligation", would effectively make compliance completely optional.
4 hours ago: Bananaistan: Legal

e.g.
Slavery? "higher obligation" to the nation's citizens to keep the nation's economy -- which "depends" on this -- running.
Genocide? "higher obligation" to maintain racial purity, or to eliminate the enemies of the Faith.

[Auralia]

OOC
This has been submitted.
Current status:

Legal (1): Bananaistan
Illegal (1): Bears Armed

9 minutes ago: Bears Armed: Illegal — '2.c', by preventing any penalties for noncompliance if the nation's government claims "a higher obligation", would effectively make compliance completely optional.
4 hours ago: Bananaistan: Legal

e.g.
Slavery? "higher obligation" to the nation's citizens to keep the nation's economy -- which "depends" on this -- running.
Genocide? "higher obligation" to maintain racial purity, or to eliminate the enemies of the Faith.

If Bears and SP are going to declare this illegal, I insist that they initiate a sua sponte review so that a formal ruling can be issued.

I note here that this analysis is incorrect for three reasons:

(a) The obligation to comply with World Assembly resolutions is distinct from any penalties the World Assembly may impose on those who fail to meet that obligation. Not all violations of law must be penalized in the same way, to the same extent, and by the same entity. It is entirely possible for the World Assembly to refrain from sanctioning member states for non-compliance directly, preferring instead to enforce compliance indirectly through the unilateral action of member states.

This proposal does not in any way authorize or encourage non-compliance; it merely limits penalties by the World Assembly for non-compliance. Therefore it does not make compliance optional.

(b) Even if we ignore the distinction between obligations and penalties, the fact remains that the situation I described is the present situation. That is, the World Assembly does not have a general purpose compliance enforcement mechanism and therefore cannot penalize non-compliance in the vast majority of cases, leaving this to the unilateral action of member states.

Since this proposal simply compels the World Assembly to maintain this status quo in certain respects, it cannot possibly be illegal for changing the status quo by rendering compliance "optional". As I said in (a), I would deny that a lack of penalties makes compliance "optional", but in that sense compliance was always "optional". Therefore the proposal does not "make" compliance optional.

(c) Even if we ignore both (a) and (b), limiting World Assembly penalties to cases where there is no higher obligation that makes compliance unlawful does not make compliance optional. In order to invoke this provision, member states must be able to identify a valid higher obligation and must act in good faith when doing so. Depending on your theory of interpretation, a hypothetical World Assembly committee responsible for non-compliance might have to agree that this is a valid higher obligation. In cases where there is not possible because there is no such obligation, then the member state is still subject to potential sanctions by the World Assembly, subject to the other conditions in section 2.

Consider that nobody would characterize member state law as "optional" for national populations. But compliance with member state law is subject to at least one undisputed higher obligation, namely World Assembly law. This does not change the fact that where member state law is not superseded by a higher law, penalties may still be imposed for violating it. The same is true for World Assembly law itself.

Since 2(c) is a condition that may or may not be met depending on the validity of the higher obligation, the proposal does not make compliance optional.

[Aclion]

If Bears and SP are going to declare this illegal, I insist that they initiate a sua sponte review so that a formal ruling can be issued.

SP shouldn't be doing anything official with a proposal that implicates his own draft. It's a clear violation of the recusal guidelines.

[Separatist Peoples]

If Bears and SP are going to declare this illegal, I insist that they initiate a sua sponte review so that a formal ruling can be issued.

SP shouldn't be doing anything official with a proposal that implicates his own draft. It's a clear violation of the recusal guidelines.

The recusal guidelines predate the control panel, and cannot be said to cover the control panel options. besides, use of the control panel is in no way a deliberation. We've only refrained from control panel use for those drafts that seeks to repeal our own or that we wrote. Otherwise, we couldn't mark any proposal that might have ever had any impact on our own drafts, regardless of scope.

Besides, mine isnt even done drafting yet. It's nowhere near ready.

I'm all in favor of clarifying control panel recusals though. Start a thread on it.

[Cosmopolitan borovan]

OOC
This has been submitted.
Current status:

Legal (1): Bananaistan
Illegal (1): Bears Armed

9 minutes ago: Bears Armed: Illegal — '2.c', by preventing any penalties for noncompliance if the nation's government claims "a higher obligation", would effectively make compliance completely optional.
4 hours ago: Bananaistan: Legal

e.g.
Slavery? "higher obligation" to the nation's citizens to keep the nation's economy -- which "depends" on this -- running.
Genocide? "higher obligation" to maintain racial purity, or to eliminate the enemies of the Faith.

If Bears and SP are going to declare this illegal, I insist that they initiate a sua sponte review so that a formal ruling can be issued.

I note here that this analysis is incorrect for three reasons:

(a) The obligation to comply with World Assembly resolutions is distinct from any penalties the World Assembly may impose on those who fail to meet that obligation. Not all violations of law must be penalized in the same way, to the same extent, and by the same entity. It is entirely possible for the World Assembly to refrain from sanctioning member states for non-compliance directly, preferring instead to enforce compliance indirectly through the unilateral action of member states.

This proposal does not in any way authorize or encourage non-compliance; it merely limits penalties by the World Assembly for non-compliance. Therefore it does not make compliance optional.

(b) Even if we ignore the distinction between obligations and penalties, the fact remains that the situation I described is the present situation. That is, the World Assembly does not have a general purpose compliance enforcement mechanism and therefore cannot penalize non-compliance in the vast majority of cases, leaving this to the unilateral action of member states.

Since this proposal simply compels the World Assembly to maintain this status quo in certain respects, it cannot possibly be illegal for changing the status quo by rendering compliance "optional". As I said in (a), I would deny that a lack of penalties makes compliance "optional", but in that sense compliance was always "optional". Therefore the proposal does not "make" compliance optional.

(c) Even if we ignore both (a) and (b), limiting World Assembly penalties to cases where there is no higher obligation that makes compliance unlawful does not make compliance optional. In order to invoke this provision, member states must be able to identify a valid higher obligation and must act in good faith when doing so. Depending on your theory of interpretation, a hypothetical World Assembly committee responsible for non-compliance might have to agree that this is a valid higher obligation. In cases where there is not possible because there is no such obligation, then the member state is still subject to potential sanctions by the World Assembly, subject to the other conditions in section 2.

Consider that nobody would characterize member state law as "optional" for national populations. But compliance with member state law is subject to at least one undisputed higher obligation, namely World Assembly law. This does not change the fact that where member state law is not superseded by a higher law, penalties may still be imposed for violating it. The same is true for World Assembly law itself.

Since 2(c) is a condition that may or may not be met depending on the validity of the higher obligation, the proposal does not make compliance optional.

I'm having extreme difficulties following your argument. I will reread this later.

[The Unfounded]

“No. This proposal is beyond stupid. I want to recommend sanctions just because of this drivel. Just... no.”

[Aclion]

I'm all in favor of clarifying control panel recusals though. Start a thread on it.

There is nothing to clarify. You need to resign or be removed.

[Separatist Peoples]

I'm all in favor of clarifying control panel recusals though. Start a thread on it.

There is nothing to clarify. You need to resign or be removed.

That just isn't true, bucko. But I get that you're willing to turn personal animus against me into any excuse to see me removed.

[Bananaistan]

I'm all in favor of clarifying control panel recusals though. Start a thread on it.

There is nothing to clarify. You need to resign or be removed.

OOC: That's an overreaction. We do not have a policy on "recusal" in CP rulings. We only have the practice that individual members do not mark their own submissions or repeals of their passed resolutions. Sep has broken no guideline/policy/practice of GenSec nor has he acted in bad faith. There is no reason for his resignation or removal.

[Auralia]

Regardless, I think GenSec needs to initiate a sua sponte review of the proposal so that we can settle the legality question.

[Aclion]

There is nothing to clarify. You need to resign or be removed.

OOC: That's an overreaction.

I do not believe that it is possible to overreact when punishing the use of rule enforcement tools to advance player goals. Gensec cannot do more then ask for a members removal, but I believe far more then that would be justified.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: That's an overreaction.

I do not believe that it is possible to overreact when punishing the use of rule enforcement tools to advance player goals. Gensec cannot do more then ask for a members removal, but I believe far more then that would be justified.

We're well beyond the ambit of the thread. It belongs in the Recusal clarification thread Auralia started. But I suspect you've got your answer one way or another.

Lets not threadjack?