[SUBMITTED] Repeal: "Rights of Neutral Nations"

[Aeisonia]

I found this while I was scrolling through old WA resolutions and thought of some flaws that would constitute a repeal. What are your thoughts and criticisms on what I've written?

The World Assembly,

Aware to the importance of the welfare of neutral nations in conflict zones,

Acknowledging the importance of the rights of neutral nations, and the importance of Resolution 371 in attempting to uphold these rights,

Concerned at problems that may arise from this resolution, such as:

i. The World Assembly lacking an army of its own, and thus not being able to enforce this resolution militarily
ii. The improbability of other means of enforcement, such as diplomatic condemnation, being able to stop an incursion into neutral territory

Further concerned by other flaws in Resolution 371, such as:

i. The restriction of private mercenary industry, which may not consider itself to be affiliated with the neutral nation's government
ii. The restriction of economic interactions with a belligerent, which may put the safety of the neutral state in jeopardy

Noting that these flaws in Resolution 371 may lead to violation of civil rights or the endangerment of the neutral nation,

Hereby repeals Resolution 371, "Rights of Neutral States."

[Republic Of Ludwigsburg]

Another point you can add is that neutral nations can send mercenaries to indirectly fight other nations without having consequences.

[Aeisonia]

Another point you can add is that neutral nations can send mercenaries to indirectly fight other nations without having consequences.

I think that was expressly forbidden by the resolution, unfortunately

[Republic Of Ludwigsburg]

Another point you can add is that neutral nations can send mercenaries to indirectly fight other nations without having consequences.

I think that was expressly forbidden by the resolution, unfortunately

That could add to the fact that the resolution is unenforceable as the WA has no army.

[Aeisonia]

I think that was expressly forbidden by the resolution, unfortunately

That could add to the fact that the resolution is unenforceable as the WA has no army.

How so?

[Republic Of Ludwigsburg]

That could add to the fact that the resolution is unenforceable as the WA has no army.

How so?

As the world assembly doesn't have an army, it depends on other nations to enforce the resolution which could lead to bribery by neutral nations which could ultimately lead to the neutral states giving bribes to enforcing nations. In other words, the WA depends on nations to enforce their laws since they don't have an army. Hence this allows neutral nations to get away with making mercenaries, or they could give bribes to enforcing nations.

PS: This might be wrong.

[Aeisonia]

How so?

As the world assembly doesn't have an army, it depends on other nations to enforce the resolution which could lead to bribery by neutral nations which could ultimately lead to the neutral states giving bribes to enforcing nations. In other words, the WA depends on nations to enforce their laws since they don't have an army. Hence this allows neutral nations to get away with making mercenaries, or they could give bribes to enforcing nations.

PS: This might be wrong.

Are you talking about lack of ability to enforce the resolution? Because I've talked about that a bit already

[Republic Of Ludwigsburg]

As the world assembly doesn't have an army, it depends on other nations to enforce the resolution which could lead to bribery by neutral nations which could ultimately lead to the neutral states giving bribes to enforcing nations. In other words, the WA depends on nations to enforce their laws since they don't have an army. Hence this allows neutral nations to get away with making mercenaries, or they could give bribes to enforcing nations.

PS: This might be wrong.

Are you talking about lack of ability to enforce the resolution? Because I've talked about that a bit already

Yeah basically but you should put that it leads to corruption

[Tinhampton]

This has been submitted. While the actual resolution number of Rights of Neutral States is closer to 225 to 371, it is neither of those (the correct number is 255); I'm therefore surprised that SL marked this legal (we've had SC resolutions marked illegal because they got the number of the resolution they were trying to repeal wrong before).

[Separatist Peoples]

This has been submitted. While the actual resolution number of Rights of Neutral States is closer to 225 to 371, it is neither of those (the correct number is 255); I'm therefore surprised that SL marked this legal (we've had SC resolutions marked illegal because they got the number of the resolution they were trying to repeal wrong before).

Ooc: which rule would that violate?

[Bears Armed]

This has been submitted. While the actual resolution number of Rights of Neutral States is closer to 225 to 371, it is neither of those (the correct number is 255); I'm therefore surprised that SL marked this legal (we've had SC resolutions marked illegal because they got the number of the resolution they were trying to repeal wrong before).

Ooc: which rule would that violate?

OOC: "Title must match contents"? I can remember at least one submitted Repeal proposal, in pre-GenSec days, being Mod-deleted under this interpretation of that rule.

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: which rule would that violate?

OOC: "Title must match contents". I can remember at least one submitted proposal, in pre-GenSec days, being Mod-deleted for this reason.

But the title and contents do match. One typo does not obviate the entirety of the proposal.

[Outer Sparta]

The author clearly didn't do their research nor went through the proper drafting phase.

[Bears Armed]

The author clearly didn't do their research nor went through the proper drafting phase.

That. however unfortunate one regards the fact as being, is not in itself grounds for a ruling of 'Illegal'.

[Outer Sparta]

The author clearly didn't do their research nor went through the proper drafting phase.

That. however unfortunate one regards the fact as being, is not in itself grounds for a ruling of 'Illegal'.

Maybe not, but obviously they just don't care and just submitted a crap proposal, regardless of if it's illegal or not.

[The New Nordic Union]

The author clearly didn't do their research nor went through the proper drafting phase.

That. however unfortunate one regards the fact as being, is not in itself grounds for a ruling of 'Illegal'.

I mean, Honest Mistake? 225 does none of the things the author claims...(Not completely serious)

[Separatist Peoples]

That. however unfortunate one regards the fact as being, is not in itself grounds for a ruling of 'Illegal'.

I mean, Honest Mistake? 225 does none of the things the author claims...(Not completely serious)

OOC: Good add, because HM would certainly not cover this as written. I want to address HM anyways.

Sure, it's a mistake without malice, but HM (terrible name for the rule) addresses substantive content. If players want to see it cover technical errors in numbering without substantive errors, I encourage them to make a post about editing the rule.