[DRAFT #3] Repeal GA#386 "Reducing Statelessness"

[Tinhampton]

Character count: 1,396
Word count: 219

Lydia Anderson, Assistant to the Delegate-Ambassador: While I very much disagreed with Delegate-Ambassador Smith's decision to support this proposal in 2016, I never bothered to do anything about it. Mostly because I was still the Mayor at the time. And yes, I do have a replacement.

Repeal "Reducing Statelessness"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal

Target: GA#386

Proposed by: Tinhampton

---

General Assembly Resolution #386 “Reducing Statelessness” (Category: Civil Rights; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Dismayed that Article 1 of GA#386's otherwise-laudable requirement that no person be deprived "of their nationality should such an action leave [them] stateless" does not extend to the deprival of citizenship,

Concerned that Article 2 permits a committee to grant "[WA] identification documents and passports to the former nationals of member states who have been deprived of their nationality by their government" (even if such loss of nationality did not leave them stateless), given that said documents may not necessarily restore the "political rights" they may have enjoyed where they were nationals,

Expressing its support instead for Articles 5 and 8b of GA#72x "Standardized Passport Arrangements," which allows another committee called PASA to issue its own passports not only to stateless people but also to refugees and those seeking to leave warzones, while making clear that PASA passports are only intended to grant safe passage to such persons rather than to bestow nationality or citizenship rights upon them, and

Noting that GA#72y "End Statelessness" - by requiring members to directly return citizenship or nationality to those they have made stateless - not only offers a more efficient and practical solution to statelessness than GA#386's Article 2, but also renders its Article 1 moot in principle...

The General Assembly hereby repeals GA#386 "Reducing Statelessness."

Dismayed that Article 1 of GA#386's otherwise-laudable requirement that no person be deprived "of their nationality should such an action leave [them] stateless" does not extend to the deprival of citizenship,

Concerned that Article 2 permits a committee to grant "[WA] identification documents and passports to the former nationals of member states who have been deprived of their nationality by their government" (even if such loss of nationality did not leave them stateless), given that said documents may not necessarily restore the "political rights" they may have enjoyed where they were nationals, and

Noting that GA#72x "End Statelessness" - by requiring members to directly return citizenship or nationality to those they have made stateless - not only offers a more efficient and practical solution to statelessness than GA#386's Article 2, but also renders its Article 1 moot in principle...

The General Assembly hereby repeals GA#386 "Reducing Statelessness."

Dismayed that Article 1 of GA#386's otherwise-laudable requirement that no person be deprived "of their nationality should such an action leave [them] stateless" does not extend to the deprival of citizenship,

Concerned that Article 2 permits a committee to grant "[WA] identification documents and passports to the former nationals of member states who have been deprived of their nationality by their government," given that:

1. said documents do not necessarily restore the "political rights" they may have enjoyed where they used to be nationals,
2. it covers "former nationals of member states who have been deprived of their nationality by their government," even if they were not made stateless due to being so deprived, and
3. requiring members to directly restore the nationality of those who they have made stateless would be a much more efficient and practical solution, and

Believing that, while the World Assembly should act to correct these problems, it cannot do so while GA#386 remains active...

The General Assembly hereby repeals GA#386 "Reducing Statelessness."

[Xanthorrhoea]

Believing that, while the World Assembly should act to correct these problems, it cannot do so while GA#386 remains active...

What about GA#386 prevents you from writing a proposal with the requirement to protect and restore citizenship and nationality?

[Tinhampton]

Believing that, while the World Assembly should act to correct these problems, it cannot do so while GA#386 remains active...

What about GA#386 prevents you from writing a proposal with the requirement to protect and restore citizenship and nationality?

The replacement exists already - although I suspect that Article a(ii) of that is non-minor duplication of Article 1 of #386. If it is, repeal of #386 is necessary; if it is not, then the provisions of the replacement (should it pass) and GA#76 "Standardised Passport Act" together make #386 redundant anyway.

[Xanthorrhoea]

The replacement exists already - although I suspect that Article a(ii) of that is non-minor duplication of Article 1 of #386. If it is, repeal of #386 is necessary; if it is not, then the provisions of the replacement (should it pass) and GA#76 "Standardised Passport Act" together make #386 redundant anyway.

Why not just remove clause aii then and avoid the duplication? If you draw a distinction between nationality and citizenship, then there’s no duplication, GA#386 still has an effect, and there’s no need to waste time on a repeal.

[Tinhampton]

My concerns RE Article 2 of #386 won't go away while #386 itself is still in force

(The analogy I'm least fond of was the aftermath of Death Penalty Ban ~ 11mos ago. Originally a full ban on the death penalty, DPB was mysteriously altered in drafting to exempt "crimes under a military penal code committed during time of war" for no apparent reason and cite Cretox State as a co-author. I immediately proposed Protecting Sapient Life, which would have banned it in all circumstances not otherwise defined in WA law but was defeated by less than 1,500 votes on sometimes amazingly trivial grounds. 2mos later, we ended up getting Military Death Penalty Ban, which is so ridiculously targeted - viz. to "all crimes under the purview of military law" - that it becomes an effective historical curiosity the moment DPB gets repealed. I'd very much rather be in the business of developing sustainable, long-term resolutions.)

[Imperium Anglorum]

My concerns RE Article 2 of #386 won't go away while #386 itself is still in force [emoji omitted]

And your solution, reflected both in this (unnecessary) repeal and in your replacement, is to have people who have been deprived of their nationality and citizenship shuffled back into arms of the same state that is not willing to protect them. This is actually worse than the status quo.

What about GA#386 prevents you from writing a proposal with the requirement to protect and restore citizenship and nationality?

The replacement exists already - although I suspect that Article a(ii) of that is non-minor duplication of Article 1 of #386. If it is, repeal of #386 is necessary; if it is not, then the provisions of the replacement (should it pass) and GA#76 "Standardised Passport Act" together make #386 redundant anyway.

If I were voting in that matter, I would find it to be minor duplication. I don't know how the others™ would vote. Even so, your conception of minor duplication seems also to ratify Qvait's MDPB approach, which is at odds with your position below.

The analogy I'm least fond of was the aftermath of Death Penalty Ban ~ 11mos ago. Originally a full ban on the death penalty, DPB was mysteriously altered in drafting to exempt "crimes under a military penal code committed during time of war" for no apparent reason and cite Cretox State as a co-author. I immediately proposed Protecting Sapient Life, which would have banned it in all circumstances not otherwise defined in WA law but was defeated by less than 1,500 votes on sometimes amazingly trivial grounds. 2mos later, we ended up getting Military Death Penalty Ban, which is so ridiculously targeted - viz. to "all crimes under the purview of military law" - that it becomes an effective historical curiosity the moment DPB gets repealed. I'd very much rather be in the business of developing sustainable, long-term resolutions.

As something of a sidetrack, I guess, this is frankly your being confused and perplexed about the differences between how legislation is enacted with the benefit of hindsight and how legislation is actually enacted in the moment.

It's easy to armchair general right now saying 'Oh, IA is such a fool, he "mysteriously" made an exception and cited Cretox as a co-author; I'm going to assert there were no reasons, even though that's really just reflective of how I know literally nothing about why that exception came about, who was involved in writing it, and what contributions Cretox made'. It's also easy to say now – after I banned the death penalty – that the death penalty ban was something that the Assembly would in fact stomach.

But some overly rationalist conception of a preexisting preference set that is revealed by an author like with a median voter theorem is not how legislation is actually made. Preference sets change in reaction to form, procedure, and messenger. Legislation in the real world, and in NationStates, is actually made by convincing voters, building relationships with people, and taking feedback from those people.

The incrementalist framework with DPB and MDPB operating separately also severs the two policies from each other. Even if we pretend that there is an existing set of preferences, if the voters are willing to countenance DPB but not MDPB, it is legislatively preferable to pass what they want rather than hold out obstinately for what they seemed to not want: a proposal like UM's ban on judicial murder.

What you're complaining about in DPB is really just compromise: I took advice from Cretox and others in drafting Death Penalty Ban and incorporated it into my proposal. That advice from Cretox was both helpful and meaningful in drafting terms as well, which is why he deserves that co-authorship. In the climate of uncertainty arising from the failure of previous death penalty bans, this is prudential risk aversion. It also reflects how I chose to engage with the voters: I circulated DPB for constructive feedback and made a good faith effort to incorporate that feedback into the proposal.

This is in massive contrast to the way you handled your draft for Repeal 'Supporting and Valuing the Humanities'. What I remember is that I told you that there is a low chance of success and that it would not be a good time to put it to a vote. After pulling teeth informing you that it would head to ultimate failure, you finally withdrew it after I implied that I would do it as a co-author. You trotted out your repeal a few months later; I supported it – because I have clear non-personal preexisting policy preferences – even though it eventually ended in failure. Writing resolutions is a collaborative process that requires getting multiple people on board. It is not something you can force upon the public writ large with huge numbers of drafts while refusing to listen to political realities or take any advice you do not want to hear. This is why my proposals since 2018 have passed 20:1 and your proposals in the same time have a 7:12 record.

Data is from my website. Nb about possible inaccuracy if votes flipped from one side to the other in the last hour of voting. Submitting authors only; co-authorships not included.

Your most recent branding phrase – 'sustainable long-term resolutions' – is also preposterous. Your complaint here about DPB is one that has no basis in how resolutions are actually written, campaigned for, and passed. It is coming with the benefit of hindsight to criticise writing decisions made under substantial uncertainty about success; to me, they seem to be criticisms for authors not having preternatural clairvoyance. But the premises aside, this rubbish about sustainability ignores that resolutions can only be sustainable if they pass; otherwise you are 'sustaining' a dead husk. And nothing can be 'long-term' if it never existed. This new branding is wholly at odds your drafting 'style' and its consequences.

All in all, this grumbling about MDPB seems more like sour grapes that Qvait's MDPB passed instead of your PSL. Or laying the groundwork for a long con to repeal DPB after passing a single-resolution full ban, even though that would force the Assembly to bundle the currently-separated topics and require it to raze everything to the ground if it ever wanted to change its mind... while adding nothing to international law. But I'm sure that you'll have some line-by-line response to this post that misses the forest for smattering the trees with emojis instead.

[Unibot III]

Writing resolutions is a collaborative process that requires getting multiple people on board. It is not something you can force upon the public writ large with huge numbers of drafts while refusing to listen to political realities or take any advice you do not want to hear. This is why my proposals since 2018 have passed 20:1 and your proposals in the same time have a 7:12 record.

OOC:

Writing resolutions is a collaborative process, passing resolutions is prostitution.

You’re the delegate of Europe and knee-deep in WALL. Why would you not have a 20:1 record?

With that good fortune, I could have passed my great aunt’s left ass cheek!

This is a silly conversation. I may have some drafting feedback later, but I will do it IC.

[Xanthorrhoea]

My concerns RE Article 2 of #386 won't go away while #386 itself is still in force

(The analogy I'm least fond of was the aftermath of Death Penalty Ban ~ 11mos ago. Originally a full ban on the death penalty, DPB was mysteriously altered in drafting to exempt "crimes under a military penal code committed during time of war" for no apparent reason and cite Cretox State as a co-author. I immediately proposed Protecting Sapient Life, which would have banned it in all circumstances not otherwise defined in WA law but was defeated by less than 1,500 votes on sometimes amazingly trivial grounds. 2mos later, we ended up getting Military Death Penalty Ban, which is so ridiculously targeted - viz. to "all crimes under the purview of military law" - that it becomes an effective historical curiosity the moment DPB gets repealed. I'd very much rather be in the business of developing sustainable, long-term resolutions.)

Re: article 2, I don’t get the problem.

There are two possibilities if your proposal passes without repealing GA#386:
1. There are no longer, and can no longer be anyone who is stateless (at least due to WA nations withdrawing citizenship/nationality), rendering the GESTAPO’s (really?) passport powers vestigial. The rest of GA386 remains useful, and that part becomes moot, so won’t effect anything, and it doesn’t seem worth the effort to repeal a still mostly functional piece of legislation just because a part of it has been superseded.

2. Your proposal does not block every way of becoming stateless, and we end up with some stateless people. For example, if some nations chuck a fit, expel some citizens, and then choose to leave the WA. Then we have some stateless people, who there is an argument to be made should be part of the WA (after all, the nation that wanted to leave clearly didn’t want to take them with it). In such cases, retaining a backup way for them to obtain ID through the GESTAPO (sigh) is a good idea.

Basically, I don’t really see any justification for repeal in either of your points.

Re: the rest of your comment, I would argue that a sustainable resolution is one that performs the function that it’s supposed to, and doesn’t carry adverse effects or loopholes. As far as I can tell, this is a perfectly functional piece of legislation that would remain so if your proposal passes, and I see no egregious loopholes or unintended effects. As a side note, I’d argue that multiple resolutions covering different parts of the same topic is more sustainable if anything than one omnibus, as it takes much more effort to repeal them all, as opposed to repealing a single resolution.

As to the rest of what’s happening, I ain’t touchin’ that mess of historical context.

[Tinhampton]

My concerns RE Article 2 of #386 won't go away while #386 itself is still in force [emoji omitted]

And your solution, reflected both in this (unnecessary) repeal and in your replacement, is to have people who have been deprived of their nationality and citizenship shuffled back into arms of the same state that is not willing to protect them. This is actually worse than the status quo.

Member states that have made their inhabitants stateless are, at least, required to protect certain rights of those inhabitants. The World Assembly itself is not, or at least not to that extent, and there exists no legislation guaranteeing rights to so-called World Assembly citizens (or even to holders of those documents described in #386.2, beyond the right to have such documents recognised as valid) - only i.e. to citizens or residents of individual member states.

(There exists no empirical evidence to demonstrate that the granting of "[United Nations] passports" by UN entities to all people deprived of their nationality is not "worse" than requiring those who have made them stateless to restore that nationality, because there exists no UN entity that does this task.)

[Bears Armed]

(There exists no empirical evidence to demonstrate that the granting of "[United Nations] passports" by UN entities to all people deprived of their nationality is not "worse" than requiring those who have made them stateless to restore that nationality, because there exists no UN entity that does this task.)

OOC: But the League of Nations had such an agency.

And after WW2 the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) was authorised to issue "displaced person passports" that many nations accepted as sufficient for visa applications.

[Tinhampton]

On further consideration, I will now be submitting this after the passage of End Statelessness. A newish draft has been written accordingly.

[Tinhampton]

It's a sign of how long I've left this draft that I still refer to the replacement as "GA#59x "End Statelessness";" that's been changed. And another sign of how long I've left this draft that I now need to use this as a vehicle to praise Simone's new thing, which rends 386's passport issuance authority obsolete (or would do so alongside my replacement).

[Tinhampton]

Bump for further comment. Will be submitting this in about a month due to the state of the queue.

[Fachumonn]

Writing resolutions is a collaborative process that requires getting multiple people on board. It is not something you can force upon the public writ large with huge numbers of drafts while refusing to listen to political realities or take any advice you do not want to hear. This is why my proposals since 2018 have passed 20:1 and your proposals in the same time have a 7:12 record.

OOC:

Writing resolutions is a collaborative process, passing resolutions is prostitution.

You’re the delegate of Europe and knee-deep in WALL. Why would you not have a 20:1 record?

With that good fortune, I could have passed my great aunt’s left ass cheek!

This is a silly conversation. I may have some drafting feedback later, but I will do it IC.

To be fair, Tinhampton's strategy is literally just throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks.

[The Overmind]

OOC:

Writing resolutions is a collaborative process, passing resolutions is prostitution.

You’re the delegate of Europe and knee-deep in WALL. Why would you not have a 20:1 record?

With that good fortune, I could have passed my great aunt’s left ass cheek!

This is a silly conversation. I may have some drafting feedback later, but I will do it IC.

To be fair, Tinhampton's strategy is literally just throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks.

So many people can be accused of that, but Tinhampton is, nonetheless, a good author. I have never understood why the player base singles out Tinhampton in this way.

[Fachumonn]

To be fair, Tinhampton's strategy is literally just throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks.

So many people can be accused of that, but Tinhampton is, nonetheless, a good author. I have never understood why the player base singles out Tinhampton in this way.

I believe Tinhampton is a good author as well. All I was saying is that they have a unique strategy that not many experienced authors do.

[Tinhampton]

Last call... OR IS IT???

[Juansonia]

Last call... OR IS IT???

Why doesn't the title say so?

[Tinhampton]

Last call... OR IS IT???

Why doesn't the title say so?

Due to uncertainty surrounding the passage of End Statelessness. Comments are welcome and strongly encouraged.