[PASSED] Administrative Compliance Act

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC: Hear, hear!

OOC: Based on SL's majority opinion in Mandatory Vaccinations, I don't think it will be necessary.

OOC: My what now?

You mean this?

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: Based on SL's majority opinion in Mandatory Vaccinations, I don't think it will be necessary.

Yea, I was about to comment about that. Doesn't seem there was a ruling on Mandatory Vaccinations. Nor on anything else relating to vaccinations.

[Auralia]

In principle, we support an enforcement mechanism for World Assembly law such as the one described by this proposal.

However, we insist as a condition of our support that any fine or economic sanction imposed by this proposal be proportionate to the nature of the violation, even if a proportionate fine or sanction is insufficient to induce compliance. This is a necessary condition for punishment to be legitimate. For example, a member state may not execute petty thieves because execution as a penalty is grossly disproportionate to the crime of petty theft. This prohibition holds even in cases where a thief's rate of recidivism is extremely high.

Accordingly, the following clause:

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.

must be changed to:

Coordinate with the WA General Accounting Office (GAO) to assess and levy a fine and schedule calculated to reasonably coerce compliance from member states but in no case disproportionate to the violation.

Moreover, the following clause:

Member states are obligated to enforce the strongest measures of economic sanction available against those member states which refuse to pay IAO fines, subject to the limitations of extant law.

must be changed to:

Member states are obligated to enforce measures of economic sanction available against those member states which refuse to pay IAO fines, calculated proportionately to the violation of World Assembly law for which the fine was imposed but in no case disproportionate to the violation, subject to the limitations of extant law.

We also insist as a condition of our support that there be a right of appeal of a fine imposed by the Independent Adjudicative Office to another World Assembly body.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Auralia]

We note further that, should this proposal become World Assembly law, Auralia does not recognize the authority of the IAO to levy fines for non-compliance with World Assembly resolutions that violate the moral law.

This declaration is pursuant to the reservation filed by Auralia upon joining the World Assembly, in which we stated our understanding that the object and purpose of the World Assembly is not to compel member states to enact unjust laws, and that accordingly we may validly declare that our membership does not entail any obligation to comply with World Assembly resolutions that require defiance of the moral law or prevent the execution of moral obligations.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[United Massachusetts]

We note further that, should this proposal become World Assembly law, Auralia does not recognize the authority of the IAO to levy fines for non-compliance with World Assembly resolutions that violate the moral law.

This declaration is pursuant to the reservation filed by Auralia upon joining the World Assembly, in which we stated our understanding that the object and purpose of the World Assembly is not to compel member states to enact unjust laws, and that accordingly we may validly declare that our membership does not entail any obligation to comply with World Assembly resolutions that require defiance of the moral law or prevent the execution of moral obligations.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

United Massachusetts concurs with this note. Its non-compliance with morally repugnant legislation will not be challenged.

James McNally

[Separatist Peoples]

"The C.D.S.P. does not recognize the concept of 'morality'. Further, we recognize that obeying this demand - for it is nothing less than a demand - would gut this legislation. Were we to cede to these demands, there would be no reason to continue. The C.D.S.P. rarely engages in pointless activity."

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Based on SL's majority opinion in Mandatory Vaccinations, I don't think it will be necessary.

Yea, I was about to comment about that. Doesn't seem there was a ruling on Mandatory Vaccinations. Nor on anything else relating to vaccinations.

It was Ban on Secret Treaties. I mixed IA's works. Can't keep names straight these days.

[Bruke]

The Royal Republic concurs with Auralia and United Massachusets.

There is the possibility, if this resolution is passed, of nations being forced to choose between their self-interest and their most fundamental values and beliefs.

This resolution as it stands is abhorrent to us, and we will not support it.

Dessalegne Nega

[Separatist Peoples]

The Royal Republic concurs with Auralia and United Massachusets.

There is the possibility, if this resolution is passed, of nations being forced to choose between their self-interest and their most fundamental values and beliefs.

This resolution as it stands is abhorrent to us, and we will not support it.

Dessalegne Nega

"If it is against your self-interest to comply with resolutions, resign. The power of voluntary dissociation is never lost."

[Bruke]

"It is not against our self-interest, quite the opposite considering the penalties you're proposing. But we do fear it may be against our most fundamental values."

[Separatist Peoples]

"It is not against our self-interest, quite the opposite considering the penalties you're proposing. But we do fear it may be against our most fundamental values."

"Penalties are not assessed or levied for resignation. If obeying a resolution compromises your values, leave."

[Auralia]

"The C.D.S.P. does not recognize the concept of 'morality'. Further, we recognize that obeying this demand - for it is nothing less than a demand - would gut this legislation. Were we to cede to these demands, there would be no reason to continue. The C.D.S.P. rarely engages in pointless activity."

I don't see how proportionality in IAO punishments "guts" this legislation any more than proportionality in member state punishments "guts" the criminal justice system in those nations. A proportionate punishment will often have the effect of inducing compliance with the law. However, it is necessary to accept this is not always the case, and it is not permissible to inflict an unjust punishment simply to accomplish that goal of compliance. The ends simply do not justify the means.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[States of Glory WA Office]

"The C.D.S.P. does not recognize the concept of 'morality'. Further, we recognize that obeying this demand - for it is nothing less than a demand - would gut this legislation. Were we to cede to these demands, there would be no reason to continue. The C.D.S.P. rarely engages in pointless activity."

I don't see how proportionality in IAO punishments "guts" this legislation any more than proportionality in member state punishments "guts" the criminal justice system in those nations. A proportionate punishment will often have the effect of inducing compliance with the law. However, it is necessary to accept this is not always the case, and it is not permissible to inflict an unjust punishment simply to accomplish that goal of compliance. The ends simply do not justify the means.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

Neville: The rationale behind a punishment is to prevent recidivism. A punishment that fails to accomplish that goal fails as a punishment, and thus a harsher punishment must be dealt. I'm not saying "KILL ALL PETTY CRIMINALS!", but I am saying that punishments need to be harsh if an individual is likely to reoffend. It's true that rehabilitative justice can complement punitive action, but that's apparently too "soft" and "socialist" for some member states.

[Auralia]

I don't see how proportionality in IAO punishments "guts" this legislation any more than proportionality in member state punishments "guts" the criminal justice system in those nations. A proportionate punishment will often have the effect of inducing compliance with the law. However, it is necessary to accept this is not always the case, and it is not permissible to inflict an unjust punishment simply to accomplish that goal of compliance. The ends simply do not justify the means.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

Neville: The rationale behind a punishment is to prevent recidivism. A punishment that fails to accomplish that goal fails as a punishment, and thus a harsher punishment must be dealt. I'm not saying "KILL ALL PETTY CRIMINALS!", but I am saying that punishments need to be harsh if an individual is likely to reoffend. It's true that rehabilitative justice can complement punitive action, but that's apparently too "soft" and "socialist" for some member states.

Actually, the primary purpose of punishment is retribution, not rehabilitation. It is contrary to basic principles of justice to apply a punishment disproportionate to the crime, even if the criminal is likely to reoffend.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Aclion]

I don't see how proportionality in IAO punishments "guts" this legislation any more than proportionality in member state punishments "guts" the criminal justice system in those nations. A proportionate punishment will often have the effect of inducing compliance with the law. However, it is necessary to accept this is not always the case, and it is not permissible to inflict an unjust punishment simply to accomplish that goal of compliance. The ends simply do not justify the means.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

Neville: The rationale behind a punishment is to prevent recidivism. A punishment that fails to accomplish that goal fails as a punishment, and thus a harsher punishment must be dealt. I'm not saying "KILL ALL PETTY CRIMINALS!", but I am saying that punishments need to be harsh if an individual is likely to reoffend. It's true that rehabilitative justice can complement punitive action, but that's apparently too "soft" and "socialist" for some member states.

"Disproportionate punishments can also fail to prevent recidivism. A company that stands to make tens of millions from fraud is not going to be dissuaded by a ten thousand dollar fine. Proportionate punishment is necessary not only to ensure that punishments are not maliciously excessive, but also to ensure they are not so inadequate that they fail to have an effect.

Additionally there is nothing socialist about rehabilitation. It happens to be the cheapest means of reducing crime, allowing the state to keep more Francs in the hands of those who earned them."

[Tinfect]

OOC:
Not letting this get drowned out...

I still think it's tacky to directly reference standing legislation, even if legal.

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

Teran Saber: "Unfortunately, due to the risk of legislation being passed that could potentially dismantle certain nations, we have decided to oppose this proposal. You may remember that there were a few proposals that would have heavily restricted space flight or banned colonies on other planets, which would have adversely affected nations that consist of multiple planets. If such a proposal ever passes, it would be impossible for such nations to comply."

[Separatist Peoples]

Teran Saber: "Unfortunately, due to the risk of legislation being passed that could potentially dismantle certain nations, we have decided to oppose this proposal. You may remember that there were a few proposals that would have heavily restricted space flight or banned colonies on other planets, which would have adversely affected nations that consist of multiple planets. If such a proposal ever passes, it would be impossible for such nations to comply."

"That's what repeals are for. You'll note that the fines consider ability to comply."

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

Teran Saber: "Unfortunately, due to the risk of legislation being passed that could potentially dismantle certain nations, we have decided to oppose this proposal. You may remember that there were a few proposals that would have heavily restricted space flight or banned colonies on other planets, which would have adversely affected nations that consist of multiple planets. If such a proposal ever passes, it would be impossible for such nations to comply."

"That's what repeals are for. You'll note that the fines consider ability to comply."

Teran Saber: "That eases my concerns."

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Do we have any legality challenges beyond the HoC? Duplication? Contradiction? Legislating in a Repeal?

[Wallenburg]

OOC: Do we have any legality challenges beyond the HoC? Duplication? Contradiction? Legislating in a Repeal?

Do you mean beyond any of those, or simply beyond HoC, with specific requests if anyone wants to challenge on the basis of those other rules?

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: Do we have any legality challenges beyond the HoC? Duplication? Contradiction? Legislating in a Repeal?

Last call for legality challenges! xD

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Do we have any legality challenges beyond the HoC? Duplication? Contradiction? Legislating in a Repeal?

Do you mean beyond any of those, or simply beyond HoC, with specific requests if anyone wants to challenge on the basis of those other rules?

I mean beyond HoC. My bad.

[Wallenburg]

Do you mean beyond any of those, or simply beyond HoC, with specific requests if anyone wants to challenge on the basis of those other rules?

I mean beyond HoC. My bad.

Don't worry, the wording was just a little ambiguous. I'll see if I can get the committee challenge up soon, so that can be settled without too much pressure for a timely response.

[Separatist Peoples]

I mean beyond HoC. My bad.

Don't worry, the wording was just a little ambiguous. I'll see if I can get the committee challenge up soon, so that can be settled without too much pressure for a timely response.

I appreciate that.

Oh, in case there are any standing issues...*ahem*...

I AM TOTALLY GOING TO SUBMIT AND CAMPAIGN FOR THIS AS IS.