[Replacement Draft] Rights and Duties of Member States

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: The details of what constitutes an intervention more rightly belong in a resolution about those interventions. Like Auralias. Which this was designed to accommodate.

My approach would require the consent of the recognized government prior to and during any intervention. It would be good if this proposal contained a similar restriction.

OOC: which would permit nations to flatly refuse intervention when it inconveniences a malicious refusal to aid those in need. The entire point of this clause is to sidestep malicious refusal.

[Old Hope]

My approach would require the consent of the recognized government prior to and during any intervention. It would be good if this proposal contained a similar restriction.

OOC: which would permit nations to flatly refuse intervention when it inconveniences a malicious refusal to aid those in need. The entire point of this clause is to sidestep malicious refusal.

Then "Member nations may not intervene in other member states unless authorized by either these member states or by World Assembly Resolutions" or something similar would be perfectly fine. Currently, your ill-defined clause serves as poison pill towards the entire resolution; and may be grounds for another repeal even if it passes. Which should be avoided.

[Wallenburg]

My approach would require the consent of the recognized government prior to and during any intervention. It would be good if this proposal contained a similar restriction.

OOC: which would permit nations to flatly refuse intervention when it inconveniences a malicious refusal to aid those in need. The entire point of this clause is to sidestep malicious refusal.

Then this proposal definitely would not accommodate Auralia's replacement work.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: which would permit nations to flatly refuse intervention when it inconveniences a malicious refusal to aid those in need. The entire point of this clause is to sidestep malicious refusal.

Then "Member nations may not intervene in other member states unless authorized by either these member states or by World Assembly Resolutions" or something similar would be perfectly fine. Currently, your ill-defined clause serves as poison pill towards the entire resolution; and may be grounds for another repeal even if it passes. Which should be avoided.

OOC: Alternatively, I could leave it to a later resolution to clarify, where there is more room to write and opportunity to specify the metes and bounds of the policy. This is not so simple. Auralia has at least three, maybe four draft resolutions on the topic. All I'm doing is holding open the door.

[Tinfect]

"Lacking a... preferred solution, perhaps the Ambassador Bell would be open to an alternative? Consider explicitly allowing Member-States to require the use of citizen personnel, if appropriately qualified personnel exist, for Humanitarian Efforts supported by the World Assembly. This allows material aid to enter the Member-State if necessary, but preserves one's borders from foreigners."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Lacking a... preferred solution, perhaps the Ambassador Bell would be open to an alternative? Consider explicitly allowing Member-States to require the use of citizen personnel, if appropriately qualified personnel exist, for Humanitarian Efforts supported by the World Assembly. This allows material aid to enter the Member-State if necessary, but preserves one's borders from foreigners."

"Member states are already barred from preventing material aid from entering their nations in many circumstances. And those personnel. I don't understand the reluctance here. If you don't ignore a humanitarian crisis, there exists no problem. The cost, risk, and political capital of intervening is itself a limiting factor on frivolous intervention."

[Tinfect]

"Member states are already barred from preventing material aid from entering their nations in many circumstances. And those personnel. I don't understand the reluctance here. If you don't ignore a humanitarian crisis, there exists no problem. The cost, risk, and political capital of intervening is itself a limiting factor on frivolous intervention."

"Simply put, Ambassador, the Imperium requests that methods of retaining security regardless of any crises ignored or sufficiently extreme be explicitly protected. As you are surely well aware by this point, the Imperium allows foreign personnel into the Imperial Territories on an extremely limited basis; foreign personnel entering the Imperium in times of crisis are unlikely to be well-accepted by the Citizenry and quite unlikely to be better qualified than Imperial personnel, whether station response teams, or post-incident organized support units."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Member states are already barred from preventing material aid from entering their nations in many circumstances. And those personnel. I don't understand the reluctance here. If you don't ignore a humanitarian crisis, there exists no problem. The cost, risk, and political capital of intervening is itself a limiting factor on frivolous intervention."

"Simply put, Ambassador, the Imperium requests that methods of retaining security regardless of any crises ignored or sufficiently extreme be explicitly protected. As you are surely well aware by this point, the Imperium allows foreign personnel into the Imperial Territories on an extremely limited basis; foreign personnel entering the Imperium in times of crisis are unlikely to be well-accepted by the Citizenry and quite unlikely to be better qualified than Imperial personnel, whether station response teams, or post-incident organized support units."

"The C.D.S.P. is no happier about foreigners within our borders, but when a crisis exceeds the scope of what one nation can handle, there is a moral imperative to take action. And a moral imperative to prevent the orcs from preventing that action."

[Tinfect]

"The C.D.S.P. is no happier about foreigners within our borders, but when a crisis exceeds the scope of what one nation can handle, there is a moral imperative to take action. And a moral imperative to prevent the orcs from preventing that action."

"Fair enough, Ambassador, and for what it's worth, I agree. But it is unfortunate that the Imperium must oppose this legislation. Off the record, good luck."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC: This idea is really only possible in the GA world where all committees are staffed by magically uncorruptible gnomes. Now that the electorate is being forced to come to terms with that piece of canon, there is some natural backlash. I'm honestly having a difficult time writing a realistic response that nevertheless accepts what we've hitherto glossed over, the World Assembly's beyond-Papal infallibility. No reasonable nation would accept, a priori, international interference in its affairs on this contemplated scale without some serious guarantees and strict constraints that the international force could barely consent to (and which certainly couldn't actually be enforced by the 'victim' nation).

On the assumption that this is better than most possible replacement laws, I would OOC support this, but as I say it's quite hard to come up with an IC way to support both this and extremely basic tenets of national sovereignty that even classical "IntFeds" would consider essential.

"I have to echo my colleagues'... uh, pessimism, I guess. My government is of the opinion that a World Assembly in which autocratic governments have equal voting rights with democracies is not competent to determine whether or not a humanitarian crisis is actually happening within a democratic or non-authoritarian state. There might be a more nuanced way to legislate this requirement, but it will be tricky. I'm not authorized to pledge either support or opposition at this early stage."

"To justify intervention you'd need to have some kind of board or council dedicated to international security questions, whose ideological neutrality is utterly beyond question. This 'security-council' would of course have to have extremely strong internal checks on its ability to act. Only in the most dire circumstances would it be able to override nations' fundamental sovereign rights."

[Auralia]

"To justify intervention you'd need to have some kind of board or council dedicated to international security questions, whose ideological neutrality is utterly beyond question. This 'security-council' would of course have to have extremely strong internal checks on its ability to act. Only in the most dire circumstances would it be able to override nations' fundamental sovereign rights."

Ideological neutrality isn't a necessity or even desirable. You just need to make sure all of the major world powers are represented. And all must consent to any intervention -- otherwise none of them will agree to the idea.

I wonder if anyone has thought of this before...

[WayNeacTia]

"To justify intervention you'd need to have some kind of board or council dedicated to international security questions, whose ideological neutrality is utterly beyond question. This 'security-council' would of course have to have extremely strong internal checks on its ability to act. Only in the most dire circumstances would it be able to override nations' fundamental sovereign rights."

Make it so intervention can only be warranted if a nation is in non-compliance (not that it really exists buy whatever), and then have this handy-dandy little Compliance Commission act as said "security council"?

[Abacathea]

OOC
Quite so, especially given this proposal's failure to define what would actually constitute a 'humanitarian crisis' worthy of such intervention.

Imagine, for example, some WA bureaucrat proclaiming: "The people of nation 'WHEREVER' have just voted, in a referendum, for their country to leave the WA. This means that, however good their national laws currently are, the WHEREVERIANS would no longer be protected by WA law as well. That is a humanitarian crisis! We must invade and occupy them, and impose a pro-WA government regardless of their people's deluded wishes, to prevent their exit!"

OOC: The details of what constitutes an intervention more rightly belong in a resolution about those interventions. Like Auralias. Which this was designed to accommodate.

OOC; But if those details are significant to the workings of this proposal then surely those details have relevance here.

It’s a little like planning to make a cup of coffee and saying that the details of where we’re getting the coffee from is a conversation we can have at another time all that matters is we’re having a cup of coffee and that we know how we’re making it.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: How would further legislation on what constitutes a humanitarian crisis worthy of intervention actually work? It seems as though any proposal which attempts to limit what can be done by this one would be contradiction or house of cards.)

[Separatist Peoples]

(OOC: How would further legislation on what constitutes a humanitarian crisis worthy of intervention actually work? It seems as though any proposal which attempts to limit what can be done by this one would be contradiction or house of cards.)

OOC: So, I haven't even looked at this in...coming close to a year. More than 9 months. That said, lemme address the question of legality. A future resolution that seeks to clarify grounds for humanitarian crises would not be a HOC violation unless it referenced this replacement explicitly, and wouldn't have to work hard to evade contradiction.

I'm not 100% sure I'm even moving forward with this concept, but that legality concern rather isn't a concern.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Should finally have time this weekend for NS, but I notice this requires adherence to spirit of the law, not the letter of the law. Swinging from one extreme to the other. Plus you still won't be able to curb creative compliance, because you can't force roleplay.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Should finally have time this weekend for NS, but I notice this requires adherence to spirit of the law, not the letter of the law. Swinging from one extreme to the other. Plus you still won't be able to curb creative compliance, because you can't force roleplay.

OOC: requiring adherence to the spirit of the law ICly doesn't force roleplay any more than requiring adherence to the letter of the law does. That clause cannot be read in a good faith way to ignore the letter of the law.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: Should finally have time this weekend for NS, but I notice this requires adherence to spirit of the law, not the letter of the law. Swinging from one extreme to the other. Plus you still won't be able to curb creative compliance, because you can't force roleplay.

OOC: requiring adherence to the spirit of the law ICly doesn't force roleplay any more than requiring adherence to the letter of the law does. That clause cannot be read in a good faith way to ignore the letter of the law.

OOC: Good faith does not exist without GA#2

[Bears Armed]

OOC: requiring adherence to the spirit of the law ICly doesn't force roleplay any more than requiring adherence to the letter of the law does. That clause cannot be read in a good faith way to ignore the letter of the law.

OOC: Good faith does not exist without GA#2

OOC
In which case what compels 'good faith' interpretation of GA#2 itself?

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: requiring adherence to the spirit of the law ICly doesn't force roleplay any more than requiring adherence to the letter of the law does. That clause cannot be read in a good faith way to ignore the letter of the law.

OOC: Good faith does not exist without GA#2

OOC: Thus the replacement...

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: Good faith does not exist without GA#2

OOC
In which case what compels 'good faith' interpretation of GA#2 itself?

OOC: Thus we have created a paradox.

[WayNeacTia]

OOC: Good faith does not exist without GA#2

OOC
In which case what compels 'good faith' interpretation of GA#2 itself?

Game mechanics?

[Kowani]

"To justify intervention you'd need to have some kind of board or council dedicated to international security questions, whose ideological neutrality is utterly beyond question. This 'security-council' would of course have to have extremely strong internal checks on its ability to act. Only in the most dire circumstances would it be able to override nations' fundamental sovereign rights."

Ideological neutrality isn't a necessity or even desirable. You just need to make sure all of the major world powers are represented. And all must consent to any intervention -- otherwise none of them will agree to the idea.

I wonder if anyone has thought of this before...

All the major powers? Well, that’ll be the multiverse spanning empires, galaxy wide federations, and…How exactly would we get aid to those?

[BerCasca]

I think there needs to be more rights to member states.

[Big Octopus]

I think there needs to be more rights to member states.

You are right. Automatic law changing is a bit extreme