[Draft] Resolution 412

[Glen-Rhodes]

To what do you want me to narrow my focus? I can't accomplish everything I am doing here in multiple proposals, some of them would simultaneously be impossible to pass and utterly ineffective, and many would be illegal if I broke this apart.

Conveniently, I already gave a suggested list. The idea that you need to do all of it at the same time is a failure of our own creativity. These things were all done separately in the real world, sometimes decades apart.

Elections & Assistance Act only covers one small part of democracy promotion. I didn't feel that it would be ineffectual without recreating in a single proposal the whole modern network of laws & organizations that exists in real life to do all these things. The seed is planted and more proposals can be written to promote democracy using the OEA. You can take the one clause you have here and write a whole resolution on post-war institution building. There could even be a single resolution on post-war elections.

I did. They were drafted on this forum and commented on by players. You were absent both discussions.

Where?

Also, to be clear, your proposal wouldn't be illegal for using the OEA. However, the likelihood that your proposal would contain illegal clauses only increases when you try to stuff as much as you possibly can into the character limit, because you're not taking the care to narrowly tailor things to avoid contradiction/duplication.

[Excidium Planetis]

To what do you want me to narrow my focus? I can't accomplish everything I am doing here in multiple proposals, some of them would simultaneously be impossible to pass and utterly ineffective, and many would be illegal if I broke this apart.

Conveniently, I already gave a suggested list.

Not in this thread. In caae you hadn't noticed, this is a new proposal. It isn't doing the same thing that Peacekeeping Charter is.

The idea that you need to do all of it at the same time is a failure of our own creativity. These things were all done separately in the real world, sometimes decades apart.

The real world doesn't have Committee Only and Duplication rules.

Elections & Assistance Act only covers one small part of democracy promotion. I didn't feel that it would be ineffectual without recreating in a single proposal the whole modern network of laws & organizations that exists in real life to do all these things. The seed is planted and more proposals can be written to promote democracy using the OEA. You can take the one clause you have here and write a whole resolution on post-war institution building. There could even be a single resolution on post-war elections.

There could be, but does there need to be? From an IC standpoint, committees exist because
1) We need someone besides member nations to do the thing.
2) It's a lot easier to give a committee the power to determine how they will carry out their mandates, rather than bog a proposal down in minute details.
WA committees complete monumental tasks with only minimal one line mandates. Why do we need to write a whole resolution on post war rebuilding?

Where?

International Peace Accord
Election Safeguards
They were right there on that list. Not hard to find, from the time I posted WA Peacekeeping Charter, besides this thread and a locked thread, there were only 4 threads, and these were clearly labeled as compliments to Peacekeeping Charter.

Also, to be clear, your proposal wouldn't be illegal for using the OEA. However, the likelihood that your proposal would contain illegal clauses only increases when you try to stuff as much as you possibly can into the character limit, because you're not taking the care to narrowly tailor things to avoid contradiction/duplication.

The more I write on the OEA, period, the more I increase the likelihood of contradiction/duplication. If I keep it to a single line, there is only one line that possibly contradicts/duplicates, so wouldn't, if I wanted to avoid illegality, keeping it short increase my chances?

[Excidium Planetis]

"I have resumed drafting this proposal." Blackbourne states, opening the debate chamber door again. "And as I foresee little substantive changes to be made to the basic idea, will file a Legality Challenge to determine how I can proceed."

[Kitzerland]

"I have resumed drafting this proposal." Blackbourne states, opening the debate chamber door again. "And as I foresee little substantive changes to be made to the basic idea, will file a Legality Challenge to determine how I can proceed."

Whiskers runs into the debating chamber and shouts "FIRST!!!!!" He then sits down sheepishly. "Anyway, this is looking alright. I don't really see why we need this, but I've always supported fluff legislation."

[Bakhton]

"It is the opinion of our court that this proposal violates Section 10 of GA #2 by causing excessive entanglements between nations' militaries and the World Assembly, as well as being scattershot and serving no direct purpose." Lara collects her paperwork into a neat stack. "Of course if the legality challenge rules otherwise this ruling will be moot and we will return with a more substantive response."

[Excidium Planetis]

"I have resumed drafting this proposal." Blackbourne states, opening the debate chamber door again. "And as I foresee little substantive changes to be made to the basic idea, will file a Legality Challenge to determine how I can proceed."

Whiskers runs into the debating chamber and shouts "FIRST!!!!!" He then sits down sheepishly. "Anyway, this is looking alright. I don't really see why we need this, but I've always supported fluff legislation."

"As of right now, WA personnel are tasked with going into war zones and areas of conflict, but prihibited by WA law from being involved in those conflicts. Even carrying weapons is apparently enough to contradict GA#2. Thus, volunteer national military and police forces are required to help protect WA efforts abroad."

"It is the opinion of our court that this proposal violates Section 8 of GA #2 by causing excessive entanglements between nations' militaries and the World Assembly, as well as being scattershot and serving no direct purpose."

"I'm afraid I don't understand your court's ruling, as Section 8 states:

Article 8 § Every WA Member State has the right to equality in law with every other WA Member State.

"And this resolution does not mandate inequality in law nor in any way infringe that right. Nevertheless, I will bring that up in the Challenge."

[Bakhton]

"I'm afraid I don't understand your court's ruling, as Section 8 states:

Article 8 § Every WA Member State has the right to equality in law with every other WA Member State.

"And this resolution does not mandate inequality in law nor in any way infringe that right. Nevertheless, I will bring that up in the Challenge."

"I apologize, I misspoke, I was referring to Section 10. Jeffrey, have the transcript be changed in accordance."

[Excidium Planetis]

"I'm afraid I don't understand your court's ruling, as Section 8 states:

"And this resolution does not mandate inequality in law nor in any way infringe that right. Nevertheless, I will bring that up in the Challenge."

"I apologize, I misspoke, I was referring to Section 10. Jeffrey, have the transcript be changed in accordance."

"Well then, I will remove that section from the Challenge."

[Bakhton]

"I apologize, I misspoke, I was referring to Section 10. Jeffrey, have the transcript be changed in accordance."

"Well then, I will remove that section from the Challenge."

"I apologize for any delay our error has caused."

[States of Glory WA Office]

What do you know? This thread was Harold's first appearance. I will forever treasure this moment...Not.

Barbera: Wait, you actually listened to our suggestions? We are pleasantly surprised.

Harold: (cartwheels into the chamber) Speak for yourself. I am noticing a distinct shortage of committees in this here proposal. I thought this was supposed to be a bureaucracy reunion of some sort?

Barbera: It was never intended to be some sort of reunion. It is supposed to be a proposed solution to a pressing international matter.

Harold: Well, that's just boring! Where's an Orange Julius recipe when you need it? (honks nose) Anyway, I'm off to make an elephant this time. I don't feel like cartwheeling, by the way. (walks out of the chamber)

[Excidium Planetis]

Blackbourne finishes oiling the doors, and steps inside the drafting chamber again. He brushes off all the papers on his desk into a waste basket, syncs his datatab to the projector, and puts up a new draft of that resolution with the terribly unimaginative bame.

"Alright, I think I am ready to have another go at this." He says to no one in particular. "Pre-conflict, post-conflict, nothing in between, absolute adherence to prior resolutions, and enforcement of the provisions of this resolution!"

[States of Glory WA Office]

Blackbourne finishes oiling the doors, and steps inside the drafting chamber again. He brushes off all the papers on his desk into a waste basket, syncs his datatab to the projector, and puts up a new draft of that resolution with the terribly unimaginative bame.

"Alright, I think I am ready to have another go at this." He says to no one in particular. "Pre-conflict, post-conflict, nothing in between, absolute adherence to prior resolutions, and enforcement of the provisions of this resolution!"

Barbera: It does not seem dignified for such a milestone resolution to possess such an undignified name and to be written on such a divisive subject.

Harold: Also, look at how wordy the damn thing is! Some of the ambassadors are sapient goldfish; won't someone please think of the goldfish???

[Araraukar]

OOC: What exactly is "a Unity of Purpose with the WA"?

[Sciongrad]

OOC: imo, the WA requesting troops or police is still a violation of GAR#2. Repeal GAR#2.

[Bakhton]

Prohibits any WA organizations or committees (not member nations) from engaging in offensive military actions with any WA member states, or affiliated organizations, for any reason;

“Ambassador, this would violate §4–5 of GAR#2 which says that nations are allowed to make war in terms of self-defense, and to intercede upon on the military conflicts of other nations, effectively legalizing war between member nations. Even if this weren’t the case, then you’re proposal put into action would just make nations claim intercession upon entering wars of aggression. The only way to effectively ban warfare between member nations is to repeal GAR#2 first.”

[Aclion]

Prohibits any WA organizations or committees (not member nations) from engaging in offensive military actions with any WA member states, or affiliated organizations, for any reason;

“Ambassador, this would violate §4–5 of GAR#2 which says that nations are allowed to make war in terms of self-defense, and to intercede upon on the military conflicts of other nations, effectively legalizing war between member nations. Even if this weren’t the case, then you’re proposal put into action would just make nations claim intercession upon entering wars of aggression. The only way to effectively ban warfare between member nations is to repeal GAR#2 first.”

GAR#2 refers to nations, which are specifically excluded from that clause. I think you have grossly misinterpreted the meaning of this resolution.

[States of Glory WA Office]

“Ambassador, this would violate §4–5 of GAR#2 which says that nations are allowed to make war in terms of self-defense, and to intercede upon on the military conflicts of other nations, effectively legalizing war between member nations. Even if this weren’t the case, then you’re proposal put into action would just make nations claim intercession upon entering wars of aggression. The only way to effectively ban warfare between member nations is to repeal GAR#2 first.”

GAR#2 refers to nations, which are specifically excluded from that clause. I think you have grossly misinterpreted the meaning of this resolution.

Barbera: In all fairness to the Ambassador, the title does not reflect the contents of the proposal in any significant manner.

[Bakhton]

“Ambassador, this would violate §4–5 of GAR#2 which says that nations are allowed to make war in terms of self-defense, and to intercede upon on the military conflicts of other nations, effectively legalizing war between member nations. Even if this weren’t the case, then you’re proposal put into action would just make nations claim intercession upon entering wars of aggression. The only way to effectively ban warfare between member nations is to repeal GAR#2 first.”

GAR#2 refers to nations, which are specifically excluded from that clause. I think you have grossly misinterpreted the meaning of this resolution.

"That's an obvious opportunity to be a smokescreen for government organizations. A more honest method would be to repeal GAR#2."

[Excidium Planetis]

Barbera: It does not seem dignified for such a milestone resolution to possess such an undignified name and to be written on such a divisive subject.

"I was hoping the name would be less divisive than 'WA Conflict Prevention Charter', which would have every militaristic nation up in arms."

OOC: imo, the WA requesting troops or police is still a violation of GAR#2. Repeal GAR#2.

OOC
I point you to the following clause:

Adherence to existing WA resolutions. Actions, even if allowed by this resolution, are not to be taken by the WADB if such actions would conflict with other existing resolutions.

If requesting troops would violate GA#2, the WADB will not request them, per the requirements of this resolution.

Prohibits any WA organizations or committees (not member nations) from engaging in offensive military actions with any WA member states, or affiliated organizations, for any reason;

“Ambassador, this would violate §4–5 of GAR#2 which says that nations are allowed to make war in terms of self-defense, and to intercede upon on the military conflicts of other nations, effectively legalizing war between member nations. Even if this weren’t the case, then you’re proposal put into action would just make nations claim intercession upon entering wars of aggression. The only way to effectively ban warfare between member nations is to repeal GAR#2 first.”

"I believe you have grossly misinterpreted that clause, Ambassador. The clause explictly states that member nations are excluded, so GA#2's explicit allowance of nation to nation conflict is not violated. I don't intend to ban war in any way."

"That's an obvious opportunity to be a smokescreen for government organizations. A more honest method would be to repeal GAR#2."

"Ambassador, the General Assembly Secretariat has already ruled that WA organizations participating in conflict is a violation of GA#2, and yet now you are trying to say that a clause prohibiting their participation is a violation of GA#2. GA#2 cannot simultaneously prohibit the participation of WA organizations and committees and conflict with such prohibition."

OOC: Two separate earlier versions of this draft have been officially ruled illegal by GenSec, both for allowing the participation of WA organizations/committees in conflict areas. At no point was that clause the problem, since it explicitly bans WA committees from engaging in offensives, which is partial duplication of GA#2, not contradiction.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC: imo, the WA requesting troops or police is still a violation of GAR#2. Repeal GAR#2.

OOC
I point you to the following clause:

Adherence to existing WA resolutions. Actions, even if allowed by this resolution, are not to be taken by the WADB if such actions would conflict with other existing resolutions.

If requesting troops would violate GA#2, the WADB will not request them, per the requirements of this resolution.

That's kind of a cop-out, to be honest. You're saying we should allow a resolution to say whatever illegal thing it wants, as long as it contains the caveat "...Unless doing so is illegal."

"The WA hereby requires all member nations to give up their nuclear weapons, unless this requirement would contradict existing legislation." Yes, that contradicts existing legislation, and that exception clause doesn't save it.

In response to us telling you twice that your resolutions contradict existing law, your solution is to ask us to let you hack all the limbs off the contradiction rule and leave it sitting in a puddle of its own blood, shouting impotently. Speaking for myself only, I don't see how we can let this go through.

[Sciongrad]

In response to us telling you twice that your resolutions contradict existing law, your solution is to ask us to let you hack all the limbs off the contradiction rule and leave it sitting in a puddle of its own blood, shouting impotently. Speaking for myself only, I don't see how we can let this go through.

This exactly. I also wonder about whether or not prospectively adding what is functionally a replacement before repealing GAR#2 is legal. That is, while that clause does absolutely nothing now, it will kick into action when GAR#2 is repealed. You're essentially passing legislation to circumvent GAR#2 before repealing it. Whether that's strictly illegal is difficult to say -- we'll have to deliberate on this -- but it's definitely something to consider. I agree with SL, though. A clear contradiction doesn't become any less of a contradiction because you've included a clause that neuters it. While we have not reached an official conclusion yet, the feeling among us appears to be that this is still illegal.

[Separatist Peoples]

In response to us telling you twice that your resolutions contradict existing law, your solution is to ask us to let you hack all the limbs off the contradiction rule and leave it sitting in a puddle of its own blood, shouting impotently. Speaking for myself only, I don't see how we can let this go through.

This exactly. I also wonder about whether or not prospectively adding a functional amendment is legal. That is, while that clause does absolutely nothing now, it will kick into action when GAR#2 is repealed. You're essentially passing legislation the circumvent GAR#2 before repealing it. Whether that's strictly illegal is difficult to say -- we'll have to deliberate on this -- but it's definitely something to consider. I agree with SL, though. Including a clear contradiction doesn't become any less of a contradiction because you've included a clause that neuters it.

To clarify, this is because the Request and Dismiss powers of the WADB have no operative ability that isn't in conflict with GAR#2, whereas prior resolutions that say "subject to extant law" have all, per my research, only been narrowly restricted or restricted in part by extant rules.

[Excidium Planetis]

That's kind of a cop-out, to be honest. You're saying we should allow a resolution to say whatever illegal thing it wants, as long as it contains the caveat "...Unless doing so is illegal."

Yes, I am saying that you should allow it, because that same wording has been used before.

(a) To collect and archive copies of any and all publicly available scientific literature with the aim of preserving and protecting it for use now and in the future excepting only that which is illegal under extant WA law.

Look at that, an existing WA resolution which tells a committee it can do something, unless that thing happens to be illegal. To my knowledge, this has never been against the rules before.

If I use the same exact wording, will you be happy?

In response to us telling you twice that your resolutions contradict existing law, your solution is to ask us to let you hack all the limbs off the contradiction rule and leave it sitting in a puddle of its own blood, shouting impotently. Speaking for myself only, I don't see how we can let this go through.

Stop being dramatic. This has been allowed for a long time. Tons of resolutions include exceptions for when existing legislation covers a topic. It's a standard tactic to prevent contradiction, and it hasn't killed the contradiction rule.

This exactly. I also wonder about whether or not prospectively adding what is functionally a replacement before repealing GAR#2 is legal. That is, while that clause does absolutely nothing now, it will kick into action when GAR#2 is repealed. You're essentially passing legislation to circumvent GAR#2 before repealing it. Whether that's strictly illegal is difficult to say -- we'll have to deliberate on this -- but it's definitely something to consider.

That's not illegal. Resolutions have actually been repealed because a later resolution replaced them prior to the repeal. It wasn't illegal then, it shouldn't be now.

I agree with SL, though. A clear contradiction doesn't become any less of a contradiction because you've included a clause that neuters it. While we have not reached an official conclusion yet, the feeling among us appears to be that this is still illegal.

This is just hypocrisy. Your own damn resolution says:

Assures member nations of the exclusive right to determine purely internal arms trading and firearm policy

Which would be a contradiction, did it not include:

excepting:

those regulations recognized by the terms of this resolution or extant international law,

Sure, when it is your resolution, making an otherwise contradictory clause non-contradictory by clarifying past resolutions are an exception is fine, but when it is my resolution, making an otherwise contradictory clause non-contradictory by clarifying that it must fall within extant WA law is illegal.

To clarify, this is because the Request and Dismiss powers of the WADB have no operative ability that isn't in conflict with GAR#2, whereas prior resolutions that say "subject to extant law" have all, per my research, only been narrowly restricted or restricted in part by extant rules.

1) Not all GenSec members agree that the Request and Dismiss powers are contradictory at all.
2) Even then, I doubt the rest of you all agree that they are contradictory in all circumstances. Based on GR's words (and I am guessing here, not presuming to know GR's opinion), as long as the military forces being requested were not in active conflict zones and did not participate in armed conflict in any way, there wouldn't be a contradiction. In other words, simply requesting troops and dismissing them in itself is not contradiction, it is only circumstances in which it could occur that contradict GA#2. Now, do you really believe there is absolutely no circumstances where the WADB could use those powers and still no violate the clause prohibiting them from contradicting existing legislation? Or is it only most circumstances where it would be prohibited?
3) The request and dismiss powers are part of a larger clause. That clause as a whole is only restricted "in part" by the exceptions. I fail to see how a partial restriction of the WADB's powers is substantially different from a partial restriction of the powers granted in any other resolution which uses similar "subject to international law" language.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

The difference between past resolutions saying something like "Mandates that all pornography be legal in member nations, except if forbidden by extant international law," and the way you've constructed this, is that in none of those other cases is the contemplated action entirely forbidden in every possible circumstance. In this example, the legality of pornography is only circumscribed by GAR #300, which bans certain types; other pornography remains free for the WA to legislate on.

Your clause, by contrast, is much more like the NAPA example I gave several posts ago - every possible action under the clause is illegal. There is no circumstance under which the clause's contemplated action could take place, because there is no way to conduct the action without contradicting existing law. Where the set of possible avenues to avoid contradiction is zero, it's a contradiction even if you stick a sign on it saying you're avoiding contradictions. I can't instruct authors to make logically inconsistent statements the bedrock of their resolutions.

[Excidium Planetis]

The difference between past resolutions saying something like "Mandates that all pornography be legal in member nations, except if forbidden by extant international law," and the way you've constructed this, is that in none of those other cases is the contemplated action entirely forbidden in every possible circumstance. In this example, the legality of pornography is only circumscribed by GAR #300, which bans certain types; other pornography remains free for the WA to legislate on.

Your clause, by contrast, is much more like the NAPA example I gave several posts ago - every possible action under the clause is illegal. There is no circumstance under which the clause's contemplated action could take place, because there is no way to conduct the action without contradicting existing law. Where the set of possible avenues to avoid contradiction is zero, it's a contradiction even if you stick a sign on it saying you're avoiding contradictions. I can't instruct authors to make logically inconsistent statements the bedrock of their resolutions.

Firstly, do you really believe that "There is no circumstance under which the clause's contemplated action could take place"? Have you even read the new version of that clause? Did you even consider that the request and dismiss powers are only part of a clause and not a clause by themselves, and that the rest of the clause may be valid?

Secondly, it is not similar to the NAPA contradiction earlier, because in that case the "except if illegal" only applied to that clause. The "except if illegal" in this case applies to the whole resolution. Unless you are arguing that all powers I have granted to the WADB are illegal, this resolution still does something and is only restricted in part by the exception.