[PASSED] Administrative Compliance Act

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Hello, friends. Here is what I feel is the solution to noncompliance and GAR#2.

You can post ICly in this, but if you don't support this, please don't just post with policy arguments to that end. If you cannot contribute to the improvement of the draft, don't post. This is a complicated, large proposal, and I don't want to get sidetracked in bickering with people who's votes were never forthcoming to begin with.

Administrative Compliance Act
Furtherment of Democracy | Significant
By: Separatist Peoples | Coauthored by: Imperium Anglorum

---

Understanding that many nations deliberately contravene international laws to gain an unfair advantage over their neighbours;

Noting that others do so to oppress their citizens, extract revenues from governmental institutions and operations, discredit their opponents, and secure their tenuous bases of power;

Haunted by the suffering bred by noncompliance;

Resolute to succor its victims and hold their oppressors to account;

Observing that the World Assembly has already taken steps in combatting these transgressions against international law by passing GAR#390, ‘Compliance Commission’; and

Giving credence to the body of damning evidence assembled by the WACC;

Hereby enacts the following:

Article I. Independent Adjudicative Office

1. The World Assembly creates the Independent Adjudicative Office (“IAO”) and directs it to:

1. Hold fair and independent evidentiary hearings for claims of noncompliance brought by the WACC, overseen by a panel of independent adjudicators;
   
2. Decide on the merits of the claims and arguments as to whether a fine is appropriate based on a reasonable interpretation of international law;
   
3. Coordinate with the WA General Accounting Office ("GAO") to assess and levy a fine and schedule calculated proportionately to the violation but in no case less than what will reasonably coerce compliance from member states;
   
4. The assessments must be based on:
   
   
   1. the severity of the noncompliance,
   2. the state’s objective intent to commit noncompliance or the actions proximate to a violation,
   3. the good faith nature of the state’s actions proximate to a violation,
   4. the state’s history of noncompliance,
   5. force majeure preventing the state from fulfilling its obligations, and
   6. other mitigating or aggravating circumstances;

2. Remain entirely independent from the WACC and any subcommittees, except for essential coordination to ensure procedural due process for all involved parties;

3. Ensure no ex parte communications occur between itself and any involved parties, and to enforce appropriate remedies if such communications do occur;

4. Promulgate and follow procedure for hearings in a manner consistent with the principles of justice, fairness, and due process;

5. Record and make publicly available all hearing records, excepting those involving privileged individual information, proprietary commercial data, or material necessary for national security.

Article II. Compliance Commission

1. The World Assembly establishes the World Assembly Solicitor’s Office (“WASO”) as a subset of the WA Compliance Commission (“WACC”), and directs it to:

1. Review investigations regarding member noncompliance;
   
2. Accept reports of noncompliance from both member states and individual and sub-national entities, subject to WASO discretion;
   
3. File a complaint, containing evidence and all applicable law, to the Independent Adjudicative Office and accordingly prosecute that complaint;
   
4. Communicate with those member states which are the subject of the complaint and inform them of any available steps that might prevent filing of a complaint;
   
5. Maintain discretion over which compliance violations to pursue.

Article III. General Accounting Office

1. The World Assembly tasks the GAO with collecting all IAO fines and crediting them against the required contribution amount due from members found compliant during the same assessment period.

Article IV. Member State Rights and Duties

1. Every inhabitant of a member state is entitled to an effective remedy against their state for all injuries to their person, property, or character by having recourse in law or equity for any right, made explicitly or implicitly by a restriction on member states, created by World Assembly law.

2. Member states may not prevent or discourage individuals or entities from cooperating with the WASO, nor from asserting any other right in this resolution, subject only to reasonable justiciability restrictions.

3. Member states may have a representative and legal counsel present at IAO hearings to act in their defense.

4. Member states must enforce the strongest sanctions available against those member states that refuse to pay IAO fines, subject only to the limitations of extant law, until the fines are paid or the issue becomes moot.

5. Member states must cooperate fully with, and not restrict or frustrate the actions of, all World Assembly committees referenced in this resolution.

Article V. World Assembly Limitations

1. The World Assembly may not restrict or frustrate IAO fine assessment or collection, nor impose limits on the extent or duration of member state obligations under this resolution.

EDIT: Oops, posted an old draft.

[Separatist Peoples]

Reserved.

[Tinfect]

OOC:
So, is this intended to shut down creative compliance?

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC:
So, is this intended to shut down creative compliance?

OOC: No, just noncompliance. Creative compliance is technically compliance.

[Wrapper]

OOC: I can see IA's influence on you. The "Observing" clause is an HoC violation because if GAR#390 is repealed then the WA will have not taken steps to combat such transgressions. I'll go over it in more detail later.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: I can see IA's influence on you. The "Observing" clause is an HoC violation because if GAR#390 is repealed then the WA will have not taken steps to combat such transgressions. I'll go over it in more detail later.

I don't believe preambulatory references to resolutions are considered HoC violations. None of the reasons why the HoC resolution exists applies to a preamble, which has no force of law.

[Wrapper]

OOC: I can see IA's influence on you. The "Observing" clause is an HoC violation because if GAR#390 is repealed then the WA will have not taken steps to combat such transgressions. I'll go over it in more detail later.

I don't believe preambulatory references to resolutions are considered HoC violations. None of the reasons why the HoC resolution exists applies to a preamble, which has no force of law.

If the rest of GenSec agrees with you, this would be a new precedent. Until now mere mention of an active resolution, whether in the preamble or an active clause, has been enough to trigger an HoC violation.

[Separatist Peoples]

I don't believe preambulatory references to resolutions are considered HoC violations. None of the reasons why the HoC resolution exists applies to a preamble, which has no force of law.

If the rest of GenSec agrees with you, this would be a new precedent. Until now mere mention of an active resolution, whether in the preamble or an active clause, has been enough to trigger an HoC violation.

Its easy enough to remove, unless there is a change in the interpretation before submission. I don't expect to submit this soon, given the extensive nature of the policy.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: I can see IA's influence on you. The "Observing" clause is an HoC violation because if GAR#390 is repealed then the WA will have not taken steps to combat such transgressions. I'll go over it in more detail later.

Well, first, it has nothing to do with 'influence', and more to do with a rational conception of the rule. Also, yes, it will have. To quote Tzorsland,

If we have a resolution passed for situation X then the notion of "having previously passed legislation on subject X" is true no matter if that resolution is subsequently repealed because the past cannot be altered.

It could easily be changed to "Observing that the World Assembly has already taken took steps in the past in combatting to combat these transgressions against international law by passing GAR#390, 'Compliance Commission'" if you think 'already taken' is a mutable state –which shouldn't matter anyway, because, to quote Tzorsland again,

The purpose of the house of cards rule is to prevent the actual working clauses from collapsing because they used the working action clauses of a resolution that has been subsequently repealed and as a result (the working action clauses) are no longer in effect. Repeal doesn't wipe out the collective memory of people voting for and against the resolution and why they voted for or against the resolution. (Consider the RW again; just because the US passed a constitutional amendment banning slavery does not mean that slavery never existed. It doesn't mean you can't reference the Dred Scott decision in your argument if that is necessary because that decision still is valid even though the result is annulled by constitutional amendment.)

Seriously, we are starting to get into the "blessed are the cheese makers" territory. The house of cards rule was all about active clauses not arguments.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Could you explain the category choice?

[Separatist Peoples]

Could you explain the category choice?

I could, but I probably forgot to update it from the gameside version in the IDU. It's supposed to be Furtherment of Democracy.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Could you explain the category choice?

I could, but I probably forgot to update it from the gameside version in the IDU. It's supposed to be Furtherment of Democracy.

Could you explain that one then?

Either way there is an opposite category which this Act would enforce against member states just as much as the chosen one. So are you really furthering democracy if you're enforcing a political stability proposal? By definition you wouldn't be. Unless you have a different way of thinking about it?

[Separatist Peoples]

I could, but I probably forgot to update it from the gameside version in the IDU. It's supposed to be Furtherment of Democracy.

Could you explain that one then?

Either way there is an opposite category which this Act would enforce against member states just as much as the chosen one. So are you really furthering democracy if you're enforcing a political stability proposal? By definition you wouldn't be. Unless you have a different way of thinking about it?

OOC: I had a chat with Sanctaria about the way categories worked, and he argued that FoD was appropriate in that it decreases government control, where Political Stability increases it. It was a purely statistical choice based on the ultimate effect of the law on states. It was originally, as you saw, Human Rights, but that was because the balance of resolutions were HR, and this enforced compliance of existing resolutions. That argument didn't fly.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Neville: The section on the Enforcement Sub-Commission mentions the Independent Adjudicative Office, yet the reverse isn't true. Wouldn't it make more sense, therefore, for the section on the IAO to be placed before the section on the sub-commission?

Communicate with those member states which are the subject of the complaint and inform them of any available steps that might prevent filing of a complaint.

Neville: This is very minor, but is there a reason why this clause has a full stop at the end when all the other non-final clauses have semicolons at the end? If anything, it appears that this clause:

Maintain discretion over which compliance violations to pursue;

...should be the one with a full stop at the end.

Promulgate and follow procedure for hearings in a manner consistent with the principals of justice, fairness, and due process;

Neville: The word is spelled 'principles' in this context.

[Separatist Peoples]

Neville: The section on the Enforcement Sub-Commission mentions the Independent Adjudicative Office, yet the reverse isn't true. Wouldn't it make more sense, therefore, for the section on the IAO to be placed before the section on the sub-commission?

"I see your point, but I think the logical order of ensuring the prosecutorial side of things before the adjudicative side of things makes up for that difficulty."

Communicate with those member states which are the subject of the complaint and inform them of any available steps that might prevent filing of a complaint.

Neville: This is very minor, but is there a reason why this clause has a full stop at the end when all the other non-final clauses have semicolons at the end? If anything, it appears that this clause:

Maintain discretion over which compliance violations to pursue;

...should be the one with a full stop at the end.

Promulgate and follow procedure for hearings in a manner consistent with the principals of justice, fairness, and due process;

Neville: The word is spelled 'principles' in this context.

"Adjusted."

[Mallorea and Riva]

Could you explain that one then?

Either way there is an opposite category which this Act would enforce against member states just as much as the chosen one. So are you really furthering democracy if you're enforcing a political stability proposal? By definition you wouldn't be. Unless you have a different way of thinking about it?

OOC: I had a chat with Sanctaria about the way categories worked, and he argued that FoD was appropriate in that it decreases government control, where Political Stability increases it. It was a purely statistical choice based on the ultimate effect of the law on states. It was originally, as you saw, Human Rights, but that was because the balance of resolutions were HR, and this enforced compliance of existing resolutions. That argument didn't fly.

I''m just not convinced since that decrease in government control could lead to an increase in government control through compliance with the right categories. Thoughts?

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: I had a chat with Sanctaria about the way categories worked, and he argued that FoD was appropriate in that it decreases government control, where Political Stability increases it. It was a purely statistical choice based on the ultimate effect of the law on states. It was originally, as you saw, Human Rights, but that was because the balance of resolutions were HR, and this enforced compliance of existing resolutions. That argument didn't fly.

I''m just not convinced since that decrease in government control could lead to an increase in government control through compliance with the right categories. Thoughts?

OOC: I relied heavily on the expertise of an issues editor. Unfortunately, I don't see a better alternative. States lose control over their populace by virtue of compliance insofar as they cannot control or oppress them, but that control does not necessarily vest directly in the people. It could, theoretically, vest in the WA, which acts in the interests of individuals.

[Mallorea and Riva]

I''m just not convinced since that decrease in government control could lead to an increase in government control through compliance with the right categories. Thoughts?

OOC: I relied heavily on the expertise of an issues editor. Unfortunately, I don't see a better alternative. States lose control over their populace by virtue of compliance insofar as they cannot control or oppress them, but that control does not necessarily vest directly in the people. It could, theoretically, vest in the WA, which acts in the interests of individuals.

I understand your argument, but I don't think it holds up in the bigger picture and I don't see a better alternative either. This may be one of those cases where the category system is just too cumbersome as it currently stands to accurately reflect what you're trying to do.

[Wallenburg]

If you remove the committees, there is literally no resolution.

[Imperium Anglorum]

If you remove the committees, there is literally no resolution.

Yea, and when the IRS collects taxes from me, the US Government isn't actually taxing me.

[Separatist Peoples]

If you remove the committees, there is literally no resolution.

Ooc: the last clause compels the member state to action. The reference to the committee doesn't alter the requirement sufficiently to not act upon it direct a nation.

[Wallenburg]

If you remove the committees, there is literally no resolution.

Ooc: the last clause compels the member state to action. The reference to the committee doesn't alter the requirement sufficiently to not act upon it direct a nation.

It is not merely a reference. That mandate depends entirely on the rulings the IAO puts out.

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: the last clause compels the member state to action. The reference to the committee doesn't alter the requirement sufficiently to not act upon it direct a nation.

It is not merely a reference. That mandate depends entirely on the rulings the IAO puts out.

The onus is nonetheless on the nations. Removing every clause that so much as mentions a committee is the wrong way to apply the committee test. This satisfies the recent ruling, which states that mere compliance with committees is insufficient action on the nation. That is why I have compelled action by the state on other states. That it is contingent on the interaction between a different state and the committee does not change that mandate.

[Wallenburg]

It is not merely a reference. That mandate depends entirely on the rulings the IAO puts out.

The onus is nonetheless on the nations. Removing every clause that so much as mentions a committee is the wrong way to apply the committee test.

Again, this clause does not merely mention a committee. The mandate depends on the committee to function within the scope of the proposal. Replace the IAO with a judiciary board to rule on unauthorized transportation of saltwater taffy, and you no longer have a Furtherment of Democracy clause.

This satisfies the recent ruling, which states that mere compliance with committees is insufficient action on the nation. That is why I have compelled action by the state on other states.

1) I am not aware of any such ruling.
2) How is full compliance "insufficient action"?

That it is contingent on the interaction between a different state and the committee does not change that mandate.

That is not what I take issue with. The problem here is that the committee and its actions, as described in its implementation, are inseparable from the mandate.

[Separatist Peoples]

The onus is nonetheless on the nations. Removing every clause that so much as mentions a committee is the wrong way to apply the committee test.

Again, this clause does not merely mention a committee. The mandate depends on the committee to function within the scope of the proposal. Replace the IAO with a judiciary board to rule on unauthorized transportation of saltwater taffy, and you no longer have a Furtherment of Democracy clause.

This satisfies the recent ruling, which states that mere compliance with committees is insufficient action on the nation. That is why I have compelled action by the state on other states.

1) I am not aware of any such ruling.
2) How is full compliance "insufficient action"?

That it is contingent on the interaction between a different state and the committee does not change that mandate.

That is not what I take issue with. The problem here is that the committee and its actions, as described in its implementation, are inseparable from the mandate.

Irrelevant. The onus for action is unquestionably on the nation, which is the point of the rule.