[DRAFT] WA Military Non-Aggression Act

[Daarwyrth]

Also: How is this not illegal for contradicting Two?

OOC: I won't lie that I'm sort of waiting to see how the potential repeal of GAR 2 will turn out. If that resolution is repealed, then nothing would stand in the way of this proposal legality wise, I believe.

Yet, I'd love to hear interpretations whether the current proposal would contradict GAR 2 and how.

Additionally, regarding the concerns Wallenburg and others raised ICly, I'm willing to consider including a line that ensures that fascist nations wouldn't enjoy the protections of the NAP and would be excluded from it, but I'd like to ask whether that is 1. desirable by multiple players 2. what would be a workable approach to including such a line?

[The Orwell Society]

Also: How is this not illegal for contradicting Two?

OOC: I won't lie that I'm sort of waiting to see how the potential repeal of GAR 2 will turn out. If that resolution is repealed, then nothing would stand in the way of this proposal legality wise, I believe.

Yet, I'd love to hear interpretations whether the current proposal would contradict GAR 2 and how.

Additionally, regarding the concerns Wallenburg and others raised ICly, I'm willing to consider including a line that ensures that fascist nations wouldn't enjoy the protections of the NAP and would be excluded from it, but I'd like to ask whether that is 1. desirable by multiple players 2. what would be a workable approach to including such a line?

OOC: That would be preferable, exluding fascist states such as myself from the bill. But how would you do that? First, you should probably briefly but clearly define who you are exluding: fascist, ultra-conservative, boldly authoritarian/totalitarian, and non-compliant (in this context meaning not following the general ideology of the WA, being liberal in it's policies). The last detail would have to be used sparingly, as we do not want right nations with authoritarian policies to be exluded, only those who are extreme right.

[Astrobolt]

Also: How is this not illegal for contradicting Two?

OOC: I won't lie that I'm sort of waiting to see how the potential repeal of GAR 2 will turn out. If that resolution is repealed, then nothing would stand in the way of this proposal legality wise, I believe.

Yet, I'd love to hear interpretations whether the current proposal would contradict GAR 2 and how.

Additionally, regarding the concerns Wallenburg and others raised ICly, I'm willing to consider including a line that ensures that fascist nations wouldn't enjoy the protections of the NAP and would be excluded from it, but I'd like to ask whether that is 1. desirable by multiple players 2. what would be a workable approach to including such a line?

OOC: What utility is served by removing compliant fascist WA nations from the protections of the NAP?

[The Ice States]

Also: How is this not illegal for contradicting Two?

OOC: I won't lie that I'm sort of waiting to see how the potential repeal of GAR 2 will turn out. If that resolution is repealed, then nothing would stand in the way of this proposal legality wise, I believe.

Yet, I'd love to hear interpretations whether the current proposal would contradict GAR 2 and how.

Additionally, regarding the concerns Wallenburg and others raised ICly, I'm willing to consider including a line that ensures that fascist nations wouldn't enjoy the protections of the NAP and would be excluded from it, but I'd like to ask whether that is 1. desirable by multiple players 2. what would be a workable approach to including such a line?

Ooc: Nearly all practises of fascism are prohibited anyway, and it would make more sense to prohibit fascist practises that are still allowed than exclude fascism from this resolution.

[Unibot III]

“Our suggestion is a different approach as non-compliance may not be a wilful choice by the member-nation — perhaps noncompliance is being imposed or forced upon the nation, for instance,” she replied.

Zylkoven: "I fail to see how non-compliance could be enforced on a member nation. If a member is unable to address its non-compliance it's due to their own unwillingness to do so, not mandated by external influences. We are of the strong opinion that non-compliant nations should not benefit from the protection of a WA NAP. If a nation wants to be a part of that NAP, the solution is simple: be or become compliant."

“But there are many ways via force that a member-nation could be made non-compliant against its will, if a non-member nation leads an attack on a member-nation, they could easily render a member-nation non-compliant, rendering the NAP useless until the invasion is repelled,” said Ms. Montebello.

- If a non-member nation starts overfishing in a member-nation’s waters, until the member-nation can forcibly remove the non-member-nation it is in violation of GA#199 (OOC: The Turbot War!)
- If a non-member nation creates a blockade of medical supplies in a member-nation, the member-nation is in violation of GA#186 until the blockade is squashed
- If a non-member nation uses a herbicide in a member nation for an off-label purpose, the member-nation is in violation of GA#376 until it can restrain the troops spraying the weeds
- If a non-member nation forcibly imports illegal meat into a member nation, it is in violation of GA#267 until it can evict the convoy by force and end the importation
- If a non-member nation disrupts the regular path of migratory birds with large scale forest fires or bombing raids orchestrated in the member-nation, the latter is in violation of GA#290 until they can put a stop to it
- If a non-member nation bombs the “Read the Resolution” offices in a member-nation, the member-nation is in violation of the Read the Resolution Act until new employees are hired

What good is a NAP if a member-nation can have any non-WA banana republic make a mockery of the system of compliance?

[Daarwyrth]

Zylkoven: "I fail to see how non-compliance could be enforced on a member nation. If a member is unable to address its non-compliance it's due to their own unwillingness to do so, not mandated by external influences. We are of the strong opinion that non-compliant nations should not benefit from the protection of a WA NAP. If a nation wants to be a part of that NAP, the solution is simple: be or become compliant."

“But there are many ways via force that a member-nation could be made non-compliant against its will, if a non-member nation leads an attack on a member-nation, they could easily render a member-nation non-compliant, rendering the NAP useless until the invasion is repelled,” said Ms. Montebello.

- If a non-member nation starts overfishing in a member-nation’s waters, until the member-nation can forcibly remove the non-member-nation it is in violation of GA#199 (OOC: The Turbot War!)
- If a non-member nation creates a blockade of medical supplies in a member-nation, the member-nation is in violation of GA#186 until the blockade is squashed
- If a non-member nation uses a herbicide in a member nation for an off-label purpose, the member-nation is in violation of GA#376 until it can restrain the troops spraying the weeds
- If a non-member nation forcibly imports illegal meat into a member nation, it is in violation of GA#267 until it can evict the convoy by force and end the importation
- If a non-member nation disrupts the regular path of migratory birds with large scale forest fires or bombing raids orchestrated in the member-nation, the latter is in violation of GA#290 until they can put a stop to it
- If a non-member nation bombs the “Read the Resolution” offices in a member-nation, the member-nation is in violation of the Read the Resolution Act until new employees are hired

What good is a NAP if a member-nation can have any non-WA banana republic make a mockery of the system of compliance?

Zylkoven: "Your argument is countered quite simply. You forget that non-compliance is contingent on the IAO ruling a nation non-compliant as per their mandate in the resolution "Administrative Compliance Act". If a hearing is held and the circumstances are revealed, I'm confident the IAO would not be so quick to rule a nation non-compliant if it is due to the interference of a non-member in an armed conflict. I refer you to the text of the resolution:

"The assessments must be based on:

1. the severity of the noncompliance,
   
2. the state’s objective intent to commit noncompliance or the actions proximate to a violation,
   
3. the good faith nature of the state’s actions proximate to a violation,
   
4. the state’s history of noncompliance,
   
5. force majeure preventing the state from fulfilling its obligations, and
   
6. other mitigating or aggravating circumstances;"

OOC: What utility is served by removing compliant fascist WA nations from the protections of the NAP?

OOC: At this juncture? Trying to accommodate nations like Wallenburg who have expressed their vehement refusal to be aligned with fascist states through a NAP but as I admitted in the Discord chat already, I may be trying to accommodate people a little bit too much with this resolution. Personally, I agree with the Ice States that through all the active resolutions it's basically impossible to be a fascist state while also a member of the WA. That said, I do want to see this resolution passed if it reaches the floor, so I'm trying to create a text that a majority of players will agree with.

[Unibot III]

“But there are many ways via force that a member-nation could be made non-compliant against its will, if a non-member nation leads an attack on a member-nation, they could easily render a member-nation non-compliant, rendering the NAP useless until the invasion is repelled,” said Ms. Montebello.

- If a non-member nation starts overfishing in a member-nation’s waters, until the member-nation can forcibly remove the non-member-nation it is in violation of GA#199 (OOC: The Turbot War!)
- If a non-member nation creates a blockade of medical supplies in a member-nation, the member-nation is in violation of GA#186 until the blockade is squashed
- If a non-member nation uses a herbicide in a member nation for an off-label purpose, the member-nation is in violation of GA#376 until it can restrain the troops spraying the weeds
- If a non-member nation forcibly imports illegal meat into a member nation, it is in violation of GA#267 until it can evict the convoy by force and end the importation
- If a non-member nation disrupts the regular path of migratory birds with large scale forest fires or bombing raids orchestrated in the member-nation, the latter is in violation of GA#290 until they can put a stop to it
- If a non-member nation bombs the “Read the Resolution” offices in a member-nation, the member-nation is in violation of the Read the Resolution Act until new employees are hired

What good is a NAP if a member-nation can have any non-WA banana republic make a mockery of the system of compliance?

Zylkoven: "Your argument is countered quite simply. You forget that non-compliance is contingent on the IAO ruling a nation non-compliant as per their mandate in the resolution "Administrative Compliance Act". If a hearing is held and the circumstances are revealed, I'm confident the IAO would not be so quick to rule a nation non-compliant if it is due to the interference of a non-member in an armed conflict. I refer you to the text of the resolution:

"The assessments must be based on:

1. the severity of the noncompliance,
   
2. the state’s objective intent to commit noncompliance or the actions proximate to a violation,
   
3. the good faith nature of the state’s actions proximate to a violation,
   
4. the state’s history of noncompliance,
   
5. force majeure preventing the state from fulfilling its obligations, and
   
6. other mitigating or aggravating circumstances;"

OOC: What utility is served by removing compliant fascist WA nations from the protections of the NAP?

OOC: At this juncture? Trying to accommodate nations like Wallenburg who have expressed their vehement refusal to be aligned with fascist states through a NAP but as I admitted in the Discord chat already, I may be trying to accommodate people a little bit too much with this resolution. Personally, I agree with the Ice States that through all the active resolutions it's basically impossible to be a fascist state while also a member of the WA. That said, I do want to see this resolution passed if it reaches the floor, so I'm trying to create a text that a majority of players will agree with.

“That is incorrect, non-compliance is not contingent on an IAO ruling, fines are contingent on an IAO ruling,” said Ms. Montebello. “The WACC investigates claims of non-compliance and the IAO lays fines for non-compliance, but whether a member-state is in a state of ‘compliance’ or ‘non-compliance’ is decided only by the actions or non-action of a member-state in relation to every resolution and its obligations. If the resolutions that created the WACC or the IAO were to be repealed, for instance, the obligation to comply with WA Law would not be impacted by their repeal, and whether nations were ‘compliant’ or ‘non-compliant’ with WA Law again would not be impacted regardless of whether the organizations that investigate or adjudicate non-compliance were unincorporated. These past resolutions, while absolutely landmark legislation, did not invent the concept of ‘non-compliance,’ nor establish the obligation to comply. Compliance predated that legislation and it exists independently simply as a binary state of either complying or not-complying with the extant laws of this body.”

“You could however possibly link Clause 4 to IAO fines specifically, and have the NAP not apply in cases where member-nations have outstanding IAO fines,” said Ms. Montebello, “however you would have to consider whether such a clause could be challenged by the ‘House of Cards’ rule. That may be possible to accomplish with some finesse.”

[Haganham]

Zylkoven: "I fail to see how non-compliance could be enforced on a member nation. If a member is unable to address its non-compliance it's due to their own unwillingness to do so, not mandated by external influences. We are of the strong opinion that non-compliant nations should not benefit from the protection of a WA NAP. If a nation wants to be a part of that NAP, the solution is simple: be or become compliant."

“But there are many ways via force that a member-nation could be made non-compliant against its will, if a non-member nation leads an attack on a member-nation, they could easily render a member-nation non-compliant, rendering the NAP useless until the invasion is repelled,” said Ms. Montebello.

- If a non-member nation starts overfishing in a member-nation’s waters, until the member-nation can forcibly remove the non-member-nation it is in violation of GA#199 (OOC: The Turbot War!)
- If a non-member nation creates a blockade of medical supplies in a member-nation, the member-nation is in violation of GA#186 until the blockade is squashed
- If a non-member nation uses a herbicide in a member nation for an off-label purpose, the member-nation is in violation of GA#376 until it can restrain the troops spraying the weeds
- If a non-member nation forcibly imports illegal meat into a member nation, it is in violation of GA#267 until it can evict the convoy by force and end the importation
- If a non-member nation disrupts the regular path of migratory birds with large scale forest fires or bombing raids orchestrated in the member-nation, the latter is in violation of GA#290 until they can put a stop to it
- If a non-member nation bombs the “Read the Resolution” offices in a member-nation, the member-nation is in violation of the Read the Resolution Act until new employees are hired

What good is a NAP if a member-nation can have any non-WA banana republic make a mockery of the system of compliance?

In these circumstance we can refer to GAR#@ Article 9 § "Every WA Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, including this World Assembly, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty."
The question then is "is this member nation failing to 'carry out in good faith it's obligations' under WA law, or is it complying in good faith, but not meeting requirements of a resolution due to circumstances outside it's control"

[West Barack and East Obama]

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: Strongly opposed to any more efforts into meddling with militaries, especially peace loving hippie ones. Consign them all to a dustbin and spare us from this nonsense. Here, I even brought one along with me. Plus a shredder.

[Unibot III]

“But there are many ways via force that a member-nation could be made non-compliant against its will, if a non-member nation leads an attack on a member-nation, they could easily render a member-nation non-compliant, rendering the NAP useless until the invasion is repelled,” said Ms. Montebello.

- If a non-member nation starts overfishing in a member-nation’s waters, until the member-nation can forcibly remove the non-member-nation it is in violation of GA#199 (OOC: The Turbot War!)
- If a non-member nation creates a blockade of medical supplies in a member-nation, the member-nation is in violation of GA#186 until the blockade is squashed
- If a non-member nation uses a herbicide in a member nation for an off-label purpose, the member-nation is in violation of GA#376 until it can restrain the troops spraying the weeds
- If a non-member nation forcibly imports illegal meat into a member nation, it is in violation of GA#267 until it can evict the convoy by force and end the importation
- If a non-member nation disrupts the regular path of migratory birds with large scale forest fires or bombing raids orchestrated in the member-nation, the latter is in violation of GA#290 until they can put a stop to it
- If a non-member nation bombs the “Read the Resolution” offices in a member-nation, the member-nation is in violation of the Read the Resolution Act until new employees are hired

What good is a NAP if a member-nation can have any non-WA banana republic make a mockery of the system of compliance?

In these circumstance we can refer to GAR#@ Article 9 § "Every WA Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, including this World Assembly, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty."
The question then is "is this member nation failing to 'carry out in good faith it's obligations' under WA law, or is it complying in good faith, but not meeting requirements of a resolution due to circumstances outside it's control"

“That clause in GA#2 articulates the duty of member-nations to make a best effort to comply with all international law it observes, including the WA, but the “good faith” qualifier only applies to the duty that GA#2 is articulating, it does not inherently apply to the concept of compliance itself — which exists independent of legislation, including GA#2,” said Ms. Montebello, “if GA#2 were to be repealed, member-states would still be obligated to comply with WA Law.”

Ms. Montebello paused, exhaled, and continued: “Let’s think of it in a different way, shall we?”

“If you imagine a WA resolution that says ‘you must make a good faith effort to comply with all WA Law’ (like GA#2) such a clause is perfectly acceptable, because it duplicates an existing unwritten part of the WA ‘meta-constitution’ (for lack of a better word)… WA member-states are expected to comply with WA resolutions, requiring them to also make a good faith effort to do so is unnecessary but not contradictory with this unwritten constitutional principle,” explained Ms. Montebello. “Now, if we had a resolution that tried to write ‘all member-nations are expected only to make a best effort to comply with WA Law’ this would constitute an illegal amendment of most or all WA resolutions. Some experienced authors are careful to establish exemptions and apply their language in a way that acknowledges member-nations aren’t expected to meet the resolution’s goals if the member-nation is in a state of war or caught in some extraordinary circumstance. However some authors are not so careful. Many bad resolutions are bad precisely because the resolutions don’t anticipate how difficult it may be for a nation to comply with its regulation in certain circumstances. This is a common justification for a repeal.”

“You may ask what the meta-constitution is,” says Ms. Montebello, “I would see it as containing a few basic principles of membership: ‘that all nations can join unless barred, all member-nations are obligated to comply with its legislation, no member-nation is obligated to comply with legislation after it is repealed, all member-nations can cast a vote in the WA, member-nations are not obligated to vote on any legislation etc…’ these are unwritten rules that service the mechanics of this institution and they cannot be amended or contradicted by WA law.”

“Ultimately the point being raised by my delegation is if you simply say the NAP does not apply to nations not complying with WA law, this will include member-nations caught in circumstances where extant WA legislation (perhaps poorly written) is creating unreasonable obligations for them to meet,” said Ms. Montebello. “You can avoid this trap by defining non-compliance *for the purposes of the resolution* as limited to outstanding IAO fines perhaps, or reasonable best efforts to comply with extant legislation. Does this make sense?”

[Astrobolt]

OOC: What utility is served by removing compliant fascist WA nations from the protections of the NAP?

OOC: At this juncture? Trying to accommodate nations like Wallenburg who have expressed their vehement refusal to be aligned with fascist states through a NAP but as I admitted in the Discord chat already, I may be trying to accommodate people a little bit too much with this resolution. Personally, I agree with the Ice States that through all the active resolutions it's basically impossible to be a fascist state while also a member of the WA. That said, I do want to see this resolution passed if it reaches the floor, so I'm trying to create a text that a majority of players will agree with.

OOC: If it doesn’t serve any utility in terms of making the proposal better in any way, don’t add it in. If you add it in and cannot justify it beyond an appeal to passing the resolution, I will oppose it. There are better ways to tackle the ‘fascist’ problem than this.

[Daarwyrth]

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: Strongly opposed to any more efforts into meddling with militaries, especially peace loving hippie ones. Consign them all to a dustbin and spare us from this nonsense. Here, I even brought one along with me. Plus a shredder.

Two strongly built and wide-shouldered Daarwyrthian aides appear at Princess Madelyne's side. "Your bin and shredder are neither necessary nor desired, Ambassador," she says with a gentle and polite smile. "Shall my aides help you put the bin and shredder back to where you found them? After all, our delegation has no desire in abandoning this proposal draft, and so I'm sure we can find someone who will make better use of those objects."

OOC: If it doesn’t serve any utility in terms of making the proposal better in any way, don’t add it in. If you add it in and cannot justify it beyond an appeal to passing the resolution, I will oppose it. There are better ways to tackle the ‘fascist’ problem than this.

OOC: In that case I will keep it as it is and not include it for now. Personally, I don't believe such an inclusion is necessary, but I am open to considering it again in the future.

[Heavens Reach]

Support in concept, but suggest reworking this so that the WA is imposing a non-aggression clause (with whatever exceptions you will), rather than couching the desired non-aggression in an international pact. It's both legislatively simpler, and less likely to face a legality challenge if GAR #2 remains in force

[Daarwyrth]

Support in concept, but suggest reworking this so that the WA is imposing a non-aggression clause (with whatever exceptions you will), rather than couching the desired non-aggression in an international pact. It's both legislatively simpler, and less likely to face a legality challenge if GAR #2 remains in force

OOC: Could you elaborate a bit on what you mean? Do you mean that, instead of having all nations be part of a non-aggression pact, any form of armed conflict between member nations is prohibited? With the exclusions currently in place?

[West Barack and East Obama]

Two strongly built and wide-shouldered Daarwyrthian aides appear at Princess Madelyne's side. "Your bin and shredder are neither necessary nor desired, Ambassador," she says with a gentle and polite smile. "Shall my aides help you put the bin and shredder back to where you found them? After all, our delegation has no desire in abandoning this proposal draft, and so I'm sure we can find someone who will make better use of those objects."

Dr Justin Obama Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: Respectfully disagree, aides uh I mean Princess. Well, your proposal does nothing except harm member states. People aren't so jingoistic to invade other member states for no reason. Also, war must be consensual to remain in compliance. Therefore, member states would engage in war with others for good reasons only, therefore trying to hamstring that is a terrible idea that does not merit further discussion.

[Daarwyrth]

Two strongly built and wide-shouldered Daarwyrthian aides appear at Princess Madelyne's side. "Your bin and shredder are neither necessary nor desired, Ambassador," she says with a gentle and polite smile. "Shall my aides help you put the bin and shredder back to where you found them? After all, our delegation has no desire in abandoning this proposal draft, and so I'm sure we can find someone who will make better use of those objects."

Dr Justin Obama Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: Respectfully disagree, aides uh I mean Princess. Well, your proposal does nothing except harm member states. People aren't so jingoistic to invade other member states for no reason. Also, war must be consensual to remain in compliance. Therefore, member states would engage in war with others for good reasons only, therefore trying to hamstring that is a terrible idea that does not merit further discussion.

Zylkoven: "You're entitled to your opinion, Ambassador, but so is our delegation. It is our belief that there is no valid reason between democratic states to wage war against one another. The WA is a community of nations all working together towards international coexistence. War between member states should have no place within that. We are unwavering in that conviction, Ambassador."

[Excidium Planetis]

“That clause in GA#2 articulates the duty of member-nations to make a best effort to comply with all international law it observes, including the WA, but the “good faith” qualifier only applies to the duty that GA#2 is articulating, it does not inherently apply to the concept of compliance itself — which exists independent of legislation, including GA#2,” said Ms. Montebello, “if GA#2 were to be repealed, member-states would still be obligated to comply with WA Law.”

"I d-disagree, Ms Montebello." Adelia objects. "If GA#2 was to b-be repealed, member nations would be expected to comply, but not in good faith. The good faith obligation comes from GA#2. The idea of this, uh, 'meta-constitution' is ridiculous."

[Unibot III]

“That clause in GA#2 articulates the duty of member-nations to make a best effort to comply with all international law it observes, including the WA, but the “good faith” qualifier only applies to the duty that GA#2 is articulating, it does not inherently apply to the concept of compliance itself — which exists independent of legislation, including GA#2,” said Ms. Montebello, “if GA#2 were to be repealed, member-states would still be obligated to comply with WA Law.”

"I d-disagree, Ms Montebello." Adelia objects. "If GA#2 was to b-be repealed, member nations would be expected to comply, but not in good faith. The good faith obligation comes from GA#2. The idea of this, uh, 'meta-constitution' is ridiculous."

“Many institutions have a written and unwritten constitution,” said Ms. Montebello. “In principle, we agree - GA#2 established a good faith obligation to comply with legislation, but if it is repealed, there would still remain a pre-existing obligation to comply with legislation regardless of good faith — this obligation is not amended by GA#2, nor contradicted or superseded by GA#2, it’s simply duplicated (partially) by GA#2.”

[Heavens Reach]

Support in concept, but suggest reworking this so that the WA is imposing a non-aggression clause (with whatever exceptions you will), rather than couching the desired non-aggression in an international pact. It's both legislatively simpler, and less likely to face a legality challenge if GAR #2 remains in force

OOC: Could you elaborate a bit on what you mean? Do you mean that, instead of having all nations be part of a non-aggression pact, any form of armed conflict between member nations is prohibited? With the exclusions currently in place?

OOC: correct

[Daarwyrth]

OOC: Could you elaborate a bit on what you mean? Do you mean that, instead of having all nations be part of a non-aggression pact, any form of armed conflict between member nations is prohibited? With the exclusions currently in place?

OOC: correct

OOC: I have reworked the proposal to fit with your suggestion, which also led to a title change the effect should hopefully be the same, but be legislatively simpler. I have also included a new clause about any defence treaties that a member nation might have with a non-member, and how aggression of another member state against that non-member should be dealt with.

[Tinhampton]

Congratulations; this is now even more illegal for contradicting Two than it used to be.

Would Articles 2 and 4 require member states to attack nations which leave the WA to attack another member state or are otherwise noncompliant with GA law?

[Daarwyrth]

Congratulations; this is now even more illegal for contradicting Two than it used to be.

OOC: Considering Heavens Reach's comment, I was under the impression that would not be the case. Would you be so kind as to elaborate?

Would Articles 2 and 4 require member states to attack nations which leave the WA to attack another member state or are otherwise noncompliant with GA law?

There is no such requirement in the text of the law. It only states that such nations are to be excluded from the non-aggression mandate of Clause 1. Whether member nations take military action against such a state is entirely up to them and not mandated by any clause of this resolution.

[Tinhampton]

Congratulations; this is now even more illegal for contradicting Two than it used to be.

OOC: Considering Heavens Reach's comment, I was under the impression that would not be the case. Would you be so kind as to elaborate?

Article 10 of GA#2 says that "WA Member States may engage in wars." Telling them that they cannot engage in war for any reason contradicts that Article. I will once again reiterate what Sep said about a similar war ban.

[Heavens Reach]

OOC: Considering Heavens Reach's comment, I was under the impression that would not be the case. Would you be so kind as to elaborate?

Article 10 of GA#2 says that "WA Member States may engage in wars." Telling them that they cannot engage in war for any reason contradicts that Article. I will once again reiterate what Sep said about a similar war ban.

It says they may engage in wars, not that they may engage in any war. Daarwyrth's proposal isn't a ban on war in totality.

[Daarwyrth]

OOC: Considering Heavens Reach's comment, I was under the impression that would not be the case. Would you be so kind as to elaborate?

Article 10 of GA#2 says that "WA Member States may engage in wars." Telling them that they cannot engage in war for any reason contradicts that Article. I will once again reiterate what Sep said about a similar war ban.

OOC: Then my earlier comment stands, and this draft won't be submitted before GAR#2 falls

Article 10 of GA#2 says that "WA Member States may engage in wars." Telling them that they cannot engage in war for any reason contradicts that Article. I will once again reiterate what Sep said about a similar war ban.

It says they may engage in wars, not that they may engage in any war. Daarwyrth's proposal isn't a ban on war in totality.

I would agree, if it wasn't for the interpretation that Seperatist Peoples gave in the link Tin linked, this one. Unless, of course, the GenSec's interpretation of GAR#2 changed in the meanwhile.