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

[Kenmoria]

“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."

“I acknowledge that military action is not always practical. However, the General Assembly should at least be given the choice to pursue an armed resolution if it deems this pragmatic.”

“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."

“If the offending member nation leaves, that works fine by me. Ceasing noncompliance could be a very primary aim, and a non-member cannot be noncompliant by default. As for the question of innocent bystanders, this is a matter that is true of any military force. Therefore, the same principle applies: the number of collateral losses should be minimised as far as possible while still carrying out the engagement’s objective.”

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

“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.”

"Perhaps, Ambassador, because you have presented a blatantly false dilemma of such magnitude that we can only assume they made such in a fit of temporary amnesia. In no way does a dedication the promotion of sapient rights imply a dedication to global military adventurism at the behest of a politically unaccountable, popularity contest driven bureaucracy. Perhaps the ambassador should consider that we may well find it possible, and desirable, to engage with fellow states through the other, virtually limitless, avenues that are available.

One might further consider that we find it beneficial, or at least necessary, to allow other considerations and principles into the calculus of foreign policy. Surely the ambassador is acquainted with the idea that some states may see military force's legitimate role as being defensive in nature, instead of a club to be brandished wantonly across the globe against anyone sufficiently "non-compliant" with whatever the cause du jour is? We similarly assume that the ambassador is at least passingly aware of the concept of political accountability and civilian control of the military? Is it really that hard to fathom that we might value that at least equally?

Nevermind the practical concerns."

OOC: Or short version, my IC ambassador has no interest in giving the WA the power to compel participation in the inevitable Iraq, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Serbia, etc. that results from this sort of global police nonsense.

[Bananaistan]

“If the offending member nation leaves, that works fine by me. Ceasing noncompliance could be a very primary aim, and a non-member cannot be noncompliant by default. As for the question of innocent bystanders, this is a matter that is true of any military force. Therefore, the same principle applies: the number of collateral losses should be minimised as far as possible while still carrying out the engagement’s objective.”

"If the offending member nation leaves, the primary pillar on which this repeal is built falls, that is WA forces apprehending various ne'er do wells.

"Your cold and heartless attitude to what you call "collateral losses" is typical of the many chest thumping ambassadors representing various chauvinist regimes we find in this assembly. I hope you enjoy that company.

"These "collateral losses" would be far better off if the WA didn't decide to march an army through their neighbourhood. Life under a regime which would harbour war criminals is far better than no life at all.

"We agree with our colleague representing Desmosthenes and Burke. The WA has far better tools at its disposal already to encourage compliance."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Don't vote those bad things into existence? I'm incredulous as to why regulars seem to believe that repeal of this resolution so to give teeth to say, humanitarian transport operations, would lead to the WA invading its own states without the passage of legislation to that effect.

[Marxist Germany]

Don't vote those bad things into existence? I'm incredulous as to why regulars seem to believe that repeal of this resolution so to give teeth to say, humanitarian transport operations, would lead to the WA invading its own states without the passage of legislation to that effect.

OOC: Better safe than sorry

[Bananaistan]

Don't vote those bad things into existence? I'm incredulous as to why regulars seem to believe that repeal of this resolution so to give teeth to say, humanitarian transport operations, would lead to the WA invading its own states without the passage of legislation to that effect.

OOC: I'm incredulous that you're incredulous tbh. It's hardly all that surprising that we're ICly discussing the potential for future WA forces when it's one of the key arguments in the repeal.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Lol Banana, where are the secret invisible clauses saying that I'm repealing this because it'd be awesome to invade member nations?

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

Don't vote those bad things into existence? I'm incredulous as to why regulars seem to believe that repeal of this resolution so to give teeth to say, humanitarian transport operations, would lead to the WA invading its own states without the passage of legislation to that effect.

"You decry the WA's inability to use force, whinge about its inability to enforce its diktats without force, and endorse a replacement that calls for "presumed consent to intervention" even in the face of non-consent to intervention in sovereign states and wonder why there is concern about what this repeal will lead to. With respect ambassador, perhaps your age is beginning to affect your mental acuity."

[Imperium Anglorum]

I would have imagined that someone present here so long as yourself would have discovered the distinction between IC and OOC statements. But perhaps I was overly optimistic. Substantively, it requires little more than me to say: Don't vote legislation authorising the WA to invade its members into effect.

If you'd like to debate the proposal at hand, perhaps you could justify inaction and impotence in the face of attacks on humanitarian vessels, aid workers, and hospital ships. Or how war is consensual. Or how when a population is being systematically murdered, we should take none of the actions that would actually directly effect their survival.

Otherwise, I'm prepared to promise, to assuage the anti-democratic element of this Assembly, that I won't given repeal of GA 2, support a proposal which would permit the WA to invade member nations merely because it wants to.

[Aclion]

Don't vote those bad things into existence? I'm incredulous as to why regulars seem to believe that repeal of this resolution so to give teeth to say, humanitarian transport operations, would lead to the WA invading its own states without the passage of legislation to that effect.

Probably because we have no faith in the GA voting-base, and why would we? The vast majority of voting power rests with people who don't even participate in the forums. Even the advisors to major delegates are often profoundly ignorant of the content of the proposals they advise on, though this would be more relevant if they were actually listened to. I can absolutely imagine us voting to authorize the invasion of countries because the title was something suitably attractive.

Hell the fact that this resolution has survived as long as it has is a testament to the incompetence of the WA.

[Losthaven]

Puzzled by the target resolution defining war as consensual

Rights and Duties came into existence at a time when the RP community and the GA community were a bit better connected. Defining war as a consensual acts between two nations served to recognize a brute fact about this role-playing game: that ultimately it took two nations agreeing to play together and have a "war." That provision of R&D reflects the prevailing norm that a nation cannot be forced to role play a war in which it was involved, and that no one should be allowed to role play a war involving a nation if that nation did not want to be a part of that.

Put differently, R&D simply recognizes that, as a matter of fact, I cannot run to the II forum right now and start a "war" between Losthaven and Imperium Anglorum. The participation of your nation in such a game requires your consent. It takes two to tango or, in this case, war.

Noting that article 10 of GA 2 prohibits the World Assembly from 'organising ... police actions ... under the WA banner',

Believing that the World Assembly cannot effectively enforce legislation against genocide, state terrorism, and mass murder, without its being able to directly and credibly arrest perpetrators of such heinous crimes and render them to its direct jurisdiction,

Finding it manifestly immoral that the Assembly be prohibited from establishing a police force so to render to its direct jurisdiction mass murderers and terrorists to be tried and convicted for their crimes, thereby deterring others from committing similar crimes of similar magnitude,

The heavy use of ellipses misleadingly characterizes what R&D says and how it works. It confuses a military "police action" under a WA banner with the ability of member nations law enforcement to make arrests. I'm not sure how this will be viewed by Gen Sec given their inconsistent and convenient application of the Honest Mistake Rule.

The whole provision of Art 10 says: "Whilst WA Member States may engage in wars, the World Assembly as a body maintains neutrality in matters of civil and international strife. As such, the WA will not engage in commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner." Suffice to say, R&D probably does not prevent the WA from taking measures to "directly and credibly arrest perpetrators of such heinous crimes." A law requiring individual member nations to act in their own individual capacity to bring war criminals to justice, for example, is certainly consistent with R&D.

Objecting to the further inability provided by this article against WA 'ratification' of defensive measures (such measures being military activities) meaning that it is unable to protect humanitarian aid supplies and diplomatic envoys from foreign or non-member state interdiction,

This is confusing. How does a prohibition on ratification (a process of giving formal consent) of "armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities" lead to the conclusion that the WA cannot protect humanitarian aid supplies or diplomatic envoys?

Flabbergasted by the inability of the World Assembly to take a stance against manifestly immoral wars of pure aggression which seek to undermine the peace and subject the populations of member nations to despotism, and

Given the existence of the Security Counsel, it's simply not true that the WA has no ability to "take a stance" against immoral wars of aggression. Nations perpetrating such acts can be formally condemned.

I am ambivalent about a repeal of R&D. On the one hand, it would create new and exciting areas of legislation. On that other hand, those same areas are fraught with danger for abuse. Long ago I accepted the role of the WA as being a community of nations acting collectively. Conceptually, I believe it's an apropriate restraint on the power of the WA to limit its possession of a military. R&D explicitly allows member nations to bind together in collective self-defense against armed attack; I think that's the appropriate place for military power to remain.

Going beyond that to a world where the WA is a military power of its own accord, independent of the member states, is a chilling prospect. Frankenstein's monster comes to mind. We ought to beware the creation of such a powerful force when we simply cannot know what ends it might ultimately go to.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Rights and Duties came into existence at a time when the RP community and the GA community were a bit better connected. Defining war as a consensual acts between two nations served to recognize a brute fact about this role-playing game: that ultimately it took two nations agreeing to play together and have a "war." That provision of R&D reflects the prevailing norm that a nation cannot be forced to role play a war in which it was involved, and that no one should be allowed to role play a war involving a nation if that nation did not want to be a part of that.

Put differently, R&D simply recognizes that, as a matter of fact, I cannot run to the II forum right now and start a "war" between Losthaven and Imperium Anglorum. The participation of your nation in such a game requires your consent. It takes two to tango or, in this case, war.

I'm aware of the provenance of the definition. That doesn't change the fact that war is very rarely 'consensual'.

The heavy use of ellipses misleadingly characterizes what R&D says and how it works. It confuses a military "police action" under a WA banner with the ability of member nations law enforcement to make arrests. I'm not sure how this will be viewed by Gen Sec given their inconsistent and convenient application of the Honest Mistake Rule.

The whole provision of Art 10 says: "Whilst WA Member States may engage in wars, the World Assembly as a body maintains neutrality in matters of civil and international strife. As such, the WA will not engage in commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner." Suffice to say, R&D probably does not prevent the WA from taking measures to "directly and credibly arrest perpetrators of such heinous crimes." A law requiring individual member nations to act in their own individual capacity to bring war criminals to justice, for example, is certainly consistent with R&D.

I'm under the impression that Rights and Duties prohibits the WA from establishing a WA police force, which is what is reflected in the text. If you think it doesn't in fact do that, that would an interesting development.

Objecting to the further inability provided by this article against WA 'ratification' of defensive measures (such measures being military activities) meaning that it is unable to protect humanitarian aid supplies and diplomatic envoys from foreign or non-member state interdiction,

This is confusing. How does a prohibition on ratification (a process of giving formal consent) of "armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities" lead to the conclusion that the WA cannot protect humanitarian aid supplies or diplomatic envoys?

I've changed the word here to 'organising', as upon reflection, you make a reasonable claim as to the use of the word ratification (although if that is in fact the case, the clause has no meaning given the historical scope of the meta gaming rule, as there are no matters which could be ratified).

Given the existence of the Security Counsel, it's simply not true that the WA has no ability to "take a stance" against immoral wars of aggression. Nations perpetrating such acts can be formally condemned.

As per [2016] GAS 1, the SC doesn't exist.

[WayNeacTia]

The heavy use of ellipses misleadingly characterizes what R&D says and how it works. It confuses a military "police action" under a WA banner with the ability of member nations law enforcement to make arrests. I'm not sure how this will be viewed by Gen Sec given their inconsistent and convenient application of the Honest Mistake Rule.

The whole provision of Art 10 says: "Whilst WA Member States may engage in wars, the World Assembly as a body maintains neutrality in matters of civil and international strife. As such, the WA will not engage in commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner." Suffice to say, R&D probably does not prevent the WA from taking measures to "directly and credibly arrest perpetrators of such heinous crimes." A law requiring individual member nations to act in their own individual capacity to bring war criminals to justice, for example, is certainly consistent with R&D.

I'm under the impression that Rights and Duties prohibits the WA from establishing a WA police force, which is what is reflected in the text. If you think it doesn't in fact do that, that would an interesting development.

Article 2 § Every WA Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

Article 3 § 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.

Have you noticed the word immunities in Articles 2 and 3? Remove the immunities and the WA can do pretty much anything it likes.

As for a police force?

Article 10 § Whilst WA Member States may engage in wars, the World Assembly as a body maintains neutrality in matters of civil and international strife. As such, the WA will not engage in commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner.

Would depend on the definition of a police action. In my opinion, that is what is referenced in the resolution. There is nothing in Rights and Duties that prevents the formation of a WA Police Force, so long as it refrains from engaging in military action.

[Kenmoria]

As for a police force?

Article 10 § Whilst WA Member States may engage in wars, the World Assembly as a body maintains neutrality in matters of civil and international strife. As such, the WA will not engage in commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner.

Would depend on the definition of a police action. In my opinion, that is what is referenced in the resolution. There is nothing in Rights and Duties that prevents the formation of a WA Police Force, so long as it refrains from engaging in military action.

(OOC; That interpretation very much differs from precedent, which has previously been far more broad and prohibited the WA from engaging with any police or military action in the ways described.)

[WayNeacTia]

As for a police force?

Article 10 § Whilst WA Member States may engage in wars, the World Assembly as a body maintains neutrality in matters of civil and international strife. As such, the WA will not engage in commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner.

Would depend on the definition of a police action. In my opinion, that is what is referenced in the resolution. There is nothing in Rights and Duties that prevents the formation of a WA Police Force, so long as it refrains from engaging in military action.

(OOC; That interpretation very much differs from precedent, which has previously been far more broad and prohibited the WA from engaging with any police or military action in the ways described.)

According to mod precedent. I can't seem to find any rulings where GenSec has given us their interpretation.

[Separatist Peoples]

(OOC; That interpretation very much differs from precedent, which has previously been far more broad and prohibited the WA from engaging with any police or military action in the ways described.)

According to mod precedent. I can't seem to find any rulings where GenSec has given us their interpretation.

Ooc: that's how we've been enforcing it on the control panel. It's not precedent but it's a good predictor.

[WayNeacTia]

According to mod precedent. I can't seem to find any rulings where GenSec has given us their interpretation.

Ooc: that's how we've been enforcing it on the control panel. It's not precedent but it's a good predictor.

Hmmm. You guys seem to be enforcing a very broad interpretation, of a very narrow clause. It clearly states "Article 10 § Whilst WA Member States may engage in wars, the World Assembly as a body maintains neutrality in matters of civil and international strife. As such, the WA will not engage in commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner." Once again, police actions, not police force.

Would this not be one of those instances where you guys should bang your heads together and gives us an official once and for all ruling on this?

[Bears Armed]

OOC Post

The heavy use of ellipses misleadingly characterizes what R&D says and how it works. It confuses a military "police action" under a WA banner with the ability of member nations law enforcement to make arrests. I'm not sure how this will be viewed by Gen Sec given their inconsistent and convenient application of the Honest Mistake Rule.

The whole provision of Art 10 says: "Whilst WA Member States may engage in wars, the World Assembly as a body maintains neutrality in matters of civil and international strife. As such, the WA will not engage in commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner." Suffice to say, R&D probably does not prevent the WA from taking measures to "directly and credibly arrest perpetrators of such heinous crimes." A law requiring individual member nations to act in their own individual capacity to bring war criminals to justice, for example, is certainly consistent with R&D.

I'm under the impression that Rights and Duties prohibits the WA from establishing a WA police force, which is what is reflected in the text. If you think it doesn't in fact do that, that would an interesting development.

I agree with Losthaven here, but the last time this came up in a GenSec discussion I was outvoted 5-1.

As for a police force?

Article 10 § Whilst WA Member States may engage in wars, the World Assembly as a body maintains neutrality in matters of civil and international strife. As such, the WA will not engage in commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner.

Would depend on the definition of a police action. In my opinion, that is what is referenced in the resolution. There is nothing in Rights and Duties that prevents the formation of a WA Police Force, so long as it refrains from engaging in military action.

(OOC; That interpretation very much differs from precedent, which has previously been far more broad and prohibited the WA from engaging with any police or military action in the ways described.)

Much if not all of the old Modly precedent comes from the time when "No WA Military or Police" was actually a basic rule, rather than just dependent on R&D.

According to mod precedent. I can't seem to find any rulings where GenSec has given us their interpretation.

viewtopic.php?p=30501792#p30501792

[Imperium Anglorum]

Everyone keeps saying R&D and I keep thinking raiders and defenders.

[Bears Armed]

Everyone keeps saying R&D and I keep thinking raiders and defenders.

Same here.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Ninja'd: Bears's link to opinions is worth reading the full discussion: the thread begins here and as stated (including explicitly in my concurring opinion), we've been assuming that GAR 2/Art. 10 was the IC articulation of the No WA Police/No WA Army rule, and that "police actions" means "actions of the police" as well as its imperialistic peacekeeping definition. As far as I know that is also the general understanding of the community at large. We could change that interpretation immediately, but I wouldn't want to do so without community input.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Re supra—

From SL's opinion which was the plurality:

GAR #2, Article 10 refers to "police actions;" is this the RL international studies definition - military action undertaken without a formal declaration of war? This interpretation would ignore the entire history of GAR 2: not only a WA military, but WA police were forbidden. The entire point of that article was to rule out both military and police actions, the latter clearly meaning simply "actions taken by the police." If the phrase were solely used for the military sense, that would mean that a WA police force has actually been legal for most of a decade. I reject that absurd result and use the mundane "police action" = "actions of police."

[Marxist Germany]

Everyone keeps saying R&D and I keep thinking raiders and defenders.

OOC: This applies to me

[Bears Armed]

Re supra—

From SL's opinion which was the plurality:

GAR #2, Article 10 refers to "police actions;" is this the RL international studies definition - military action undertaken without a formal declaration of war? This interpretation would ignore the entire history of GAR 2: not only a WA military, but WA police were forbidden. The entire point of that article was to rule out both military and police actions, the latter clearly meaning simply "actions taken by the police." If the phrase were solely used for the military sense, that would mean that a WA police force has actually been legal for most of a decade. I reject that absurd result and use the mundane "police action" = "actions of police."

OOC
Have you forgotten? The creation of a WA Police was actually illegal under the basic proposal-writing rules until the last major re-write.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Re supra—

From SL's opinion which was the plurality:

GAR #2, Article 10 refers to "police actions;" is this the RL international studies definition - military action undertaken without a formal declaration of war? This interpretation would ignore the entire history of GAR 2: not only a WA military, but WA police were forbidden. The entire point of that article was to rule out both military and police actions, the latter clearly meaning simply "actions taken by the police." If the phrase were solely used for the military sense, that would mean that a WA police force has actually been legal for most of a decade. I reject that absurd result and use the mundane "police action" = "actions of police."

OOC
Have you forgotten? The creation of a WA Police was actually illegal under the basic proposal-writing rules until the last major re-write.

OOC: Are you talking to me, or to IA? The point of the quoted language was that GAR #2 was the IC application of game rules, and Article 10 specifically of the No Police / No Army rule. I relied on that to mean that we should reject a proposed WA "peacekeeping" force that would have been functionally little more than WA police, after the revocation of the no army / no police rule. As I stated in that thread, if "police action" means exclusively military action, the entire case was decided wrongly and the proposal should have been legal.