NationStates

Old:

House of Cards: Proposals cannot rely on the existing resolutions to support it; it must be independent. However, repeals may reference other resolutions as an argument to justify the repeal.

New:

House of Cards: Proposals cannot rely on specific existing resolutions to support it; it must be independent.. However, repeals may reference other resolutions as an argument to justify the repeal or reference resolutions in general.

Old:

Human Rights - A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Examples - Mild: GA#6 - Humanitarian Transport
Significant: GA#15 – Freedom of Marriage Act
Strong: GA#4 – Restrictions on Child Labor

Moral Decency - A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.
Examples - Mild: GA#136 - Convention on Wartime Deceased

These are exactly opposed types of resolutions and affect Civil Freedoms. "Human Rights" increases these freedoms while "Moral Decency" reduces them. Remember that these freedoms primarily discuss the domestic Civil policies of WA member nations; Shall the WA require its members to exert more or less control over the personal aspects of the lives of their citizens/subjects? If it's an issue about how you choose to live your life (or if you have a choice), then it's Civil Freedoms. Total Personal/Civil Freedoms are one of the components of Anarchy. Zero Civil Freedoms are Totalitarian regimes.

"Mild" versions of either category will push nations in a particular direction, but only as far as the centre. Stronger versions will push nations towards a more extreme end of the spectrum.

New

Human Rights - A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Examples - Mild: GA#6 - Humanitarian Transport
Significant: GA#15 – Freedom of Marriage Act
Strong: GA#4 – Restrictions on Child Labor

Moral Decency - A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.
Examples - Mild: GA#136 - Convention on Wartime Deceased

These are exactly opposed types of resolutions and affect Civil Freedoms. "Human Rights" increases these freedoms while "Moral Decency" reduces them. Remember that these freedoms primarily discuss the domestic Civil policies of WA member nations; Shall the WA require its members to exert more or less control over the personal aspects of the lives of their citizens/subjects? If it's an issue about how you choose to live your life (or if you have a choice), then it's Civil Freedoms. Total Personal/Civil Freedoms are one of the components of Anarchy. Zero Civil Freedoms are Totalitarian regimes.
Insert replacement text here

"Mild" versions of either category will push nations in a particular direction, but only as far as the centre. Stronger versions will push nations towards a more extreme end of the spectrum.

Request 1 helps removing ambiguities from the current ruleset.
Request 2 is a bit more complex, but the Secretariat has made clear that they do not want to use that ruling in the manner it is written down here, which means it definitely needs an update.

The Comittee rules has already been changed recently, so I don't think a further edit is necessary. However, edit 2 looks like a good idea.

Kenmoria wrote:The Comittee rules has already been changed recently, so I don't think a further edit is necessary. However, edit 2 looks like a good idea.

Problem 1 leads to misunderstandings, and this isn't confined to me. A clarification of current practice(or a reversal of current practice) would help proposal authors.

Problem 2 needs some replacement; but I can't make a suggestion until I know what the Secretariat intends to replace it with.

Your first proposal might make some sense to update the wording very slightly. Perhaps when we've gotten through both the upcoming exam season and some of our other, higher priority, changes - we might have a look at it. That's just me talking, though - it's not going to be a priority over upcoming RL events or the other items that find their way onto our agenda.

Your second proposal is the result of a misunderstanding. Specifically, you are having trouble seeing how the current resolution at vote increases human rights even though it cuts down on a purported civil right of certain accused criminals - is that basically right? The answer can be illustrated with an analogy.

GA Resolution #409 places a substantial burden of regulation on the telecommunications industry (and leaves open the ability of individual member states to impose even further regulations!). Telecomms providers which are unable to meet the standards laid out by the WA for service will be unable to remain in business. Thus the resolution counts as a clear barrier to commerce. But it was ruled legal as a Free Trade resolution! Why?

1) It establishes a clear set of rules which all telecomms providers must follow, WA-wide. That is, it lays out the foundation for how such companies operate - meaning it provides a stable business and regulatory environment, preventing cheaters from prospering at the expense of consumers and competitors alike. This is the basis of:

2) It therefore increases lawful economic activity in all member states, which is the single overriding statistical purpose of Free Trade resolutions.

So based on the category system, it is possible for a resolution to appear as its opposite, if its ultimate effects are appropriate to that apparent opposite. GAR #73 is another one like that, if you care to look.

How does this apply to removing the statute of limitations on war crimes? Well, remember that the perpetrators of war crimes are not the ordinary class of street criminals which fill most ordinary nations' prison cells. Removing the SoL on ordinary crimes would indeed be Moral Decency or even Political Stability, depending on the crime and how the proposal was written. But since these crimes are carried out 1) against the people as a whole, 2) by rulers, politicians, dictators, military officers, terrorists, and other state and pseudo-state actors; therefore making it harder for them to get away with it is a matter of Human Rights. In the same way that establishing a baseline regulatory regime increases trade even though it looks at first glance like a restraint of commerce, so too can certain human rights resolutions look like MD or PS even though their ultimate effect is to punish those who deprive people at large of their basic human rights.

I hope this clears that up.

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:Your first proposal might make some sense to update the wording very slightly. Perhaps when we've gotten through both the upcoming exam season and some of our other, higher priority, changes - we might have a look at it. That's just me talking, though - it's not going to be a priority over upcoming RL events or the other items that find their way onto our agenda.

Thanks. I understand that you are busy sometimes.

Your second proposal is the result of a misunderstanding. Specifically, you are having trouble seeing how the current resolution at vote increases human rights even though it cuts down on a purported civil right of certain accused criminals - is that basically right? The answer can be illustrated with an analogy.

GA Resolution #409 places a substantial burden of regulation on the telecommunications industry (and leaves open the ability of individual member states to impose even further regulations!). Telecomms providers which are unable to meet the standards laid out by the WA for service will be unable to remain in business. Thus the resolution counts as a clear barrier to commerce. But it was ruled legal as a Free Trade resolution! Why?

1) It establishes a clear set of rules which all telecomms providers must follow, WA-wide. That is, it lays out the foundation for how such companies operate - meaning it provides a stable business and regulatory environment, preventing cheaters from prospering at the expense of consumers and competitors alike. This is the basis of:

2) It therefore increases lawful economic activity in all member states, which is the single overriding statistical purpose of Free Trade resolutions.

So based on the category system, it is possible for a resolution to appear as its opposite, if its ultimate effects are appropriate to that apparent opposite. GAR #73 is another one like that, if you care to look.

How does this apply to removing the statute of limitations on war crimes? Well, remember that the perpetrators of war crimes are not the ordinary class of street criminals which fill most ordinary nations' prison cells. Removing the SoL on ordinary crimes would indeed be Moral Decency or even Political Stability, depending on the crime and how the proposal was written. But since these crimes are carried out 1) against the people as a whole, 2) by rulers, politicians, dictators, military officers, terrorists, and other state and pseudo-state actors; therefore making it harder for them to get away with it is a matter of Human Rights. In the same way that establishing a baseline regulatory regime increases trade even though it looks at first glance like a restraint of commerce, so too can certain human rights resolutions look like MD or PS even though their ultimate effect is to punish those who deprive people at large of their basic human rights.

I hope this clears that up.

Not really? I mean there are no limitations to what can be classified as a war crime/crime against Humanity by the WA itself. With today's definitions this sounds correct. With other definitions and repeals this could change(e.g.a resolution classifying theft, drunk driving, dissent against the current ruler(needs some repeals before), owning a pet, tax dodging, public nudity, not following a dress code, disobeying the employers orders, etc etc. as war crimes).

In theory, the WA might classify tax-dodging as a crime against humanity. In practice, this is unlikely enough that there's no reason to hamstring the electorate w/r/t categories that way. I know sometimes some of us complain about the "lemming effect" and look down our noses at the electorate, but this really isn't anything we need to be concerned with.

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:In theory, the WA might classify tax-dodging as a crime against humanity. In practice, this is unlikely enough that there's no reason to hamstring the electorate w/r/t categories that way.

This is basically my view as well. The use of definitions in other World Assembly resolutions is a powerful mechanic that makes it easier to tackle certain kinds of legislation. Prohibiting this mechanic simply because the World Assembly could conceivably do silly things with it that might result in inappropriate categories or strengths -- which only have a tenuous link to the resolution text as it is -- would be a mistake.