NATION

PASSWORD

[DRAFT] WA Peacekeeping Operations Act

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Unibot
Senator
 
Posts: 4292
Founded: May 25, 2008
Ex-Nation

[DRAFT] WA Peacekeeping Operations Act

Postby Unibot » Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:09 pm

Eh, insanity is doing the same thing over again, and expecting a different result...

WA Peacekeeping Operations Act
Category: International Security | Strength: Strong | Proposed by: Unibotian WA Mission


The General Assembly,

Understanding that the purpose of peacekeeping operations is not judgmental in nature, but merely, the unpartisan prevention of conciliated strifes returning to armed conflict,

Noting that peacekeeping operations are generally more successful, less dangerous and less expensive than peacemaking operations due to the involved parties having already reconciled,

Hereby,

1. Declares that for any specific WA peacekeeping operation to commence, all relevant parties must formally agree to the involvement of the World Assembly – relevant parties may include: recognized states, militants or any other organization that is involved in the conciliated armed conflict;

2. Further Declares :
2.a) Any requests for peacekeeping involvement by the World Assembly should be directed at the General Assembly;
2.b) Requests must entail detailed reports of the specific conciliated armed conflict, the involved parties and the projected cost and demands of a said peace operation;

3. Establishes the WA Peacekeeping Taskforce Oversight (WATFO) to review all said requests and in a timely fashion determine if:
3.a) All relevant parties in the conciliated conflict have agreed to the involvement of the World Assembly;
3.b) There is an imminent threat that the situation could revert back to armed conflict, if no mediation is supplied;
3.c) All relevant parties have formally agreed to a ‘ceasefire’ and the armed conflict has been conciliated;
3.d) The World Assembly can reasonably meet the cost and demands of committing to such a peace operation;

4. Requires the WATFO to:
4.a) Publically deny WA involvement for requests that fail to meet said requirements;
4.b) Submit approved requests for WA involvement in an operations queue;
4.c) Reorder said operations queue if the urgency of one submission is greater than another;

5. Institutes the World Assembly Peacekeeping Taskforce with a voluntary commitment of soldiers and military provisions from member-nations and non-member-nations, for the:
5.a) Land and Overflight Surveillance of the relevant parties;
5.b) Development of observational reports from said surveillance, for the relevant parties’ knowledge on one another’s commitments to reconciliation;
5.c) Armed protection of a territorial border or other contested territory;

6. Determines that the World Assembly Peacekeeping Taskforce shall address the requests for peacekeeping operations from their operations queue (see c.4) in the manner that was previous described (see c.5).


... I must be insane.

User avatar
Knootoss
Senator
 
Posts: 4127
Founded: Antiquity
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Knootoss » Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:10 pm

You got your World Government economy, now it needs a confederal army?

Ideological Bulwark #7 - RPed population preserves relative population sizes. Webgame population / 100 is used by default. If this doesn't work for you and it is relevant to our RP, please TG.

User avatar
Glen-Rhodes
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9027
Founded: Jun 25, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Glen-Rhodes » Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:12 pm

There's only one thing illegal about this. The World Assembly isn't allowed to directly command military forces. You would have to first set some standards for peacekeeping operations, then go about paying nations to send peacekeeping troops to designated areas.

- Dr. B. Castro

User avatar
Unibot
Senator
 
Posts: 4292
Founded: May 25, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Unibot » Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:16 pm

Glen-Rhodes wrote:There's only one thing illegal about this. The World Assembly isn't allowed to directly command military forces. You would have to first set some standards for peacekeeping operations, then go about paying nations to send peacekeeping troops to designated areas.

- Dr. B. Castro


I'd like a mod ruling on this, I guess, my interpretation of the vague GA#2 is that the troops just can't be in armed conflict, but as an armed conflict has already ended.. peacekeeping operations circumvent this.

I guess I just like poking and prodding this 'rule' because it is the most arbitrary rule we have in the GA.

User avatar
Glen-Rhodes
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9027
Founded: Jun 25, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Glen-Rhodes » Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:20 pm

Unibot wrote:
Glen-Rhodes wrote:There's only one thing illegal about this. The World Assembly isn't allowed to directly command military forces. You would have to first set some standards for peacekeeping operations, then go about paying nations to send peacekeeping troops to designated areas.

- Dr. B. Castro


I'd like a mod ruling on this, I guess, my interpretation of the vague GA#2 is that the troops just can't be in armed conflict, but as an armed conflict has already ended.. peacekeeping operations circumvent this.

I guess I just like poking and prodding this 'rule' because it is the most arbitrary rule we have in the GA.

OOC: For what it's worth, I made a pretty solid case for World Assembly 'military intervention' when Nerv ruled on the legality of the Multilateral Prosecution Act. His reasoning was so general, it was easy to come up with a way to have a WA military, peacekeeping or no. Unfortunately, he never got back to me on that, so yeah, you'd likely need to seek out another mod ruling!

I also agree that it's pretty arbitrary. The only reasoning anybody gives is, "Mods would have to play referee in every war." Yet, I rarely ever see the WA utilized outside of the WA forums, so I've always been confused as to how that's even a real concern.
Last edited by Glen-Rhodes on Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Embolalia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1670
Founded: Apr 03, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Embolalia » Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:21 pm

"[T]he WA will not engage in commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner."
Is peacekeeping not a form of police action?
Do unto others as you would have done unto you.
Bible quote? No, that's just common sense.
/ˌɛmboʊˈlɑːliːʌ/
The United Commonwealth of Embolalia

Gafin Gower, Prime minister
E. Rory Hywel, Ambassador to the World Assembly
Gwaredd LLwyd, Lieutenant Ambassador to the World Assembly
Author: GA#95, GA#107, GA#132, GA#185
Philimbesi wrote:Repeal, resign, or relax.

Embassy Exchange
EBC News
My mostly worthless blog
Economic Left/Right: -5.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51
Liberal atheist bisexual, and proud of it.
@marcmack wrote:I believe we can build a better world! Of course, it'll take a whole lot of rock, water & dirt. Also, not sure where to put it."

User avatar
Glen-Rhodes
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9027
Founded: Jun 25, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Glen-Rhodes » Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:22 pm

Embolalia wrote:"[T]he WA will not engage in commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner."
Is peacekeeping not a form of police action?

Detention wasn't even considered a police action.

User avatar
Eireann Fae
Minister
 
Posts: 3422
Founded: Oct 15, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Eireann Fae » Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:22 pm

Glen-Rhodes wrote:There's only one thing illegal about this. The World Assembly isn't allowed to directly command military forces. You would have to first set some standards for peacekeeping operations, then go about paying nations to send peacekeeping troops to designated areas.

- Dr. B. Castro


"Shocking as it may seem, we must agree with Ambassador Castro on this matter." The Faerie Emissary does indeed seem to be surprised as she whispers the words of the Eireann Fae to her translator. "As we understand it, the World Assembly is not permitted to command a military force of any sort, for any purpose. We admire the Unibotan concerns and efforts to keep the peace, but we do not see this as a viable resolution given the current legal standing of the WA."

User avatar
Glen-Rhodes
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9027
Founded: Jun 25, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Glen-Rhodes » Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:26 pm


User avatar
Bloodstone Kay
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 58
Founded: Feb 25, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby Bloodstone Kay » Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:58 pm

I think it'd be 5.c that'd make it illegal on grounds of the WA not having an army. You can't protect an area without protecting it from something.

Kari Kagrosi
WA Pirate
Duke Sulin Solibu IV
WA Pirate/Delegate

Warning: the player posts in Character, and will respond in Character.

User avatar
Unibot
Senator
 
Posts: 4292
Founded: May 25, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Unibot » Mon Oct 25, 2010 3:10 pm

Bloodstone Kay wrote:I think it'd be 5.c that'd make it illegal on grounds of the WA not having an army. You can't protect an area without protecting it from something.

Kari Kagrosi
WA Pirate


True. I'd have to think about wording it. Its pretty much protection from the parties themselves that agreed to the protection.

User avatar
Mahaj
Senator
 
Posts: 4110
Founded: Dec 08, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Mahaj » Mon Oct 25, 2010 4:02 pm

The fact that it is VOLUNTARY and not MANDATORY may help some.
Aal Izz Well: UDL
<Koth> I'm still going by the assumption that Mahaj is Unibot's kid brother or something
Kandarin(Naivetry): You're going to have a great NS career ahead of you if you want it, Mahaj. :)
<@Eluvatar> Why is SkyDip such a purist raiderist
<+frattastan> Because his region was never raided.
<+maxbarry> EarthAway: I guess I might dabble in raiding just to experience it better, but I would not like to raid regions of natives, so I'd probably be more interested in defense and liberations

User avatar
The Eternal Kawaii
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1761
Founded: Apr 21, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby The Eternal Kawaii » Mon Oct 25, 2010 4:57 pm

Knootoss wrote:You got your World Government economy, now it needs a confederal army?


That's the only way it's going to be enforced, after all.
Learn More about The Eternal Kawaii from our Factbook!

"Aside from being illegal, it's not like Max Barry Day was that bad of a resolution." -- Glen Rhodes
"as a member of the GA elite, I don't have to take this" -- Vancouvia

User avatar
Fascist Fae Elves
Secretary
 
Posts: 39
Founded: Oct 23, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Fascist Fae Elves » Mon Oct 25, 2010 5:29 pm

The Eternal Kawaii wrote:That's the only way it's going to be enforced, after all.


Might it be that these newly mandated tariffs will go to funding this army?

And what is next? A WA wide draft?? At this rate, the WA government may grow so ever present, that they may overshadow national government intervention in libertarian minded nations.

It is one thing for a national government to overshadow a provincial/territorial/state government in a federal nation, but for a world government to become more present in the everyday lives of citizens than their own government? I should hate to see the day when the implementation of a command style economy AND political system spans the entirety of WA membership. We would push for a dissolution of the WA before we would ever consider this a positive direction for the WA to pursue.
Last edited by Fascist Fae Elves on Mon Oct 25, 2010 5:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Erythrina
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 179
Founded: Sep 16, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Erythrina » Mon Oct 25, 2010 6:54 pm

WA-kileaks just released this video of Unibotian government proceedings:

Image


"It is with great reluctance that I have agreed to this calling. I love democracy. I love the World Assembly. The power you give me I will lay down when this crisis has abated. And as my first act with this new authority, I will create a Grand Army of the World Assembly to counter the increasing threat from the NatSovs."


We even do actually have a Trade Federation now!

So, this is how Democracy dies. With thunderous applause.

Kisses from the witch!
The Red Witch
But things would never be the same: the human that she had been was an insect wandering in the cathedral her mind had become. There simply was more there than before. No sparrow could fall without her knowledge, via air traffic control; no check could be cashed without her noticing over the bank communication net. More than three hundred million lives swept before what her senses had become. Yet, she was just being born.

User avatar
Unibot
Senator
 
Posts: 4292
Founded: May 25, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Unibot » Mon Oct 25, 2010 6:57 pm

I think everyone needs to calm down and read the text, all it is, is a voluntary peacekeeping operations taskforce. Parties agree they want something to build their confidence in either side, on their commitment to peace.. so both sides agree to have the WA, surveillance and monitor the situation or perhaps have a few troops guard the border or a canal or some territory of importance. We're not building a fucking imperial empire, here.

User avatar
Cardoness
Diplomat
 
Posts: 782
Founded: Sep 13, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Cardoness » Mon Oct 25, 2010 7:29 pm

We don't want the world, we just want the land that touches ours. ~Old Roman saying
Speaker Andreas, Ambassador to the World Assembly, Founder of the United League of Nations.
Frustrated Franciscans wrote:We are firmly against the godless, utopian, progressive overreach that a small number of nations in the World Assembly want to impose upon the multiverse...

User avatar
Unibot
Senator
 
Posts: 4292
Founded: May 25, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Unibot » Mon Oct 25, 2010 7:46 pm

Cardoness wrote:We don't want the world, we just want the land that touches ours. ~Old Roman saying


Are you serious? You're comparing peacekeeping missions with imperialism!? You're insane!

User avatar
Enn
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1228
Founded: Jan 26, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Enn » Mon Oct 25, 2010 7:53 pm

That the WA does not, and should not, command military forces is one of the most basic assumptions that underpin the functioning of this organisation. I knew Eduard had a fair degree of arrogance, but never did I believe he would seek to so radically undermine the World Assembly's role.

Stephanie Fulton,
WA Co-Ambassador for Enn
I know what gay science is.
Reploid Productions wrote:The World Assembly as a whole terrifies me!
Pythagosaurus wrote:You are seriously deluded about the technical competence of the average human.

User avatar
Hornopolis
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5992
Founded: Sep 26, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Hornopolis » Mon Oct 25, 2010 8:05 pm

I don't see why the WA can't have a peacekeeping force, peacekeeping doesn't automatically mean combat, the force could be used solely for none military objectives, like relief efforts for civilians and reconstruction efforts.
4/11/11

User avatar
SilentScope Embassy
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 2
Founded: Jan 07, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby SilentScope Embassy » Mon Oct 25, 2010 8:08 pm

1. Declares that for any specific WA peacekeeping operation to commence, all relevant parties must formally agree to the involvement of the World Assembly – relevant parties may include: recognized states, militants or any other organization that is involved in the conciliated armed conflict;


This is my main objection. If you're going to create a world government, for god's sake, please don't make it voluntary. It makes the whole resolution pointless if one minor group exercises a veto over a peacekeeping operation. Or, even worse, I could torpedo a peacekeeping mission by providing a token military aid to the recognized state and then exercising my veto power to prevent a peacekeeping operation here.

Yes, you're leading the WATFO decide what group is relevant or not, so perhaps the WATFO might close this loophole. I think I can convince the 'perfect gnomes' to see my way if this resolution is passed.

Also: you might want to have the World Assembly only fund peacekeeping operations, as opposed to actually having having an army. Peacekeeping operations are expensive, and if the WA was picking up the tab rather than our memberstates, then we would likely see more peacekeeping operations in the long term. And having memberstates actually run the peacekeeping operations create for a more 'local' response than having a standard WA army.
Last edited by SilentScope Embassy on Mon Oct 25, 2010 8:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Erythrina
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 179
Founded: Sep 16, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Erythrina » Mon Oct 25, 2010 8:09 pm

Hornopolis wrote:I don't see why the WA can't have a peacekeeping force, peacekeeping doesn't automatically mean combat, the force could be used solely for none military objectives, like relief efforts for civilians and reconstruction efforts.


Humanitarian Aid Coordination
The Red Witch
But things would never be the same: the human that she had been was an insect wandering in the cathedral her mind had become. There simply was more there than before. No sparrow could fall without her knowledge, via air traffic control; no check could be cashed without her noticing over the bank communication net. More than three hundred million lives swept before what her senses had become. Yet, she was just being born.

User avatar
Cardoness
Diplomat
 
Posts: 782
Founded: Sep 13, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Cardoness » Mon Oct 25, 2010 8:13 pm

If you put peacekeepers in the field, at some point they will have to keep the peace. They will have to kick in doors and start shooting people, bears, dolphins, or other sentient species. It's hard to remain neutral when shooting the citizens of one country or another.

OCC: The English conquest of Scotland started as a peacekeeping mission while the English king arbitrated between the nobles who should be the next Scottish king. 66 years and two wars later the English left.
Speaker Andreas, Ambassador to the World Assembly, Founder of the United League of Nations.
Frustrated Franciscans wrote:We are firmly against the godless, utopian, progressive overreach that a small number of nations in the World Assembly want to impose upon the multiverse...

User avatar
Omigodtheykilledkenny
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5741
Founded: Mar 14, 2005
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Omigodtheykilledkenny » Mon Oct 25, 2010 8:34 pm

I see a lot of references to GA#2 and relative mod rulings, but has anyone bothered pointing out that this type of resolution is specifically outlawed by the rules themselves? Or has it become standard practice now to push up against long-established game conventions, just to see what we can get away with?
Last edited by Omigodtheykilledkenny on Mon Oct 25, 2010 8:35 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Omigodtheykilledkenny FAQ | "The Biggest Sovereigntist IN THE WORLD" - Chester Pearson

User avatar
Glen-Rhodes
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9027
Founded: Jun 25, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Glen-Rhodes » Mon Oct 25, 2010 8:42 pm

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:I see a lot of references to GA#2 and relative mod rulings, but has anyone bothered pointing out that this type of resolution is specifically outlawed by the rules themselves? Or has it become standard practice now to push up against long-established game conventions, just to see what we can get away with?

Those 'mod rulings' were about both GA#2 and the rules themselves; the ruling I linked was more based in the WA Police/Military rule, than in GA#2. Nerv, for example, said that to avoid the WA Police rule (which is also the no-WA-military rule), you could "have the prisoners guarded in WA member states ... with the WA paying for the facilities rental and a 'cost of guarding' charge. The WA in this case would be JUST renting space and spending some extra money for the priviledge of housing a prisoner there, nothing more."

Now, I don't think Unibot's resolution right now is legal, but he would simply have to JUST rent some peacekeeping forces, and set up some general rules for peacekeeping. There is no longer a 'long-established game convention' here. Allowing the Multilateral Prosecution Act put, in my opinion, the whole of conventional knowledge into question. It's only natural for the author who did that to want to come back and see what he can do in light of the new wisdom. And, fortunately or unfortunately, unless mods want to contradict themselves, this proposal is just a hop, skip, and a jump away from being legal.

You would have thought that the WA itself sending people to prison was specifically outlawed by the rules themselves. But apparently I was misreading everything all along.
Last edited by Glen-Rhodes on Mon Oct 25, 2010 8:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: States of Glory WA Office

Advertisement

Remove ads