[DRAFT] Proper Inheritance of Monarchical Titles

[Greater Cesnica]

OOC: damn that’s a duel of titans. If only aircraft engineering and field medicine was so exciting...

OOC: Daarwyrth is a monarchy So naturaly someone has to defend that side of the debate.

[Ardiveds]

Why is this an international issue and why does this topic require intervention from the World Assembly?

OOC: This is basically preventing the execution of innocents, except this time it's monarchies instead of capital punishment. Also IA's pet project to see how far he can get rid of the ideological ban rule.

[Daarwyrth]

OOC: This is basically preventing the execution of innocents, except this time it's monarchies instead of capital punishment. Also IA's pet project to see how far he can get rid of the ideological ban rule.

OOC: At least preventing the execution of innocents was actually good legislation with a noble intent.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Why is this an international issue and why does this topic require intervention from the World Assembly?

OOC: This is basically preventing the execution of innocents, except this time it's monarchies instead of capital punishment. Also IA's pet project to see how far he can get rid of the ideological ban rule.

There's a lot of difference. P Innocents actually makes capital punishment impossible to conduct legally. This proposal has no similar impact on hereditary tyranny monarchy.

[Imperium Anglorum]

First a long overview.

Absolutism an ideology? Absolute monarchy is perhaps a political ideology: though if it is one, there are no guiding tenets, no manifestoes, no philosophical underpinnings. Historically the divine right of kings is the greater half of the justification for absolutism, with some special pleading from Hobbes perhaps we can call it an ideology. It does not seem so deserving of such a label though, Aristotle defended slavery as just because some people are just natural slaves. Absolute monarchy is just because some people are just natural kings. Yet we banned slavery nevertheless. Whatever. For the sake of argument, I'll entirely concede that absolutism is not just a self-serving pretext for a hereditary elite and accept that it is a political ideology (ie a coherent socio-political programme or systematic theory of human life or nature).

Monarchism is not only hereditary. This digression about various different monarchies is perhaps somewhat relevant. But however, I would note that the following fails to recognise different forms of inheritance common in historical monarchies:

I've already established that absolute monarchies, semi-constitutional monarchies and executive monarchies are under the definition of this proposal draft an "affected monarchy". This Clause says that after the passing of a monarch "the inheritance thereof must be split evenly among that monarch's children... including but not limited to titles, lands, vassals, and moveable property". "King of Kingsland" is a title. Kingsland is a land, or consists of lands. If there is a single child, then yes, that child will inherit both the title "King of Kingsland" and Kingsland in the form of its lands.

Elective monarchy does not have child-based succession. Seniority among some clan does not have child-based succession. Famous examples of the former are the Roman empire, the Roman kingdom, the Holy Roman empire, and the Papacy. You mentioned elective monarchies as well, but the Roman kingdom, the later Roman empire, and the Papacy were (or are) absolute elective monarchies. There nothing that forces elective monarchies to be non-tyrannical, something perhaps best exemplified by the lessons of L Junius Brutus. Examples of seniority succession are more rare, I believe pre-conquest Irish petty kings used it as did Saudi Arabia traditionally. The specific sorts of monarchies which are "affected monarchies" is very specific and does not cover all monarchies.

Does the proposal require partition? As to partition, contra Wallenburg, I will concede that partition of a realm would occur. Eg Francia. If I were specifically here about the proposal, I would not concede this: it is possible to partition the realm equally without dividing the sovereignty by having the office of king executed by multiple people, just as the office of Prince is held by two in Andorra. But conceding this allows the question to go more elegantly to the rule.

The clash. I haven't checked whether it's quoted exactly, but here it was reproduced in your post, with a few underlines:

"Ideological Ban: Proposals cannot wholly outlaw, whether through direct or indirect language, religious, political or economic ideologies. However, proposals can target specific practices, such as slavery."

Now, to return to the ideological ban rule. Under your proposal, when a nation is an absolute, semi-constitutional or executive monarchy, that nation will cease to exist. Not immediately, no. Yet indirectly, the consequence of being one of those forms of government will lead to the dissolution of a state into a number of smaller parts. That will happen to any absolute, semi-constitutional or executive monarchy where a monarch currently has more than one child. I don't have to tell you how morally wrong it is to suggest one of those children kills the other ones. This is not an incentive anymore, yet this is a punishment. What are punishments applies to? Things that are outlawed. Therefore, your proposal doesn't create an incentive, as "incentive" means "something that encourages a person to do something". What happens to outlawed and illegal organisations as punishment for existing nonetheless? They are dissolved by the judiciary. What does your proposal do to nations that are an absolute, semi-constitutional or executive monarchy? It dissolves them.

Before getting into this whole thing, it is not only moral to kill tyrants, it is duty of every citizen to do so. It also is moral (and a duty) to kill people who seek to subject their fellow citizens to absolute tyranny. I would, however, err on caution against fulfilling this duty haphazardly: it is not always clear that someone is a tyrant. But to call upon exempla, L Junius Brutus, eg, ran through one of his cousins (or something like that) in a battle shortly after the expulsion of the kings when the tyrant Tarquin attempted to reassert his claim over the nascent republic.

But the moral duty to regicide is not particularly relevant. What is relevant, is the Ideological Ban rule. So what do we know about it historically?

First, we know that practices are not sufficient.

To hold that mere recognition of a concept that a nation is ideologically opposed to is insufficient to warrant application of the rule. To do so would create an overbroad rule that would bar a majority of existing legislation, rationalizing down ever more slippery slopes. The analogy of property rights as a bundle of sticks is apt here: we believe one can recognize, and even mandate, a few of the sticks in that bundle without lashing the entire stack to every law book, thus crossing the line into banning... ideologies wholesale. [2017] GAS 4.

Second, we know that an ideological ban is an actual ban on an ideology. Fris remarks positively on Ossitania's explanation:

The closest we get is that it may potentially somewhat undermine at least some plutocracies and technocracies, which is not an ideological ban. "Ideological ban" is not a buzzphrase, it's literal. The rule is against banning ideologies. Undermining them is fine and must be fine because otherwise we'd never get to pass a resolution, given they all advance certain ideologies at the expense of others, like Auralia's "neo-liberalism in international trade" resolutions and Sionis Prioratus's "mandated domestic social welfare" resolutions.

This also is clear from the terminology used by the rule itself, which speaks of 'wholly outlaw[ing] ... ideologies'.

Third, we know that the GA can chip away at any kind of government:

[Proposals may (ed. or perhaps the GA?)] place restrictions upon such forms of government but the General Assembly is capable of chipping away at certain aspects of any given type of government.

Or in other terms,

a resolution can't, in terms of actual play, "ban", as in "render impossible", a game-bestowed ideology... But if a series of resolutions seems to gradually make it more and more difficult to keep a nation on a particular track, it's a player problem [ie not a rules problem].

Ossitania's view also recognises that your standard, related to some dissolution of some state, isn't actually relevant to the Ideological ban rule: nowhere are states the thing which the rule protects. Argument about states therefore is irrelevant. In this proposal, there is no ban on hereditary non-ceremonial monarchy in the abstract of any sort. After possible partition, the successor states are free to remain affected monarchies. Perhaps even more damning on this point is that partition is an ancient monarchical tradition going back at least to Charlemagne; it is no way contradictory to hereditary non-ceremonial monarchy. There is no ban on the ideology of absolutism et al, case closed.

It also broadly recognises that "chipping away" at aspects of any kind of government is permitted. So is "advancing certain ideologies at the expense of others". And the proposal in [2017] GAS 4 did the same as this proposal: it forces a policy onto member nations. Republicanism and liberty is not lashed to every law book. Even if we take the ideological ban rule to protect certain tyrannical states, as you allege it does, those states might or could be on the backside of having certain ideologies advanced upon them. The practices of states, which is distinguished from are not protected.

Even if having certain ideologies advanced upon member nations is not permissible, in contravention to all the previous precedents on that matter, the rule prohibits only "wholly outlaw[ing]" an ideology. And even if I concede that state practices are perfect proxies for ideologies (ie not what the rule does), for something to be outlawed wholly, it cannot ever be lawful. This is what Ard's comments quoted above supports: proposals can be legal even if it makes it "more difficult to keep a nation on a particular track".

If I concede every single point you make, an hereditary non-ceremonial monarchy with no splits in sovereignty can still exist indefinitely. There is an unstated assumption (well, perhaps more charitably, it is stated, it just is then on ignored) that monarchs must have many children. Each monarch need only have exactly one child and no partition is triggered ever. This counterexample shows it is not outlawed "wholly" and therefore is not prohibited by the rule.

As your proposal doesn't use incentives but punishments (namely the dissolution of a state for being an affected monarchy), it treats absolute, semi-constitutional or executive monarchies as something that is indirectly outlawed and illegal ... by using the dissolution of states as an indirect punishment for being an "affected monarchy" (meaning absolute, semi-constitutional or executive) your proposal treats them as outlawed entities. As such, it indirectly outlaws those forms of government, which is why - in my personal opinion - your proposal violates the ideological ban rule. Because that rule specifies both direct and indirect language.

This is separate from how the standard is deficient re the ideological ban rule specifically. The main warrant is that partition is a punishment, which makes something unlawful. This is not the case. Punishment has three features: it involves (1) a material imposition or exaction that is burdensome, which is (2) reprobative or condemnatory, and (3) done by an authority. Antony Duff and Zachary Hoskins, "Legal Punishment" (2021) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Conceding arguendo that forced partition is burdensome (it is not specifically so, some states choose equal partition, inter alia, Francia along with its predecessor and successor kingdoms), partition is not reprobative or condemnatory. Your argument assumes that the imposition of a burden creates a condemnatory character. This puts causality in reverse. But also, a partition self-executed by the monarchy affected done by the Assembly: this would be like arguing that a civil settlement is done by the court rather than enforced by it. WA membership is voluntary; partition is not inevitable.

[Daarwyrth]

OOC: An elegant and thorough defence, for sure. Yet I remain entirely unconvinced, and continue to perceive it as a facade, which it of course is, as you hint between the lines. Fortunately for you, I am not the one you need to convince that your argument is valid.

If by some miracle this actually passes, then at least there's the option of an elective monarchy for Daarwyrth, because essentially being otherwise would be a punishment. It kind of defeats your intent to see monarchies removed from the face of the World Assembly, and thus I continue to question the worth of this proposal beyond your attempt to shoot down the ideological ban rule, but I leave that for you to figure out.

[Imperium Anglorum]

continue to perceive it as a facade, which it of course is, as you hint between the lines

The defence or the proposal? If you want to say that I'm just lying and actually believe the opposite of what I laid out above, please find some proof for that claim.

If by some miracle this actually passes, then at least there's the option of an elective monarchy for Daarwyrth, because essentially being otherwise would be a punishment. It kind of defeats your intent to see monarchies removed from the face of the World Assembly, and thus I continue to question the worth of this proposal beyond your attempt to shoot down the ideological ban rule, but I leave that for you to figure out.

I have no intention to see monarchies removed from the Assembly. My RP'd nation has a monarchical element. I have no intention to shoot down the ideological ban rule; I want it enforced properly, to stop ideological bans, and not "whatever". There is no revolution in Ti Semp Gracchus' "enforce the law properly" bill; there is no revolution here.

[Daarwyrth]

The defence or the proposal? If you want to say that I'm just lying and actually believe the opposite of what I laid out above, please find some proof for that claim.

OOC: I stand corrected, I should have stated "which I believe it is". Yet I absolutely do not believe that your intent is what you say it is.

I have no intention to see monarchies removed from the Assembly. My RP'd nation has a monarchical element. I have no intention to shoot down the ideological ban rule; I want it enforced properly, to stop ideological bans, and not "whatever". There is no revolution in Ti Semp Gracchus' "enforce the law properly" bill; there is no revolution here.

As long as you remain convinced of your own case, I guess. As I said, you don't need to convince me, because my mind is already made up here.

[Adezku]

Striding now into view, the World Assembly Representative of the Grand Duchy of Adezku, the Baron Zakharin Makarovich came to rest nearby to the other ambassadors. Reaching up to stroke the long, greying beard that graced his form, the Baron soon began speaking, his deep, sonorous voice quite pleasant to listen to:

"It is the opinion of His Royal Highness Dimitri III Sudakov, Grand Duke of Adezku, Count of Velikiy, Count of Knyaz, etc, etc, that the proposed legislation cannot be supported by the Grand Duchy of Adezku, or, indeed, by any royalist state, for that Section II states: 'This resolution does not apply to monarchies in member nations where the monarch refrains from actively participating in the rule or governance of that member nation as a whole,' which is simply impossible," The Baron pauses a moment, gathering his thoughts before continuing.

"By virtue of their position as a monarch, even those at the head of a constitutional monarchy are still involved in the governance of their nation: a constitutional monarch is often still the head of state and as such involved in the formation of cabinets et cetera. This, of course, conflicts with section II, which requires a monarchical state--if it is not to be dissolved without the consent of its own people and without consulting the national government; or be mandated into becoming an elective monarchy, with all the flaws thereof--to be truly ceremonial; effectively, this forces monarchies instead to be crowned republics!" The Baron looks around the room, from Delegate to Delegate. "This draft represents a serious overreach of the World Assembly into national affairs of each member nation, which surely are to be left to the national governments to regulate? The Grand Duchy of Adezku will not support this farce, and it urges each nation, royalist, republican, or dictatorial, to consider the implications of this legislation carefully."

[Daarwyrth]

Striding now into view, the World Assembly Representative of the Grand Duchy of Adezku, the Baron Zakharin Makarovich came to rest nearby to the other ambassadors. Reaching up to stroke the long, greying beard that graced his form, the Baron soon began speaking, his deep, sonorous voice quite pleasant to listen to:

"It is the opinion of His Royal Highness Dimitri III Sudakov, Grand Duke of Adezku, Count of Velikiy, Count of Knyaz, etc, etc, that the proposed legislation cannot be supported by the Grand Duchy of Adezku, or, indeed, by any royalist state, for that Section II states: 'This resolution does not apply to monarchies in member nations where the monarch refrains from actively participating in the rule or governance of that member nation as a whole,' which is simply impossible," The Baron pauses a moment, gathering his thoughts before continuing.

"By virtue of their position as a monarch, even those at the head of a constitutional monarchy are still involved in the governance of their nation: a constitutional monarch is often still the head of state and as such involved in the formation of cabinets et cetera. This, of course, conflicts with section II, which requires a monarchical state--if it is not to be dissolved without the consent of its own people and without consulting the national government; or be mandated into becoming an elective monarchy, with all the flaws thereof--to be truly ceremonial; effectively, this forces monarchies instead to be crowned republics!" The Baron looks around the room, from Delegate to Delegate. "This draft represents a serious overreach of the World Assembly into national affairs of each member nation, which surely are to be left to the national governments to regulate? The Grand Duchy of Adezku will not support this farce, and it urges each nation, royalist, republican, or dictatorial, to consider the implications of this legislation carefully."

Dame Maria vyn Nysen, WA Representative of Daarwyrth: "Our delegation fully agrees with the Honourable Representative from Adezku. This is not an international issue, nor an issue that the World Assembly should concern itself with. "The Rights and Duties of WA States" grants member nations the right to choose its own form of government without dictation by any other state, and to do so freely. This proposal is attempting to dictate that member nations cannot be anything but a crowned republic or a purely ceremonial monarchy, without being subjected to punitive consequences in the form of the dissolution of a state, or being subjected to grave instability in the form of multiple monarchs or onerously complex forms of governance. This proposal's preference for republican systems of government is entirely based on a subjective whim, and infringes upon the sovereignty that GAR #2 grants its member nations through Article 1, as member nations will not longer truly be able to freely exercise their form of government. After all, if they do adopt or maintain a certain form of government - an "affected monarchy" per this proposal draft - then they will be subjected to restrictions on how that form of government is exercised.

Furthermore, it violates Article 8 of the same proposal, which reads "Every WA Member State has the right to equality in law with every other WA Member State". Exempting republics, ceremonial and elective monarchies from the punitive and restrictive measures of this proposal constitutes a breach of that right to equality in law with every other WA member state, as any nation that has chosen a form of government that constitutes an "affected monarchy", will be treated differently than any nation that hasn't chosen that particular system of governance. The proposal written by Imperium Anglorum's delegation violates one of the most integral resolutions of the World Assembly, and thus should be opposed in all its aspects, and at all times."

[Ardiveds]

OOC: IA, you have been using monarchy pretty much synonymously with tyranny. While that might be true to a certain extent irl, I find it hard to believe it being true at all in the context of the WA, atleast for a compliant member nation. I know dismantling absolute hereditary monarchies is only part of your goal but still something to think about.

[Comfed]

Clause 1 prohibits monarchies outlined in clause 0 subclauses b and c.
Define “split evenly”.

[Laka Strolistandiler]

OOC: IA, you have been using monarchy pretty much synonymously with tyranny. While that might be true to a certain extent irl, I find it hard to believe it being true at all in the context of the WA, atleast for a compliant member nation. I know dismantling absolute hereditary monarchies is only part of your goal but still something to think about.

I’d say that his target is dismantling all but constitutional monarchies. This proposal could be essentially named “Dismantling authoritarian monarchies because I dislike them for reasons”. Hell, I could potentially make a resolution that enforced the same treatment towards neoliberal states but I doubt that it would receive the same praises as this did.

[Picairn]

OOC: IA, you have been using monarchy pretty much synonymously with tyranny. While that might be true to a certain extent irl, I find it hard to believe it being true at all in the context of the WA, atleast for a compliant member nation. I know dismantling absolute hereditary monarchies is only part of your goal but still something to think about.

IA is too busy worshipping republics to care about the relevant facts, like constitutional, benevolent monarchies exist and that republics are prone to hyperpartisanship and tyranny by the mob. Not that I'm against republics, but perhaps there are pros and cons to every system?

[Daarwyrth]

IA is too busy worshipping republics to care about the relevant facts, like constitutional, benevolent monarchies exist and that republics are prone to hyperpartisanship and tyranny by the mob. Not that I'm against republics, but perhaps there are pros and cons to every system?

OOC: And yet for all of IA's "monarchies drool republics rule", according to their own factbooks the nation is in part a monarchy. Sounds somewhat contradictory to me, especially considering the Queen-Empress' active role in governing the country: "[t]he authority of the Queen-in-Parliament is absolute". Unless, of course, the factbooks are outdated by now.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Am I in character? I thought not. Given you believe I am lying etc re my beliefs on the rule and insinuated this is clear from my own statements previously in this thread, please provide proof. All I see here is unsubstantiated innuendo.

That said, the GA 2 challenge is dismissed easily by reading it. The freely chosen government clause applies against member states, not the WA. The equality in law clause applies exactly the same way: if this were to pass it would inherently be the law. Nations then would be equal before it. Consider the alternative... we force member nations which seize property to pay for it. Are they suddenly not equal before the law??????

---

Un-memified:

I am not in character. I have not been in character the entire time in this thread. You believe I am lying with respect to my beliefs: "as [I] hint between the lines". These disingenuous assertions and innuendo require proof. What you have here is actually nothing but wholly unsubstantiated assertions about my bad faith. You don't point to any places where I actually do this hinting; you don't seem to understand what the goal of this proposal even is. There is no reason to believe these insinuations and I gave it the seriousness it deserved.

The GA 2 counterpoint given above is facially wrong and is dismissed easily by reading GA 2. The freely chosen government clause applies against member states, not the WA. The equality in law clause applies exactly the same way: if this were to pass it would inherently be the law. Nations then would be equal before it. Consider the alternative... we force member nations which seize property to pay for it. Are they suddenly not equal before the law? Your inability to understand this gravely undercuts your credibility with respect to making effective legality challenges. Anyone with even a passing understanding of the GA (and more importantly, how the GA game is played or sustained,) would have seen the wrongness of that interpretation immediately.

[Daarwyrth]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Am I in character? I thought not. Given you believe I am lying etc re my beliefs on the rule and insinuated this is clear from my own statements previously in this thread, please provide proof. All I see here is unsubstantiated innuendo.

That said, the GA 2 challenge is dismissed easily by reading it. The freely chosen government clause applies against member states, not the WA. The equality in law clause applies exactly the same way: if this were to pass it would inherently be the law. Nations then would be equal before it. Consider the alternative... we force member nations which seize property to pay for it. Are they suddenly not equal before the law??????

OOC: You're starting to make less and less sense, and adding in multiple m's or question marks isn't going to make your point any clearer, it only makes you sound desperate.

No, the challenge is not so easily dismissed as you think. Yes, it states that member nations of the WA are free from the dictation of other member nations in terms of their sovereignty and choice of government. And yes, proposals such as this one are written from the perspective or the World Assembly. However, are you not a member nations giving shape to this proposal? As you are the member nation giving shape to this proposal, in essence you're attempting to dictate through the mouth of the World Assembly. In this interpretation, you are a member nation trying to dictate what forms of government can be practiced freely and which not. Because your proposal draft is putting onerous restrictions on multiple types of monarchies.

If this were to pass, it would treat member nations differently before the law and there is no way you can dance around that fact. This law treats republics, elective and ceremonial monarchies inherently differently than it does all other forms of hereditary monarchy. The text of the law you're trying to implement is making that distinction, it discriminates on the basis of the characteristics of the monarchy in question. That is no longer a state of equality before the law with other member nations:

Every WA Member State has the right to equality in law with every other WA Member State

Under the law of your proposal, put a republic next to a hereditary semi-constitutional monarchy, and they are no longer equal. Because the republic doesn't face the threat of dissolution because of the characteristics of its form of government, while the semi-constitutional monarchy does, and profoundly so. Your proposal violates the rule of equality that GAR #2 grants member nations, there's no way around it.

[Adezku]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Am I in character? I thought not. Given you believe I am lying etc re my beliefs on the rule and insinuated this is clear from my own statements previously in this thread, please provide proof. All I see here is unsubstantiated innuendo.

That said, the GA 2 challenge is dismissed easily by reading it. The freely chosen government clause applies against member states, not the WA. The equality in law clause applies exactly the same way: if this were to pass it would inherently be the law. Nations then would be equal before it. Consider the alternative... we force member nations which seize property to pay for it. Are they suddenly not equal before the law??????

OOC: You're starting to make less and less sense, and adding in multiple m's or question marks isn't going to make your point any clearer, it only makes you sound desperate.

No, the challenge is not so easily dismissed as you think. Yes, it states that member nations of the WA are free from the dictation of other member nations in terms of their sovereignty and choice of government. And yes, proposals such as this one are written from the perspective or the World Assembly. However, are you not a member nations giving shape to this proposal? As you are the member nation giving shape to this proposal, in essence you're attempting to dictate through the mouth of the World Assembly. In this interpretation, you are a member nation trying to dictate what forms of government can be practiced freely and which not. Because your proposal draft is putting onerous restrictions on multiple types of monarchies.

If this were to pass, it would treat member nations differently before the law and there is no way you can dance around that fact. This law treats republics, elective and ceremonial monarchies inherently differently than it does all other forms of hereditary monarchy. The text of the law you're trying to implement is making that distinction, it discriminates on the basis of the characteristics of the monarchy in question. That is no longer a state of equality before the law with other member nations:

Every WA Member State has the right to equality in law with every other WA Member State

Under the law of your proposal, put a republic next to a hereditary semi-constitutional monarchy, and they are no longer equal. Because the republic doesn't face the threat of dissolution because of the characteristics of its form of government, while the semi-constitutional monarchy does, and profoundly so. Your proposal violates the rule of equality that GAR #2 grants member nations, there's no way around it.

OOC: Hear hear. Yet, there is another thing: is the process of drafting a bill not an IC process? Since the rest of us are IC surely you could extend us the courtesy of giving us an IC response to the points that have been raised IC'ly? Furthermore; Article 6 of General Assembly Resolution #2 - "The Rights and Duties of WA States" states that:

"Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from fomenting civil strife in the territory of another NationState, and to prevent the organization within its territory of activities calculated to foment such civil strife."

I'd say that splitting a nation into multiple parts is fomenting civil strife. Let's take a singular kingdom title, for instance; a monarch with four children. According to your proposal, it'll be split into four, equally dividing the title among the children when the monarch passes away. This will wreck any sense of unity and social cohesion a nation has, which will inevitably result in civil strife considering a government is being dissolved and split into four.

This proposal, thus, goes against not only Section I Article 1 and Section III Article 8, but also Section II Article 6 of this selfsame Resolution. To go even further, Section I Article 3 of this same resolution states:

"Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognised by international law."

This proposal is trying to involve the WA - and thereby all of its member states - in the political processes of a monarchical member state. Therefore, it is contrary to the aforementioned Article 3 of Section I. In addition to this, Section I Article 2 states that:

"Every WA Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law."

According to General Assembly Resolution #2, it is not up to the WA to decide over territory. You could argue that there are resolutions dealing with this through General Assembly Resolution #552 - "Citizenship And Birth Act", but this does not deal with physical territory, as your proposal is attempting to. Although General Assembly Resolution #526 - "Land Reclamation Regulation" deals with the gaining of territory through land reclamation, this is far-fetched as an argument in favour of your proposal.

There is no WA resolution that forcefully splits up nations and thus dissolves them of their sovereignty because of their form of government, nor should there be.

[Araraukar]

(OOC: However, monarchies are not actually prohibited. Plenty of passed resolutions make it more difficult to maintain an ideology, without prohibiting. Hereditary monarchies might be hurt under this proposal, but are quite evidently still possible, since a monarch could just have one child. I don’t see this as an ideological ban.)

OOC: This is the only reason why I support this. The same reasoning has been used time and again against dictatorships and socialist/communist systems. The reasoning should be equally applied on others, too, or else it's just a "reasoning applied to systems we do not live in" by GenSec.

I do think it's fucked-up idea and an ideology ban, but I've thought the same about several passed resolutions that were explained away with the reasoning Kenmoria outlined above - basically boiling down to "we're removing a key element of this system but because we're not actually outright banning the system, it's not ideological ban". So, in fairness of application of that fucked-up reasoning, support.

*** General Assembly Secretariat Ruling ***

Upon review of the proposal, we believe that the Patent Recognition Treaty does not violate the Ideological Ban rule. To hold that mere recognition of a concept that a nation is ideologically opposed to is insufficient to warrant application of the rule. To do so would create an overbroad rule that would bar a majority of existing legislation, rationalizing down ever more slippery slopes. The analogy of property rights as a bundle of sticks is apt here: we believe one can recognize, and even mandate, a few of the sticks in that bundle without lashing the entire stack to every law book, thus crossing the line into banning communal property ideologies wholesale.

As such, we hold the proposal to be Legal.

Underlining mine. In that case it was a ruling against socialist/communist systems.

EDIT: For the record, as usual, IA and I disagree on how the rule should be applied; I think it should be enforced more often to make WA more RP-friendly of different kinds of RP, he wants it to go away so that he can use resolutions to try and stomp out any RP he doesn't agree with.

[Herby]

Ehhhhhh I don’t get it. Why should we care about how royal families distribute their wealth or how they determine succession?

[Greater Cesnica]

Ehhhhhh I don’t get it. Why should we care about how royal families distribute their wealth or how they determine succession?

OOC: "Why should dictatorships vote on how democratic systems should be regulated?"

[Araraukar]

Ehhhhhh I don’t get it. Why should we care about how royal families distribute their wealth or how they determine succession?

"Why should dictatorships vote on how democratic systems should be regulated?"

OOC: That's a game mechanics issue that can't be changed by resolutions or really debated in IC.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: You're starting to make less and less sense, and adding in multiple m's or question marks isn't going to make your point any clearer, it only makes you sound desperate.

I'll be frank. The reason I'm using multiple question marks there is because you are entirely off balance with your interpretation of GA 2. It is entirely unsupported by precedent and I gave it the seriousness it deserved. It has been clearly rejected multiple times. I did not expect you to make that argument seriously. I also very clearly don't care about the proposal or its contents at all. You – inexplicably – still treat this as a normal thread. It isn't a normal thread where ambassadors come knocking about and I have to have some consistent RP where I make arguments consistent with what my member nation would want.

Sure, you could then respond with something like "IA is trying to tell me how to play the GA and he can't do that". Sure I can... it just doesn't work. No matter. Actually engaging with the proposal is a waste of your time and entirely missing the point. The actual engagement to be had here is engaging with the rules.

No, the challenge is not so easily dismissed as you think. Yes, it states that member nations of the WA are free from the dictation of other member nations in terms of their sovereignty and choice of government. And yes, proposals such as this one are written from the perspective or the World Assembly. However, are you not a member nations giving shape to this proposal? As you are the member nation giving shape to this proposal, in essence you're attempting to dictate through the mouth of the World Assembly. In this interpretation, you are a member nation trying to dictate what forms of government can be practiced freely and which not. Because your proposal draft is putting onerous restrictions on multiple types of monarchies.

That is not how GA 2 works. Separatist Peoples (9 Dec 2019) viewtopic.php?p=36511992#p36511992. Separatist Peoples (10 Nov 2018) viewtopic.php?p=34891637#p34891637. Mallorea and Riva (10 Jun 2014) viewtopic.php?p=20457243#p20457243 (cited previously in this thread on ideological ban). To be clear, there have been previous moderator rulings which have interpreted the GA 2 provisions in that way. They have since 2014 or so, however, been overruled or rejected.

If this were to pass, it would treat member nations differently before the law and there is no way you can dance around that fact. This law treats republics, elective and ceremonial monarchies inherently differently than it does all other forms of hereditary monarchy. The text of the law you're trying to implement is making that distinction, it discriminates on the basis of the characteristics of the monarchy in question. That is no longer a state of equality before the law with other member nations:

Every WA Member State has the right to equality in law with every other WA Member State

Under the law of your proposal, put a republic next to a hereditary semi-constitutional monarchy, and they are no longer equal. Because the republic doesn't face the threat of dissolution because of the characteristics of its form of government, while the semi-constitutional monarchy does, and profoundly so. Your proposal violates the rule of equality that GAR #2 grants member nations, there's no way around it.

This is a horrible precedent and anyone not blinded by hatred for this proposal would see that. I gave you one counter-example already. It is easy to imagine other ones. Any time any kind of member nation is negatively advantaged by anything they do or have, they will then claim they are not being treated equally relative to other nations who have not done or have those things. Nations with a shoreline have to abide by the law of the sea! They are not being treated equally under the law with these burdensome regulations which landlocked member nations do not have to follow! It is like Elon Musk claiming that the SEC is treating him unequally and rights are being violated because he got fined and Joe Smith, who does not have Twitter and never made any jokes about taking Tesla private at 420, did not.

If you really need another argument on GA 2 which can be safely dismissed, here's one! A member nation might have a treaty with another country, a la the Act of Union 1801 or 1707 which would require that member nation to have a certain kind of inheritance. GA 2's provision on member nations following "international law" in good faith make a contradiction between this proposal and that previous treaty, which also is international law! (Nb, this argument was brought and rejected without comment in discussions on GA 408.)

These arguments are the sort of rubbish I would expect from Old Hope and some drive-by orcs in the at-vote thread of some anti-war crimes proposal. It is not something I expected from someone somewhat versed in the operations of the Assembly.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Posts split due to length and the extent of the replies.

OOC: Hear hear. Yet, there is another thing: is the process of drafting a bill not an IC process? Since the rest of us are IC surely you could extend us the courtesy of giving us an IC response to the points that have been raised IC'ly? Furthermore; Article 6 of General Assembly Resolution #2 - "The Rights and Duties of WA States" states that:

I don't care about your points raised against the proposal for IC reasons. While I could give you that courtesy, doing so entirely misses the point of this proposal. This should be obvious from previous discussion.

"Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from fomenting civil strife in the territory of another NationState, and to prevent the organization within its territory of activities calculated to foment such civil strife."

I'd say that splitting a nation into multiple parts is fomenting civil strife. Let's take a singular kingdom title, for instance; a monarch with four children. According to your proposal, it'll be split into four, equally dividing the title among the children when the monarch passes away. This will wreck any sense of unity and social cohesion a nation has, which will inevitably result in civil strife considering a government is being dissolved and split into four.

The WA does not have this duty. If I were to do it, it surely would be prohibited by WA legislation. I am not to do it, the WA is. Any individuality of authorship is subsumed by WA ratification of the proposal. This is basic GA 2 jurisprudence.

This proposal, thus, goes against not only Section I Article 1 and Section III Article 8, but also Section II Article 6 of this selfsame Resolution. To go even further, Section I Article 3 of this same resolution states:

"Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognised by international law."

This proposal is trying to involve the WA - and thereby all of its member states - in the political processes of a monarchical member state. Therefore, it is contrary to the aforementioned Article 3 of Section I. In addition to this, Section I Article 2 states that:

"Every WA Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law."

According to General Assembly Resolution #2, it is not up to the WA to decide over territory.

Adding "selfsame" does not make your argument stronger when you forget "subject to the immunities recognized by international law". Those exceptions clauses make this a full-stop loss for this line of reasoning.

---

EDIT: For the record, as usual, IA and I disagree on how the rule should be applied; I think it should be enforced more often to make WA more RP-friendly of different kinds of RP, he wants it to go away so that he can use resolutions to try and stomp out any RP he doesn't agree with.

I wouldn't put it this way. If you were to get what you want with the bigger ideological ban rule, then there also might be a lot of things you like which would not be prohibited. Religious ideological bans especially might encroach by the rigid weight of precedent on civil rights legislation for example. Ideologies are not only political: the rule also clearly makes room for them. I want to expand the scope of what we can do or debate in the GA. While the sovereigntists might not like that, the GA has dual problems from the extent of its resolutions. (1) A lot of them cannot be replaced without strictly better replacements, precluding activity... and (2) a lot of topics cannot be legislated due to these kinds of rules. GA activity – within the framework of a consistent application of the GA rules, which I recognise that you also want here, – ought to be the goal espoused by GA players.

[Greater Cesnica]

"Why should dictatorships vote on how democratic systems should be regulated?"

OOC: That's a game mechanics issue that can't be changed by resolutions or really debated in IC.

I should have placed OOC before that.