[DRAFT] Sovereign Nations Act

[Los Campos]

Title: Sovereign Nations Act
Category: Furtherment of Democracy
Co-Author: The Palace of God 2

Description:

The World Assembly,

RECOGNIZING the sovereignty of its member nations; and,

NOTING the diversity between member nation's cultures and ideologies; and,

CONVINCED that the World Assembly must respect the aforementioned; and,

DENOUNCING the World Assembly overreach by nations leading efforts to erode the sovereignty of nations; and,

CONFIDENT in the capacity of the World Assembly to further world peace without infringing upon the sovereignty of member nations unnecessarily; and,

DEFINING International Law as rules passed by the World Assembly regarding the international affairs of World Assembly members, and that the welfare of the world shall be considered an international affair,

Hereby establishes:

1.) That the World Assembly acknowledges that it is an International Organization, not a World Government, and shall allow the member nations to check its power as outlined here and thereafter:

2.) That the enumeration of rights afforded to the World Assembly member nations through resolutions shall not take to deny others retained by the member nations;

3.) That the World Assembly member nations shall have the power to interpret World Assembly resolutions at the national level and enforce them according to their own interpretation of the resolution, provided that the intention of the law is reasonably executed;

4.) That the World Assembly member nations have Original Jurisdiction over purely internal cases regarding compliance with World Assembly resolutions;

5.) That the Independent Adjudicative Office, through Appellate Jurisdiction, may judge that nations must adjust their national interpretations of World Assembly resolutions if the members of the World Assembly decide to condemn the nations for deliberate insubordination to International Law, in order for the divergent nations to more clearly interpret the resolution as originally intended by the World Assembly.

[The Niceties of Normal Moral Constraints]

DENOUNCING the World Assembly overreach by nation's leading efforts to erode the sovereignty of nations; and,

"Might your Honorable Excellency explain in precisely which manner the World Assembly is overreaching? Or which, and in what way, nations are eroding the sovereignty of (presumably Member) nations?"

OOC:

3.) That the World Assembly member nations shall have the power to interpret World Assembly resolutions at the domestic level and enforce them accordingly, provided that the intention of the law is reasonably executed;

This is probably illegal for meta-gaming, to the extent that Compliance is an automatic and non-optional for Member States. If a resolution passes, your nation implements it, and you get a nice telegram to that effect. If any "intrepretation" occurs, its during drafting, debating, and voting. But, once a vote is held and the resolution is adopted, you implement it

4.) That the World Assembly member nations shall have the power to base domestic laws on the resolutions passed by the World Assembly;

What's the intent here? As already noted, Compliance with passed resolutions is already automatic and non-optional.

5.) That the Security Council may compel a divergent nations to adjust their domestic interpretation of World Assembly resolutions if the members of the World Assembly decide to condemn the divergent nations for malicious insubordination to International Law.

If I understand correctly, this is probably illegal for meta-gaming to the extent that the GA may not compel the SC in any particular way. But, even if specific reference to the "Security Council" were removed, this would probably also be illegal for being contrary to GAR #2, Article 10 ("compel" strongly implies some sort of police or other interventionist force of that nature, which is presently verboten).

[Imperium Anglorum]

We've already dealt with compliance.

[Jebslund]

[OOC: You don't have any Endorsements. You need two to submit this. Even if you didn't :

Title: Sovereign Nations Act
Category: Furtherment of Democracy
Co-Author: The Palace of God 2

Description:

The World Assembly,

RECOGNIZING the sovereignty of its member nations; and,

NOTING the diversity between member nation's cultures and ideologies; and,

CONVINCED that the World Assembly must respect the aforementioned; and, Nope.

DENOUNCING the World Assembly overreach by nation's leading efforts to erode the sovereignty of nations; and, What sovereignty? You agreed to follow the rules when you joined the WA. This is like saying having a code of conduct leads to efforts to erode the sovereignty of nations.

CONFIDENT in the capacity of the World Assembly to further world peace without infringing upon the sovereignty of member nations unnecessarily, The WA infringes upon the sovereignty of its member nations by the very fact that it has supranational authority.

Hereby establishes:

1.) That International Law shall be defined as rules passed by the World Assembly regarding the international affairs of World Assembly members, and that the welfare of the world shall be considered an international affair; This should be in the Preamble.

2.) That the World Assembly member nations shall continue to enforce International Law within their borders; This is already being done.

3.) That the World Assembly member nations shall have the power to interpret World Assembly resolutions at the domestic level and enforce them accordingly, provided that the intention of the law is reasonably executed;

4.) That the World Assembly member nations shall have the power to base domestic laws and court decisions on the resolutions passed by the World Assembly; ... So, you are wasting words to give permission to member nations to follow the international laws they are already required to follow?

5.) That the Security Council may compel divergent nations to adjust their domestic interpretation of World Assembly resolutions if the members of the World Assembly decide to condemn the divergent nations for malicious insubordination to International Law. Even mentioning the Security Council is a Metagaming violation, to speak nothing of the... You know what? Read. These. Threads.

[Los Campos]

DENOUNCING the World Assembly overreach by nation's leading efforts to erode the sovereignty of nations; and,

"Might your Honorable Excellency explain in precisely which manner the World Assembly is overreaching? Or which, and in what way, nations are eroding the sovereignty of (presumably Member) nations?"

"Thank you for your question, Honorable Delegate. In the governments of the world, the power of law is derived either from the people, as is the case in a democracy, from the crown, which in turn derives its power from the divine, as is the case with monarchies and theologies, and so on. Whichever the case, there is no question that what defines the nations is its laws, which are derived from its people, its crown, or its divine figure. To answer your question, I must first present another. Is not the concept of the nation abolished when the laws of a nation are, instead of determined by its nationals, determined by the will of a foreign people who know nothing about the nation's customs, or a foreign crown motivated by their own agenda, or a divine figure not recognized by the government of the nation, as the World Assembly currently allows? Is this not a contradiction of the World Assembly's oath to respect national sovereignty? I say it is, and those who will vote in affirmation agree. What right does the World Assembly have to force sovereign nations to comply with resolutions disguised as International Law that do nothing to further the mission of the assembly. Different contexts call for different measures, but instead the World Assembly compels us member nations to act uniformly, without the consent of the people, the crown, or where ever our governments derive their mandates to rule from? This act will still require that member nations comply with the resolutions, but will give us the legal right to apply the resolution in the way that best works for the spirits of our nations."

OOC:

3.) That the World Assembly member nations shall have the power to interpret World Assembly resolutions at the domestic level and enforce them accordingly, provided that the intention of the law is reasonably executed;

This is probably illegal for meta-gaming, to the extent that Compliance is an automatic and non-optional for Member States. If a resolution passes, your nation implements it, and you get a nice telegram to that effect. If any "intrepretation" occurs, its during drafting, debating, and voting. But, once a vote is held and the resolution is adopted, you implement it

I would argue that it isn't. Meta-gaming regards all things outside of the World Assembly. My resolution is meant to directly impact World Assembly members, and nobody else. I know that once a resolution is adopted it is automatically implemented exactly as the resolution is written, but that's exactly what I'm going against. Reasonably, some nations might not be able to provide free medicine, for example, to all its citizens, or have the capacity to implement the regulations mandated by the World Assembly due to a lack of resources; that's just to name a few examples. This will resolve that problem by allowing member nations to decide which way implementation would work best for them in their government models. Look at this from an in-character perspective: member nations have been told to adopt and repeal different laws within days of each other, not to mention essentially forced to implement regulations, laws, and other things that directly contradict their ideology. This is done in such a way that the World Assembly is more like a federal government than an international organization. This resolution fights world federalism.

4.) That the World Assembly member nations shall have the power to base domestic laws on the resolutions passed by the World Assembly;

What's the intent here? As already noted, Compliance with passed resolutions is already automatic and non-optional.

I edited this shortly after your post to clarify, but to be even clearer, this provision essentially empowers member nations to create domestic laws that facilitate the implementation of the resolutions passed by the World Assembly. The aforementioned edit also makes it possible for domestic government judiciaries to rule domestic cases on the basis of World Assembly resolutions instead of just domestic laws. These domestic interpretations wouldn't be reflected in the World Assembly, but rather behind the scenes, in each nation's roleplay forum, or wherever they do their roleplay that reflects the World Assembly resolutions.

5.) That the Security Council may compel a divergent nations to adjust their domestic interpretation of World Assembly resolutions if the members of the World Assembly decide to condemn the divergent nations for malicious insubordination to International Law.

If I understand correctly, this is probably illegal for meta-gaming to the extent that the GA may not compel the SC in any particular way. But, even if specific reference to the "Security Council" were removed, this would probably also be illegal for being contrary to GAR #2, Article 10 ("compel" strongly implies some sort of police or other interventionist force of that nature, which is presently verboten).

You're completely right about this. I forgot that mentioning the Security Council was prohibited under the rules against meta-gaming. I will make the appropriate edits shortly.

I will say, though, that the World Assembly does have the power to compel member nations to follow resolutions that are passed, since we already do this. Even though this resolution calls for some leeway in how a nation implements the resolutions individually (meaning, it allows it to vary from nation to nation), this provision essentially guarantees that the World Assembly will be able to force a nation to comply with a resolution if it finds that the nation is implementing the resolution in a way that actually doesn't comply with the resolution at all because of loopholes.

Thank you for your input.

[Los Campos]

OOC

[OOC: You don't have any Endorsements. You need two to submit this.

I'll cross that bridge when I get to it. I want to get this debate out of the way first, and I can imagine you see why.

Title: Sovereign Nations Act

CONVINCED that the World Assembly must respect the aforementioned; and,

Nope.

That's your opinion, and you're welcome to act on it when the act is up for votes. However, my nation is inclined to believe that GAR #2 and others establish the precedent of national sovereignty and World Assembly respect of diversity.

DENOUNCING the World Assembly overreach by nation's leading efforts to erode the sovereignty of nations; and,

What sovereignty? You agreed to follow the rules when you joined the WA. This is like saying having a code of conduct leads to efforts to erode the sovereignty of nations.

This is a point you should make in-character. To answer your question, I mean the sovereignty outlined in GAR #2, which my nation understands has been blatantly violated. Of course, I can't reference this in the resolution itself, but I hope the explanation if sufficient for you at an OOC level. I argue that we agreed to follow the rules when we joined the World Assembly, yes, and part of the rules respected national sovereignty, so clearly, anything that breaks that rule has to be opposed. There were proposals you voted against and rules you've changed since you joined the assembly. even if you agreed to follow them. This is the same thing.

CONFIDENT in the capacity of the World Assembly to further world peace without infringing upon the sovereignty of member nations unnecessarily,

The WA infringes upon the sovereignty of its member nations by the very fact that it has supranational authority.

It's not supposed to be, at least not to the extent that it has grown. The national sovereignty guaranteed by GAR #2 has been mostly ignored.

1.) That International Law shall be defined as rules passed by the World Assembly regarding the international affairs of World Assembly members, and that the welfare of the world shall be considered an international affair;

This should be in the Preamble.

I disagree. International Law has never been defined by the World Assembly. This changes that, in order for the rest of the resolution to be as clear as possible.

2.) That the World Assembly member nations shall continue to enforce International Law within their borders;

This is already being done.

You're right. I will make the appropriate edits soon.

4.) That the World Assembly member nations shall have the power to base domestic laws and court decisions on the resolutions passed by the World Assembly;

... So, you are wasting words to give permission to member nations to follow the international laws they are already required to follow?

"Wasting words" is a strong way to put it. It was my fault for not being clearer, but essentially I'm not giving permission for nations to follow laws they are already required to follow, as you put it. I am giving nations permissions to create laws that facilitate the implementation of the laws they're already required to follow, as well as base court rulings on assembly resolutions instead of just domestic law. This is actually what allows the Congress of the United States, for example, to do things that they aren't expressly given the power to do by the Constitution. Suppose they have a duty to fulfill, but don't have the legal power to fulfill it. This is what lets them create the laws necessary for them to be able to fulfill that duty.

5.) That the Security Council may compel divergent nations to adjust their domestic interpretation of World Assembly resolutions if the members of the World Assembly decide to condemn the divergent nations for malicious insubordination to International Law.

Even mentioning the Security Council is a Metagaming violation, to speak nothing of the... You know what? Read. These. Threads.

The mention of the Security Council was a slip. I will make the fix soon. I did read the threads, but thank you for providing them. I would advise that you review them yourself, because I was fairly surprised that you didn't know about the right to national sovereignty and precedents defending cultural diversity.

[Los Campos]

Amendments made.

[Los Campos]

We've already dealt with compliance.

Can you elaborate?

[Kenmoria]

We've already dealt with compliance.

Can you elaborate?

(OOC: The Administrative Compliance Act, GA 440 is the principal resolution dealing with compliance.)

[Jebslund]

[OOC:

OOC

[OOC: You don't have any Endorsements. You need two to submit this.

I'll cross that bridge when I get to it. I want to get this debate out of the way first, and I can imagine you see why.

Fair enough.

Nope.

That's your opinion, and you're welcome to act on it when the act is up for votes. However, my nation is inclined to believe that GAR #2 and others establish the precedent of national sovereignty and World Assembly respect of diversity.

No, it's a reality of joining an organisation. You give up the right to do whatever you please by joining *any* organisation, as the rules of said organisation then govern what may and may not do. You don't like it? Leave said organisation.

What sovereignty? You agreed to follow the rules when you joined the WA. This is like saying having a code of conduct leads to efforts to erode the sovereignty of nations.

This is a point you should make in-character. To answer your question, I mean the sovereignty outlined in GAR #2, which my nation understands has been blatantly violated. Of course, I can't reference this in the resolution itself, but I hope the explanation if sufficient for you at an OOC level. I argue that we agreed to follow the rules when we joined the World Assembly, yes, and part of the rules respected national sovereignty, so clearly, anything that breaks that rule has to be opposed. There were proposals you voted against and rules you've changed since you joined the assembly. even if you agreed to follow them. This is the same thing.

I tend to mention these things out of character because my IC delegate is a bit, shall we say, completely tactless.

As to GAR 2, no, it really hasn't. The WA sets international law. National Sovereignty is not sufficient reason, in and of itself, to justify anything related to the WA, as that argument, if valid, would apply to *all* laws and there would be no international law. Necessity, whether or not something is an international issue, whether or not something is a good idea, etc, perhaps, but NatSov-Only is a rule (for repeals, I'm aware) for a reason. The proposals I voted against were never on the basis of NatSov. It was always on the merits or lack thereof of the proposals themselves as seen through the eyes of my nation ICly.

The WA infringes upon the sovereignty of its member nations by the very fact that it has supranational authority.

It's not supposed to be, at least not to the extent that it has grown. The national sovereignty guaranteed by GAR #2 has been mostly ignored.

No, it really hasn't. See the above.

This should be in the Preamble.

I disagree. International Law has never been defined by the World Assembly. This changes that, in order for the rest of the resolution to be as clear as possible.

Definitions go in the Preamble, not in the clauses, as "defining" is not an active clause.

"Wasting words" is a strong way to put it. It was my fault for not being clearer, but essentially I'm not giving permission for nations to follow laws they are already required to follow, as you put it. I am giving nations permissions to create laws that facilitate the implementation of the laws they're already required to follow, as well as base court rulings on assembly resolutions instead of just domestic law. This is actually what allows the Congress of the United States, for example, to do things that they aren't expressly given the power to do by the Constitution. Suppose they have a duty to fulfill, but don't have the legal power to fulfill it. This is what lets them create the laws necessary for them to be able to fulfill that duty.

First off, yeah, like I said, giving nations permission to be in compliance. You cannot be in compliance if you cannot implement the laws needed to bring yourself into compliance.

Second, that's what the automatic compliance rule is. Largely because of the word limit (hence the "wasting words". I wasn't being an ass, I was telling you you literally do not need this clause, and adding it only brings you closer to hitting the word limit), nations are assumed to be in compliance by any means necessary. in fact:

Compliance
That's how World Assembly people would interpret it. In reality, though, roleplaying nations which are purportedly WA members often disregard the WA resolutions altogether. It all depends on what crowd you're playing with; if you tried to call someone on violating the Rights And Duties of WA States or for using landmines (a violation of resolution 40) in the International Incidents forum, you're likely to get laughed at. On the other hand, this is an accusation that might carry some weight in the General Assembly forum itself and probably provoke a bit of debate, or at least someone telling you that you're wrong. However, this isn't really the sort of thing you often see in the General Assembly forums, where "RP" is almost exclusively debate on proposals.

As a matter of game mechanics, non-compliance is simply impossible. Upon a resolution's passage, the "WA gnomes" come into your nation and make it compliant, leaving behind a little telegram as a token of their visit. While there are times when you can select a non-compliant issue option, the general consensus is that the gnomes then come in and make everything compliant again. There is a contradiction here, which is expected to be resolved at about the same time hell freezes over, so one would be best advised to just live with it. Many of the "unwritten rules" have to do with reconciling the gameplay and the roleplay universes with as few tears in the space-time continuum as possible; this is one of those cases.

Some players do roleplay non-compliance of a sort: Omigodtheykilledkenny for example, has a Creative Solutions Agency which seeks out and exploits loopholes in resolutions the nation just doesn't want to comply with. Indeed, there is a certain bit of leeway in every resolution because there is a inevitably room for interpretation. But if you waltz in and declare that some resolution doesn't apply to you because you've redefined "yellow" to mean "green" or that you consider "minutes" to be equal to seven years, all you're likely to do is provoke eye-rolling. You've got to be more subtle than that. For instance, you may not like a resolution that says you must make patent infringement illegal, so you RP that you've passed a law making patent infringement punishable by a fine of one dollar. Of course, some still might have a problem with that, but it's certainly a much more acceptable way to go about "non-compliance". However, as far as we're concerned, flat-out non-compliance with both the letter and spirit of a resolution is utterly impossible. Going back to the previous example, you might make the penalties for patent infringement laughably lenient, but you still must enact and enforce those laughably lenient laws.

It is, due to game mechanics, assumed that nations are compliant unless RPed otherwise. There is no need to grant nations the power to be in compliance here: It is assumed that *every* member-nation already has that power. The US Constitution was written by a bunch of men who were (properly) paranoid about government overreach and therefore wrote the Constitution in such a way that, if the Constitution does not explicitly state or implicitly demand that the Federal Government has a given power, they do not. The reason for the NatSov clause in GAR 2 is similar to the clause int he US Constitution you mentioned: It is essentially saying that anywhere the WA does not specifically allow or disallow something, the member-nations may do as they please. Therefore, as there is no ban on making laws to enforce the resolutions, member-nations may do so. Since banning enforcement of resolutions would be a game mechanics violation in and of itself, there will literally never be a need for this clause, and, therefore, you have wasted your limited words spelling it out.

The mention of the Security Council was a slip. I will make the fix soon. I did read the threads, but thank you for providing them. I would advise that you review them yourself, because I was fairly surprised that you didn't know about the right to national sovereignty and precedents defending cultural diversity.

I have read them. And I'm telling you that the "right" to NatSov is not carte blanche to do as one pleases. It is, at best, a way of saying anything the WA does not expressly permit/prohibit is up to the member nations to decide. It is, essentially, the States' Rights clause of the WA. It basically establishes that the WA's place is to rule on *international* issues, not micromanage member-nation internal issues.

In other words, GAR 2 does not mean what you apparently think it means.]

[Liberimery]

OOC: So was skimming through the bit about avoiding compliance and the "don't define Yellow as Green" might need a better analogy. I understand the spirit of the rule, but this is an actual thing in the real world. There are some languages where the distinction between green and blue are not made. They are the same color in the language (common in Eastern Asian languages, mostly Sino-families). Similarly the English word "Orange" is unrhymable because it is a lone word. Historically, it was first recorded use was in 1512 and derives from the Arabic word narange (via French). Prior to this the color was called "yellow-red" (for dark Orange colors), "Yellow-saffron" (light orange colors) or recognized the color as just a shade of "Red" which is why we call some people with orange colored hair are still described as Red Heads when being technical about the description.

A better analogy would be saying that if a resolution describes "2+2" as four, you cannot say in your country "2+2 = 5" to get around compliance.

[Jebslund]

OOC: So was skimming through the bit about avoiding compliance and the "don't define Yellow as Green" might need a better analogy. I understand the spirit of the rule, but this is an actual thing in the real world. There are some languages where the distinction between green and blue are not made. They are the same color in the language (common in Eastern Asian languages, mostly Sino-families). Similarly the English word "Orange" is unrhymable because it is a lone word. Historically, it was first recorded use was in 1512 and derives from the Arabic word narange (via French). Prior to this the color was called "yellow-red" (for dark Orange colors), "Yellow-saffron" (light orange colors) or recognized the color as just a shade of "Red" which is why we call some people with orange colored hair are still described as Red Heads when being technical about the description.

A better analogy would be saying that if a resolution describes "2+2" as four, you cannot say in your country "2+2 = 5" to get around compliance.

[OOC: Kelssek has not CTE'd. Take that up with them (the reason that bit is blue is because it's a link to the post I was quoting that excerpt from).]

[Los Campos]

Can you elaborate?

(OOC: The Administrative Compliance Act, GA 440 is the principal resolution dealing with compliance.)

OOC: Thank you for your response. I read it over, and I do not believe that this resolution contradicts any resolution already dealing with compliance. This is a resolution to expand the rights of member nations in a way that is not expressly forbidden by the resolutions you showed me.

[Arasi Luvasa]

As was mentioned earlier, if it is not forbidden by a resolution then you can expect that nations are already empowered to do so.

[Los Campos]

OOC stuff

OOC: I will make the appropriate amendments to the proposal. However, I believe that our disagreement stems from different interpretations of the existing laws. I would like to point out that my proposed resolution is based almost entirely on "that the WA's place is to rule on *international* issues, not micromanage member-nation internal issues" (you put it better than I could). My nation believes that the WA has been used to micromanage its affairs (whether or not my citizens are armed is not an international issue, for example). I feel that the beauty of the World Assembly is that rules can be changed after one joins them to better reflect their nation's agenda, and in this case, "sovereignty" is being used as an excuse to less enthusiastically implement other resolutions that they feel aren't in agreement with their beliefs. This, without breaching any previous resolutions regarding compliance. On the note of compliance with game mechanics, this resolution still requires you to comply, so it should be good. The resolution only allows for countries to implement the resolutions in a way unique to their nation, and to the furthest extent possible by the nation.

[Los Campos]

As was mentioned earlier, if it is not forbidden by a resolution then you can expect that nations are already empowered to do so.

This isn't a right enumerated anywhere, so there's no legal basis for this belief; additionally, it implies that since the right isn't mentioned elsewhere, then it can be written out of existence with other resolutions. One thing is certain though, and that's that nations currently do not have leeway in how they implement WA resolutions. This would change that without going into conflict with existing Compliance resolutions. I do not see why we would oppose a resolution expanding member nation's rights to control their own governments, especially when the integrity of the World Assembly isn't endangered.

[Separatist Peoples]

As was mentioned earlier, if it is not forbidden by a resolution then you can expect that nations are already empowered to do so.

This isn't a right enumerated anywhere, so there's no legal basis for this belief; additionally, it implies that since the right isn't mentioned elsewhere, then it can be written out of existence with other resolutions. One thing is certain though, and that's that nations currently do not have leeway in how they implement WA resolutions. This would change that without going into conflict with existing Compliance resolutions. I do not see why we would oppose a resolution expanding member nation's rights to control their own governments, especially when the integrity of the World Assembly isn't endangered.

"Not true, ambassador. Nations have sovereign authority by virtue of being states, and cede it voluntarily by joining the World Assembly. Ergo, they can do, or refrain from doing, anything that falls outside the authority granted to the General Assembly by virtue of membership."

[Jebslund]

OOC stuff

OOC: I will make the appropriate amendments to the proposal. However, I believe that our disagreement stems from different interpretations of the existing laws. I would like to point out that my proposed resolution is based almost entirely on "that the WA's place is to rule on *international* issues, not micromanage member-nation internal issues" (you put it better than I could). My nation believes that the WA has been used to micromanage its affairs (whether or not my citizens are armed is not an international issue, for example). I feel that the beauty of the World Assembly is that rules can be changed after one joins them to better reflect their nation's agenda, and in this case, "sovereignty" is being used as an excuse to less enthusiastically implement other resolutions that they feel aren't in agreement with their beliefs. This, without breaching any previous resolutions regarding compliance. On the note of compliance with game mechanics, this resolution still requires you to comply, so it should be good. The resolution only allows for countries to implement the resolutions in a way unique to their nation, and to the furthest extent possible by the nation.

[OOC: There is literally no point. The GA, by virtue of GAR 2, explicitly allows member nations to decide for themselves any matter that is not decided for them by GA resolutions. That is what the NatSov clause is for. Due to game mechanics, no proposal barring compliance by not allowing nations to make laws bringing them into compliance would be legal.

As to whether or not other resolutions micromanage, the solution is to repeal them. If you don't have any argument other than "Muh NatSov!", they're probably not as much of an overreach as you might imagine.]

[The Niceties of Normal Moral Constraints]

"In the governments of the world, the power of law is derived either from the people, as is the case in a democracy, from the crown, which in turn derives its power from the divine, as is the case with monarchies and theologies, and so on. Whichever the case, there is no question that what defines the nations is its laws, which are derived from its people, its crown, or its divine figure. To answer your question, I must first present another. Is not the concept of the nation abolished when the laws of a nation are, instead of determined by its nationals, determined by the will of a foreign people who know nothing about the nation's customs, or a foreign crown motivated by their own agenda, or a divine figure not recognized by the government of the nation, as the World Assembly currently allows? Is this not a contradiction of the World Assembly's oath to respect national sovereignty? I say it is, and those who will vote in affirmation agree. What right does the World Assembly have to force sovereign nations to comply with resolutions disguised as International Law that do nothing to further the mission of the assembly. Different contexts call for different measures, but instead the World Assembly compels us member nations to act uniformly, without the consent of the people, the crown, or where ever our governments derive their mandates to rule from? This act will still require that member nations comply with the resolutions, but will give us the legal right to apply the resolution in the way that best works for the spirits of our nations."

"The origins of the legitimacy of the law (assuming such a ...mechanism, to be kind, is even really necessary) is beside the point. Indeed, the World Assembly has no 'right' to 'force' sovereign states to do anything. All Member States are such voluntarily, since Membership in the World Assembly is not compulsory. Ergo, Member States compel themselves, by their own right, which is perfectly consistent with your theory of legitimate law. If the people, crown, or divinity from which your law springs chooses to pursue Membership, then any obligation that follows is perfectly consistent with its will.

"With respect, Honorable Excellency, your argument has no legs.

"Also, I'm not a Delegate. I do not even, at present, represent a Member State."

[<continues sweeping>]

[Los Campos]

"Not true, ambassador. Nations have sovereign authority by virtue of being states, and cede it voluntarily by joining the World Assembly. Ergo, they can do, or refrain from doing, anything that falls outside the authority granted to the General Assembly by virtue of membership."

The Los Campos Delegate addresses the secretariat

"I'd be motivated to concede if your interpretation of my proposal were accurate. However, you are claiming that the nations have sovereignty in that they can decide whether or not to be members of this World Assembly, to which their sovereignty becomes ceded upon joining. That this is a necessary infringement upon the sovereignty of our nations. And, you say this as if the sovereignty of nations is already defended and respected. It is not. It is being attacked directly, as sovereignty is not the ability to leave or join international organizations, but rather the ability to control what happens within their own borders. You will argue that this sovereignty was ceded the moment the nation joined the World Assembly, but that is false. What was ceded to the World Assembly was the governance of our international affairs, not our domestic affairs. To regulate international trade is fine by these standards, but to impose laws reforming our judiciaries is not. Member nations never agreed to have their governments micromanaged.

The World Assembly is meant to act as an international organization for diplomacy, not a World Federation of Semi-Autonomous States with a unicameral legislature known as the World Assembly, and it is precisely that what it has become. A world government cannot effectively manage the domestic affairs of its constituent states, the member states; and so, there are laws that contradict the cultural customs of justice of some nations, and there are laws that directly contradict the right for these nations' domestic affairs to be unregulated by this foreign power.

To explain what this proposal does, understand that what I advocate in favor of is the ability for member states to only be required to implement assembly resolutions to the best of their ability and in the context of their cultures and history, so as for judgement of their compliance to be fair and so as to promote political stability. This is not making compliance optional; this is abolishing a pretentious international standard for the execution of resolutions, which currently entraps incapable nations without the resources to comply into non-compliance, and promotes political instability in governments with cultural opposition to passed resolutions. This international standard will instead be reliant on each member nation's own standards, subject to adjustment by the Independent Adjudicative Office if the international community deems that a nation has deviated from honest compliance with the World Assembly resolutions.

[Jebslund]

"Not true, ambassador. Nations have sovereign authority by virtue of being states, and cede it voluntarily by joining the World Assembly. Ergo, they can do, or refrain from doing, anything that falls outside the authority granted to the General Assembly by virtue of membership."

The Los Campos Delegate addresses the secretariat

"I'd be motivated to concede if your interpretation of my proposal were accurate. However, you are claiming that the nations have sovereignty in that they can decide whether or not to be members of this World Assembly, to which their sovereignty becomes ceded upon joining. That this is a necessary infringement upon the sovereignty of our nations. And, you say this as if the sovereignty of nations is already defended and respected. It is not. It is being attacked directly, as sovereignty is not the ability to leave or join international organizations, but rather the ability to control what happens within their own borders. You will argue that this sovereignty was ceded the moment the nation joined the World Assembly, but that is false. What was ceded to the World Assembly was the governance of our international affairs, not our domestic affairs. To regulate international trade is fine by these standards, but to impose laws reforming our judiciaries is not. Member nations never agreed to have their governments micromanaged.

The World Assembly is meant to act as an international organization for diplomacy, not a World Federation of Semi-Autonomous States with a unicameral legislature known as the World Assembly, and it is precisely that what it has become. A world government cannot effectively manage the domestic affairs of its constituent states, the member states; and so, there are laws that contradict the cultural customs of justice of some nations, and there are laws that directly contradict the right for these nations' domestic affairs to be unregulated by this foreign power.

To explain what this proposal does, understand that what I advocate in favor of is the ability for member states to only be required to implement assembly resolutions to the best of their ability and in the context of their cultures and history, so as for judgement of their compliance to be fair and so as to promote political stability. This is not making compliance optional; this is abolishing a pretentious international standard for the execution of resolutions, which currently entraps incapable nations without the resources to comply into non-compliance, and promotes political instability in governments with cultural opposition to passed resolutions. This international standard will instead be reliant on each member nation's own standards, subject to adjustment by the Independent Adjudicative Office if the international community deems that a nation has deviated from honest compliance with the World Assembly resolutions.

[OOC: Just so you know, the bolded bits put this in the "political stability" category, not "Furtherment of Democracy.".]

[Separatist Peoples]

"Not true, ambassador. Nations have sovereign authority by virtue of being states, and cede it voluntarily by joining the World Assembly. Ergo, they can do, or refrain from doing, anything that falls outside the authority granted to the General Assembly by virtue of membership."

The Los Campos Delegate addresses the secretariat

"I'd be motivated to concede if your interpretation of my proposal were accurate. However, you are claiming that the nations have sovereignty in that they can decide whether or not to be members of this World Assembly, to which their sovereignty becomes ceded upon joining.

"You've misframed the issue, ambassador. Even on joining, member states retain a great deal of sovereignty. Each resolution, upon passing with a majority of votes, itself signifies the voluntary submission of sovereign authority to the World Assembly. To cede authority, one must have authority. You seem to argue here that, upon joining, member states cede all authority, but there is nothing that suggests this to be true unless we presume that a state may do nothing at all without World Assembly authorization."

That this is a necessary infringement upon the sovereignty of our nations. And, you say this as if the sovereignty of nations is already defended and respected. It is not. It is being attacked directly, as sovereignty is not the ability to leave or join international organizations, but rather the ability to control what happens within their own borders. You will argue that this sovereignty was ceded the moment the nation joined the World Assembly, but that is false. What was ceded to the World Assembly was the governance of our international affairs, not our domestic affairs. To regulate international trade is fine by these standards, but to impose laws reforming our judiciaries is not. Member nations never agreed to have their governments micromanaged.

"If member states do not wish to run the risk of having their judicial branches affected by World Assembly resolutions, they are free to resign. Or vote on the substantive issue."

The World Assembly is meant to act as an international organization for diplomacy, not a World Federation of Semi-Autonomous States with a unicameral legislature known as the World Assembly, and it is precisely that what it has become. A world government cannot effectively manage the domestic affairs of its constituent states, the member states; and so, there are laws that contradict the cultural customs of justice of some nations, and there are laws that directly contradict the right for these nations' domestic affairs to be unregulated by this foreign power.

"Again, this is incorrect. There is nothing that defines the intention of the World Assembly, except to "improve the world, one resolution at a time." This could as easily be accomplished as a federation as a confederacy. The merits are, perhaps, debatable, but that does not exclude a specific form of government.

"As for the effective management, that depends entirely on the quality of the empowering statutes."

To explain what this proposal does, understand that what I advocate in favor of is the ability for member states to only be required to implement assembly resolutions to the best of their ability and in the context of their cultures and history, so as for judgement of their compliance to be fair and so as to promote political stability. This is not making compliance optional; this is abolishing a pretentious international standard for the execution of resolutions, which currently entraps incapable nations without the resources to comply into non-compliance, and promotes political instability in governments with cultural opposition to passed resolutions. This international standard will instead be reliant on each member nation's own standards, subject to adjustment by the Independent Adjudicative Office if the international community deems that a nation has deviated from honest compliance with the World Assembly resolutions.

"What you intend to do is, in its own way, admirable, but it still takes a backwards conception of the relationship between the World Assembly and national governments."

[The Niceties of Normal Moral Constraints]

...What was ceded to the World Assembly was the governance of our international affairs, not our domestic affairs. To regulate international trade is fine by these standards, but to impose laws reforming our judiciaries is not. Member nations never agreed to have their governments micromanaged.
...
This international standard will instead be reliant on each member nation's own standards, subject to adjustment by the Independent Adjudicative Office if the international community deems that a nation has deviated from honest compliance with the World Assembly resolutions.

[<leans on mop handle>]

"Wherein is it stated that the sole duty or purpose of the World Assembly is 'governance of our international affairs?' If anything, the 'Role of the World Assembly' as literally described in GAR #2 Section III does not appear to make any such proviso, and, in fact, explicitly states that domestic law is insufficient to excuse non-compliance, and that international law is supreme to domestic law. Since voluntary adoption of Membership necessitates voluntary adoption of standing Resolutions, including GAR #2, all Member States voluntarily agree to compliance regardless of domestic law or form of government and all Member States voluntarily agree that international law is supreme.

"In short, all Member States, by virtue of being Member States, voluntarily agree to be so 'micromanaged.' If one finds this objectionable, fair enough, but the solution (short of resignation) is necessarily repeal of GAR #2, since any additional resolution empowering domestic law to modify the terms of adopted resolutions or, more likely, simply allow total escape from compliance at all, will run up against that standing resolution.

"Couching a mechanism for non-compliance in euphemisms ('cultural opposition' in place of 'political opposition,' 'diversity' in place of 'domestic law/constitution,' etc) changes nothing. 'Member nation's own standards' is a not particularly well hidden substitution for domestic constitutions and laws, placing the proposed resolution in direct contravention of GAR #2"

[Los Campos]

"Wherein is it stated that the sole duty or purpose of the World Assembly is 'governance of our international affairs?' If anything, the 'Role of the World Assembly' as literally described in GAR #2 Section III does not appear to make any such proviso, and, in fact, explicitly states that domestic law is insufficient to excuse non-compliance, and that international law is supreme to domestic law. Since voluntary adoption of Membership necessitates voluntary adoption of standing Resolutions, including GAR #2, all Member States voluntarily agree to compliance regardless of domestic law or form of government and all Member States voluntarily agree that international law is supreme.

"In short, all Member States, by virtue of being Member States, voluntarily agree to be so 'micromanaged.' If one finds this objectionable, fair enough, but the solution (short of resignation) is necessarily repeal of GAR #2, since any additional resolution empowering domestic law to modify the terms of adopted resolutions or, more likely, simply allow total escape from compliance at all, will run up against that standing resolution.

"Couching a mechanism for non-compliance in euphemisms ('cultural opposition' in place of 'political opposition,' 'diversity' in place of 'domestic law/constitution,' etc) changes nothing. 'Member nation's own standards' is a not particularly well hidden substitution for domestic constitutions and laws, placing the proposed resolution in direct contravention of GAR #2"

The Delegate of Los Campos responds to the janitor.

To address your first points on the matter, your interpretation of GAR #2 is the product of a misunderstanding. You omit the rights expressed under Section One, which regard the principle of sovereignty directly. I call your attention to, specifically, the right to independence. If we were to interpret international law as supreme to sovereign domestic law, then these member states are in fact not independent; rather, we are vassals to a world government. This contradiction proves the right to autonomy, and the truth is that the rights afforded to the people of the member states sometimes directly subvert the form of government that each member nation is entitled to decide on without foreign interference.

Therefore, if the resolution is to be considered valid, it must empower the World Assembly in such a way that doesn't violate the right to independence. This necessarily implies that the common definition for international law, that is, laws regarding international affairs between and not within nations, is upheld... because non-interference in domestic affairs would respect independence, an independence that would not be infringed upon by resolutions passed regarding matters of international affairs, as those regard the matter of national interdependence and is not expressly protected by the rights of member nations.

You are further mistaken regarding this resolution being in conflicts with GAR #2 because it "rejects that international law is supreme to the state's constitution". My resolution still calls for the resolutions to be obeyed, only now how they are implemented will vary from nation to nation dependent on the local circumstances. Perhaps a nation does not have the resources to implement an environmental regulation, and perhaps the right to private property is protected domestically but now endangered by an assembly resolution; perhaps meddling in their domestic laws will result in local political instability because of a conflict of interest between the nation's culture and the resolution. This resolution will solve that issue. You expressed concern that the resolution empowers nations to forego the resolutions, but this is also false. It is expressed in the resolution that the interpretation of each resolution is subject to judgement by the World Assembly, which can compel the nation to adjust their interpretation to more closely follow the spirit of the resolution in question if the World Assembly finds that the nation deliberately rejected the resolution. Therefore, the nation would still not be able to claim local constitutions as an excuse not to comply with international law.

[Kenmoria]

“The idea of this simply doesn’t make sense. If a resolution has multiple interpretations, of course a member nation can choose whichever best suits its needs, so long as it is not going to far beyond the normal meaning. If, on the other hand, a resolution has only one way for it to be implemented, then a member nation must follow that path.

You are either guaranteeing a right that already exists, or upholding one that doesn’t.”