[RULE CHANGE] Operative clause rule revision

[Tinhampton]

Suppose I submit this proposal:

Recognising that schools are really important, the General Assembly hereby:

1. Requires all school subject teachers in member states to have at least a secondary school qualification in their subject, and

2. Encourages schools to employ teachers with university-level qualifications in their subject.

Under the old rule, this proposal would plausibly be legal: even though there is no direct action on member states, schools and teachers nevertheless exist in member states, and so there is an impact on member states.

Under the new rule, this proposal would be illegal: even though it discusses the actions of those within member states, there is no action on the member state itself.

Is my thinking right here? If it is (or even if it isn't, for clarity's sake), I support IA's proposed revision as to entities.

[The Overmind]

Suppose I submit this proposal:

Recognising that schools are really important, the General Assembly hereby:

1. Requires all school subject teachers in member states to have at least a secondary school qualification in their subject, and

2. Encourages schools to employ teachers with university-level qualifications in their subject.

Under the old rule, this proposal would plausibly be legal: even though there is no direct action on member states, schools and teachers nevertheless exist in member states, and so there is an impact on member states.

Under the new rule, this proposal would be illegal: even though it discusses the actions of those within member states, there is no action on the member state itself.

Is my thinking right here? If it is (or even if it isn't, for clarity's sake), I support IA's proposed revision as to entities.

Shouldn't proposals be directed at member nations rather than their institutions anyway? I'm not saying this is illegal, but in order to avoid any potential legal ambiguity, someone writing this resolution could just tweak it into a set of requirements that member nations must enforce.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Suppose I submit this proposal:

Recognising that schools are really important, the General Assembly hereby:

1. Requires all school subject teachers in member states to have at least a secondary school qualification in their subject, and

2. Encourages schools to employ teachers with university-level qualifications in their subject.

Under the old rule, this proposal would plausibly be legal: even though there is no direct action on member states, schools and teachers nevertheless exist in member states, and so there is an impact on member states.

Under the new rule, this proposal would be illegal: even though it discusses the actions of those within member states, there is no action on the member state itself.

Is my thinking right here? If it is (or even if it isn't, for clarity's sake), I support IA's proposed revision as to entities.

I think this interpretation is correct. One of the things we want to move away from is undefined phrases like "some recognizable effect on member nations". But "act" alone is too narrow, as is the "member nation" restriction, given that we already write proposals which saddle entities within member nations with obligations that are enforced concurrently by WA agencies and member nation courts.

[Maria brown]

Attention all members, please note the recent rule change regarding the operative clause. It has been revised for clarity and consistency. We appreciate your cooperation in adhering to this updated guideline to ensure smoother proceedings. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

[Fachumonn]

Attention all members, please note the recent rule change regarding the operative clause. It has been revised for clarity and consistency. We appreciate your cooperation in adhering to this updated guideline to ensure smoother proceedings. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Did you lose the plot somewhere?

[Barfleur]

Okay,

Every proposal must have at least one clause which encourages or requires a member state or entity therein to make an act or omission.

I endorse this version.

[The Ice States]

How about,

Every proposal must have at least one clause encouraging, requiring, discouraging or prohibiting an act by a member nation or entity therein. This rule does not apply to repeals.

This builds off IA's wording to clarify the status of entities in member nations, while avoiding too sophisticated language and excessive "or"s. It also clarifies that repeals cannot violate the rule. FKGL: 11.3.

[BEEstreetz]

Strongly in favour. All proposed alternatives so far are better than the current formulation. Being a fan of concision, I propose:

Every proposal must contain at least one imperative clause, which requires of member nations and their entities to mandatory action, adequate in context of its goals.

[The Ice States]

*** Operative Clause rule revision ***

The Secretariat has finalised the following wording for the Operative Clause rule,

Operative Clause: Every proposal must have at least one clause which encourages or requires a member state or entity therein to make an act or omission.

The main change based on community feedback was to clarify that resolutions can still solely require a member nation to refrain from some act, or bind entities within a member nation. This wording was originally suggested by Imperium Anglorum in this thread during the consultation process; community feedback on it appeared to be positive.

Our thanks to all players who gave their input during this process!