[DRAFT] WA Military Non-Aggression Act

[Heavens Reach]

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

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.

Personally, I'm interested in what Imperium Anglorum, as Secretariat, has to say about the current draft's legality under GA#2.

Edit: I sent them a telegram, in case they're not busy and would like to help us out with this interpretation. Just making a note of it so that they don't received duplicate requests

[Daarwyrth]

Personally, I'm interested in what Imperium Anglorum, as Secretariat, has to say about the current draft's legality under GA#2.

Edit: I sent them a telegram, in case they're not busy and would like to help us out with this interpretation. Just making a note of it so that they don't received duplicate requests

OOC: Ah, lovely, thank you!

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC. Unofficial. My initial thoughts are that Tinhampton is wrong. This comes back to the principles which guide interpretation of resolutions like GA 10 Napa and other relatively vague reserves clauses: in the same way restrictions on nuclear weapons possession do not vitiate the principle that member nations can have nuclear weapons, restrictions on whom member nations can fight wars with do not vitiate the remainder, ie, that they can engage in wars.

If GA 2 contradicts this proposal, a different contradiction argument would have to be advanced.

[Daarwyrth]

OOC. Unofficial. My initial thoughts are that Tinhampton is wrong. This comes back to the principles which guide interpretation of resolutions like GA 10 Napa and other relatively vague reserves clauses: in the same way restrictions on nuclear weapons possession do not vitiate the principle that member nations can have nuclear weapons, restrictions on whom member nations can fight wars with do not vitiate the remainder, ie, that they can engage in wars.

If GA 2 contradicts this proposal, a different contradiction argument would have to be advanced.

OOC: I find myself agreeing with this as well. Because this proposal isnt forbidding member nations to wage war, it only specifies who they cannot enter into a war with. Yet, members remain free to wage war as GA2 specifies, member may still enter into a war.

Thank you for sharing this unofficial opinion, IA!

[Heavens Reach]

OOC. Unofficial. My initial thoughts are that Tinhampton is wrong. This comes back to the principles which guide interpretation of resolutions like GA 10 Napa and other relatively vague reserves clauses: in the same way restrictions on nuclear weapons possession do not vitiate the principle that member nations can have nuclear weapons, restrictions on whom member nations can fight wars with do not vitiate the remainder, ie, that they can engage in wars.

If GA 2 contradicts this proposal, a different contradiction argument would have to be advanced.

OOC: thank you for your thoughts!

[Daarwyrth]

Zylkoven: "While we'll be awaiting the outcome of the potential repeal of GAR#2 before we submit this proposal, our delegation would appreciate any new commentary and feedback on how to improve this proposal draft."

[Daarwyrth]

OOC: Any comments or feedback?

[Cretox State]

"If another member attacks us, wouldn't we be 'engaging in armed conflict or any other form of military action' by defending ourselves?"

[Daarwyrth]

"If another member attacks us, wouldn't we be 'engaging in armed conflict or any other form of military action' by defending ourselves?"

Zylkoven: "A member attacking another member would be prohibited under this resolution. In other words, a member would be forbidden from attacking your state, Ambassador. That's the entire purpose of this proposal.

Or, do you mean to say there should be a provision in place in case a member state still chooses to attack that allows the attacked member to defend itself without being considered non-compliant? If the latter is the case, then we direct you to Clause 2 which specifies that members who do not adhere to Clause 1 in good faith must be excluded from its mandate. In other words, your nation would be able to defend itself."

[Barfleur]

"Barfleur opposes all of clause 4 after the comma. We remind the delegates assembled of the vast horrors of modern warfare, from the bombing of cities to the sinking of civilian shipping to the rape, looting, and destruction that comes with conquest. And we consider it entirely disproportionate to intentionally withdraw the WA's protective shield from nations for any instance of noncompliance, no matter how minor. While we certainly agree with Amb. Zylkoven that member nations that commit war crimes, genocide, human trafficking, and the like should not be shielded from consequence simply by virtue of being a WA member, it does not follow that a nation should be subjected to war and all that comes with it solely by reason of, say, failing to be diligent in sharing information regarding tradition medicine (as is required by GA#429, section 4(c))."

[Daarwyrth]

"Barfleur opposes all of clause 4 after the comma. We remind the delegates assembled of the vast horrors of modern warfare, from the bombing of cities to the sinking of civilian shipping to the rape, looting, and destruction that comes with conquest. And we consider it entirely disproportionate to intentionally withdraw the WA's protective shield from nations for any instance of noncompliance, no matter how minor. While we certainly agree with Amb. Zylkoven that member nations that commit war crimes, genocide, human trafficking, and the like should not be shielded from consequence simply by virtue of being a WA member, it does not follow that a nation should be subjected to war and all that comes with it solely by reason of, say, failing to be diligent in sharing information regarding tradition medicine (as is required by GA#429, section 4(c))."

Zylkoven: "While our delegation understands where the Ambassador from Barfleur comes from, and we most certainly agree that war is a horrific thing, we find ourselves in agreement with the delegations that stated that non-compliant nations should be excluded from the non-aggression mandate. If anything, it would add an additional incentive to remain compliant and work to achieve good-faith compliance. After all, whether a nation is non-compliant or not hinges on the hearing by the committees of the resolution "Administrative Compliance Act". This means the exclusion wouldn't be arbitrary, but only pertain to those nations that have been found by the relevant committees to be genuinely non-compliant.

After all, non-compliance should never be rewarded, and we are of the opinion that punitive measures should be taken against such nations, for example as in this proposal text."

[Attempted Socialism]

I'm cross-posting my remarks on your earlier attempt to draft a resolution based on your ideas. Some of them still apply, and especially the comment on compliance is, I believe, pertinent.

So, as I indicated in TGs, I'm a fan. That doesn't necessarily mean it will work, but I want to applaud the idea, and see where we can get it.

- A note re. Democratic Peace Theory: This is, IMO, the selling point that you should argue. It's not settled why, but it's an empirical truth that democracies just don't go to war with each other; the exceptions on Wikipedia being an exceedingly short list and many of the mentions between countries that are only democracies with some generosity of spirit. Wars are enormously expensive, destabilising, and dangerous for the population and regimes participating. Being surrounded by democracies is a huge gift because it means your resources can be diverted from the military to more productive areas, or that your military can be used in imperialist interventions and trade disputes. Translated into the WA reality where compliance is mandatory, being surrounded by WA nations with a WA non-aggression pact (NAP) in force, we should expect the same desirable outcome. So that's the upside that we can work towards. Can a WA resolution replicate the effects of the Democratic Peace Theory without having the same foundations?

- Concerning WA memberships: This is one of the more obvious fault lines that I can see. The scenario is this: Country A, non-member, is belligerent towards countries B and C, both member-nations, and A is clearly stronger. B and C call on D, also a member nation, for aid, but they are slow to mobilise, far away, what have you. Before D can come to the aid of B, they're overrun and annexed into A. D lands in C, but now A applies for a WA membership, which is granted, and they hide behind a lack of consent to war. B is annexed, C is ravaged by war, and D has incurred all the costs of mobilising for war, while A is now protected. Sure, C can try to get generals and politicians in A tried for war-crimes, but that's not a recourse that will liberate B. Meanwhile A, utilising the peace, demobilises and thrives while C, still afraid of their aggressive neighbour, has to keep their forces ready for the eventuality that A drops membership again and invades again. I don't have a solution for this, but some sort of exclusion from the NAP for those who have attacked WA members prior to acceding should be in place. However, there is the thorny issue of overlapping claims and how long ago a war must have been for it to no longer count.
Furthermore, WA membership can be dropped instantly as well. Can we expect member nations to gain the full benefits of the WA NAP if their neighbours can drop membership and invade? I'm guessing no, but that it is also acceptable to some extent; democratic nations do not need to fully trust their neighbours either, and will maintain some military defence forces (Iceland excepted) in the eventuality, even when surrounded by peaceful democracies. If you know that your neighbours are several times less likely to go to war, you can keep a smaller force until you get some sign that a neighbour is mobilising; a kind of reversal of the security dilemma that is otherwise very prevalent in IR studies. The same will most likely hold true under a WA NAP.

- Compliance: I don't think a blanket exclusion for non-compliance is in any way reasonable, and perhaps even the other way around. A country that is being non-compliant on some issues might be likely to leave if the benefits are not commensurate, and a nation that knows it will be non-compliant will never accede. Thus, for current, compliant, member nations to get the full benefit of the NAP, more member nations (Themselves protected by the NAP) will be beneficial even if the NAP is the only resolution they comply with. For non-members, accession means protection under the NAP, which is a very clear and distinct perk.
The areas of non-compliance that I think should revoke the NAP membership should be inextricably tied to the topic of international peace; non-compliance with war-crime-resolutions; breaches of weapons treaties; non-consensual warfare against other member-nations, for instance.

(...)

Again, I'm very much intrigued by the idea, and I want to see it develop.

You have addressed, to some extend, my concern about WA memberships. I would perhaps add a more explicit exclusion for those who have recently waged war upon member nations only to then join the WA, but otherwise I think you're getting close there.
I don't like the last half of clause 3 (From "yet" onward), as defense treaties can be worded in a slippery fashion and perhaps allow for enough wiggleroom to circumvent clauses 1 and 2. I also don't think the stipulation that the war must be "confined to that instance alone" is very clear. I suggest a rewrite.

As I also say in the quote above, I don't think a general exclusion of non-compliant states is productive; indeed it may be counterproductive. If the aim is to limit war, nations who are non-compliant on issues such as civil or political rights, legal reforms, health and safety, environment etc., are already being punished by the Compliance Commission for those instances of non-compliance, but allowing them to be protected under this resolution will also protect compliant nations. Excluding nations who are going rogue on other topics than international peace from the NAP will allow them to also violate the NAP without consequences. For compliant nations, this resolution clearly incentivises getting as many states into the WA as long as those states comply with the NAP, and even if the NAP is all they comply with. The carrot to induce new members is that even if otherwise a rogue, non-compliant, nation, if you adhere to the NAP, you're protected by the NAP.
I think exclusion from the NAP due to non-compliance should be limited to instances of breach of the NAP, abuse of the NAP, and areas or resolutions "inextricably tied to the topic of international peace; non-compliance with war-crime-resolutions; breaches of weapons treaties; non-consensual warfare against other member-nations, for instance", to quote myself.

I support the effort, as I have said a few times, and I am looking forward to see you develop this further.

[Barfleur]

"Barfleur opposes all of clause 4 after the comma. We remind the delegates assembled of the vast horrors of modern warfare, from the bombing of cities to the sinking of civilian shipping to the rape, looting, and destruction that comes with conquest. And we consider it entirely disproportionate to intentionally withdraw the WA's protective shield from nations for any instance of noncompliance, no matter how minor. While we certainly agree with Amb. Zylkoven that member nations that commit war crimes, genocide, human trafficking, and the like should not be shielded from consequence simply by virtue of being a WA member, it does not follow that a nation should be subjected to war and all that comes with it solely by reason of, say, failing to be diligent in sharing information regarding tradition medicine (as is required by GA#429, section 4(c))."

Zylkoven: "While our delegation understands where the Ambassador from Barfleur comes from, and we most certainly agree that war is a horrific thing, we find ourselves in agreement with the delegations that stated that non-compliant nations should be excluded from the non-aggression mandate. If anything, it would add an additional incentive to remain compliant and work to achieve good-faith compliance. After all, whether a nation is non-compliant or not hinges on the hearing by the committees of the resolution "Administrative Compliance Act". This means the exclusion wouldn't be arbitrary, but only pertain to those nations that have been found by the relevant committees to be genuinely non-compliant.

After all, non-compliance should never be rewarded, and we are of the opinion that punitive measures should be taken against such nations, for example as in this proposal text."

"I do not suggest that noncompliance should not have its punishments. I consider the coercive sanctioning regime set out in GA#440 to be more than sufficient, in most cases. I agree with your delegation that extreme instances of noncompliance, such as slavery, genocide, terrorism, and wars of aggression, should be enough to declare a nation unprotected by the WA. But in most cases, I would imagine the harm of noncompliance to be far less than the destruction and trauma of war.

"In addition, it cannot be ignored that leaving in clause 4 in its entirety gives a large advantage to militaristic and imperialistic nations, who now have every incentive to start unnecessary wars upon every finding of noncompliance. And you would have the WA sit by smugly as larger, stronger nations violate this Assembly's laws at will, while stomping on smaller nations engaging in petty and quite frankly harmless violations. Thus, rather than even addressing systemic noncompliance, this iteration of clause 4 greenlights it for the strong, no matter how willful, while giving the seal of approval to vastly disproportionate consequences for the weak, no matter how small the violation may be."

[Juansonia]

Zylkoven: "While our delegation understands where the Ambassador from Barfleur comes from, and we most certainly agree that war is a horrific thing, we find ourselves in agreement with the delegations that stated that non-compliant nations should be excluded from the non-aggression mandate. If anything, it would add an additional incentive to remain compliant and work to achieve good-faith compliance. After all, whether a nation is non-compliant or not hinges on the hearing by the committees of the resolution "Administrative Compliance Act". This means the exclusion wouldn't be arbitrary, but only pertain to those nations that have been found by the relevant committees to be genuinely non-compliant.

After all, non-compliance should never be rewarded, and we are of the opinion that punitive measures should be taken against such nations, for example as in this proposal text."

"I do not suggest that noncompliance should not have its punishments. I consider the coercive sanctioning regime set out in GA#440 to be more than sufficient, in most cases. I agree with your delegation that extreme instances of noncompliance, such as slavery, genocide, terrorism, and wars of aggression, should be enough to declare a nation unprotected by the WA. But in most cases, I would imagine the harm of noncompliance to be far less than the destruction and trauma of war.

"In addition, it cannot be ignored that leaving in clause 4 in its entirety gives a large advantage to militaristic and imperialistic nations, who now have every incentive to start unnecessary wars upon every finding of noncompliance. And you would have the WA sit by smugly as larger, stronger nations violate this Assembly's laws at will, while stomping on smaller nations engaging in petty and quite frankly harmless violations. Thus, rather than even addressing systemic noncompliance, this iteration of clause 4 greenlights it for the strong, no matter how willful, while giving the seal of approval to vastly disproportionate consequences for the weak, no matter how small the violation may be."

"I think that it would be a good idea to remove non-compliance from clause four, and to grant the Compliance Comission authority to exclude states from the non-aggression mandate" - Maria-Fernanda Novo

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

Zylkoven: "While our delegation understands where the Ambassador from Barfleur comes from, and we most certainly agree that war is a horrific thing, we find ourselves in agreement with the delegations that stated that non-compliant nations should be excluded from the non-aggression mandate. If anything, it would add an additional incentive to remain compliant and work to achieve good-faith compliance. After all, whether a nation is non-compliant or not hinges on the hearing by the committees of the resolution "Administrative Compliance Act". This means the exclusion wouldn't be arbitrary, but only pertain to those nations that have been found by the relevant committees to be genuinely non-compliant.

After all, non-compliance should never be rewarded, and we are of the opinion that punitive measures should be taken against such nations, for example as in this proposal text."

"I do not suggest that noncompliance should not have its punishments. I consider the coercive sanctioning regime set out in GA#440 to be more than sufficient, in most cases. I agree with your delegation that extreme instances of noncompliance, such as slavery, genocide, terrorism, and wars of aggression, should be enough to declare a nation unprotected by the WA. But in most cases, I would imagine the harm of noncompliance to be far less than the destruction and trauma of war.

"In addition, it cannot be ignored that leaving in clause 4 in its entirety gives a large advantage to militaristic and imperialistic nations, who now have every incentive to start unnecessary wars upon every finding of noncompliance. And you would have the WA sit by smugly as larger, stronger nations violate this Assembly's laws at will, while stomping on smaller nations engaging in petty and quite frankly harmless violations. Thus, rather than even addressing systemic noncompliance, this iteration of clause 4 greenlights it for the strong, no matter how willful, while giving the seal of approval to vastly disproportionate consequences for the weak, no matter how small the violation may be."

"The issue, ambassador, is that such a mandate would prompt many nations to join the World Assembly solely to avoid being subject to wars, but that will fail to comply with all other resolutions. The World Assembly should not enact incentives for non-compliance."

"The authoring mission should, in my opinion, either leave this as-is, or broaden this to not be limited only to wars of aggression against member nations in particular. We would prefer the former."

"On the other hand, Section 3 seems problematic. If a member nation allies itself with, for example, a genocidal non-member nation, does it have the right to attack nations engaging in war to attempt to halt said genocide if such is part of a mutual defense agreement?"

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Coletti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States

[Barfleur]

"I do not suggest that noncompliance should not have its punishments. I consider the coercive sanctioning regime set out in GA#440 to be more than sufficient, in most cases. I agree with your delegation that extreme instances of noncompliance, such as slavery, genocide, terrorism, and wars of aggression, should be enough to declare a nation unprotected by the WA. But in most cases, I would imagine the harm of noncompliance to be far less than the destruction and trauma of war.

"In addition, it cannot be ignored that leaving in clause 4 in its entirety gives a large advantage to militaristic and imperialistic nations, who now have every incentive to start unnecessary wars upon every finding of noncompliance. And you would have the WA sit by smugly as larger, stronger nations violate this Assembly's laws at will, while stomping on smaller nations engaging in petty and quite frankly harmless violations. Thus, rather than even addressing systemic noncompliance, this iteration of clause 4 greenlights it for the strong, no matter how willful, while giving the seal of approval to vastly disproportionate consequences for the weak, no matter how small the violation may be."

"The issue, ambassador, is that such a mandate would prompt many nations to join the World Assembly solely to avoid being subject to wars, but that will fail to comply with all other resolutions. The World Assembly should not enact incentives for non-compliance."

"The authoring mission should, in my opinion, either leave this as-is, or broaden this to not be limited only to wars of aggression against member nations in particular. We would prefer the former."

"On the other hand, Section 3 seems problematic. If a member nation allies itself with, for example, a genocidal non-member nation, does it have the right to attack nations engaging in war to attempt to halt said genocide if such is part of a mutual defense agreement?"

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Coletti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States

Ambassador Norfield rises to reiterate one important point. "To be sure, I do not think the WA should be offering rewards or incentives for noncompliance--I fully support the coercive sanctioning regime that GA#440 imposes. That, in almost all cases, is either enough of a deterrent to noncompliance, or represents the most proportionate method of dealing with noncompliance. Why should my nation have the right to steamroll into a neighbor, bomb its cities, impose an economic blockade, and do lord knows what else, simply because that nation permits lenders to contravene GA#623? Surely the Minimum Payment Act is an important law worthy of enforcement, but is a violation of it so egregious as to warrant the creation of a wholly unnecessary war?"

[Excidium Planetis]

"Surely the Minimum Payment Act is an important law worthy of enforcement, but is a violation of it so egregious as to warrant the creation of a wholly unnecessary war?"

"Yes." Adelia Meritt replies.

[American Pere Housh]

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.

Vanny puts her paper shredder on her desk and begins putting her copy of the proposal in the shredder one paper at a time, "I agree with Dr. Obama on every word he said. The New Martial Kingdom stands oppose this disaster of a proposal."

[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.

Vanny puts her paper shredder on her desk and begins putting her copy of the proposal in the shredder one paper at a time, "I agree with Dr. Obama on every word he said. The New Martial Kingdom stands oppose this disaster of a proposal."

Princess Madelyne smiles politely, yet the expression doesn't quite reach her eyes. "Your delegation is free to do so, Ambassador. However, our delegation is also free to dismiss your exaggerated comment, as we find ourselves in complete disagreement with its content, as do other delegations apparently. As such, we'll have to treat your 'disaster' comment as an unwarranted hyperbole."

[Heavens Reach]

Vanny puts her paper shredder on her desk and begins putting her copy of the proposal in the shredder one paper at a time, "I agree with Dr. Obama on every word he said. The New Martial Kingdom stands oppose this disaster of a proposal."

Princess Madelyne smiles politely, yet the expression doesn't quite reach her eyes. "Your delegation is free to do so, Ambassador. However, our delegation is also free to dismiss your exaggerated comment, as we find ourselves in complete disagreement with its content, as do other delegations apparently. As such, we'll have to treat your 'disaster' comment as an unwarranted hyperbole."

Somebody ought to write a resolution about all of the paper we waste around here

[Daarwyrth]

I'm cross-posting my remarks on your earlier attempt to draft a resolution based on your ideas. Some of them still apply, and especially the comment on compliance is, I believe, pertinent.

So, as I indicated in TGs, I'm a fan. That doesn't necessarily mean it will work, but I want to applaud the idea, and see where we can get it.

- A note re. Democratic Peace Theory: This is, IMO, the selling point that you should argue. It's not settled why, but it's an empirical truth that democracies just don't go to war with each other; the exceptions on Wikipedia being an exceedingly short list and many of the mentions between countries that are only democracies with some generosity of spirit. Wars are enormously expensive, destabilising, and dangerous for the population and regimes participating. Being surrounded by democracies is a huge gift because it means your resources can be diverted from the military to more productive areas, or that your military can be used in imperialist interventions and trade disputes. Translated into the WA reality where compliance is mandatory, being surrounded by WA nations with a WA non-aggression pact (NAP) in force, we should expect the same desirable outcome. So that's the upside that we can work towards. Can a WA resolution replicate the effects of the Democratic Peace Theory without having the same foundations?

- Concerning WA memberships: This is one of the more obvious fault lines that I can see. The scenario is this: Country A, non-member, is belligerent towards countries B and C, both member-nations, and A is clearly stronger. B and C call on D, also a member nation, for aid, but they are slow to mobilise, far away, what have you. Before D can come to the aid of B, they're overrun and annexed into A. D lands in C, but now A applies for a WA membership, which is granted, and they hide behind a lack of consent to war. B is annexed, C is ravaged by war, and D has incurred all the costs of mobilising for war, while A is now protected. Sure, C can try to get generals and politicians in A tried for war-crimes, but that's not a recourse that will liberate B. Meanwhile A, utilising the peace, demobilises and thrives while C, still afraid of their aggressive neighbour, has to keep their forces ready for the eventuality that A drops membership again and invades again. I don't have a solution for this, but some sort of exclusion from the NAP for those who have attacked WA members prior to acceding should be in place. However, there is the thorny issue of overlapping claims and how long ago a war must have been for it to no longer count.
Furthermore, WA membership can be dropped instantly as well. Can we expect member nations to gain the full benefits of the WA NAP if their neighbours can drop membership and invade? I'm guessing no, but that it is also acceptable to some extent; democratic nations do not need to fully trust their neighbours either, and will maintain some military defence forces (Iceland excepted) in the eventuality, even when surrounded by peaceful democracies. If you know that your neighbours are several times less likely to go to war, you can keep a smaller force until you get some sign that a neighbour is mobilising; a kind of reversal of the security dilemma that is otherwise very prevalent in IR studies. The same will most likely hold true under a WA NAP.

- Compliance: I don't think a blanket exclusion for non-compliance is in any way reasonable, and perhaps even the other way around. A country that is being non-compliant on some issues might be likely to leave if the benefits are not commensurate, and a nation that knows it will be non-compliant will never accede. Thus, for current, compliant, member nations to get the full benefit of the NAP, more member nations (Themselves protected by the NAP) will be beneficial even if the NAP is the only resolution they comply with. For non-members, accession means protection under the NAP, which is a very clear and distinct perk.
The areas of non-compliance that I think should revoke the NAP membership should be inextricably tied to the topic of international peace; non-compliance with war-crime-resolutions; breaches of weapons treaties; non-consensual warfare against other member-nations, for instance.

(...)

Again, I'm very much intrigued by the idea, and I want to see it develop.

You have addressed, to some extend, my concern about WA memberships. I would perhaps add a more explicit exclusion for those who have recently waged war upon member nations only to then join the WA, but otherwise I think you're getting close there.
I don't like the last half of clause 3 (From "yet" onward), as defense treaties can be worded in a slippery fashion and perhaps allow for enough wiggleroom to circumvent clauses 1 and 2. I also don't think the stipulation that the war must be "confined to that instance alone" is very clear. I suggest a rewrite.

As I also say in the quote above, I don't think a general exclusion of non-compliant states is productive; indeed it may be counterproductive. If the aim is to limit war, nations who are non-compliant on issues such as civil or political rights, legal reforms, health and safety, environment etc., are already being punished by the Compliance Commission for those instances of non-compliance, but allowing them to be protected under this resolution will also protect compliant nations. Excluding nations who are going rogue on other topics than international peace from the NAP will allow them to also violate the NAP without consequences. For compliant nations, this resolution clearly incentivises getting as many states into the WA as long as those states comply with the NAP, and even if the NAP is all they comply with. The carrot to induce new members is that even if otherwise a rogue, non-compliant, nation, if you adhere to the NAP, you're protected by the NAP.
I think exclusion from the NAP due to non-compliance should be limited to instances of breach of the NAP, abuse of the NAP, and areas or resolutions "inextricably tied to the topic of international peace; non-compliance with war-crime-resolutions; breaches of weapons treaties; non-consensual warfare against other member-nations, for instance", to quote myself.

I support the effort, as I have said a few times, and I am looking forward to see you develop this further.

OOC: Thank you again for your commentary and feedback AS. I have removed everything from "Yet" onwards in Clause 3 for now, but I am open to additions there to better reflect the intent of that clause. I have also reworked exclusion from the NAP for non-compliance to hinge upon the findings of the IAO, and I have included the WACC in there as well. Readmittance into the NAP is also possible and similarly hinges upon the IAO and WACC.

[Tinhampton]

Saying that nothing in this resolution forbids X subject to future WA law just means that nothing in this resolution forbids X. There's no need to clarify that future WA law can override it when the potential for an override is implicit in the base statement already

The non-compliance mechanisms remain a hot mess and I still cannot support this as written. I must, however, ask why WACC approval is needed for IAO waivers given pursuant to Article 6.

[Daarwyrth]

The non-compliance mechanisms remain a hot mess and I still cannot support this as written. I must, however, ask why WACC approval is needed for IAO waivers given pursuant to Article 6.

Well, on the one hand there is the camp that won't support the proposal if there is no exclusion of non-compliant nations, and then there is the other camp that won't support the proposal if there is an exclusion of non-compliant nations, so you see the predicament here. As such, I tried to make a compromise where only the most significant and severe cases can lead to exclusion, and I involved the committees surrounding WA compliance to give it more objectivity. As so the WACC approval, perhaps that is a bit redundant, I'll consider changing that.

[Daarwyrth]

OOC: New feedback and commentary would be most welcome!

[Jedinsto]

OOC: Reminds me of one of my first ever drafts

Support.