[Passed] Daybreak

[Bisofeyr]

Daybreak

---

---

This is intended to be the first resolution of the new GA.

---

The final ride is over. Whether through something as baroque as an arcane ritual or as pedestrian as a loose power cord, the old General Assembly is no more and its volume of standing resolutions has been wiped clean.

Thus, it is our privilege and duty as sovereign members of this body of NationStates to forge a new international order. The new General Assembly must seize this opportunity at this critical juncture in history, and learn from the legacy of its predecessor to secure a new vision for the future that centers the needs and sovereignty of its constituents.

In pursuit of those lofty and necessary goals, the General Assembly hereby recognizes the following realities:

1. This new General Assembly is the successor to the one of old, whose resolutions no longer have effect.
2. Member nations are considered competent to manage their own affairs. They possess sovereignty over matters within their jurisdiction, including the ability to freely engage with international affairs.
3. In exercising their sovereignty, member nations may choose to cede it, such as by adopting and implementing resolutions passed by this body or participating in regional or other supranational units.
4. The World Assembly must maintain infrastructure necessary for the execution of its functions and responsibilities, such as administrative bureaucracy and funding mechanisms.

For the benefit of members and future legislative efforts, the General Assembly additionally recognizes the following distinctions:

1. There is a distinction between resolution effects that are Assembly-wide, such as the establishment of agencies or reservation of powers, and effects that are member nation-specific due to flowing from a member nation's obligations under resolutions it adopts.
2. In its capacity as an expression of the collective will of its member nations, the General Assembly expresses collective positions and commitments through resolutions it passes. However, individual member nations subscribe to those positions and commitments by adopting the relevant resolutions.

Based on those realities, and in order to begin the great work of establishing foundational infrastructure for the vibrant legislative efforts sure to come, the General Assembly enacts the following:

1. Member nations possess formal equality under World Assembly law.
2. Member nations must make a good-faith effort to fulfill their obligations under General Assembly resolutions they adopt.

When one chapter ends, another begins. It is time for the General Assembly to usher in a new age of international relations, and to forge a new, better legacy. This body looks forward to the coming era, and eagerly awaits what its members will accomplish. Together, we can improve the world, one resolution at a time.

Co-authors: Ghost, Halsoni, Walkabout

---

OOC notes:

• This is intended to be the first post-reset GA resolution, and as such functions more as a statement of intent than a highly technical legislative piece.
• I was delayed in posting this due to illness followed by an emergency. It's up now to hopefully give the editing team time to work out stats. Expect some minor wording changes over the next few days. Comments certainly appreciated to that end.
• Further commentary to come.

[Cretox State]

Reserved for yelling and screaming.

[Jiangbei]

YOU'RE BACK!

Finally, I was afraid you were going to miss the GA reset.

[Untecna]

Very nice.

[Tinhampton]

I am currently uncertain about this.

Firstly: I was under the understanding that all resolutions were only binding on their adoptees, such that not adopting the foundational resolution for a committee meant that you were not bound by that committee.

Secondly: You said in your GA#654 repeal that its "requirement that "member nations shall maintain full equality under all World Assembly law" is incompatible with the very nature of this body. Resolutions treat members as unequal all the time, from assessing noncompliance penalties to providing economic aid and other resources. This provision perfectly encapsulates the danger in giving feel-good statements the weight of law." So why would you introduce a similar provision to the GA ecosystem now? Either you stand by your repeal and you turn this into a pacta sunt servanda resolution with extra steps, or you go back on what you said in the repeal that you passed a few months ago for the sake of enacting a foundational law.

[Dengist China]

Mate, we've got what, two days until this is up at vote?

I'll give feedback between now and tomorrow evening my time. At the moment though I'm leaning against, as this seems rather badly timed - there is very little time before it's up at vote.

[Cretox State]

Firstly: I was under the understanding that all resolutions were only binding on their adoptees, such that not adopting the foundational resolution for a committee meant that you were not bound by that committee.

You might not be bound by the committee's policymaking without adoption, but the committee itself was still created and empowered by the resolution. I think that's an important enough distinction to warrant including in this proposal exactly because misconceptions and confusion about the nature of adoption are bound to come up, and this way people will at least be pointed towards thinking about it.

Secondly: You said in your GA#654 repeal that its "requirement that "member nations shall maintain full equality under all World Assembly law" is incompatible with the very nature of this body. Resolutions treat members as unequal all the time, from assessing noncompliance penalties to providing economic aid and other resources. This provision perfectly encapsulates the danger in giving feel-good statements the weight of law." So why would you introduce a similar provision to the GA ecosystem now? Either you stand by your repeal and you turn this into a pacta sunt servanda resolution with extra steps, or you go back on what you said in the repeal that you passed a few months ago for the sake of enacting a foundational law.

There's a difference between formal equality and substantive equality. I didn't focus on that difference in the 654 repeal due to the other issues with the target, but I view "formal equality under World Assembly law" as being both unobjectionable and a core building block of the international order, while "maintain full equality under all World Assembly law" veers into being an absolutist substantive declaration of a piece with the target's insistence on full compliance "without any preventable delay."

[Tinhampton]

Firstly: I was under the understanding that all resolutions were only binding on their adoptees, such that not adopting the foundational resolution for a committee meant that you were not bound by that committee.

You might not be bound by the committee's policymaking without adoption, but the committee itself was still created and empowered by the resolution. I think that's an important enough distinction to warrant including in this proposal exactly because misconceptions and confusion about the nature of adoption are bound to come up, and this way people will at least be pointed towards thinking about it.

A committee can still exist while its actions do not bind all member states. The WHO is a real-world institution that is acknowledged to exist by the United States' people and government, notwithstanding that the US is not actually a member of it.

Secondly: You said in your GA#654 repeal that its "requirement that "member nations shall maintain full equality under all World Assembly law" is incompatible with the very nature of this body. Resolutions treat members as unequal all the time, from assessing noncompliance penalties to providing economic aid and other resources. This provision perfectly encapsulates the danger in giving feel-good statements the weight of law." So why would you introduce a similar provision to the GA ecosystem now? Either you stand by your repeal and you turn this into a pacta sunt servanda resolution with extra steps, or you go back on what you said in the repeal that you passed a few months ago for the sake of enacting a foundational law.

There's a difference between formal equality and substantive equality. I didn't focus on that difference in the 654 repeal due to the other issues with the target, but I view "formal equality under World Assembly law" as being both unobjectionable and a core building block of the international order, while "maintain full equality under all World Assembly law" veers into being an absolutist substantive declaration of a piece with the target's insistence on full compliance "without any preventable delay."

Thank you for clarifying this.

[Cretox State]

A committee can still exist while its actions do not bind all member states. The WHO is a real-world institution that is acknowledged to exist by the United States' people and government, notwithstanding that the US is not actually a member of it.

I... think we agree?

There's a difference between formal equality and substantive equality. I didn't focus on that difference in the 654 repeal due to the other issues with the target, but I view "formal equality under World Assembly law" as being both unobjectionable and a core building block of the international order, while "maintain full equality under all World Assembly law" veers into being an absolutist substantive declaration of a piece with the target's insistence on full compliance "without any preventable delay."

Thank you for clarifying this.

[Unibot III]

Reading this resolution as a mission statement, I'm left asking "Why does Cretox State, Ghost et. al. believe the WA exists?"

The WA's founding mission statement should establish what its purpose is, and its value is to the world, not simply articulate what the World Assembly should not be. Otherwise, the statement reads as an inherently negative declaration.

[Dengist China]

Mate, we've got what, two days until this is up at vote?

I'll give feedback between now and tomorrow evening my time. At the moment though I'm leaning against, as this seems rather badly timed - there is very little time before it's up at vote.

On this:

The final ride is over. Whether through something as baroque as an arcane ritual or as pedestrian as a loose power cord, the old General Assembly is no more and its volume of standing resolutions has been wiped clean.

Thus, it is our privilege and duty as sovereign members of this body of NationStates to forge a new international order. The new General Assembly must seize this opportunity at this critical juncture in history, and learn from the legacy of its predecessor to secure a new vision for the future that centers the needs and sovereignty of its constituents.

In pursuit of those lofty and necessary goals, the General Assembly hereby recognizes the following realities: This new General Assembly is the successor to the one of old, whose resolutions no longer have effect.

Yup, nothing much here to comment about.

Member nations are considered competent to manage their own affairs. They possess sovereignty over matters within their jurisdiction, including the ability to freely engage with international affairs.

Very vague. I don't like this. To be fair, though, I'm not sure how I'd fix it.

In exercising their sovereignty, member nations may choose to cede it, such as by adopting and implementing resolutions passed by this body or participating in regional or other supranational units.

OK.

The World Assembly must maintain infrastructure necessary for the execution of its functions and responsibilities, such as administrative bureaucracy and funding mechanisms.

And how is this defined? What sort of infastucture?

For the benefit of members and future legislative efforts, the General Assembly additionally recognizes the following distinctions:
There is a distinction between resolution effects that are Assembly-wide, such as the establishment of agencies or reservation of powers, and effects that are member nation-specific due to flowing from a member nation's obligations under resolutions it adopts.

Yeah, this is fine.

In its capacity as an expression of the collective will of its member nations, the General Assembly expresses collective positions and commitments through resolutions it passes. However, individual member nations subscribe to those positions and commitments by adopting the relevant resolutions.

I feel like 'However' is not a good word to use here. I don't see much contrast, though this is just nitpicking at this point. I think it should read as 'Individual member nations shall subscribe to those positions...' you get the idea.

Based on those realities, and in order to begin the great work of establishing foundational infrastructure for the vibrant legislative efforts sure to come, the General Assembly enacts the following:
Member nations possess formal equality under World Assembly law.
Member nations must make a good-faith effort to fulfill their obligations under General Assembly resolutions they adopt.

Yeah, this is good. My only issue with this is that a member nation could very much just not adopt this one resolution and then be exempt from making good-faith edits. That's more of an issue with Compliance than this resolution though, and as such this criticism isn't that relevant to the draft.

When one chapter ends, another begins. It is time for the General Assembly to usher in a new age of international relations, and to forge a new, better legacy. This body looks forward to the coming era, and eagerly awaits what its members will accomplish. Together, we can improve the world, one resolution at a time.

Yeah, this is fine, too.

The only other critiques I have of this draft is that, yes, it has good aims, good ideas, good foundations for a new WA, but it also to me (and this may just be me, so if people disagree then do say so) this reads like a very corporate, soulless statement. Please don't conflate this with saying you guys didn't put effort into this - by all means, you've definitely spent a good bit of valuable time on this and that deserves to be recognized, but it does sound like the sort of thing you'd hear from a billion-dollar corpo announcing their exciting new thing. And that to me isn't a very good thing. Though, again, I must strongly emphasize, if other people disagree, do say so as this is very much my opinion and may not be anyone else's.

Hope you're feeling better, Cretox! Good luck with the draft - I support in principle, even if it does need some more refining.

[Magrusa]

Cool stuff.

[Cretox State]

YOU'RE BACK!

Finally, I was afraid you were going to miss the GA reset.

I missed Secretariat but not this or the issues contest! 2 out of 3 ain't bad.

Very nice.

Cool stuff.

Thanks!

As with the prospective GA2, I'll elaborate on the effects and idea behind this proposal. This'll be a bit long. I hope this is helpful not just to people checking in on this thread, but future authors looking for inspiration and guidance on their own proposals.

The final ride is over. Whether through something as baroque as an arcane ritual or as pedestrian as a loose power cord, the old General Assembly is no more and its volume of standing resolutions has been wiped clean.

This is a slightly different take on the old GA 1. I took care not to impose any particular RP explanation for the reset.

Thus, it is our privilege and duty as sovereign members of this body of NationStates to forge a new international order. The new General Assembly must seize this opportunity at this critical juncture in history, and learn from the legacy of its predecessor to secure a new vision for the future that centers the needs and sovereignty of its constituents.

The overtures to sovereignty are intentional, as is the vagueness of "centers the needs." How should the GA best center and fulfill our needs as nations? That's for authors to decide! I felt that this sort of mission statement was important to incorporate into the first new resolution, rather than simply saying "hey the reset happened." We're all active participants in this body and we should recognize our own agency in it, from the very beginning.

In pursuit of those lofty and necessary goals, the General Assembly hereby recognizes the following realities:

I don't consider this to be declaring anything new or effecting actual policy. It merely recognizes fundamental realities, like the reset happening and the WA by definition needing to have the infrastructure to do the stuff GA resolutions task it with. The new GA should be one of members, by members, and for members. We are all sovereign, and passing GA resolutions is a way we exercise that sovereignty.

For the benefit of members and future legislative efforts, the General Assembly additionally recognizes the following distinctions:

The new adoption system is such a departure from legacy compliance with such implications for how this body functions and how authors think about resolution writing that I felt it important to include a section on it. It's also an opportunity to mention WA agencies, which I view as a better approach to committees (misnomer if there ever was one).

Based on those realities, and in order to begin the great work of establishing foundational infrastructure for the vibrant legislative efforts sure to come, the General Assembly enacts the following:

1. Member nations possess formal equality under World Assembly law.
2. Member nations must make a good-faith effort to fulfill their obligations under General Assembly resolutions they adopt.

Note the use of "enacts." This section establishes two important things: the formal (as opposed to substantive; that sort of thing really needs a standalone resolution) equality of members under law, and a good-faith obligation. In adopting this resolution, member nations would both recognize their own formal equality and declare their intention to fulfill their adopted resolution obligations in good faith. Both of these things are straightforward baselines, intended to tee up future resolutions. I view that as a decent intention behind the first new resolution's binding clauses, and I think keeping things simple here is the way to go. It's the very first resolution, after all.

When one chapter ends, another begins. It is time for the General Assembly to usher in a new age of international relations, and to forge a new, better legacy. This body looks forward to the coming era, and eagerly awaits what its members will accomplish. Together, we can improve the world, one resolution at a time.

Another statement of intent to usher in the GA to come. The last sentence is corny and derivative, but I felt it appropriate here. I also thought it would make sense to establish two throughlines in my early post-reset work:

1. We as member nations have not only sovereignty, but agency. We must use that agency to act in our collective benefit.
2. The old GA left a vast legacy. We must learn from it as we boldly forge the new one.

[Dengist China]

This is a joke.

You've submitted it with the clear intent of getting it to vote, while taking no feedback from anyone and not even drafting it for a week.

Against.

[Merethin]

This is a joke.

You've submitted it with the clear intent of getting it to vote, while taking no feedback from anyone and not even drafting it for a week.

Against.

The opening post says "This is intended to be the first resolution of the new GA" - when else would you expect it to be submitted to meet that goal?

[Jiangbei]

This is a joke.

You've submitted it with the clear intent of getting it to vote, while taking no feedback from anyone and not even drafting it for a week.

Against.

This has 3 co authors, that’s hardly no feedback, and the OP says Cretox was sick

[Urcea]

Reading this resolution as a mission statement, I'm left asking "Why does Cretox State, Ghost et. al. believe the WA exists?"

The WA's founding mission statement should establish what its purpose is, and its value is to the world, not simply articulate what the World Assembly should not be. Otherwise, the statement reads as an inherently negative declaration.

I associate myself with these comments. I also find the resolution excessively casual and self-referential in such a way that will likely negatively influence other resolutions. With that being said, I will support it because much of its content is ultimately unobjectionable.

[Liberza]

Support from me

[Cretox State]

This has been submitted!

[Dengist China]

The opening post says "This is intended to be the first resolution of the new GA" - when else would you expect it to be submitted to meet that goal?

The same point.

This has 3 co authors, that’s hardly no feedback, and the OP says Cretox was sick

I don't blame Cretox for being sick, but the little feedback they got over the week was entirely disregarded and defended instead. Prior to submission, one person said 'cool stuff', seemingly in support, while three expressed concerns.

[Mazakena]

The proposal seems pretty reasonable to me, I think the GA needs a more governmental system to make it more engaging

[Cretox State]

The proposal seems pretty reasonable to me, I think the GA needs a more governmental system to make it more engaging

Thanks for the support! A lot of us GA regulars weren't onboard with the reset as a concept but there is fun in it in its own way.

[Mazakena]

The proposal seems pretty reasonable to me, I think the GA needs a more governmental system to make it more engaging

Thanks for the support! A lot of us GA regulars weren't onboard with the reset as a concept but there is fun in it in its own way.

Yeah I kind of got that feel, I wouldn't consider myself a regular, but I am trying to get into it

[Anadossia]

it would be Really funny if we voted against this.

[Shukomia]

it would be Really funny if we voted against this.

Indeed, but we shouldn’t do that ; in all seriousness, it wouldn’t be coherent to have our first resolution not be a tribute to the old WA.