[DRAFT] Limitations on Compliance Enforcement

[Sciongrad]

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.

OOC: Like I've told you the last 20 times, if you believe any member of GenSec is abusing their power, you can make a report to moderation, and if they determine the report to have substance, they will take appropriate measures. Don't derail this thread with accusations, though.

[Aclion]

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.

OOC: Like I've told you the last 20 times, if you believe any member of GenSec is abusing their power, you can make a report to moderation, and if they determine the report to have substance, they will take appropriate measures. Don't derail this thread with accusations, though.

I have done so. As I told SP, moderation's view is that this is a matter to bring to GenSec, not moderation. Please refrain from games of pass the parcel.

[Sciongrad]

OOC: Like I've told you the last 20 times, if you believe any member of GenSec is abusing their power, you can make a report to moderation, and if they determine the report to have substance, they will take appropriate measures. Don't derail this thread with accusations, though.

I have done so. As I told SP, moderation's view is that this is a matter to bring to GenSec, not moderation. Please refrain from games of pass the parcel.

That is because they do not find SP's actions to be punishable. Neither does GenSec.

[Auralia]

4 hours ago: Christian Democrats: Illegal — Contradiction Rule: section 2(c) violates the "supremacy of international law" clause in Resolution 2, Rights and Duties of WA States. Previous legislation, by declaring international law supreme, forecloses the recognition of "higher obligation[s]" if they are inconsistent with international law.

Unfortunately, I think this is correct. GAR #2 effectively makes it impossible for the World Assembly to even implicitly acknowledge that it may be subject to a higher law. Yet another reason to support repeal of GAR #2, I suppose.

The proposal has been withdrawn to address this issue.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Auralia]

The proposal has undergone substantial revisions to address the issue raised by Christian Democrats. It no longer makes references to higher obligations of any kind.

Rather than restrict the circumstances under which the World Assembly may impose a punitive measure for non-compliance to cases where there is no contrary higher obligation, the proposal now forbids the World Assembly from imposing such measures altogether. Instead, this task is delegated to individual member states which will impose such measures voluntarily, with the World Assembly as the anticipated coordinator. This structure is similar to that established by On Universal Jurisdiction.

As a result, the effectiveness of World Assembly compliance enforcement for a resolution will be proportional to the level of support the resolution has among individual member states. This will ensure that compliance enforcement is only used for resolutions with universal or near-universal support from member states, such as Convention Against Genocide.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[The Unfounded]

“Still categorically opposed. You’re trying to put in a rule where people can leave the WA without losing the nametag. That is rather petty, to be honest.”

[Kenmoria]

“I completely agree with the Unfounded delegation, this is merely a way for your nation to justify its own noncompliance with GA legislation as something protecting sovereignty. Until the draft prevents member nations from noncomplying with resolutions they are capable of following, it makes all of the WA useless.”

[Uan aa Boa]

4. A member state that is failing or has failed to comply with a provision of a General Assembly resolution is required to:

1. prepare a notice containing, at a minimum, the following:
   
   1. the provision of the General Assembly resolution with which the member state is failing or has failed to comply,
   2. the nature and extent of the non-compliance,
   3. the anticipated or actual duration of the non-compliance, for ongoing and past non-compliance respectively,
   4. the reasons for the non-compliance,
   5. any other information deemed appropriate by the World Assembly Compliance Commission,

Out of curiosity, what would be the consequence of failing to prepare such a notice?

[Auralia]

Out of curiosity, what would be the consequence of failing to prepare such a notice?

Failing to prepare such a notice would constitute a failure to comply with a provision of a General Assembly resolution, rendering the member state subject to the voluntary sanctions authorized by the proposal.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Wallenburg]

Out of curiosity, what would be the consequence of failing to prepare such a notice?

Failing to prepare such a notice would constitute a failure to comply with a provision of a General Assembly resolution, rendering the member state subject to the voluntary sanctions authorized by the proposal.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

So the answer is no consequences.

[The Unfounded]

Failing to prepare such a notice would constitute a failure to comply with a provision of a General Assembly resolution, rendering the member state subject to the voluntary sanctions authorized by the proposal.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

So the answer is no consequences.

“They just want to keep the nameplate.”

Leaning towards the Auralian ambassador, she yells out “If you don’t like swimming in the deep end, go back to the baby pool!”

[Kowani]

“This may be the most insidious piece of legislation I’ve seen yet, at least of those who actually have any idea of forum standards.” “Basically, this would transform the WA from a democracy into a democracy with an opt-out button, but, and this is important, without losing any of the advantages of being a WA member state, as it allows nations to cherrypick which resolutions they wish to follow. Beyond the transparent attempt to legitimize your maintaining of your criminalization of abortion, I am quite sure that nations with powerful far-right elements would love to legalize slavery, fascists would have a field day with free speech, theocracies would immediately destroy freedom of religion, etc.” “The point being, this reduces the WA to nothing more than a symbolic gesture, and its own rules could not be enforced because those same rules prevent it!”

[Uan aa Boa]

Out of curiosity, what would be the consequence of failing to prepare such a notice?

Failing to prepare such a notice would constitute a failure to comply with a provision of a General Assembly resolution, rendering the member state subject to the voluntary sanctions authorized by the proposal.

OK. I was just intrigued by the idea of a WA resolution that makes requirements specifically aimed at nations that don't implement the requirements of WA resolutions.

On a more serious note, leaving non-compliance to be addressed by vigilante style sanctions from individual nations is clearly a bad idea. The ability to administer or withstand such sanctions is clearly dependant on a nation's military, economic and diplomatic strength. A wealthy nation such as Auralia will be able to thumb its nose at the international community in a way that a smaller developing country far more susceptible to harm could only dream of. The impact of these nations' disapproval will also be quite different. I'm not sure if it contradicts the letter of GA #2 Article 8 - "Every WA Member State has the right to equality in law with every other WA Member State" - but it certainly drives a train through the spirit.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Boa, define equality of law.

[Uan aa Boa]

Boa, define equality of law.

It means that the same rules apply to everyone in the jurisdiction and punitive measures are not applied in an arbitrary or discriminatory way. According to this proposal the WA may or may not request that member nations sanction an offender and it may or may not coordinate such sanctions. Punitive measures imposed unilaterally by other member nations would be at their own whim. That seems to conflict with the requirement of consistency, but the problem here runs much deeper than one that could be repaired by adding a few words to forbid discrimination.

It might be argued that the WA is not itself imposing any punitive measure here, but article 3 of GA #2 says "Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law." A punitive measure in terms of this proposal would appear to fall foul of this unless the WA was providing the immunity recognised by international law - i.e. the WA must be instrumental in the taking of any punitive measure.

What I was driving at in my previous post is that the different levels of strength and susceptibility among member states mean that in practice the effect of sanctions on them is unequal. It's as if infractions were to be punished by a fine of fixed value, set at a level ruinous to the poor but insignificant to the wealthy. This is superficially equality in law but in practice anything but.

[Imperium Anglorum]

There's a substantial difference between substantive and procedural equality. I interpret the GA 2 provisions primarily relating to procedural equality. Moreover, if we are to take your interpretation in stride, then punitive measures applied by member states' – that is wars – are prohibited by GA 2. I don't think that's a good interpretation.

Set-fines are not unequal. And moreover, capitations are efficient.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Just to note that while the older version was in the queue, we proposed to hear a challenge sua sponte but as it was then withdrawn and redrafted we did not proceed with the sua sponte review. My personal opinion in the absence of a challenge or a detailed study of potential legality issues is that the concerns raised initially by BA and then CD have been addressed in the current draft.

[Thyerata]

Opposed due to unworkability and obvious illegality. GAR 2 requires Member States to comply with all resolutions (see Article 9). Yet your clause 2 indirectly repeals that part of GAR 2 (which it can't do anyway) by allowing nations to be selective about the resolutions they comply with.

OOC: I'm not even going to bother challenging this because it's so blatantly illegal. It contradicts an extant resolution and/or attempts to repeal or amend a part of that resolution. Auralia if you're going to gripe about Reproductive Freedoms, go elsewhere, or try to repeal RF itself.#

EDIT: GenSec were going to consider a challenge sua sponte because of earlier illegalities that apparently have now been resolved. I still think it's illegal, so I will challenge it after all

[Linux and the X]

If you don't want to be bound by this Assembly's resolution, resign your membership. Accept the responsibilities of being a member of this Assembly or admit that you're a rogue state.