[Submitted] Repeal GA#550 "Freedom of association"

[Trellania]

"No amount of legislation from this delegation will resolve those problems. At the end of the day, some things nations must solve for themselves. And as long as the problems with the resolution you seek to repeal are almost entirely in that area, there's never going to be sufficient argument to repeal."

[Brezzia]

Draft 5 modifies references to clause 1(a) and adds final concerns.

[Wormfodder Delivery]

I'm sorry, but this is too hilarious.

[Brezzia]

I'm sorry, but this is too hilarious.
(Image)

Sorry, it was not intentional.

[Brezzia]

Submitted.
https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1629187472

[Bears Armed]

Oops! I must have overlooked this earlier _
It's illegal.
Reason = "Honest Mistake: GA #550's clause 1(a) specifically applies "subject to prior, extant World Assembly legislation", and prior, extant WA legislation DOES forbid the sorts of discrimination that this Repeal claims its target allows."

[Brezzia]

Oops! I must have overlooked this earlier _
It's illegal.
Reason = "Honest Mistake: GA #550's clause 1(a) specifically applies "subject to prior, extant World Assembly legislation", and prior, extant WA legislation DOES forbid the sorts of discrimination that this Repeal claims its target allows."

GA #550's clause 1(a) explicitly states:

Freedom of association with an organisation is subject to the organisation in question allowing such association.

It does not talk about "prior, extant World Assembly legislation". Moreover, is "prior, extant WA legislation" applicable to private organisations' internal rules?

GA Proposal Compendium: Rules & General Advice states:

House of Cards: Proposals cannot rely on the existing resolutions to support it; it must be independent.

What would happen if the prior, extant WA legislation which DOES (NOT, because of GA #550's clause 1(a)) forbid this sorts of discrimination were repealed?

[Hulldom]

Oops! I must have overlooked this earlier _
It's illegal.
Reason = "Honest Mistake: GA #550's clause 1(a) specifically applies "subject to prior, extant World Assembly legislation", and prior, extant WA legislation DOES forbid the sorts of discrimination that this Repeal claims its target allows."

GA #550's clause 1(a) explicitly states:

Freedom of association with an organisation is subject to the organisation in question allowing such association.

It does not talk about "prior, extant World Assembly legislation". Moreover, is "prior, extant WA legislation" applicable to private organisations' internal rules?

GA Proposal Compendium: Rules & General Advice states:

House of Cards: Proposals cannot rely on the existing resolutions to support it; it must be independent.

What would happen if the prior, extant WA legislation which DOES (NOT, because of GA #550's clause 1(a)) forbid this sorts of discrimination were repealed?

He’s not saying it’s in 1(a) (it’s not), he’s saying that in the resolution (and it is), the exact language is: ”hereby enacts the following subject to prior, extant World Assembly legislation”. That’s in the enabling clause of the resolution. That limit overrides the argument you’re making. It is thus an honest mistake. Bears has it right.

[Brezzia]

He’s not saying it’s in 1(a) (it’s not), he’s saying that in the resolution (and it is), the exact language is: ”hereby enacts the following subject to prior, extant World Assembly legislation”. That’s in the enabling clause of the resolution. That limit overrides the argument you’re making. It is thus an honest mistake. Bears has it right.

So those who believe they have been discriminated against by an organization could only appeal to the organization itself or to an international court?
Moreover, is not GA#550 relying on the existing resolutions to support itself?
(I don't mean to be argumentative, I'm honestly asking)

[Hulldom]

He’s not saying it’s in 1(a) (it’s not), he’s saying that in the resolution (and it is), the exact language is: ”hereby enacts the following subject to prior, extant World Assembly legislation”. That’s in the enabling clause of the resolution. That limit overrides the argument you’re making. It is thus an honest mistake. Bears has it right.

So those who believe they have been discriminated against by an organization could only appeal to the organization itself or to an international court?
Moreover, is not GA#550 relying on the existing resolutions to support itself?
(I don't mean to be argumentative, I'm honestly asking)

“Subject to prior, extant world assembly legislation” has not been ruled as a house of cards violation that I’ve seen.

[Bears Armed]

So those who believe they have been discriminated against by an organization could only appeal to the organization itself or to an international court?
Moreover, is not GA#550 relying on the existing resolutions to support itself?
(I don't mean to be argumentative, I'm honestly asking)

“Subject to prior, extant world assembly legislation” has not been ruled as a house of cards violation that I’ve seen.

OOC: It isn't one. # 500 doesn't rely on that earlier legislation to support itself, because if the relevant prior, extant legislation gets repealed then #550 would still have enough effects to justify its category & strength. At that point, however, it would have the problem claimed in the repeal so that submitting this Repeal then would become legal.
What that phrase means is that if any part of the newer law appears to be in contradiction of the older one then the older one's terms apply instead.

(No, you can't pass a resolution that would be wholly in contradiction of an earlier one if not for including a clause like this, with the intention of repealing the earlier legislation afterwards so that there's no break in coverage: In that case the resolution would be illegal for not having any effects at the time of its [potential] passage.

Yes, that has been tried.)

[Brezzia]

OOC: It isn't one. # 500 doesn't rely on that earlier legislation to support itself If the relevant prior, extant legislation gets repealed then #550 would still have enough effects to justify its category & strength, but would have the problem claimed here so that submitting this Repeal then would become legal.

Sorry, but I still have concern about this topic.
GA#550's clause 1(a) states that Freedom of association is "subject to the organisation in question".
GA#550's preamble states that GA#550 is "subject to prior, extant World Assembly legislation" and GA Secretariat reassured us that it is not a House of Cards violation and that earlier legislation would prevent the problems claimed by this repeal.

1. If GA#550 is subject to WA legislation and Freedom of association is subject to organisations, what would be the role of Nations? Our repeal states that
   

   GA#550 clause 1(a) [...] does not allow democratic Nations to prevent (the claimed problems)

2. Will those who believe they have been discriminated against by an organization only be able to appeal to the organization itself or to an international court?
3. How will governments be able to respect GA#550 clause 1,
   

   Governments must allow citizens to associate with any organisation of their choosing.

   
   if Freedom of association is subject only to organizations and WA?
4. Is WA legislation applicable to private organisations' internal rules?

[Brezzia]

What that phrase means is that if any part of the newer law appears to be in contradiction of the older one then the older one's terms apply instead.

(No, you can't pass a resolution that would be wholly in contradiction of an earlier one if not for including a clause like this, with the intention of repealing the earlier legislation afterwards so that there's no break in coverage: In that case the resolution would be illegal for not having any effects at the time of its [potential] passage.

Yes, that has been tried.)

How would a new law need that phrase? If a proposal is in contradiction with an older law, it should be considered illegal.
House of Cards definition says that a proposal "must be indipendent". Is not its aim to avoid that a resolution change its meaning when a previous resolution is repealed?
Morover, it would be easier to avoid the attempts you mentioned if a proposal would not generically refer to previous legislation.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: "Subject to extant legislation" is meaningless here IMO. Even if the target did not include it, I would agree with BA's opinion that prior legislation already disallows this discrimination. IIRC we have never issued a formal opinion on the issue but we have in the CP ruled repeal proposals illegal under the HM rule for alleging that the target allows some bad consequence to happen when some other existing resolution has already disallowed this particular bad consequence.

In this case, existing legislation has already disallowed the sort of discrimination outlined in the repeal, specifically GAR#35.

Edit: Also the highlighting clause is problematic. It does not adequately explain IMO how the vague wording can lead to these scenarios.

OOC: It isn't one. # 500 doesn't rely on that earlier legislation to support itself If the relevant prior, extant legislation gets repealed then #550 would still have enough effects to justify its category & strength, but would have the problem claimed here so that submitting this Repeal then would become legal.

Sorry, but I still have concern about this topic.
GA#550's clause 1(a) states that Freedom of association is "subject to the organisation in question".
GA#550's preamble states that GA#550 is "subject to prior, extant World Assembly legislation" and GA Secretariat reassured us that it is not a House of Cards violation and that earlier legislation would prevent the problems claimed by this repeal.

1. If GA#550 is subject to WA legislation and Freedom of association is subject to organisations, what would be the role of Nations? Our repeal states that
   

   GA#550 clause 1(a) [...] does not allow democratic Nations to prevent (the claimed problems)

2. Will those who believe they have been discriminated against by an organization only be able to appeal to the organization itself or to an international court?
3. How will governments be able to respect GA#550 clause 1,
   

   Governments must allow citizens to associate with any organisation of their choosing.

   
   if Freedom of association is subject only to organizations and WA?
4. Is WA legislation applicable to private organisations' internal rules?

Following is not GenSec stuff but my take on how these issues are handled.

Member states are responsible for implementing GA law within their jurisdiction. So if a resolution says that X is banned then it's up to member states to go about banning X. Note also the Compliance Commission TG about changed laws. So someone who has been discriminated against and on the basis that the member state has made law implementing the GA law domestically, there would have to be some redress available domestically to such an individual.

Ofc member states might not do what the WA tells them to do in which case there are a number of resolutions dealing with non-compliance and providing for redress for injury arising, EG GAR#466.

[Brezzia]

OOC: "Subject to extant legislation" is meaningless here IMO. Even if the target did not include it, I would agree with BA's opinion that prior legislation already disallows this discrimination. IIRC we have never issued a formal opinion on the issue but we have in the CP ruled repeal proposals illegal under the HM rule for alleging that the target allows some bad consequence to happen when some other existing resolution has already disallowed this particular bad consequence.

In this case, existing legislation has already disallowed the sort of discrimination outlined in the repeal, specifically GAR#35.

Edit: Also the highlighting clause is problematic. It does not adequately explain IMO how the vague wording can lead to these scenarios.

Member states are responsible for implementing GA law within their jurisdiction. So if a resolution says that X is banned then it's up to member states to go about banning X. Note also the Compliance Commission TG about changed laws. So someone who has been discriminated against and on the basis that the member state has made law implementing the GA law domestically, there would have to be some redress available domestically to such an individual.

Ofc member states might not do what the WA tells them to do in which case there are a number of resolutions dealing with non-compliance and providing for redress for injury arising, EG GAR#466.

As you said Member states implemente GA law within their jurisdiction. My concern is that GA#550 states that "Freedom of association with an organisation is subject to the organisation in question allowing such association". This sentence excludes Nations from making law about the topic (e.g. to grant that political parties and trade unions represent their members).