[Legality Challenge] Protection of Nuclear Armaments

[Wallenburg]

Where there's a serious chance that we'll rule the proposal illegal, we have been pretty good about getting that ruling done in a timely fashion. Here there was little chance of it being found illegal (AFAICT only one of us really thinks it breaks any rules), so I don't really see any cause for concern about GenSec performance.

1) WA Peacekeeping Charter.
2) GenSec's job is not limited to striking down illegal resolutions. It is also supposed to rule when it accepts challenges on legal resolutions.

[Nilla Wayfarers]

I have to agree with Ambassador Ogenbond on the lackluster punctuality of the Secretariat. I'd rather not see it dissolved, but you should take a vote and write an opinion before the voting period ends.
If a member of the Secretariat fails to vote on the challenge in time, then tough turkeys.

[Bakhton]

I have to agree with Ambassador Ogenbond on the lackluster punctuality of the Secretariat. I'd rather not see it dissolved, but you should take a vote and write an opinion before the voting period ends.
If a member of the Secretariat fails to vote on the challenge in time, then tough turkeys.

OOC: Perhaps the GenSec would serve itself well to define themselves exclusively to dealing with at vote resolutions and delegate advisory powers to other nations. There was a whole shenanigan which admittedly was partly my fault on my recent proposal that caused some controversy.

[Tinfect]

Look, as much as the GenSec might've been sluggish lately, remember that they actually do have lives off NS. The Mods have been slow at times as well, and if I remember correctly, rulings came much too late on several occasions.

[Wallenburg]

Look, as much as the GenSec might've been sluggish lately, remember that they actually do have lives off NS. The Mods have been slow at times as well, and if I remember correctly, rulings came much too late on several occasions.

I know that the members have lives beyond the WA. However, if some can't be bothered to do their jobs as members of the GenSec, then they should not have accepted their positions. This is the second time in a row that GenSec has failed to rule on a resolution at vote. This hints at a general pattern for us to expect, where GenSec promises us a decision but we do not get it until days or even weeks after it is too late.

[Separatist Peoples]

Look, as much as the GenSec might've been sluggish lately, remember that they actually do have lives off NS. The Mods have been slow at times as well, and if I remember correctly, rulings came much too late on several occasions.

I know that the members have lives beyond the WA. However, if some can't be bothered to do their jobs as members of the GenSec, then they should not have accepted their positions. This is the second time in a row that GenSec has failed to rule on a resolution at vote. This hints at a general pattern for us to expect, where GenSec promises us a decision but we do not get it until days or even weeks after it is too late.

Not helpful, Wally. Even if it was, those late decisions have been such that the outcome wasn't changed by the results of the decision. They've failed at vote. If we start missing deadlines on things that are passing, then maybe start complaining. As it stands, there is no reason why a ruling on this before it failed would have made a difference.

If it helps console the woeful masses, please note that we've been implementing coding stuff over the last week, which has been attention-intensive.

[Wallenburg]

I know that the members have lives beyond the WA. However, if some can't be bothered to do their jobs as members of the GenSec, then they should not have accepted their positions. This is the second time in a row that GenSec has failed to rule on a resolution at vote. This hints at a general pattern for us to expect, where GenSec promises us a decision but we do not get it until days or even weeks after it is too late.

Not helpful, Wally. Even if it was, those late decisions have been such that the outcome wasn't changed by the results of the decision. They've failed at vote. If we start missing deadlines on things that are passing, then maybe start complaining. As it stands, there is no reason why a ruling on this before it failed would have made a difference.

If it helps console the woeful masses, please note that we've been implementing coding stuff over the last week, which has been attention-intensive.

It is not my job to bend over for GenSec. If you or others do not think it is helpful to call to attention GenSec's failures and demand improvement, then you are free to think that. I'm still going to criticize GenSec.

As to coding, are you telling me that people from GenSec have been spending hours of their time coding and debugging? Because I thought NS had people for that already.

[Frisbeeteria]

As to coding, are you telling me that people from GenSec have been spending hours of their time coding and debugging? Because I thought NS had people for that already.

We do. [violet] finally had the chance to introduce some actual code for the GenSec in the past couple of days, and we're trial-driving it. Prior to that, the GenSec had to filter everything through the mods to get anything done, so it was double the wait time, particularly since we don't have many active WA mods right now.

Transitioning the roles of the GenSec from the moderators via the administrators takes time, effort, and discussion. Don't stomp on the GenSec members. They're only a third of the equation, and the least able to actively resolve technical concerns.

[Sciongrad]

Look, as much as the GenSec might've been sluggish lately, remember that they actually do have lives off NS. The Mods have been slow at times as well, and if I remember correctly, rulings came much too late on several occasions.

I know that the members have lives beyond the WA. However, if some can't be bothered to do their jobs as members of the GenSec, then they should not have accepted their positions. This is the second time in a row that GenSec has failed to rule on a resolution at vote. This hints at a general pattern for us to expect, where GenSec promises us a decision but we do not get it until days or even weeks after it is too late.

Take it easy. If it takes us two weeks to get rulings out because we are too busy IRL, then we'll take two weeks. No amount of whining will change that.

[Araraukar]

If it takes us two weeks to get rulings out because we are too busy IRL, then we'll take two weeks. No amount of whining will change that.

Then you really need the "hold" function ASAP.

[Wallenburg]

Take it easy. If it takes us two weeks to get rulings out because we are too busy IRL, then we'll take two weeks. No amount of whining will change that.

Then not only is the GenSec unable to function properly, but it is unresponsive to advice or criticism. Thank God the hold function is on its way.

[Excidium Planetis]

Take it easy. If it takes us two weeks to get rulings out because we are too busy IRL, then we'll take two weeks. No amount of whining will change that.

Or maybe we could appoint members who can roll out rulings in four days?

Which reminds me, we were initially told that the current GenSec members were chosen for the "trial run" of GenSec. When does this trial run end? Will we ever see new members, or are we stuck with 6 Supreme Court Justices?

[Separatist Peoples]

*** General Assembly Secretariat Decision ***
Challenged Proposal: Protection of Nuclear Armaments
Date of Decision: 1 January 2017
Decision: Proposal is legal, 5 - 1
Rules Applied: Amendment and Duplication

The GenSec voted 5 - 1 that this was legal.

Bears Armed, Sierra Lyricalia, Glen-Rhodes, Sciongrad, Separatist Peoples who voted it was legal and wrote the opinion:

Regarding the Duplication claims, this appears to fall under the noted exception to the Duplication rule: a limited amount of duplication with the intention of clarifying a lightly-covered topic isn't illegal Duplication. Assessing the Duplication/Contradiction assertion, we think this is attempting to clarify a vague point. It does so poorly, but we think it escapes.

Regarding the Amendment claims, we simply don't agree with the suggested interpretation of the Amendment rule. The author intended not to amend, but to further tighten the legal ratchet built by NAPA. On Abortion left the opportunity for the WA to further open, but not restrict, access to abortions. Reproductive Freedoms used that ratchet option to open it up. It really just built off the existing legal landscape, which makes for a precarious law, but not an illegal one. So, too, did the author intend to ratchet up the restriction against "wrong hands".

There is a reason that Amendment violations are separate from Contradiction violations. An amendment contradicts the existing terms, but breaks the game specifically because previous legislation can't be modified. If it wasn't for this underlying difference, Amendment violations could otherwise fall under Contradiction violations. So there must be something substantively different between the two, and we believe it is that Amendment violations actively attempt to somehow alter the text of the extant legislation.

This doesn't try to modify the original text of NAPA, merely tighten the ratchet for how nations view those parties that can't own nuclear weapons. Since it falls in the penumbra of allowed Duplication, and since it isn't trying to change the text of NAPA, we find that it is legal.

Christian Democrats dissented with the following:

In my view, the proposal Protection of Nuclear Armaments (PNA) is an illegal amendment to Resolution 10, the Nuclear Arms Possession Act (NAPA). According to the Amendments Rule, a proposal may not "either enhance or modify an active proposal's text" (emphasis added). I fully agree with my colleagues that PNA "doesn't try to modify the original text of NAPA," and I fully agree with them that PNA's clear purpose is "to ratchet up" NAPA. Such a "ratchet," however, should be counted as an enhancement and, therefore, an illegal amendment.

The major exception -- indeed, the exception on which the majority relies -- is given in the Duplication Rule: "Proposals may elaborate in specific areas of policy, where broad legislation exists" (emphasis added). This exception, in my opinion, would be applicable to PNA but for one fact: NAPA is not "broad legislation." NAPA is narrow legislation on a specific topic. It is a Mild resolution on the possession of nuclear weapons. NAPA doesn't cover other kinds of weapons, and it doesn't cover national conduct other than possession. By the plain meaning of the Duplication and Amendments Rules, as read together, authors are permitted "to ratchet up" broad and sweeping legislation, such as the Charter of Civil Rights (Resolution 35), but not narrow and mild legislation, such as NAPA.

The upshot of today's erroneous decision is that it severely undermines the efforts of some authors to reserve a place for national rights. Oftentimes, authors will intentionally leave certain sections of their resolutions vague (e.g., "the wrong hands") with a view to allowing national governments leeway to implement international mandates according to their own national beliefs and conditions. Taking the majority at its word, almost any amount of vagueness (even intentional vagueness) in a resolution gives future authors near total license to pursue enhancement legislation so long as they do not purport "to modify the original text." Such a position, in addition to its obvious textual unsoundness, does an injustice to many past authors, many repeal-and-replace authors, and many opponents of international micromanagement -- that is, to a number of valuable members of the General Assembly community.

For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Decision: Proposal is legal, 6-1
Rules Applied: Amendment and Duplication

The GenSec voted 6-1 that this was legal.

There are only six members. I think you meant either 4 or 5 - 1.

[Separatist Peoples]

Decision: Proposal is legal, 6-1
Rules Applied: Amendment and Duplication

The GenSec voted 6-1 that this was legal.

There are only six members. I think you meant either 4 or 5 - 1.

Thank you, I meant 5-1.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Thank you, I meant 5-1.

But you only noted four people in the decision, saying that BA, SL, Scion, and yourself voted in favour of legality.

[Separatist Peoples]

Thank you, I meant 5-1.

But you only noted four people in the decision, saying that BA, SL, Scion, and yourself voted in favour of legality.

GR hasn't officially signed onto an opinion, but voted legal. I'm not about to add anybody's name to something without their permission.

[Araraukar]

GR hasn't officially signed onto an opinion, but voted legal. I'm not about to add anybody's name to something without their permission.

If he voted legal, you could put his name on there with those words, not with a signed on wordy thing. I'm not sure why you do those in the first place, but eh, your council.

EDIT: Also, thank you for the verdict even though it's one I disagree with.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I'm joining the majority, here.