[Legality Challenge] International Aviation Act, RULED ON

[Araraukar]

This proposal has already been submitted. (EDIT: The submission ran out of time to garner enough approvals.)

Proposal text:

International Aviation Act

Category: International Security
Strength: Strong

Proposed by: Ayeris Islands

Description: The World Assembly ,

Reaffirming that terrorism in all forms constitutes one of the largest threats to international peace, security and stability and that any acts of terrorism are criminal and unjustifiable regardless of their motivations,

Noting that the WA and member states are dedicated to fight this scourge on a global level, evident from the previous resolutions passed,

Recognizing the vital importance of the global aviation system for economic development and prosperity, and of all States strengthening aviation security measures to make a stable and peaceful global environment,

Expressing concern that terrorist groups continue to view civil aviation as an attractive target, with the aim to cause substantial loss of life, economic damage and disruption to connectivity between States, and that the risk of terrorist attacks against civil aviation may affect all regions and member states,

Hereby:

Reaffirms the WA's call upon all States to join the relevant international counter-terrorism conventions and protocols in their region if it has them as soon as possible, and to fully implement their obligations under those to which they have joint,

Affirms that all States have the responsibility to protect the security of citizens and nationals of all WA nations against terrorist attacks on air services operating within their territory, in a manner consistent with existing obligations under international law;

Affirms also that all States have an interest to protect the safety of their own citizens and nationals against terrorist attacks conducted against international civil aviation, wherever these may occur, in accordance with WA international law, including international human rights law and international criminal law;

Hence,

Advises States to ensure that effective measures are in place at the airports within their jurisdiction, including through enhancing screening, security checks, and facility security, to detect and deter terrorist attacks against civil aviation and to review and assess such measures regularly and thoroughly to ensure that they reflect the ever-evolving threat picture and are in accordance with international standards;

Advocates that all WA member nations take necessary steps to ensure that these measures are effectively implemented on a continuous and sustainable basis, including the provision of the required resources, use of quality control and oversight processes, and the promotion of an effective security culture within all organizations involved in civil aviation;

Enacts International Aviation Act (2016)

Resolution thread (posted after it was submitted): http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic ... 9&t=394135

Rules violated:

• Meta-Gaming: using "all States" instead of "member states" is an attempt to legislate on non-member nations
• Strength: it has been submitted as "Strong", yet the active clauses are optional language, "Advises" and "Advocates", more suited for a Mild strength.

[Christian Democrats]

GenSec is considering your challenge.

[Gruenberg]

GenSec is considering your challenge.

No arguments on strength: seems open and shut.

Unsurprisingly, I disagree with the other part, though. Here is a thread that discussed it at length. Specifically, Ardchoille said:

OK, a nos moutons: in general, if a proposal says "The WA instructs nations to do x and y", it's taken as referring to member nations only, and the proposal survives. But if the whole phrasing of the proposal suggests the player is trying to force WA laws on non-member nations, it's killed.

This is very vague, and largely dependent on moderator discretion, which won't leave the council much to go on. But clarification on this point would be helpful, because there are obvious inconsistencies in how it's applied: "all nations"/"all states" proposals have been legal in the past, and introducing the requirement that players include extra characters in their character-limited proposals even while the WA can by definition only legislate on member nations doesn't seem to add any positive gain to the game.

[Excidium Planetis]

Unsurprisingly, I disagree with the other part, though. Here is a thread that discussed it at length. Specifically, Ardchoille said:

OK, a nos moutons: in general, if a proposal says "The WA instructs nations to do x and y", it's taken as referring to member nations only, and the proposal survives. But if the whole phrasing of the proposal suggests the player is trying to force WA laws on non-member nations, it's killed.

This is very vague, and largely dependent on moderator discretion, which won't leave the council much to go on. But clarification on this point would be helpful, because there are obvious inconsistencies in how it's applied: "all nations"/"all states" proposals have been legal in the past, and introducing the requirement that players include extra characters in their character-limited proposals even while the WA can by definition only legislate on member nations doesn't seem to add any positive gain to the game.

But recognizing the rules is Metagaming, is it not? And the GA is not bound by any resolution to apply its mandates to only member nations. So from an IC standpoint, the WA can legislate on non-members. (In fact, IIRC, the WA can address non-members as long as they are not being required to do anything.)

Requiring proposals to say "member nations" instead of "all nations" has a roleplay basis. For someone who complains about the death of GA roleplay, you don't seem to want any kind of roleplay.

[States of Glory WA Office]

This is very vague, and largely dependent on moderator discretion, which won't leave the council much to go on. But clarification on this point would be helpful, because there are obvious inconsistencies in how it's applied: "all nations"/"all states" proposals have been legal in the past, and introducing the requirement that players include extra characters in their character-limited proposals even while the WA can by definition only legislate on member nations doesn't seem to add any positive gain to the game.

Ordinarily, I'd agree with you on the 'all nations' vs 'member nations' "distinction". However, this proposal uses 'all states' in some clauses and 'all WA member nations' in others. Therefore, I believe that the proposal does legislate on non-members and should be ruled illegal.

[Gruenberg]

This is very vague, and largely dependent on moderator discretion, which won't leave the council much to go on. But clarification on this point would be helpful, because there are obvious inconsistencies in how it's applied: "all nations"/"all states" proposals have been legal in the past, and introducing the requirement that players include extra characters in their character-limited proposals even while the WA can by definition only legislate on member nations doesn't seem to add any positive gain to the game.

Ordinarily, I'd agree with you on the 'all nations' vs 'member nations' "distinction". However, this proposal uses 'all states' in some clauses and 'all WA member nations' in others. Therefore, I believe that the proposal does legislate on non-members and should be ruled illegal.

I think the strength violation means this proposal is certain to be found illegal anyway. So I'm more interested in the broader question of "all nations". Which, as you can see from the thread I linked, I just couldn't get a straight answer from the mods on - but now the Council has a chance to clarify things.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Ordinarily, I'd agree with you on the 'all nations' vs 'member nations' "distinction". However, this proposal uses 'all states' in some clauses and 'all WA member nations' in others. Therefore, I believe that the proposal does legislate on non-members and should be ruled illegal.

I think the strength violation means this proposal is certain to be found illegal anyway. So I'm more interested in the broader question of "all nations". Which, as you can see from the thread I linked, I just couldn't get a straight answer from the mods on - but now the Council has a chance to clarify things.

Fair enough. We've both given our views, so it would be nice to see what other regulars think about the issue.

[Excidium Planetis]

However, this proposal uses 'all states' in some clauses and 'all WA member nations' in others. Therefore, I believe that the proposal does legislate on non-members and should be ruled illegal.

I agree with States of Glory here, but as I mentioned earlier, I do believe that all uses of "all states" or "all nations" should be legislating on member nations.

Yes, there is precedent of such language being used in resolutions. But just because something is in a resolution does not necessarily mean that it should be legal. These things made it in because there was no hard and fast rule about "all nations". Gruen quoted Ardchoille's opinion, but in the same thread Kryozerkia said:

Stating "all nations" without modifiers (i.e.: "all member nations", "all WA nations") only has one interpretation of meaning exactly what it states. It means member and non-member nations.

So clearly even the moderators could not agree. If even the mods did not have a consensus on whether or not "all nations" meant non-members too, of course some resolutions were going to contain that language. I encourage the Council to make it clear that all nations includes non-members. Do it for the roleplay.

[Bears Armed]

In this particular case, the fact that the first operative proposal "Advises States" and then the second "Advocates that all WA member nations take necessary steps" looks to me as though it's narrowing down in scope between the two clauses: That might or might not be what the author intended, but it's how I read it...

[Excidium Planetis]

In this particular case, the fact that the first operative proposal "Advises States" and then the second "Advocates that all WA member nations take necessary steps" looks to me as though it's narrowing down in scope between the two clauses: That might or might not be what the author intended, but it's how I read it...

However, given that the clause is merely Advising, I would argue that it is not Metagaming. Only "forcing" legislation on non-members is illegal.

[Bears Armed]

In this particular case, the fact that the first operative proposal "Advises States" and then the second "Advocates that all WA member nations take necessary steps" looks to me as though it's narrowing down in scope between the two clauses: That might or might not be what the author intended, but it's how I read it...

However, given that the clause is merely Advising, I would argue that it is not Metagaming. Only "forcing" legislation on non-members is illegal.

The reason why operative clauses with mild verbs such as "Urges" or "Requests" are enough to make a 'mild' proposal legal is because although nations can avoid taking action they can't avoid being urged or requested and thus the effects are considered enough to justify the stat effects. Addressing those clauses to non-member states as well as to members has been ruled illegal on past occasions, and I consider "Advises" -- in a context such as this -- to be of equivalent strength and therefore also illegal.

[Excidium Planetis]

The reason why operative clauses with mild verbs such as "Urges" or "Requests" are enough to make a 'mild' proposal legal is because although nations can avoid taking action they can't avoid being urged or requested and thus the effects are considered enough to justify the stat effects.

I have always disagreed with that idea, but that isn't the basis of my argument, so I will move on to the latter half of your post;

Addressing those clauses to non-member states as well as to members has been ruled illegal on past occasions, and I consider "Advises" -- in a context such as this -- to be of equivalent strength and therefore also illegal.

Has it?
GA#117 Delineation of Borders Act (repealed) states:

INVITES non-WA nations to seek GABDO arbitration if all parties agree to respect said arbitration and a proper fee is paid

Non-member nations cannot avoid being invited. They also can't avoid paying this fee if they choose to seek GABDO arbitration.

The key here is that non-member nations are not forced to seek GABDO arbitration. The rules do not state that active clauses cannot be placed non-members, merely that compliance cannot be forced.

GA#255 states that:

Member nations that form military alliances with any non-member nation must make full compliance with the provisions of this resolution by that ally a term of the alliance.

Which makes member nations specifically demand compliance with a WA resolution of their non-member allies (actually, I made need to add this to my RP... not that I have any non-WA allies at the moment).

And GA#118 Ethics in International Trade was repealed on the grounds that it applied to non-member nations as well, as GA#284 states:

CONSIDERING, with the foregoing obligations already incumbent on member nations in mind, that the ITA's focus must be on non-member nations

GA#307 Anti-counterfeiting pact also addresses non-members:

Non-member states voluntarily complying with the responsibilities set forth shall be entitled to equal access to this law’s protections and benefits. Member states shall make no distinction between WANA-compliant non-member states and member states in regard to the provisions set forth in this law, except as required by extant legislation.

Clearly, the WA has acted directly or indirectly on non-member nations specifically several times in the past. Some of even those I would say cross the line for forcing compliance.

[Separatist Peoples]

GA#307 Anti-counterfeiting pact also addresses non-members:

Non-member states voluntarily complying with the responsibilities set forth shall be entitled to equal access to this law’s protections and benefits. Member states shall make no distinction between WANA-compliant non-member states and member states in regard to the provisions set forth in this law, except as required by extant legislation.

Clearly, the WA has acted directly or indirectly on non-member nations specifically several times in the past. Some of even those I would say cross the line for forcing compliance.

Anti Counterfeiting Pact, as a resolution, didn't act on nonmembers. It required action of member states and of the committee, specifically to forbear from differentiating between nonmembers compliant with WANA and members. It was a subtle, but important, distinction I made in writing.

[Excidium Planetis]

Anti Counterfeiting Pact, as a resolution, didn't act on nonmembers. It required action of member states and of the committee, specifically to forbear from differentiating between nonmembers compliant with WANA and members. It was a subtle, but important, distinction I made in writing.

But non-members cannot avoid being entitled to protections.

[Separatist Peoples]

Anti Counterfeiting Pact, as a resolution, didn't act on nonmembers. It required action of member states and of the committee, specifically to forbear from differentiating between nonmembers compliant with WANA and members. It was a subtle, but important, distinction I made in writing.

But non-members cannot avoid being entitled to protections.

Couple things. First, they can. By not following WANA regulations. Second, the onus is not on them to be entitled, but on member states and WANA to forbear from treating them differently.

Its like requiring A not strike B with a hammer. B is not acted upon in this by being entitled to *not* be hit. A is the one who sustains the limitation. B merely benefits as a secondary aspect, but nowhere in the requirement that A Shall Hit Nobody With Hammers is B acted upon. The legal relationship is between A and the Law.

[Excidium Planetis]

Couple things. First, they can. By not following WANA regulations.

What if they are required by another international organization to comply with WANA standards? They have no choice. What if they aren't even aware they are complying with the standards?

Once they comply with WANA standards, they have no choice but to be entitled.

Or, should you maintain that it is optional, non-member nations can avoid being Advised if they do not read the WA resolution advising them.

Second, the onus is not on them to be entitled, but on member states and WANA to forbear from treating them differently.

The onus is not on non-members to be Advised, but on the WA to Advise them. How does this argument not hold up?

[Sciongrad]

What if they are required by another international organization to comply with WANA standards? They have no choice. What if they aren't even aware they are complying with the standards?

Once they comply with WANA standards, they have no choice but to be entitled.

Or, should you maintain that it is optional, non-member nations can avoid being Advised if they do not read the WA resolution advising them.

This is an absolutely ridiculous argument and fundamentally misunderstands the rule that prohibits non-member nation compliance. The rule is intended to prohibit the WA from directly forcing non-member nations into doing anything. If non-member nations are coincidentally compliant, that doesn't count. If another organization enforces identical standards on them, that doesn't count. In my opinion, and according to legal precedent, if non-member states are pressured into acting in a certain way by member nations, that doesn't count either (see: GAR#255). You do not understand what the rule says.

[Araraukar]

Did the proposal's submission time run out or was it actually removed for being illegal?

[Bananaistan]

"5 hours ago: The General Assembly proposal "International Aviation Act" [Ayeris Islands] failed to achieve quorum."

[Excidium Planetis]

This is an absolutely ridiculous argument and fundamentally misunderstands the rule that prohibits non-member nation compliance. The rule is intended to prohibit the WA from directly forcing non-member nations into doing anything.

You accuse me of misunderstanding what the rule means, and then state exactly what I think the rule is. The rule is intended to prohibit the WA from directly forcing non-member nations into doing anything. Advising is not directly forcing them to do anything.

In my opinion, and according to legal precedent, if non-member states are pressured into acting in a certain way by member nations, that doesn't count either (see: GAR#255). You do not understand what the rule says.

I think I do, since I agree with you on every point you stated.

[Christian Democrats]

I actually wrote this opinion on November 7, but I had to wait on everybody to sign on, and I had to wait on an answer to a question.

---------------

*** General Assembly Secretariat Decision ***

Challenged Proposal: International Aviation Act
Date of Decision: 14 November 2016
Decision: Proposal is illegal, 6-0
Rules Applied: Strength Rule

International Aviation Act
Category: International Security
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Ayeris Islands

The World Assembly,

Reaffirming that terrorism in all forms constitutes one of the largest threats to international peace, security and stability and that any acts of terrorism are criminal and unjustifiable regardless of their motivations,

Noting that the WA and member states are dedicated to fight this scourge on a global level, evident from the previous resolutions passed,

Recognizing the vital importance of the global aviation system for economic development and prosperity, and of all States strengthening aviation security measures to make a stable and peaceful global environment,

Expressing concern that terrorist groups continue to view civil aviation as an attractive target, with the aim to cause substantial loss of life, economic damage and disruption to connectivity between States, and that the risk of terrorist attacks against civil aviation may affect all regions and member states,

Hereby:

Reaffirms the WA's call upon all States to join the relevant international counter-terrorism conventions and protocols in their region if it has them as soon as possible, and to fully implement their obligations under those to which they have joint,

Affirms that all States have the responsibility to protect the security of citizens and nationals of all WA nations against terrorist attacks on air services operating within their territory, in a manner consistent with existing obligations under international law;

Affirms also that all States have an interest to protect the safety of their own citizens and nationals against terrorist attacks conducted against international civil aviation, wherever these may occur, in accordance with WA international law, including international human rights law and international criminal law;

Hence,

Advises States to ensure that effective measures are in place at the airports within their jurisdiction, including through enhancing screening, security checks, and facility security, to detect and deter terrorist attacks against civil aviation and to review and assess such measures regularly and thoroughly to ensure that they reflect the ever-evolving threat picture and are in accordance with international standards;

Advocates that all WA member nations take necessary steps to ensure that these measures are effectively implemented on a continuous and sustainable basis, including the provision of the required resources, use of quality control and oversight processes, and the promotion of an effective security culture within all organizations involved in civil aviation;

Enacts International Aviation Act (2016)

Majority Opinion (Christian Democrats)
Joined by Bears Armed, Glen-Rhodes, Sciongrad, Separatist Peoples, and Sierra Lyricalia.

We consider a challenge that raises two questions: (1) whether the International Aviation Act violates the Meta-Gaming Rule by attempting to legislate on non-member nations and (2) whether the International Aviation Act violates the Strength Rule. On the second question, we have determined that the proposal does, in fact, break the Strength Rule and, therefore, is illegal. Because the answer to the strength question is sufficient to strike down the proposal, it is unnecessary for us to decide the scope of the Meta-Gaming Rule at this time.

The Strength Rule states: "This determines the effect a proposal has on a nation's policy. A proposal with mild language or affecting a narrow area of policy is Mild, while one which [affects] a very broad area of policy in a dramatic way is Strong. Anything in between is Significant."

The proposal now before us is listed as Strong, and it has two operative clauses. The first operative clause "advises" nations to maintain "effective [security] measures . . . to detect and deter terrorist attacks against civil aviation." The second operative clause "advocates" that "necessary steps" be taken for implementing the first operative clause's advice. In short, the proposal does not set forth any mandates. It contains only suggestions, namely that nations should have effective security measures and should take the necessary steps to implement them.

It is impossible, in our opinion, for a proposal that merely gives advice or makes suggestions to affect policy "in a dramatic way." The statistical impact of a Strong resolution is to coerce national governments toward a given policy, severely constraining their discretion over one or more important matters. Since WA members are at liberty to reject GA suggestions after giving them due consideration, advisory proposals can never be Strong. In accordance with the text of the Strength Rule and long-standing GA norms, we hold today that Strong is always inappropriate for proposals whose operative clauses are only advisory or suggestive.

Concurring Opinion (Sierra Lyricalia)

Reading the proposal in the most favorable light, it could be interpreted to have three additional operative clauses - the paragraphs situated between the conjunctions "hereby" and "hence." These clauses appear preambulatory, but coming as they do after the word "hereby," we may assume for a moment they are operative. If so, they act only to "affirm" or "reaffirm" uncontroversial or even obvious statements, and do not force the serious changes one expects from a resolution classed as Strong. The first "reaffirms" a generic statement of support for international counter-terrorism efforts; the second "affirms" a fact known to anyone who has read the corpus of international law; and the third "affirms" a factual statement about the already widely accepted responsibilities of states generally. None of these clauses lays any new obligation on member states, let alone a strenuous or surprising one.

[Araraukar]

Because the answer to the strength question is sufficient to strike down the proposal, it is unnecessary for us to decide the scope of the Meta-Gaming Rule at this time.

Fair enough, but you won't be able to dodge that bullet for long.

[States of Glory WA Office]

I don't know if I should be relieved or frustrated over the fact that the Council has declined to rule on the question of 'all nations' vs. 'member nations'.

[Excidium Planetis]

I don't know if I should be relieved or frustrated over the fact that the Council has declined to rule on the question of 'all nations' vs. 'member nations'.

Me neither. On one hand, as long as they haven't ruled, I can still maintain that "all nations" acts on non-members. On the other hand, that isn't decided, so I have no official confirmation that this is the case. At least if it was ruled on, I would know for sure if my interpretation is wrong or right.

[Separatist Peoples]

I don't know if I should be relieved or frustrated over the fact that the Council has declined to rule on the question of 'all nations' vs. 'member nations'.

This was a pretty unnecessary proposal to make a determination on. We've heard plenty of complaints about the amount of power the GenSec wields, and we are doing our damnedest to limit the grounds on which we exercise it. We want the rules settled, and therefore predictable, but we also don't want to lay down a half dozen sweeping edicts at a time. That makes organizing a majority opinion messy, since we may all agree on one point and be sharply divided on another.