Ideas for General Assembly Proposals

[Kenmoria]

The WA has legislated on genocide, forced disappearance, and discrimination based on socioeconomic status and nomad status, but is there any legislation on other forms of democide? IE, can member nations kill in order to limit population growth or to exterminate a political movement?

GA #450, Don’t Kill the Poor Act, is the closest resolution to doing that, but it only addresses violence against specific groups. Killing to exterminate a political movement is definitely already covered, since a political movement is a group. However, I think that killing to limit the growth of the population generally, so long as the killings were done in such a way so as to not target any specific group in particular, is not prohibited by any extant resolutions.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

The WA has legislated on genocide, forced disappearance, and discrimination based on socioeconomic status and nomad status, but is there any legislation on other forms of democide? IE, can member nations kill in order to limit population growth or to exterminate a political movement?

A "political movement" would be protected under #38 ("belief") as well as DKtPA.

[Cappedore]

A really tricky one would be the formalisation of a "global commons" (e.g. common ownership of the sea, the atmosphere, certain geographical areas, space, etc.) as a means of environmental protection and progression.

[Kenmoria]

A really tricky one would be the formalisation of a "global commons" (e.g. common ownership of the sea, the atmosphere, certain geographical areas, space, etc.) as a means of environmental protection and progression.

Ownership of the sea is covered by GA #168, Law of the Seas. Ownership of airspace is covered, albeit less comprehensively, by GA #464, Protection of Airspace. As for space, that would be rather difficult indeed, given the number of spacefaring nations, whose territory does consist of interstellar areas. It’s probably possible, but it would be challenging.

[Cappedore]

A really tricky one would be the formalisation of a "global commons" (e.g. common ownership of the sea, the atmosphere, certain geographical areas, space, etc.) as a means of environmental protection and progression.

Ownership of the sea is covered by GA #168, Law of the Seas. Ownership of airspace is covered, albeit less comprehensively, by GA #464, Protection of Airspace. As for space, that would be rather difficult indeed, given the number of spacefaring nations, whose territory does consist of interstellar areas. It’s probably possible, but it would be challenging.

Cheers, was looking for those ones.

And yeah spacefaring would be difficult, however I'll take a look to see if there's any resolutions concerning interstellar waste.

[The Ice States]

And yeah spacefaring would be difficult, however I'll take a look to see if there's any resolutions concerning interstellar waste.

There is a resolution GA #349 addressing prevention of space debris. There have been at least two attempts to promote the active removal of existing space debris; so that would be a worthy topic, although it may be difficult.

[The Swaggerlands]

Is there any standing GA legislation on animal cruelty? From what I've seen, every animal welfare proposal in the past has gotten shot down in quorum because of some oversight in language (like not accounting for the definition of 'animal' to include humans). Has there been any effort to create a comprehensive, clerically tightened-up animal welfare proposal that could get through to vote?

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Is there any standing GA legislation on animal cruelty? From what I've seen, every animal welfare proposal in the past has gotten shot down in quorum because of some oversight in language (like not accounting for the definition of 'animal' to include humans). Has there been any effort to create a comprehensive, clerically tightened-up animal welfare proposal that could get through to vote?

People have tried. Resolutions that make it to law have tended to be repealed for various reasons (with the current exceptions of #498 and #489). If you're looking for a more comprehensive or generalized law on animal welfare you could try to craft a new one that addresses the various concerns expressed in those repeals...

[Oppalli]

A strong bill to promote free trade between all nations and regions in an effort to strengthen the economies of all nations, and the quality of life of all humans. The Bill would knock down all trade barriers and make trade easier with better conditions for money flow.

[The Ice States]

A strong bill to promote free trade between all nations and regions in an effort to strengthen the economies of all nations, and the quality of life of all humans. The Bill would knock down all trade barriers and make trade easier with better conditions for money flow.

See GA #531.

[Oppalli]

A strong bill to promote free trade between all nations and regions in an effort to strengthen the economies of all nations, and the quality of life of all humans. The Bill would knock down all trade barriers and make trade easier with better conditions for money flow.

See GA #531.

Noted, the bill we have in place now will suffice.

[Oppalli]

A bill aiming to eliminate the illegal slave trade across Lazarus and ensure the freedom and well being of the citizens of all nations. Perhaps we already have a bill like this but a stronger one with more specific revisions would be ideal.

[Macadia]

Hey y’all, I was wondering what resolutions currently exist regarding education, I was thinking about beginning to draft something in that area.

[The Ice States]

Hey y’all, I was wondering what resolutions currently exist regarding education, I was thinking about beginning to draft something in that area.

There are number of resolutions about education; eg here is a list of proposals in the Educational category inter alia. Is there something specific about education you wish to legislate on?

[Macadia]

Hey y’all, I was wondering what resolutions currently exist regarding education, I was thinking about beginning to draft something in that area.

There are number of resolutions about education; eg here is a list of proposals in the Educational category inter alia. Is there something specific about education you wish to legislate on?

I wanted to focus on primary and secondary education; promoting the expansion of education for all and helping better school systems and curriculums to properly provide youth with tools for the future.

[The Ice States]

There are number of resolutions about education; eg here is a list of proposals in the Educational category inter alia. Is there something specific about education you wish to legislate on?

I wanted to focus on primary and secondary education; promoting the expansion of education for all and helping better school systems and curriculums to properly provide youth with tools for the future.

GA #80 largely does this.

[Deathfall]

I just looked into the right of self-defense and collective self-defense (like in Article 51 of the UN Charter), and apparently, we repealed that when we repealed Rights and Duties. Can someone who is vastly more experienced than me in WA stuff take a look and perhaps draft a resolution to guarantee that right?

[The Ice States]

I just looked into the right of self-defense and collective self-defense (like in Article 51 of the UN Charter), and apparently, we repealed that when we repealed Rights and Duties. Can someone who is vastly more experienced than me in WA stuff take a look and perhaps draft a resolution to guarantee that right?

There indeed appears to be no legislation on this topic. Can you elaborate on what the scope and requirements of such legislation would be? I would be opposed to explicitly authorising member nations to invade each other for wars on their allies, for example; although allowing member nations to simply defend each other from invasions seems reasonable in most instances.

[Deathfall]

I just looked into the right of self-defense and collective self-defense (like in Article 51 of the UN Charter), and apparently, we repealed that when we repealed Rights and Duties. Can someone who is vastly more experienced than me in WA stuff take a look and perhaps draft a resolution to guarantee that right?

There indeed appears to be no legislation on this topic. Can you elaborate on what the scope and requirements of such legislation would be? I would be opposed to explicitly authorising member nations to invade each other for wars on their allies, for example; although allowing member nations to simply defend each other from invasions seems reasonable in most instances.

Something like this perhaps--

"The General Assembly recognizes the inherent right of member states to defend themselves or other member states in self-defense or collective self-defense against invasion or attack from a hostile force or state."

/shrug

[Kenmoria]

There indeed appears to be no legislation on this topic. Can you elaborate on what the scope and requirements of such legislation would be? I would be opposed to explicitly authorising member nations to invade each other for wars on their allies, for example; although allowing member nations to simply defend each other from invasions seems reasonable in most instances.

Something like this perhaps--

"The General Assembly recognizes the inherent right of member states to defend themselves or other member states in self-defense or collective self-defense against invasion or attack from a hostile force or state."

/shrug

That would be a possible clause. On account of the operative-clause rule, there needs to be some mandate or encouragement upon member-nations, so there would need to be other clauses. This could include an encouragement to lend aid to a member-nation under attack in a hostile incursion.

[Southern Miska]

Trying to see if this isn't a illegal idea, but I have been brainstorming a proposal that I have in mind would give the right for members of the WA:

1. To establish an oversight board to monitor internet activities of their citizens.

2. To regulate internet content that the WA member determines to be "extremist" content

3. To allow WA members to determine their own definitions of what they consider "extremist" content without fear of reprisal.

Again, the above is just a brainstorm, not an actual draft of a proposal.

[Juansonia]

Trying to see if this isn't a illegal idea, but I have been brainstorming a proposal that I have in mind would give the right for members of the WA:

1. To establish an oversight board to monitor internet activities of their citizens.

2. To regulate internet content that the WA member determines to be "extremist" content

3. To allow WA members to determine their own definitions of what they consider "extremist" content without fear of reprisal.

Again, the above is just a brainstorm, not an actual draft of a proposal.

Except for where WA law restricts members (such as the express ban on genoicde), WA members are free to do whatever they want without a green stamp.

[Juansonia]

Trying to see if this isn't a illegal idea, but I have been brainstorming a proposal that I have in mind would give the right for members of the WA:

1. To establish an oversight board to monitor internet activities of their citizens.

2. To regulate internet content that the WA member determines to be "extremist" content

3. To allow WA members to determine their own definitions of what they consider "extremist" content without fear of reprisal.

Again, the above is just a brainstorm, not an actual draft of a proposal.

Except for where WA law restricts members (such as the express ban on genoicde), WA members are free to do whatever they want without a green stamp.

[Barfleur]

Trying to see if this isn't a illegal idea, but I have been brainstorming a proposal that I have in mind would give the right for members of the WA:

1. To establish an oversight board to monitor internet activities of their citizens.

2. To regulate internet content that the WA member determines to be "extremist" content

3. To allow WA members to determine their own definitions of what they consider "extremist" content without fear of reprisal.

Again, the above is just a brainstorm, not an actual draft of a proposal.

Also note that "Protecting Free Expression" protects, well, most forms of free expression, including extremist content. The rule is, if a certain category of speech is not mentioned in section 2, it is protected from national or international infringement.

[Southern Miska]

Trying to see if this isn't a illegal idea, but I have been brainstorming a proposal that I have in mind would give the right for members of the WA:

1. To establish an oversight board to monitor internet activities of their citizens.

2. To regulate internet content that the WA member determines to be "extremist" content

3. To allow WA members to determine their own definitions of what they consider "extremist" content without fear of reprisal.

Again, the above is just a brainstorm, not an actual draft of a proposal.

Also note that "Protecting Free Expression" protects, well, most forms of free expression, including extremist content. The rule is, if a certain category of speech is not mentioned in section 2, it is protected from national or international infringement.

Noted. It's probably not worth a repeal of "Protecting Free Expression" just to add a subsection of article two that would implement the idea I mentioned then.