A Ban on Theocratic Wars

[Darenjo]

The WA is quite powerless to prevent wars from taking place. A peace agreement could be reached between member states but that would need to happen outside the WA, while the WA has no power to stop non-member countries from declaring a religious war on a member country, although GA#2 protects its right to defence and member states are free to ask other states to help. GA#14 is about neutrality of member states, although belligerents in question have to be member states to work.

Charlotte is right - The WA is quite powerless to prevent wars from taking place. I think that WA is only useful when you need to condemn a nation or a region (usually irritating) ; WA, however will never be a world government because every nation quite consciously or subconsciously want to govern itself in its sole discretion; usually in the General Assembly are passed the reforms of little political importance for the nations inside the WA; everyone wants to have as much independence as possible and very strong/very influential political reforms are often too risky and rejected.
This is only my opinion, I may be wrong

Wrong. There are quite a few controversial resolutions, including the Landmine Convention, the International Criminal Court, and, due only to the rising numbers of conservatives in NS, the freedom of sexuality resolutions.



Also, responding to Glen-Rhodes and Unibot, even if WA resolution #2 "technically" allows war, therefore causing problems instead of giving solutions, there's no way a repeal would pass because war is a solution, if a bad one, to nations' problems. I would love to see war a thing of the past, but being realistic, see that such a thing won't happen for a while, if ever.

[Drozjeck]

The World Assembly,

APPALED at the continued violent struggles and conflicts that can arise between religious groups and their different factions;

UNDERSTANDING that both religious and secular groups are going to conflict with each other in some way;

BELIEVING however that they should at least be able to tolerate each other and disagree without getting into a bloody war;

Hereby,

DEFINES for the purposes of this resolution;
• Religion, as a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects;
• Atheism, as a lack of belief in a supreme being or beings;
• Religious extremist; as an a person who has or plans to take violent measures in the name of their religion;
• Theocratic motive, as the need to disseminate and/or proliferate one's own spiritual beliefs or threaten the existence of an opposing set of spiritual beliefs through any force necessary;

PROHIBITS all member-nations and their citizens from declaring war or conducting a military operation with a theocratic motive at the heart of their endeavor:

REQUIRES nations to set up programs in order to educate and reform religious extremists;

URGES Religious and Atheistic groups to debate their differences in opinion through peaceful means;

EMPHASIZES that this resolution does not stop theocratic governments from declaring war it merely bans them from doing so for religious reasons.

This motion really dicks certain *ahem* extremists in the keister...

...could the bigwigs add a provision for open season on anyone willing to kill opposing nation civilians in the name of god? plz?
It's an idea I've had for awhile now I'm not exactly sure what category to put it under at this time.

[Jennifer Government NS]

The WA is quite powerless to prevent wars from taking place. A peace agreement could be reached between member states but that would need to happen outside the WA, while the WA has no power to stop non-member countries from declaring a religious war on a member country, although GA#2 protects its right to defence and member states are free to ask other states to help. GA#14 is about neutrality of member states, although belligerents in question have to be member states to work.

Charlotte is right - The WA is quite powerless to prevent wars from taking place. I think that WA is only useful when you need to condemn a nation or a region (usually irritating) ; WA, however will never be a world government because every nation quite consciously or subconsciously want to govern itself in its sole discretion; usually in the General Assembly are passed the reforms of little political importance for the nations inside the WA; everyone wants to have as much independence as possible and very strong/very influential political reforms are often too risky and rejected.
This is only my opinion, I may be wrong

Wrong. There are quite a few controversial resolutions, including the Landmine Convention, the International Criminal Court, and, due only to the rising numbers of conservatives in NS, the freedom of sexuality resolutions.



Also, responding to Glen-Rhodes and Unibot, even if WA resolution #2 "technically" allows war, therefore causing problems instead of giving solutions, there's no way a repeal would pass because war is a solution, if a bad one, to nations' problems. I would love to see war a thing of the past, but being realistic, see that such a thing won't happen for a while, if ever.

Thank you for correction

[The Rich Port]

Wholeheartedly support it. Wars should be based on intellectual differences (stupid, smart, etc.), not theological ones.

[Bears Armed]

Can you actually forbid people to say that religion is their reason for going to war without contradicting the existing resolution on Freedom of Expression?

[The Rich Port]

Can you actually forbid people to say that religion is their reason for going to war without contradicting the existing resolution on Freedom of Expression?

Brings up a good point: people could just lie about their war not being for a theological reason.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Also, responding to Glen-Rhodes and Unibot, even if WA resolution #2 "technically" allows war, therefore causing problems instead of giving solutions, there's no way a repeal would pass because war is a solution, if a bad one, to nations' problems. I would love to see war a thing of the past, but being realistic, see that such a thing won't happen for a while, if ever.

Allowing war isn't the only problem with Rights and Duties. It's vague and ultimately useless clause that was supposed to ban the World Assembly from engaging in police actions is another problem, as well. There was a time when it was perfectly understand what Rights and Duties intended to mean. That time has passed and its originally meaning has been distorted. In my opinion, it needs to be updated with much more clear and stronger language. That, however, is a discussion for another time.

Can you actually forbid people to say that religion is their reason for going to war without contradicting the existing resolution on Freedom of Expression?

Freedom of expression does not protect expression that 'incites widespread lawlessness or disorder, or violence against any individual, group or organization.'

- Dr. B. Castro

[American Capitalist]

Also, responding to Glen-Rhodes and Unibot, even if WA resolution #2 "technically" allows war, therefore causing problems instead of giving solutions, there's no way a repeal would pass because war is a solution, if a bad one, to nations' problems. I would love to see war a thing of the past, but being realistic, see that such a thing won't happen for a while, if ever.

Allowing war isn't the only problem with Rights and Duties. It's vague and ultimately useless clause that was supposed to ban the World Assembly from engaging in police actions is another problem, as well. There was a time when it was perfectly understand what Rights and Duties intended to mean. That time has passed and its originally meaning has been distorted. In my opinion, it needs to be updated with much more clear and stronger language. That, however, is a discussion for another time.


- Dr. B. Castro

Actually I once remember a mod say that it's just a codification of the rules and that's why it can't be repealed.

[Krioval]

Also, responding to Glen-Rhodes and Unibot, even if WA resolution #2 "technically" allows war, therefore causing problems instead of giving solutions, there's no way a repeal would pass because war is a solution, if a bad one, to nations' problems. I would love to see war a thing of the past, but being realistic, see that such a thing won't happen for a while, if ever.

Allowing war isn't the only problem with Rights and Duties. It's vague and ultimately useless clause that was supposed to ban the World Assembly from engaging in police actions is another problem, as well. There was a time when it was perfectly understand what Rights and Duties intended to mean. That time has passed and its originally meaning has been distorted. In my opinion, it needs to be updated with much more clear and stronger language. That, however, is a discussion for another time.


- Dr. B. Castro

Actually I once remember a mod say that it's just a codification of the rules and that's why it can't be repealed.

OOC: The only resolution that can't be repealed, other than repeals, and as far as I know, is "The World Assembly".

[Quadrimmina]

Also, responding to Glen-Rhodes and Unibot, even if WA resolution #2 "technically" allows war, therefore causing problems instead of giving solutions, there's no way a repeal would pass because war is a solution, if a bad one, to nations' problems. I would love to see war a thing of the past, but being realistic, see that such a thing won't happen for a while, if ever.

Allowing war isn't the only problem with Rights and Duties. It's vague and ultimately useless clause that was supposed to ban the World Assembly from engaging in police actions is another problem, as well. There was a time when it was perfectly understand what Rights and Duties intended to mean. That time has passed and its originally meaning has been distorted. In my opinion, it needs to be updated with much more clear and stronger language. That, however, is a discussion for another time.


- Dr. B. Castro

Actually I once remember a mod say that it's just a codification of the rules and that's why it can't be repealed.

OOC: The only resolution that can't be repealed, other than repeals, and as far as I know, is "The World Assembly".

I know. I've tried.

I bet GA#2 could be repealed, it'd just lead to a lot of confusion and disorder for a while.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I bet GA#2 could be repealed, it'd just lead to a lot of confusion and disorder for a while.

OOC: Why do you say that? At its base, Rights and Duties is just a codification of the proposal rules. Proposals are rarely illegal for contradicting Rights and Duties. It's the extras I have trouble with (e.g. right to war), along with the vagueness of 'police actions'.

[Quadrimmina]

I bet GA#2 could be repealed, it'd just lead to a lot of confusion and disorder for a while.

OOC: Why do you say that? At its base, Rights and Duties is just a codification of the proposal rules. Proposals are rarely illegal for contradicting Rights and Duties. It's the extras I have trouble with (e.g. right to war), along with the vagueness of 'police actions'.

Perhaps, but it also upholds the principles of National Sovereignty, prevents nations from fomenting civil unrest in other nations, and outlines the duties of the WA. Essentially, it is the framework for which international law is based on, protecting the rights of nations and establishing the purpose of the WA. If this were repealed, I'm afraid the arena of international politics would be shut down, at least until a replacement can be agreed on.

[Bears Armed]

I bet GA#2 could be repealed, it'd just lead to a lot of confusion and disorder for a while.

OOC: Why do you say that? At its base, Rights and Duties is just a codification of the proposal rules. Proposals are rarely illegal for contradicting Rights and Duties. It's the extras I have trouble with (e.g. right to war), along with the vagueness of 'police actions'.

Perhaps, but it also upholds the principles of National Sovereignty,

Ur'rmm, no: As its author has pointed out on several occasions, when people tried to invoke it as a reason why various IntFed proposals should be considered illegal, it specifically allows "international law" (i.e. GA resolutions) to over-ride national laws...

[Glen-Rhodes]

Essentially, it is the framework for which international law is based on, protecting the rights of nations and establishing the purpose of the WA. If this were repealed, I'm afraid the arena of international politics would be shut down, at least until a replacement can be agreed on.

OOC: Rights and Duties rarely even shows up in debate. The NSUN survived without it for a long time. It was the 49th resolutions there, rather than the 2nd here.

If this discussion is going to continue, it should probably be taken to its own thread.