[DRAFT] Repeal "Rights and Duties..."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Unless you find a way to validate those rights before passing such a repeal, I cannot support such a proposal.

Your de facto unconditional opposition is noted.

It can merely rely on member nations to lead a force that is permitted by the WA.

Wrong.

[Wallenburg]

I understand the goals, but to repeal this resolution is madness. GA #2 is foundational to everything the WA has done. To repeal it would mean there would no longer be a guarantee for the independence of any nation, as protected by Section 1. In addition, you remove guaranteed equality under WA law for every nation. Unless you find a way to validate those rights before passing such a repeal, I cannot support such a proposal.

Repeal of this resolution is necessary before replacement legislation can be put forward. Even so, I would require a suitable replacement to be drafted and ready to submit before I supported this or any repeal.

In addition, the World Assembly does not need to maintain an army of its own. It can merely rely on member nations to lead a force that is permitted by the WA. This resolution doesn't actually stand in the way of promoting international cooperation, and instead would tear at the fabric of what cooperation we already have.

The target resolution prohibits the WA from leading or organizing any military forces regardless of the member states commanding them, or even endorsing independent military actions by member states. Any plan to implement a form of international military or peacekeeping force would require a repeal of the target.

[Doing it Rightland]

Repeal of this resolution is necessary before replacement legislation can be put forward. Even so, I would require a suitable replacement to be drafted and ready to submit before I supported this or any repeal.

I suppose that is the case. I agree, though that a suitable replacement be drafted to ensure that some of the key points in GA #2 remain.

The target resolution prohibits the WA from leading or organizing any military forces regardless of the member states commanding them, or even endorsing independent military actions by member states. Any plan to implement a form of international military or peacekeeping force would require a repeal of the target.

My apologies. I missed the word "ratify" in the original resolution. I suppose looking back on the target, not having any way to enforce its decisions is a flaw and leaves the WA at a disadvantage.

Your de facto unconditional opposition is noted.

I don't want to prevent the WA from doing its job, and I don't want to prevent you from doing yours. I just want to make sure that nobody forgets to consider any possible problematic side effects.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Your de facto unconditional opposition is noted.

I don't want to prevent the WA from doing its job, and I don't want to prevent you from doing yours. I just want to make sure that nobody forgets to consider any possible problematic side effects.

If your condition for support is passing a resolution which contradicts this one, which is not possible (insofar as the rules, Secretariat, and Mods exist), then the resulting opposition is effectively unconditional. Would you like to withdraw it, or change it to something that can in fact be fulfilled?

[Doing it Rightland]

I don't want to prevent the WA from doing its job, and I don't want to prevent you from doing yours. I just want to make sure that nobody forgets to consider any possible problematic side effects.

If your condition for support is passing a resolution which contradicts this one, which is not possible (insofar as the rules, Secretariat, and Mods exist), then the resulting opposition is effectively unconditional. Would you like to withdraw it, or change it to something that can in fact be fulfilled?

I suppose the main issue with GA #2 is specifically clause 10, which renders the WA unable to conduct or condone any military action whatsoever. Without any force, the WA can't combat terrorism or war crimes, as you clearly highlight in the repeal. That's a problem that the target has, and I agree it needs to be addressed.

As long as another resolution is prepared and ready that reaffirms the current rights and responsibilities of a nation and of the World Assembly that had been previously laid out (basically everything aside from clause 10, barring anything else determined to be problematic), I am in support of your proposal. That way, we still have the role of the Assembly defined, and the rights of the nations explained, yet insure the Assembly can conduct military and police operations to properly enforce its policies. I would say that's a win-win, but again, it is your proposal, so it is your choice. I just want to make sure there's a plan in place for if/when this goes through as to avoid chaos from all fronts.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Bump.

[United Massachusetts]

"We are in favour."

[Kenmoria]

“My opinions on military action have since changed, and I fully support a WA group capable of police or military action to be able to engage with member states. This has my full support.”

(OOC: On a legality issue, what would a hypothetical WA police force have license to do? I’d imagine lots of things possible with a military in real-life would be affected by the Game Mechanics or Metagaming rules.)

[Fecaw]

"We would like to see a replacement before supporting, but are in favor of a WA police force used to capture violent criminals"

[Imperium Anglorum]

"We would like to see a replacement before supporting, but are in favor of a WA police force used to capture violent criminals"

Sep has a replacement on this forum.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Resurrected pending the discussion in UM’s resolution. Credits to Lord Dominator for reminding me of this proposal’s existence and then linking it to me.

Also, some minor changes were made to the draft, specifically having to do with the inability for the World Assembly to take a stance against manifestly immoral wars of pure aggression that seek to undermine the peace and subject member nation citizens to despotism.

[United Massachusetts]

Full and complete support.

[Araraukar]

despotism

OOC: Tyranny by majority is somehow better than tyranny by minority, if the end results are the same?

[Imperium Anglorum]

If the end results are the same, necessarily yes, because a greater number of people have their preferences fulfilled.

[Araraukar]

If the end results are the same, necessarily yes, because a greater number of people have their preferences fulfilled.

OOC: Even when the majority agree with the goals of the ruling minority?

As for the repeal proposal, the bit starting with "objecting" sounds a bit misleading with the nonmembers being mentioned in conjunction of diplomatic envoys, as it seems to suggest sending "WA troops" into nonmember nations, which would not be anywhere near okay even if WA was allowed a military. Couldn't you just drop the bit about nonmembers in it? You'd still have "foreign", and could argue - if you for some reason wanted to do so - that the word includes nonmembers as well.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I have here a diamond. And 10 minutes later... resurrect.

[Separatist Peoples]

I have here a diamond. And 10 minutes later... resurrect.

OOC: I didn't realize you were a 7th level Cleric

[Kenmoria]

“In the ‘flabbergasted’ clause, I think ‘population’ would be better as ‘populations’.”

I have here a diamond. And 10 minutes later... resurrect.

(OOC: I sure hope it’s worth 1000 GP.)

[WayNeacTia]

I have here a diamond. And 10 minutes later... resurrect.

"Full shoe banging support!"

Wayne

[Bananaistan]

"Giving a body full of fascist, authoritarian, totalitarian, conservative and liberal governments an army they can use at will and would have the legal authority to breach the territorial integrity of any member state is not a good idea. There is no adequate safeguard against abuse of such a force when any resolution is repealable.

"We do not think that the WA should get itself involved in police actions and wars. The WA has taken huge strides towards tearing down social, cultural and economic barriers between nations. The WA going to war would jeopardise the entirety of its achievements.

"Furthermore, the peaceful compliance and enforcement measures already in place are adequate to achieve the aims outlined. Hitting the economies of non-compliant nations in a peaceful manner is far superior to war. In fact, we outright reject the warmongering presented here. 100,000 war criminals going free is better than a single Bananamen soldier losing their life trying to apprehend them in hostile territory.

Opposed."

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

"We are opposed. This organization needs no additional powers to violate the sovereignty of members. It already has too much power to meddle in the purely internal affairs of its members. It neither needs nor deserves the power to do so at gunpoint. We further agree with the Bananamen delegation in principle if not in specific as to the undesirability of even potentially expending Republican blood or treasure to accomplish through the barrel of a gun what this assembly cannot accomplish through the moral or economic weight of its member states."

[Kenmoria]

"We are opposed. This organization needs no additional powers to violate the sovereignty of members. It already has too much power to meddle in the purely internal affairs of its members. It neither needs nor deserves the power to do so at gunpoint. We further agree with the Bananamen delegation in principle if not in specific as to the undesirability of even potentially expending Republican blood or treasure to accomplish through the barrel of a gun what this assembly cannot accomplish through the moral or economic weight of its member states."

“So... Natsov? The moral and economic weight of member states means nothing to autarkies without any moral considerations. Sometimes, only military action can properly force the actions of a government. If your nation really can’t consider sending soldiers to fight for sapient rights, then I question why it is in a body dedicated to these rights in the first place.”

[Marxist Germany]

"We are opposed. This organization needs no additional powers to violate the sovereignty of members. It already has too much power to meddle in the purely internal affairs of its members. It neither needs nor deserves the power to do so at gunpoint. We further agree with the Bananamen delegation in principle if not in specific as to the undesirability of even potentially expending Republican blood or treasure to accomplish through the barrel of a gun what this assembly cannot accomplish through the moral or economic weight of its member states."

“So... Natsov? The moral and economic weight of member states means nothing to autarkies without any moral considerations. Sometimes, only military action can properly force the actions of a government. If your nation really can’t consider sending soldiers to fight for sapient rights, then I question why it is in a body dedicated to these rights in the first place.”

"We disagree with many stances taken by this assembly on controversial matters such as abortion. Therefore we wouldn't want to coerce nations into compliance by military action if we disagree with the law. However, shall the replacement pass, we have no choice but to comply."

[Bananaistan]

"We are opposed. This organization needs no additional powers to violate the sovereignty of members. It already has too much power to meddle in the purely internal affairs of its members. It neither needs nor deserves the power to do so at gunpoint. We further agree with the Bananamen delegation in principle if not in specific as to the undesirability of even potentially expending Republican blood or treasure to accomplish through the barrel of a gun what this assembly cannot accomplish through the moral or economic weight of its member states."

“So... Natsov? The moral and economic weight of member states means nothing to autarkies without any moral considerations. Sometimes, only military action can properly force the actions of a government. If your nation really can’t consider sending soldiers to fight for sapient rights, then I question why it is in a body dedicated to these rights in the first place.”

"Pacifism =/= NatSov.

"Think about how a potential military action might play out. The WA threatens military action against a non-compliant member state. All the member state need do is leave the WA and it's safe. A WA army could only be used against WA member states (OOC: remember the metagaming rule and that the WA cannot force compliance on non-WA nations). So the offending member state resigns and the WA army must immediately leave the territory had it already invaded. The whole idea is pointless.

"Indeed the concept actually raises a further appalling vista. Innocent bystanders, citizens of a WA member state, getting killed in the cross fire when the WA army goes off half cocked to capture a war criminal in some hell hole that just happens to be a WA member state."

[Aclion]

"We are opposed. This organization needs no additional powers to violate the sovereignty of members. It already has too much power to meddle in the purely internal affairs of its members. It neither needs nor deserves the power to do so at gunpoint. We further agree with the Bananamen delegation in principle if not in specific as to the undesirability of even potentially expending Republican blood or treasure to accomplish through the barrel of a gun what this assembly cannot accomplish through the moral or economic weight of its member states."

“So... Natsov? The moral and economic weight of member states means nothing to autarkies without any moral considerations. Sometimes, only military action can properly force the actions of a government. If your nation really can’t consider sending soldiers to fight for sapient rights, then I question why it is in a body dedicated to these rights in the first place.”

"If a nation has chosen isolationism and autotarky to maintain it's noncompliance then it's hard to imagine that it has not also chosen to have sufficient weapons of mass destruction to make military intervention a nonstarter. A WA army is a solution a century out of it's place."