[CHALLENGE] Administrative Compliance Act

[Bananaistan]

Needless attempt to drum up controversy here. Changing the committee rule has been extensively discussed in the community, both in the committee rule discussion thread and in the challenge to Ban on Secret Treaties thread (see here.) This whole thing about misrepresentation by SL is pure pedantry and looks like dishonest debating to me.

[Auralia]

Wallenburg, I'm not sure why you thought that SL's comments indicated that GenSec was going to act in a manner contrary to its defined procedures. SL didn't explicitly mention a comment period, but neither did SL deny that there would be a comment period.

[Wallenburg]

Wallenburg, I'm not sure why you thought that SL's comments indicated that GenSec was going to act in a manner contrary to its defined procedures. SL didn't explicitly mention a comment period, but neither did SL deny that there would be a comment period.

Because the only thing SL said they were going to do was this:

Wording for the new Committee Rule will be published soon (I'm hoping within the next week or so, tops... )

I understandably assumed this meant publishing the new rule to the ruleset. Without anything else to go off of, I expressed concern that there would be no discussion. Instead of immediately correcting me, SP and SL began to insist we already had enough discussion (on an unpublished rule change). Then, 5 posts later, SP finally explained what GenSec actually plans to do, and I stopped expressing any concerns. I even thanked him for explaining GenSec's actual intentions.

Honestly, in a worst case scenario, this was SL forgetting the GenSec procedures and posting information without that context. Chances are they were just not paying attention to how easily the post could otherwise be interpreted, and genuinely failed to understand what I was concerned about.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Context is everything. Objecting to that sentence on the basis that "publishing the wording" must mean "finalizing the rule" is way, way less unreasonable than what I thought you were doing. For clarity, I did indeed mean "bringing the exact language of our draft rule to public attention."

[Auralia]

Instead of immediately correcting me, SP and SL began to insist we already had enough discussion (on an unpublished rule change).

That doesn't appear to be what happened. After SL's post, you and Ara took issue with it, and then SP said "Part of our procedure is opening up the proposed rule to public comment. It's not like there's no option to discuss."

[Wallenburg]

Good a time as any to dig this up, on the off chance that the category system gets tweaked so as to favor this proposal.

[Bananaistan]

On the basis that there’s now a new committee rule and there have been material changes to the proposal since this thread was started, perhaps you could revise/update your challenge

[Wallenburg]

I withdraw my challenge on the basis of the committee rule. The challenge on the Strength violation stands.

[Separatist Peoples]

I withdraw my challenge on the basis of the committee rule. The challenge on the Strength violation stands.

The category changed, so I think some of your argument probably needs to change. The new proposal has an extremely dramatic impact within the FoD category insofar as it removes power from government and places it in the hands of individuals in Art. IV.

[Bananaistan]

GenSec has voted to hear this challenge. As always comments by the challenger, author and the community are most welcome.

[Separatist Peoples]

GenSec has voted to hear this challenge. As always comments by the challenger, author and the community are most welcome.

Goody.

COMES NOW the appellee, Separatist Peoples, and requests the following: GenSec should find the Administrative Compliance Act (the "ACA") legal regarding it’s Strength, and by virtue of that, it’s Category, as the Appellant, Wallenberg, has failed to state a reasonable interpretation of the rules upon which GenSec can find the proposed ACA illegal.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When reviewing strength, GenSec will first look to the Rule. The Strength rule reads The Strength Rule “determines the effect a proposal has on a nation's policy. A proposal with mild language or affecting a narrow area of policy is Mild, while one which [affects] a very broad area of policy in a dramatic way is Strong. Anything in between is Significant." GenSec will analyze each clause individually to consider the consummate whole. See Challenge of International Aviation Act, Dec. 1, 2016)(viewtopic.php?p=30394708#p30394708).

DISCUSSION

A. The Category is appropriate, as it increases individual political rights while reducing national power accordingly.

Furtherment of Democracy is the appropriate category for the ACA, as it seeks to provide individual persons with the power to assert their rights at the cost of government control. Furtherment of Democracy and Political Stability are opposing categories that affect the Political Freedoms statistic. Despite the reference to democracy, any limitation of a political freedom is appropriate for Political Stability. Conversely, any increase is appropriate for Furtherment of Democracy. This can be better described in a metric of power. Where the national government gains power at the expense of a private person’s ability to assert a right or access the government decision-making system, Political Stability reigns. Where the national government loses power and the private individual gains the ability to influence government choice or enforce their rights at the expense of that government, Furtherment of Democracy becomes appropriate.

Here, the ACA serves to increase individual rights at the expense of government. Article IV specifically grants private individuals a right of action against their member state government when the member state government fails to act in accordance with international law. It also grants a remedy for the violation of that right. In any real-world nation governed by the rule of law, where there is a violation of a right guaranteed to an individual, there is a right to seek a remedy for that violation in court. This provides individuals the opportunity to enforce their rights at the expense of the government’s power to restrict that right.

Most of the operative clauses within the ACA justify the category. In International Aviation Act, GenSec analyzed each individual clause’s effect before analyzing them in the aggregate. Of the ACA’s five articles, only two do not create committees or task committees with action. Of the remaining two, only one has an aggregate action upon member states: Article IV. Of Article IV’s five clauses, the first is most dispositive of the category. It creates an extremely broad right guaranteeing every individual the power to enforce their rights, as guaranteed by the WA, in a member state court. This is unquestionably Furtherment of Democracy and weighs strongly in favor of that category. The second is a powerful limit on member state ability to interfere with that right. This also weighs strongly in favor of the chosen category. The third clause grant members the right to have counsel present at committee actions. This is not a weight in favor of the chosen category, but neither does it weigh in favor of any other category. At best, it is neutral. The same can be said of the fourth and fifth clauses.

On the balance, the only clauses in the ACA that may justify a certain category point undeniably toward Furtherment of Democracy. None of the clauses, taken together or separately, suggest any other reasonable category choice. Thus, GenSec should find that the chosen category, Furtherment of Democracy, is correct.

B. The Strength is appropriate even considering that only two such clauses have a categorical effect, because Article IV, Clause 1 and 2 affect a broad part of World Assembly policy in a very strong way.

The ACA comports with a Strong strength. The Strength rule provides that a proposal with “mild language or affecting a narrow area of policy is Mild, while one which a very broad area of policy in a dramatic way is Strong. Anything in between is Significant.” When a proposal is mostly a committee, GenSec will use a two-part test to decide if the strength is appropriate: First, GenSec will inquire as to whether Category and Strength are appropriate for the proposal as a whole, with the committee-related clauses included. Second, if the committee and all clauses that involve action by member nations in connection with the committee are removed, GenSec will inquire as to whether any requirements for member states remain.

As previously noted, the ACA complies with the first prong. Articles 1-3 all create a judicial framework that the WA and member states use to assess compliance in a rigorous, balanced way, and provides a remedy in the form of fines. That entire framework is intended to provide individual persons with the means to access rights promised by resolutions but potentially denied by noncompliant nations. Thus, their entire focus is to provide legal rights at the expense of their national government’s power.

Additionally, Article IV provides either minor rights to member states regarding the category or broad rights to individual persons to enforce their international rights against their national government. This also is done at the expense of the national government’s power. Finally, Article V provides a limit to future World Assembly legislation, which has no determinative category implications. Thus, this conforms with the selected category.

Even taken in a light least favorable to the ACA’s legality, the ACA also satisfies the second prong, as it still relates a very broad area of policy in a dramatic way after every single clause referencing or relating to the category is removed. Doing so leaves only Article IV, clauses 1 and 2. Taken more broadly (and thus in a light least favorable to the proposal’s legality), it might also include clause 4 and Article V, clause 1.

As noted before, clause 1 of Article IV provides a great power upon individuals to assert rights against their governments. It does so without regard to any committee, and it does so without regard for the right guaranteed under World Assembly law. The relevant parts of clause 2 of Article IV does the same, by baring states from interfering with their rights under clause 1, though this prong eliminates the first half of clause 2’s requirements to cooperate with the IAO. Further, assuming that Article IV clause 4 and Article V, clause 1 are included, the second prong is still met. Neither the World Assembly nor member states can frustrate the endeavors of the ACA, protecting the previously noted policy implications.

This satisfies the broad policy area part of the Strength rule under the second prong, as it affects literally any right provided for by World Assembly law, which spans everything to free trade reform, rules of warfare, basic human rights, intellectual property protections, and guarantees of heath standards for research. There is no interpretation of “broad” that the scope of the ACA does not meet, even eliminating the committees. Further, the effect of that broad scope is unquestionably significant: establishing a method of forcing states to grant their citizens those rights already guaranteed by World Assembly law has significant impacts on member states, both legally, financially, and practically. They are forced to generate legal procedures that may not have previously existed, remedy their own legal failings, and enforce, in good faith, resolutions not previously obeyed. States are also barred from interfering with those rights, as is the World Assembly. Taken together, the impacts are significant compared to a previous system with no obvious enforcement mechanism.

With or without the committees, the ACA clearly satisfies the Strength rule and the two-pronged test that applies for committee-heavy proposals. It affects all policy touched upon by the World Assembly, with or without it’s committees. That policy is affected substantially, as are member states, by any possible interpretation of the effects. Pretending otherwise would be disingenuous, and suggestive of ulterior motive regarding the proposal’s effects.

WHEREFORE, the Appellee respectfully requests that GenSec finds, on all counts, that the ACA is appropriately Furtherment of Democracy with a Strong strength.

[Separatist Peoples]

Also, I feel the need to point out that the proposal includes a financial incentive for member states to comply. So, it is not true that the proposal involves the contradictory assumption that nations both will and will not follow the law, and therefore cannot be Strong.

Nations that follow the law already or who feel ambivalent about noncompliance will rationally chose the option that reduces their own costs. And any nation not applying stiff sanctions would be noncompliant, and subject to sanctions themselves. Since it is unreasonable to believe there is more noncompliance than compliance (as it would invalidate every action taken by this Assembly), there isn't any reason that nations wouldn't comply with this law without coercion. It's simply safer to comply than to not comply.

Anybody who fronts an argument to the contrary clearly hasn't done their research.

[Separatist Peoples]

Where we at on this?

[Bananaistan]

*** General Assembly Secretariat Decision ***
Challenged Proposal: Administrative Compliance Act
Date of Decision: 18 August 2018
Decision: Proposal is legal, 3-2.
Rules Applied: Strength

Opinions to follow.

[Auralia]

I know the decision's been released, but I'd just like to note that I'm having difficulty seeing how providing a private right of action to compel compliance with World Assembly law "furthers democracy" in member states.

Frankly, it seems like it would do the opposite in many cases. A majority of citizens of a member state may vote for non-compliance, but a minority can still force compliance using the mechanism in this proposal. That's not democratic.

[Sciongrad]

I know the decision's been released, but I'd just like to note that I'm having difficulty seeing how providing a private right of action to compel compliance with World Assembly law "further democracy" in member states.

Frankly, it seems like it would do the opposite in many cases. A majority of citizens of a member state may vote for non-compliance, but a minority can still force compliance using the mechanism in this proposal. That's not democratic.

For what it's worth, we are only deciding on the strength question. The category question was resolved by an Issues Editor, who confirmed Furtherment of Democracy was the correct category.

[Separatist Peoples]

I know the decision's been released, but I'd just like to note that I'm having difficulty seeing how providing a private right of action to compel compliance with World Assembly law "further democracy" in member states.

Frankly, it seems like it would do the opposite in many cases. A majority of citizens of a member state may vote for non-compliance, but a minority can still force compliance using the mechanism in this proposal. That's not democratic.

FoD isn't about increasing voting freedom. If it was, it wouldn't be the effective opposite of Political Stability. Private rights of action grant individuals increased power over the government, thus increasing political freedoms. There is nothing to suggest that they will be used in opposition of majority opinion any more than in conformity with the majority opinion.

Also, nations can withdraw from the WA.

Also, what Scion said:

I know the decision's been released, but I'd just like to note that I'm having difficulty seeing how providing a private right of action to compel compliance with World Assembly law "further democracy" in member states.

Frankly, it seems like it would do the opposite in many cases. A majority of citizens of a member state may vote for non-compliance, but a minority can still force compliance using the mechanism in this proposal. That's not democratic.

For what it's worth, we are only deciding on the strength question. The category question was resolved by an Issues Editor, who confirmed Furtherment of Democracy was the correct category.

[Auralia]

FoD isn't about increasing voting freedom. If it was, it wouldn't be the effective opposite of Political Stability. Private rights of action grant individuals increased power over the government, thus increasing political freedoms.

But in cases where a majority of people oppose compliance, then that majority would have reduced power over the government, insofar as they can no longer force the government to refuse to comply with GA resolutions.

There is nothing to suggest that they will be used in opposition of majority opinion any more than in conformity with the majority opinion.

Fair enough, but that just means the net predicted effect in terms of furthering democracy is zero, which also suggests that FoD is the wrong category.

Also, nations can withdraw from the WA.

So what? A majority of people might want to remain in the WA and yet not comply with certain resolutions. Their democratic rights matter too.

[Auralia]

For what it's worth, we are only deciding on the strength question. The category question was resolved by an Issues Editor, who confirmed Furtherment of Democracy was the correct category.

GenSec is outsourcing category rulings to issue editors?

[Bananaistan]

For what it's worth, we are only deciding on the strength question. The category question was resolved by an Issues Editor, who confirmed Furtherment of Democracy was the correct category.

GenSec is outsourcing category rulings to issue editors?

GenSec did not consider the category question at all.

[Separatist Peoples]

But in cases where a majority of people oppose compliance, then that majority would have reduced power over the government, insofar as they can no longer force the government to refuse to comply with GA resolutions.

Not every use of political power designed to increase participation necessarily has that effect. I maintain this is less likely than the opposite occurring, and not a sufficient basis to find the category illegal, especially when the proposal complies with the description and limits on code.

Also, nations can withdraw from the WA.

So what? A majority of people might want to remain in the WA and yet not comply with certain resolutions. Their democratic rights matter too.[/quote]

Not as much, clearly.

[Separatist Peoples]

For what it's worth, we are only deciding on the strength question. The category question was resolved by an Issues Editor, who confirmed Furtherment of Democracy was the correct category.

GenSec is outsourcing category rulings to issue editors?

I'm not speaking for GenSec in this thread, but I've definitely poked Issues Editors for clarity re: the stats in the past. They are experts in the field, and our role is to make sure the rules and GA proposals stay within the bounds of the game.

[Separatist Peoples]

GenSec is outsourcing category rulings to issue editors?

GenSec did not consider the category question at all.

Ok, sorry for the triple post, but things flew fast here.

If you considered the Strength, then you had to consider the category, since the strength's appropriateness is dependent on the category's effect.

[Sciongrad]

For what it's worth, we are only deciding on the strength question. The category question was resolved by an Issues Editor, who confirmed Furtherment of Democracy was the correct category.

GenSec is outsourcing category rulings to issue editors?

In the same way we're outsourcing rulings on all other rules to the regulars of this forum. /s

We did not hear the category question (by which I mean we won't include an explanation for the category in our opinion) because we were sufficiently convinced by the assurances of the Issue Editors, who know more about the category system than you or me, that it was in the correct category.

[Auralia]

GenSec did not consider the category question at all.

Ok, sorry for the triple post, but things flew fast here.

If you considered the Strength, then you had to consider the category, since the strength's appropriateness is dependent on the category's effect.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking, too. I hope the ruling has some analysis justifying the selected category.