General Assembly Q&A

by **Araraukar** » Tue Jan 10, 2017 11:08 am

Separatist Peoples wrote:World Space Administration. By far.

Wasn't that one at least legal? (It happened during a few months that I wasn't around.)

by **Separatist Peoples** » Tue Jan 10, 2017 11:11 am

Araraukar wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:World Space Administration. By far.

Wasn't that one at least legal? (It happened during a few months that I wasn't around.)

Barely. I'm sure, with a little bit of digging, I could have found a tenuous legality argument against it, since it extended WA authority over everything and there is probably some resolution that leaves territorial authority to member states, but it would have been an underhanded and nasty approach. That's really not my style. Suffice it to say, that was the worst resolution ever.

by **Araraukar** » Tue Jan 10, 2017 11:21 am

Separatist Peoples wrote:Barely.

Mar Barry Day wasn't even that.

by **Mallorea and Riva** » Tue Jan 10, 2017 11:22 am

A Model World Assembly.

by **Araraukar** » Tue Jan 10, 2017 11:24 am

Mallorea and Riva wrote:A Model World Assembly.

Welcome back, Mall.

by **Tinhampton** » Tue Jan 10, 2017 11:28 am

What exactly was so bad about WSA?

by **Astrolinium** » Tue Jan 10, 2017 11:50 am

As a point of clarification on an earlier question, I am still (in broad terms, though not as much as I might have been in, say, 2011) "here", and I still lean broadly IntFed.

by **Bananaistan** » Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:41 pm

Rights and Duties or COCR.

by **Mallorea and Riva** » Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:53 pm

Araraukar wrote:
Mallorea and Riva wrote:A Model World Assembly.

Welcome back, Mall.

Good to be back

by **Frustrated Franciscans** » Tue Jan 10, 2017 2:30 pm

Mallorea and Riva wrote:A Model World Assembly.

I actually liked that one.
Kind of cute.
Mostly Harmless.
And think of the Children.
(Mind you there was always the threat that children could legislate better than professional diplomats, but ...)
(... No I'm not suggesting that the WA violate existing child labor laws ...)

by **States of Glory WA Office** » Tue Jan 10, 2017 5:08 pm

Bakhton wrote:What's the worst resolution that's ever been passed?

GA #1.

UN #1 as well. No, seriously. UN #1 was awful.

Anyway, I've been informed that the Council can give informal legality advice in this thread, so I'd like to inquire about Banishment Ban. In your completely informal and not-at-all binding opinion, does Clause 4b:

HEREBY:

ESTABLISHES the Court of International Jurisdiction (CIJ), which shall:

hear cases for torts from banished persons against the banishing state,

contradict Clause Seven of GA #312 a.k.a On Universal Jurisdiction?

7. Forbids the World Assembly from preempting a member state's claim to universal jurisdiction under this resolution, including but not limited to through an international criminal court or a substantially similar institution, to the extent permitted by this and previous World Assembly resolutions;

by **States of Glory WA Office** » Sun Jan 15, 2017 5:58 pm

Don't mind me. I just hit a speed bump.

by **Separatist Peoples** » Sun Jan 15, 2017 6:24 pm

A strong case can be made that OUJ only deals with criminal law, not civil law, and especially not something as narrow as tort law.

by **Christian Democrats** » Sun Jan 15, 2017 6:50 pm

States of Glory WA Office wrote:Anyway, I've been informed that the Council can give informal legality advice in this thread, so I'd like to inquire about Banishment Ban. In your completely informal and not-at-all binding opinion, does Clause 4b:
HEREBY:

ESTABLISHES the Court of International Jurisdiction (CIJ), which shall:

hear cases for torts from banished persons against the banishing state,

contradict Clause Seven of GA #312 a.k.a On Universal Jurisdiction?

7. Forbids the World Assembly from preempting a member state's claim to universal jurisdiction under this resolution, including but not limited to through an international criminal court or a substantially similar institution, to the extent permitted by this and previous World Assembly resolutions;

How does Section 1 of that resolution define "universal jurisdiction"?

by **Bakhton** » Sun Jan 15, 2017 6:57 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:How does Section 1 of that resolution define "universal jurisdiction"?

Guess this is rhetorical, but for the record:

1. Defines "universal jurisdiction" as the right to claim criminal jurisdiction for a crime allegedly committed by an individual, regardless of where or when the crime was allegedly committed, or the citizenship, nationality, or country of residence of that individual;

I'd say no.

by **Western The Eas Armyistan** » Sun Jan 15, 2017 8:10 pm

What does "Ideological Bulwark #" mean?

by **Araraukar** » Sun Jan 15, 2017 8:34 pm

Western The Eas Armyistan wrote:What does "Ideological Bulwark #" mean?

Some people belonged to an outside forum where they talked about NS stuff. The number is their "membership number" to that forum. I don't know why people have them in their siggies, probably to show they've been around longer than they should've... *goes to hide before various ~~frenemies~~ friends with that in their siggies read this*

by **Imperium Anglorum** » Sun Jan 15, 2017 9:04 pm

Araraukar wrote:
Western The Eas Armyistan wrote:What does "Ideological Bulwark #" mean?

Some people belonged to an outside forum where they talked about NS stuff. The number is their "membership number" to that forum. I don't know why people have them in their siggies, probably to show they've been around longer than they should've... *goes to hide before various ~~frenemies~~ friends with that in their siggies read this*

Quite a lot of people also don't have it in their signatures.

by **Araraukar** » Sun Jan 15, 2017 10:18 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Quite a lot of people also don't have it in their signatures.

Well, yeah, but you can't notice what's not there if you don't know something could be there.

by **Tinfect** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 2:11 am

Western The Eas Armyistan wrote:What does "Ideological Bulwark #" mean?

It* demonstrates membership in the Supreme High-Council of the WA Sekrit Elite Club. Also known as the Illuminati, Freemasons, Knights Templar, The Roman Empire, the International Red Cross, and the Ohio Senate.

*And all variants thereof, casually points towards newsfeed in signature

by **Separatist Peoples** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 5:15 am

Western The Eas Armyistan wrote:What does "Ideological Bulwark #" mean?

No idea. Never seen it before in my life.

by **Araraukar** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 6:54 am

Separatist Peoples wrote:No idea. Never seen it before in my life.

*zaps you with an electric bug zapper* Bad kitty¹. No lying until you've finished lawyer school.

¹Dog would've fit better, but SP is also an Honorary Mad Cat Lady...

by **Bears Armed Mission** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 10:38 am

Araraukar wrote:
Western The Eas Armyistan wrote:What does "Ideological Bulwark #" mean?

Some people belonged to an outside forum where they talked about NS stuff. The number is their "membership number" to that forum. I don't know why people have them in their siggies, probably to show they've been around longer than they should've... *goes to hide before various ~~frenemies~~ friends with that in their siggies read this*

It actually started as a joke against a player, outside that group, who accused the group's members of being a conspiracy that ran things... or something along those lines...

by **Separatist Peoples** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 11:36 am

Araraukar wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:No idea. Never seen it before in my life.

*zaps you with an electric bug zapper* Bad kitty¹. No lying until you've finished lawyer school.

¹Dog would've fit better, but SP is also an Honorary Mad Cat Lady...

I never lie. I equivocate. Sometimes I misdirect. Once I even prevaricated. But I never lie.

by **States of Glory WA Office** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 4:27 pm

Separatist Peoples wrote:A strong case can be made that OUJ only deals with criminal law, not civil law, and especially not something as narrow as tort law.

The argument that IA made, though, was that tort law and criminal law overlap on some occasions, in which case it's ambiguous as to whether the Court of International Jurisdiction can make rulings without preempting a member state's claim to universal jurisdiction. Obviously, you're far more knowledgeable about the law than most of us, so I was wondering if it makes a difference.

General Assembly Q&A

Who is online