Advertisement
by Imperium Anglorum » Sat Jul 14, 2018 11:23 pm
by Wallenburg » Sat Jul 14, 2018 11:38 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:No, civil rights (1) don't exist as a category, so learn that before arguing with people on the Secretariat, and (2) talk about the ability for people to do things (not sue the government for redress of grievances), so read the category definitions on the Compendium thread.
And to the "this is a major problem" comment, no it isn't. It's not a problem, and never really has been.
by Separatist Peoples » Sun Jul 15, 2018 4:54 am
by Glen-Rhodes » Sun Jul 15, 2018 7:39 am
by Separatist Peoples » Sun Jul 15, 2018 10:26 am
Glen-Rhodes wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: No, just noncompliance. Creative compliance is technically compliance.
OOC I certainly hope this doesn't just become another way to insert "noncompliance is magically impossible" back into the GA canon. While intergovernmental organizations can and should try to ensure compliance with international law, noncompliance will always be a possible choice for member states.
by Sciongrad » Sun Jul 15, 2018 7:54 pm
Glen-Rhodes wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: No, just noncompliance. Creative compliance is technically compliance.
OOC I certainly hope this doesn't just become another way to insert "noncompliance is magically impossible" back into the GA canon. While intergovernmental organizations can and should try to ensure compliance with international law, noncompliance will always be a possible choice for member states.
by Araraukar » Mon Jul 16, 2018 12:36 am
Sciongrad wrote:[OOC: I think it does the opposite by both formalizing the possibility for non-compliance through a resolution
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Separatist Peoples » Sat Aug 11, 2018 11:02 am
by Imperium Anglorum » Sat Aug 11, 2018 7:30 pm
by Wallenburg » Sat Aug 11, 2018 10:19 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: Who still thinks this is illegal af?
by Bears Armed » Sun Aug 12, 2018 4:02 am
Araraukar wrote:Sciongrad wrote:[OOC: I think it does the opposite by both formalizing the possibility for non-compliance through a resolution
OOC: ^This, except this isn't the first one to do that. #390, Compliance Commission, and the GenSec ruling on the compliance issue pretty much sanctified noncompliance being a thing.
Wallenburg wrote:I mean, it isn't FoD, so...
by Separatist Peoples » Sun Aug 12, 2018 5:02 am
by Separatist Peoples » Sun Aug 12, 2018 5:03 am
Bears Armed wrote:Araraukar wrote:OOC: ^This, except this isn't the first one to do that. #390, Compliance Commission, and the GenSec ruling on the compliance issue pretty much sanctified noncompliance being a thing.
OOC
I still disagree with that ruling, and think that whatever rules exist IC on compliance should have been left as a matter for the IC treaty or charter that nations presumably ratify when their players IC click the 'Join' button. There must be a treaty or charter, like that, because otherwise even matters like joining/leaving and how proposals are voted into becoming resolutions don't have any IC explanation... Also, if we say that compliance with resolutions is only required due to some resolutions (e.g. GAR #2) then there's nothing to require members' compliance with those resolutions on the first paw...
*<mutter , grumble, snarrl>*Wallenburg wrote:I mean, it isn't FoD, so...
I agree. At the very least, to meet that category, it needs to make presenting cases to the IAO a matter for member nations' inhabitants rather than just for the WACC.
by Mallorea and Riva » Sun Aug 12, 2018 8:51 am
by Imperium Anglorum » Wed Aug 15, 2018 1:21 am
Bears Armed wrote:Araraukar wrote:OOC: ^This, except this isn't the first one to do that. #390, Compliance Commission, and the GenSec ruling on the compliance issue pretty much sanctified noncompliance being a thing.
OOC
I still disagree with that ruling, and think that whatever rules exist IC on compliance should have been left as a matter for the IC treaty or charter that nations presumably ratify when their players IC click the 'Join' button. There must be a treaty or charter, like that, because otherwise even matters like joining/leaving and how proposals are voted into becoming resolutions don't have any IC explanation... Also, if we say that compliance with resolutions is only required due to some resolutions (e.g. GAR #2) then there's nothing to require members' compliance with those resolutions on the first paw...
*<mutter , grumble, snarrl>*Wallenburg wrote:I mean, it isn't FoD, so...
I agree. At the very least, to meet that category, it needs to make presenting cases to the IAO a matter for member nations' inhabitants rather than just for the WACC.
by Bears Armed » Wed Aug 15, 2018 3:36 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:Bears Armed wrote:OOC
I still disagree with that ruling, and think that whatever rules exist IC on compliance should have been left as a matter for the IC treaty or charter that nations presumably ratify when their players IC click the 'Join' button. There must be a treaty or charter, like that, because otherwise even matters like joining/leaving and how proposals are voted into becoming resolutions don't have any IC explanation... Also, if we say that compliance with resolutions is only required due to some resolutions (e.g. GAR #2) then there's nothing to require members' compliance with those resolutions on the first paw...
*<mutter , grumble, snarrl>*
Your opinion is still pending on that. Do you ever intend on releasing (or writing) it?
OOC
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.
by United Massachusetts » Sat Aug 18, 2018 5:01 am
by Separatist Peoples » Sat Aug 18, 2018 6:30 am
United Massachusetts wrote:Rev. Pierce rises up to speak, visibly distraught by the resolution proposed:
"We abhor this policy in the utmost and any evil spawn that is like it. No proposal regarding compliance should discourage World Assembly membership so severely as this does. Non compliant nations should not be pushed out of this Assembly and thus out of its regulatory reach; they should be pushed to adopt stronger policy through fair, compromise resolutions on contraversial issues. This proposal runs contrary to the core principles of international diplomacy, and should thus be rejected by every member nation."
by Separatist Peoples » Sat Aug 18, 2018 6:44 am
Bears Armed wrote:You mean the following?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.
If that "effective remedy" is meant to include the right to bring cases to the IAO directly, rather than through the WACC, then Art.1 needs changing to say so because currently -- unless I'm missing something -- it gives only WACC the right to bring cases there.
or
If that "effective remedy" is meant to include getting cases before the IAO by presenting them to the WACC for this purpose, although the resolution that established the WACC made no mention of such a right, then I think that Art.4 needs to say explicitly that this is the situation.
(In either of those cases, i think that it would work better with the current Art.4/Sub-Art.1 moved to before the current Art.1...)
and if the current Art.4 means that "effective remedy" to be by bringing cases through the nations' own legal systems, rather than through the IAO, then doesn't that really make the IAO superfluous anyway?
(My apologies for not raising these points earlier: RL was cutting into my available time, for a while, and this proposal -- maybe because of my belief that the whole 'Compliance Commission' business should never have been raised anyway -- slipped past me...)
by Imperium Anglorum » Wed Aug 22, 2018 12:08 pm
by Wallenburg » Wed Aug 22, 2018 9:24 pm
by Thyerata » Thu Aug 23, 2018 12:17 am
1. (a) Hold fair and independent evidentiary hearings for claims of noncompliance brought by the WACC, overseen by a panel of independent adjudicators;
by Wallenburg » Thu Aug 23, 2018 1:07 am
Thyerata wrote:This may be a bit obscure, especialy since the text of the Resolution doesn't expressly say this, but I'm reading this as a Committee violation because the Resolution indirectly adds another task to a pre-existing Committee - namely, it requires the Compliance Commission to bring cases of noncompliance to the Independent Adjudicator. See here:1. (a) Hold fair and independent evidentiary hearings for claims of noncompliance brought by the WACC, overseen by a panel of independent adjudicators;
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement