[DRAFT] Repeal "Administrative Compliance Act"

[Auralia]

Repeal "Administrative Compliance Act"
Category: Repeal | Resolution: GAR #440

Acknowledging the important role of the World Assembly in coordinating an effective and appropriate response to non-compliance with General Assembly resolutions,

Regretting that GAR #440, "Administrative Compliance Act", which seeks to accomplish this goal, contains a number of serious flaws that warrant its repeal,

Affirming that not all violations of international law are equally severe, and insisting that the punishment for an offense must always be proportionate to the severity of the offense in order to satisfy the basic requirements of justice,

Criticizing the target resolution for directing the Independent Adjudicative Office to impose fines "in no case less than what will reasonably coerce compliance from [non-compliant] member states", which will result in disproportionate punishment of lesser offenses in cases of principled non-compliance,

Condemning the target resolution for inflicting a single, extraordinarily severe punishment in the form of the "strongest sanctions available" on any non-compliant member state that refuses to pay such fines, regardless of the nature and circumstances of the non-compliance or non-payment,

Noting with alarm that this punishment does not even include an explicit exception for humanitarian or medical assistance, causing great harm to civilian populations who cannot be held responsible for the actions of their governments,

Contemplating the severe economic effects of such a punishment on compliant nations, who will be forced to impose severe economic sanctions on their own trading partners,

Hoping that in future this Assembly's coercive powers will be used prudently and in a manner consistent with the basic requirements of justice, rather than in the rash, extreme approach taken by the target resolution,

The General Assembly,

Repeals GAR #440, "Administrative Compliance Act".

Co-authored by: United Massachusetts

[United Massachusetts]

Support. Shocking, I know.

[Cosmopolitan borovan]

Against don't like to comply. Withdraw from the WA

[Wallenburg]

Acknowledging the important role of the World Assembly in coordinating an effective and appropriate response to non-compliance with General Assembly resolutions,

LOL, sure.

Criticizing the target resolution for directing the Independent Adjudicative Office to in the first place impose fines "in no case less than what will reasonably coerce compliance from [non-compliant] member states", which will result in disproportionate punishment of lesser offenses in cases of principled non-compliance,

No it won't. Punishments are meant to correct bad behavior. If a punishment does not deter that bad behavior, more severe punishment is entirely proportionate.

Condemning the target resolution for inflicting a single, extraordinarily severe punishment in the form of the "strongest sanctions available" on *any* non-compliant member state that refuses to pay such fines, regardless of the nature and circumstances of the non-compliance or non-payment,

Leave condemnations to the Security Council, please.

Noting with alarm that this punishment does not even include an explicit exception for humanitarian or medical assistance, causing great harm to civilian populations who cannot be held responsible for the actions of their governments,

https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=1
https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=1

Sorry, that's not true. Try again.

Contemplating the severe economic effects of such a punishment on compliant nations, who will be forced to impose severe economic sanctions on their own trading partners,

Too bad, find trading partners that respect international law.

[Kranostav]

Criticizing the target resolution for directing the Independent Adjudicative Office to in the first place impose fines "in no case less than what will reasonably coerce compliance from [non-compliant] member states", which will result in disproportionate punishment of lesser offenses in cases of principled non-compliance,

The punishment itself is intended to correct misbehavior. Should the nation not comply on a rather small and harmless item, the punishment won't be as large as something such a genocide or equally heinous acts.

However the best way to prevent these fines is to simply be compliant

[Kenmoria]

“No. If one doesn’t want to comply with the World Assembly’s legislation, I suggest leaving the WA and finding some other way to have international influence. With regard to your repeal text, the arguements it has simply cast the necessary steps to force compliance in a negative light.”

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: I don't think you want to do this.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Obviously, I don't support this.

[The Unfounded]

"When we say 'Categorically Opposed' we do mean it."

[Prydania]

Against. Membership in this Assembly is not mandatory. If you do not wish to comply? You may leave.

[Stoskavanya]

Against. Membership in this Assembly is not mandatory. If you do not wish to comply? You may leave.

If one considers it the WA's purpose to protect human rights and promote justice, than this is the exact opposite policy one should take; the humanitarian benefits WA membership offers to nation's civilian population outweigh the annoyance that comes from the minor noncompliance of their government.

---

I have mixed feelings about the original resolution's solution to noncompliance, but I can definitely understand the reasoning behind this repeal.

Part of it stems from the idea that the target resolution's whole structure is a paradoxical contradiction;

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;

In the proposal the price of the fine is supposedly set by a few assessments (such as severity of the offense, force majeure, etc). Yet, there is no expectation to pay this fine because somehow it has to be just high enough so that no nation will want to pay it, as that is the only way to 'reasonably coerce compliance'. If a nation's intention is to actually pay the fine outlined in this resolution in order to continue its behavior, then theoretically it's not set high enough to coerce compliance.

Thus one can see how principled noncompliance, where the fine's price will always increase to never be tolerable, will always escalate to the highest available penalty, sanctions, even though the original noncompliance may be minor.

[Wallenburg]

Against. Membership in this Assembly is not mandatory. If you do not wish to comply? You may leave.

If one considers it the WA's purpose to protect human rights and promote justice, than this is the exact opposite policy one should take; the humanitarian benefits WA membership offers to nation's civilian population outweigh the annoyance that comes from the minor noncompliance of their government.

Unless, say, that "minor noncompliance" is with sapient rights resolutions, resolutions guaranteeing justice, or humanitarian resolutions.

[Stoskavanya]

If one considers it the WA's purpose to protect human rights and promote justice, than this is the exact opposite policy one should take; the humanitarian benefits WA membership offers to nation's civilian population outweigh the annoyance that comes from the minor noncompliance of their government.

Unless, say, that "minor noncompliance" is with sapient rights resolutions, resolutions guaranteeing justice, or humanitarian resolutions.

Of course, for nations who aren't even compliant in the basic human rights and justice resolutions, membership wouldn't offer any more humanitarian benefit to the population, but I was moreso talking about nations that practice noncompliance for less extreme circumstances.

[Xanthal]

I'm sorry that your leadership's moral code disagrees with the will of the Assembly, ambassador, but if "I disagree with it" becomes a legitimate exemption from the law there's no point in having laws. You have three options, the same that every other scofflaw member now has: comply, pay the fine, or leave. The fact that you happen to disagree very strongly with one law in particular does not entitle you to special treatment, your nation's religious affiliation notwithstanding. The Federation maintains its support for the ACA.

I would add, on a personal note, that conscience is not a quality unique to Catholics. My people have had to bring themselves into compliance with multiple resolutions over the years which they found objectionable- practically, morally, or both. In those cases our leaders weighed the cost- both tangible and spiritual- and made the decision to remain a part of this community in the name of unity among nations and sapient beings. The day may come when we face a resolution that we cannot bear, and on that sad day I am prepared to face the consequences of noncompliance or of resigning our membership. Those nations which cling to their privileges here while refusing to honor their obligations to the WA do not deserve accommodation, no matter how confident they are of their own virtue.

[Linux and the X]

Your choices are to follow the law, accept the punishment, or resign your membership in this Assembly.

[Kowani]

I’m actually surprised this didn’t come up sooner. But, no.

You can most certainly try to repeal the legislation. In fact, it’s wonderful that you do so. It shows a commitment to the way the WA works. However, if you don’t want to comply with rules that make you feel squeamish or go against your beliefs...tough luck. (Even in RL, Civil Rights Activists took their punishment when the police came knocking.) Be noncompliant if you must, but do not be surprised when everyone else turns on you for not wanting to play by the same rules.

[Kiravian WA Mission]

"This resolution has the full support of the KWAM. Such a measure is absolutely necessary to restore nigh-universally recognised principles of justice to the World Assembly's compliance enforcement mechanisms, and common-sense safeguards to allow member-states to implement WA-mandated legislation in good faith as best they can given their particular local conditions without fear of disproportionate and unwarranted reprisals from the World Assembly and the more radically international-unitarist elements among its membership."

[Separatist Peoples]

"This resolution has the full support of the KWAM. Such a measure is absolutely necessary to restore nigh-universally recognised principles of justice to the World Assembly's compliance enforcement mechanisms, and common-sense safeguards to allow member-states to implement WA-mandated legislation in good faith as best they can given their particular local conditions without fear of disproportionate and unwarranted reprisals from the World Assembly and the more radically international-unitarist elements among its membership."

Ooc: you know the ACA specifically considers whether a nation can actually comply when assessing fines, right? If you cannot comply, then a fine wont coerces compliance, and there isnt a reason to levy one. This is the argument of a person unfamiliar with my resolution.

[Old Hope]

If the nation simply doesn't have the resources then a fine would only cause less compliance, not more.

[Separatist Peoples]

If the nation simply doesn't have the resources then a fine would only cause less compliance, not more.

Ooc: I'm surprising myself here, but Old Hope is right. And that's why the committee considers factors that help gauge intent. Willfully violating resolutions gets a fine. Failing to meet standards following a crisis is an entirely different matter.

[Lord Dominator]

"You continue to fail to convince me ambassador, I remain against."

[Tinhampton]

Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: Although Tinhampton fully pays all of its WA dues and is in full compliance with all resolutions, it voted against GA#440 on the grounds that it interpreted national contributions to the GAO as being "required" rather than voluntary-but-encouraged donations. Despite this, we would happily be in full support of any repeal of the target resolution, especially as well-written as this.

[Prydania]

Against. Membership in this Assembly is not mandatory. If you do not wish to comply? You may leave.

If one considers it the WA's purpose to protect human rights and promote justice, than this is the exact opposite policy one should take; the humanitarian benefits WA membership offers to nation's civilian population outweigh the annoyance that comes from the minor noncompliance of their government.

Rogue states that demand the benifits of the WA while actively flaunting its laws don't deserve a say in how the WA conducts itself. If the fines and sanctioned levied for non-compliance are this much of a burden then we see only two options for the offending rogue state. They can comply with WA law or they can leave the WA.

If the people of the rogue state in question desire an end to the sanctions placed on their nation then they ought to push their government to adopt one of the those two options.

Continued flaunting of WA law while avoiding consequences like we have seen out of the rogue state of Auralia can no longer continue if WA law is to have any teeth at all.
For those reasons we remain committed to the targeted resolution and reject Auralia's bad faith attempt at a repeal.

[Christian Democrats]

The Most Holy and Grand Empire will approve and vote in favor of this repeal proposal.

[Ru-]

Ru is in full support of this proposal. While it is important that the WA is able to enforce it's resolutions and put pressure on members which do not act in good faith, the ACA is neither an elegant or proper way to go about it, for the reasons stated in this proposal.

we'd hope a replacement shall follow, however.