[DRAFT] On World Assembly Police and Military Force

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

The World Assembly shall have the ability to maintain and utilise a military or police force.

Neither the World Assembly, nor member nations acting on behalf of the World Assembly, may engage in direct armed attack against a member nation which is fully compliant with World Assembly law.

[Kenmoria]

“It seems to me as though this draft could be combined with your other draft that partly replaces GA #002. Both drafts address the foundational military status of the GA.”

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

"The idea that a WA military force might be used as a compliance tool is completely unacceptable to my nation."

[Uan aa Boa]

I wholeheartedly agree with the above. Forcible rendition of individuals by the WA is equally unacceptable.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Category/strength? Also note the operative clause rule.

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

OOC: Category/strength? Also note the operative clause rule.

IS: Mild. Will fix the Operative Clause issue shortly.

[Tinhampton]

Vehemently opposed for extraordinarily obvious reasons!

[Lakeside Valley]

Lakeside Valley would never consider supporting this. The WA should not be able to invade nations for simply not complying with WA laws. This would be a disaster, should the WA somehow end up passing particularly troublesome resolutions.

[Medzhumoramia]

The Medzhumoramian WA Relations Office has prepared a statement of response to this draft:

*clears throat*

"WE HATE THE ANTICHRIST! WE HATE THE ANTICHRIST! WE HATE THE ANTICHRIST!"

"That is all"

[Lakeside Valley]

The Medzhumoramian WA Relations Office has prepared a statement of response to this draft:

*clears throat*

"WE HATE THE ANTICHRIST! WE HATE THE ANTICHRIST! WE HATE THE ANTICHRIST!"

"That is all"

While we appreciate your constructive discussion of the draft, we find it unclear whether this is support or distaste, and what exactly your statement "WE HATE THE ANTICHRIST! WE HATE THE ANTICHRIST! WE HATE THE ANTICHRIST!" actually means. Would you mind to clarify, just so future spectators could understand your statement slightly better?

[Medzhumoramia]

The Medzhumoramian WA Relations Office has prepared a statement of response to this draft:

*clears throat*

"WE HATE THE ANTICHRIST! WE HATE THE ANTICHRIST! WE HATE THE ANTICHRIST!"

"That is all"

While we appreciate your constructive discussion of the draft, we find it unclear whether this is support or distaste, and what exactly your statement "WE HATE THE ANTICHRIST! WE HATE THE ANTICHRIST! WE HATE THE ANTICHRIST!" actually means. Would you mind to clarify, just so future spectators could understand your statement slightly better?

In short, it's the alarm bell phrase for "It's happening, the conspiracy theorists were right: The WA is going to enforce its will under its own unaccountable and immoral boot-heels"

[The Palentine]

No!

[Lakeside Valley]

No!

Fully agree with this statement.

[Caymarnia]

Speaking for myself, the National Council of the People's Will, the President of the Republic, and the people of the Caymarnian Democratic Republic:

HELL NO!

[Nova Universo]

Claire Angele Marais, Representative of the Entity of Nova Universo to the World Assembly: 'The Entity of Nova Universo, on behalf of the Union and of its member nations, OPPOSES the 'World Assembly Police and Military Force Act' proposition. This proposition will allow arrests, imprisonment, renditions and executions of persons for vaguely-defined reasons set by the Assembly. This proposition will allow invasions and wars against nations for adapting or overriding Assembly laws for local circumstances. This proposition will destroy national sovereignty and independence and revoke civil rights and liberties. If the Assembly needs its own facility security force, perhaps it may contract private security providers functioning under strict rules. If it needs a peacekeeping force, the Assembly could organise a body of volunteer soldiers from its member nations' armed forces. My point here is that the Union will not allow an Assembly security and defence force which will operate without regard for the nations from whom it draws support and funding.

[Attempted Socialism]

Ambassador Pride: "It is the considered opinion of my Government that a resolution opening for a World Assembly military will invariably fall into the hands of capitalists and imperialists, and will be used to repress popular movements inside World Assembly memberstates. Unless a resolution specifically and singularly allows for the World Assembly police and military forces to be the vanguard of the global proletarian revolution -- which we view as very unlikely to pass in the current climate -- I am obligated to oppose any resolution establishing a World Assembly force, and to vote for resolutions that seek to block such a force to be established at a later date."

[Old Hope]

This is far too permissive. Against.

[Jedinsto]

Depending on the outcomes and submission order of other replacements, tentative support.