[DRAFT] Repeal "Rights and Duties..."

[Sacara]

"How long has the World Assembly survived with this resolution in place?" rhetorically asks Joseph Douglas, putting down his glasses. "It has lasted, without concern, until now. And the sun will rise tomorrow, and the Imperium Anglorum will undoubtedly attempt to question another foundation of the General Assembly unnecessarily. There is no reason to repeal something such as this. The World Assembly does not need this power, and should be left up to neighboring states and alliance."

"Some may criticize that those nations may not always intervene, but then why not call for nations to do so (if already has not been done), rather than call for a police force? The need for this is absolutely unneeded. Stop trying to invent a problem where one does not occur, IA."

[Aclion]

"It has lasted, without concern, until now."

"I'm not sure how you can say that. Hashing out the case for this resolutions repeal is almost an annual tradition at this point. I've half a mind to break out the tinsel and party poppers."

[Imperium Anglorum]

The payments system established in GA 17 is not voluntary.

---

"Some may criticize that those nations may not always intervene, but then why not call for nations to do so (if already has not been done), rather than call for a police force? The need for this is absolutely unneeded. Stop trying to invent a problem where one does not occur, IA."

Read the resolution and then come back to me, because you clearly don't understand what the scope of the clause entails.

[Sacara]

Ambassador Douglas sits and ponders to himself, “It’s truly remarkable how arrogant one can be. It really is. It’s a shame that some folks have heads larger than the rest of their body, but I suppose that’s what happens when they become out of touch with the voters.”

He then proceeds to stand up and speak, “Perhaps it would be beneficial to be less condescending? I don’t know where you’re from, but I don’t believe whoever is the most rude immediately wins the argument. Perhaps your nation doesn’t engage in civility, and that is fine, to eac their own, however, would it kill you to make a decent, sincere comment for once?”

“Back to the topic at hand, it seems to me, through my short time representing Sacara in this assembly, that you wish to continually erode national rights in favor of a World Assembly mother state. Is that your goal, Ambassador? Do you continually have a need to impose your beliefs on the rest of the Assembly, just because they do not agree with you? This proposal is without merits is unneeded. The General Assembly has no need for a military or policing force.”

[Imperium Anglorum]

I can't imagine a more ahistorical argument: there is no need for a military or policing force because I have never thought of or heard of anyone saying there is a need of one. We've been having this debate over a military and policing force from before my nation was founded. In fact, this first seems to have come up on the 13th thread on the then-UN forums on 18 January 2003, with some nation called Guardinia saying they would support it. But more recently, after the changes to the ruleset, repeal of GA 2 has been central to the more OOC idea of expanding what the WA can do and what the WA game entails.

But of course, because you haven't heard of it in your short time here, let's all ignore all that stuff, the years of bickering over the matter, and pretend it doesn't exist at all. So that we can make the bold claim that this topic is new and that there is no need for any WA/UN/etc army.

Also, I'm not sure to where your ambassadors or diplomats are voicing their concerns. There does not exist any representative for the United Commonwealth in this thread: I have made no IC remarks at all. I guess, just keep your ambassadors responding to utter silence.

[Jutsa]

"And I'd like to point out that over the how many years of bickering, it's still not been passed."

I believe every Member State would, effectively, leave the WA, stop paying taxes if they actually remained, and launch condemnation of IA in response.

"Fair point... but I highly doubt that would actually happen, especially in cases of isolated incidences, and especially if a member state is rivals with the one effected by such an action."

*gets mildly distracted by a fly.*

"May I also point out that without this resolution in place, even temporarily, this would:
a) remove the individual nation's law-sanctioned right to self-defense,
b) remove the act of war as being consensual from a mechani— nvm.
c) allow member nations to create civil strife in other member-states,
d) no longer protect member states from being treated better or worse than others,
and finally, e) no longer prevent member states from acting against resolutions.

"May I also point out that member states are permitted to carry out wars? As long as the World Assembly is permitted to acquire data from member nations on such potential crimes, and share that knowledge with its member nations, then I see no reason why member states would not take these matters into their own hands to band together and stop such a threat. I firmly stand that that should be what's enshrined in the World Assembly's law."

OOC: In all honesty I'd not mind that much, but I do sincerely stand by the temporary (and even then not necessarily) threats repealing this resolution would have.

[Araraukar]

Believing that the World Assembly cannot effectively enforce legislation against genocide, state terrorism, and mass murder, without its being able to directly and credibly arrest perpetrators of such heinous crimes and render them to its direct jurisdiction,

OOC: Except that there already is a resolution that allows that? Your only obstacle would be extradiction, and unless WA has been specifically banned from interfering with those rights, there's nothing stopping you from writing up a proposal requiring that.

Finding it manifestly immoral that the Assembly be prohibited from establishing a police force so to render to its direct jurisdiction mass murderers and terrorists to be tried and convicted for their crimes, thereby deterring others from committing similar crimes of similar magnitude,

IC: "I find it much more "manifestly immoral" to enforce WA-anything at a gunpoint. If police or military forces directly under WA command would be applied in the way you seem to want it to be applied, then the WA could easily end up in a war - since hostile foreign military forces violating national borders tends to be a just cause for a war to be declared - against one of its member states. And a police force doing the same with threat of violence is really no different from a military force other than on paper."

Objecting to the further inability provided by this article against WA 'ratification' of defensive measures (such measures being military activities) meaning that it is unable to protect humanitarian aid supplies and diplomatic envoys from foreign or non-member state interdiction,

IC: "There already are resolutions concerning such. If you truly believe nations are incapable of carrying out WA mandates, then what is the World Assembly in your kind of future but a police state where the nations have no say in what happens inside their borders, and where strict adherence to arbitrary clauses is enforced with weapons?"

OOC: You can't force people to RP the way you want, no matter how many resolutions you throw at them, and you can't RP invasions one-sidedly either, without being laughed out of II.

[Kowani]

"And I'd like to point out that over the how many years of bickering, it's still not been passed."

I believe every Member State would, effectively, leave the WA, stop paying taxes if they actually remained, and launch condemnation of IA in response.

"Fair point... but I highly doubt that would actually happen, especially in cases of isolated incidences, and especially if a member state is rivals with the one effected by such an action."

"That's actually true...as long as our national leaders have a modicum of intelligence, they'll realize that next time, it could be them."
*Looks a the assembled ambassadors* Never mind, we're doomed.
"May I also point out that without this resolution in place, even temporarily, this would:
a) remove the individual nation's law-sanctioned right to self-defense,
b) remove the act of war as being consensual from a mechani— nvm.
c) allow member nations to create civil strife in other member-states,
d) no longer protect member states from being treated better or worse than others,
and finally, e) no longer prevent member states from acting against resolutions.
Administrative Compliance Commission.

"Also, as to point A, not exactly. The general understanding of law is that if it's not written, it's permitted." "Although you do make a good point, and I would like to see a replacement draft before we go any farther.
[/quote]

[Imperium Anglorum]

I don't know why you think this is some kind of RP ploy so I can then say 'Haha, Ara is in violation of Resolution 300! Félicitations malefactors! We are endeavouring to appropriate Ara's delectable administrators and assorted perpetrators! Who is with me?!'

If it hasn't escaped your notice, I don't RP (well, anymore) and I consider this a policy game. So you can take the fear mongering of the IA/WA army someplace else. Anyway, about everything else: (1) magical compliance isn't a thing, except when making WA memes, (2) unilateralism is stupid, and (3) non-compliance exists.

[Wrapper]

I don't know why you think this is some kind of RP ploy so I can then say 'Haha, Ara is in violation of Resolution 300! Félicitations malefactors! We are endeavouring to appropriate Ara's delectable administrators and assorted perpetrators! Who is with me?!'

Of all the random resolution numbers you could pick, you had to pick the kiddie porn one?

[Jutsa]

OOC:

(1) magical compliance isn't a thing ; (3) non-compliance exists

Then how can we be so sure the world assembly is functioning optimally?

And if that's the case, then I don't see my WA-army fearmongering as totally unwarranted... :3

[Aclion]

"May I also point out that without this resolution in place, even temporarily, this would:
a) remove the individual nation's law-sanctioned right to self-defense,
d) no longer protect member states from being treated better or worse than others,

This would require further legislation, the mere repeal of this resolution is not enough.

b) remove the act of war as being consensual from a mechani— nvm.

Good. Stupid definition is stupid.

c) allow member nations to create civil strife in other member-states,

fair enough, but not compelling enough to justify keeping this resolution.

and finally, e) no longer prevent member states from acting against resolutions.

This is covered by the compliance commission.

[Jutsa]

"I'm still not sure how I feel about this repeal... but you've certainly taken a large weight of worry off my shoulders.

I still fear for my fourth point, however; though I do have enough faith in the World Assembly to not discriminate among member nations,
there lies a point that Kowani has pointed out: 'The general understanding of law is that if it's not written, it's permitted.'
Thus, if it is not written that the World Assembly may not discriminate, then it is technically permitted."

OOC: Many thanks, Aclion.

[Frisbeeteria]

This is covered by the compliance commission.

Just in case you're not aware, every bit of GAR #2 is designed as IC recognition of the OOC reality of game mechanics and rules. I wrote it that way specifically to provide IC justification for rejecting arguments that would be clunky to reject using OOC arguments.

Stupid definition is stupid.

Yes it is. That's my one thing I wish I had fixed in the rush before the April Fools No-Prank. We were a bit rushed, and I couldn't solicit player advice without giving away the joke. It's the main reason I don't oppose attempts to repeal my resolution.

[Araraukar]

I don't know why you think this is some kind of RP ploy so I can then say 'Haha, Ara is in violation of Resolution 300! Félicitations malefactors! We are endeavouring to appropriate Ara's delectable administrators and assorted perpetrators! Who is with me?!'

Of all the random resolution numbers you could pick, you had to pick the kiddie porn one?

OOC: I'm fairly sure he just picked a random number, rather than tried to be offensive...

If it hasn't escaped your notice, I don't RP (well, anymore) and I consider this a policy game. So you can take the fear mongering of the IA/WA army someplace else.

OOC: This is still an IC forum, so replying to drafts in IC is entirely valid. And it would be my stance OOCly too (though possibly slightly reworded), it just makes more sense to put it in IC, considering how pacifistic Araraukar is in IC.

and (3) non-compliance exists.

Yes, but only because you wrote something with the explicit reason to get that concession out of GenSec.

And I really don't get why you keep thinking that nations that are noncompliant with something, would suddenly be compliant with something enforcing compliance, no matter how many resolutions you pass to that effect. You can't force people to roleplay your way. I don't know if you're intentionally obtuse on that issue or what's your problem, but it will continue being a fact you can't do anything about.

[Bears Armed]

e) no longer prevent member states from acting against resolutions.

OOC
As I've commented several times in the past, relying on GAR#2 for that doesn't really work... because if the need for compliance with resolutions is based on GAR#2 there's actually nothing to require compliance with GAR#2 itself and thus the whole house-of-cards collapses. It makes more sense, in my opinion, to presume that the need for compliance (along with various other fundamentals that haven't been established in any resolution, such as the IC submission & voting system for proposals...) is covered by whatever treaty the nation ratifies IC when its player presses the 'Join' button OOC.


(EDIT: for some reason, this computer isn't letting me use the coding for italics... It kept deleting the end-italics coding. Hence all of the editing attempts...)

[Imperium Anglorum]

I don't know why you think this is some kind of RP ploy so I can then say 'Haha, Ara is in violation of Resolution 300! Félicitations malefactors! We are endeavouring to appropriate Ara's delectable administrators and assorted perpetrators! Who is with me?!'

Of all the random resolution numbers you could pick, you had to pick the kiddie porn one?

Looks. Oh, it is. My apologies to Ara if anyone thinks that I was accusing him of actually violating it in real life. Probably has to do with the fact that we were watching a clip of 300 in History of Ancient Greece.

"And I'd like to point out that over the how many years of bickering, it's still not been passed."

GA 2 repeal did pass. It was discarded for a branding violation.

"May I also point out that without this resolution in place, even temporarily, this would:
a) remove the individual nation's law-sanctioned right to self-defense,
b) remove the act of war as being consensual from a mechani— nvm.
c) allow member nations to create civil strife in other member-states,
d) no longer protect member states from being treated better or worse than others,

If the World Assembly were to do any of those things, which I very much doubt that it would, then it would have to pass enabling legislation to that effect. And insofar as we haven't done so and this repeal does not legislate (except for scarily and spookily popping in magical resolutions all over the place! Ooooo! Scary!), repeals only repeal.

---

and (3) non-compliance exists.

Yes, but only because you wrote something with the explicit reason to get that concession out of GenSec.

Oh yea, definitely, non-compliance exists because I made it up. Not like non-compliance exists because any reasonable conception of how things work with self-interested actors in an international system would involve cheating agreements. No, that's ridiculous.

And I really don't get why you keep thinking that nations that are noncompliant with something, would suddenly be compliant with something enforcing compliance, no matter how many resolutions you pass to that effect. You can't force people to roleplay your way. I don't know if you're intentionally obtuse on that issue or what's your problem, but it will continue being a fact you can't do anything about.

You've proven too much. Why do we need prisons if nobody will break laws. You can't force people to do what you want. I don't know if you actually think that laws can't be enforced or whether you just believe in magical compliance, but both of those are positions are so ridiculous I can pull out "We are the masters of the obvious".

Honestly, if you really believe that you cannot force people to roleplay your way, then you have to also agree that GA 2 needs to be repealed, because it says that WA member nations are to abide by all their international agreements in good faith and you can't force people to roleplay your way. So you haven't shown much of anything other than, "When IA says, but not when anyone else says, that WA nations have these obligations to the WA, he's going to use it as a means to establish a global RP dictatorship!". Which is ridiculous, especially so when I don't RP at all. Anyway, if I had those kinds of powers, I wouldn't ever be losing WA votes.

[Wrapper]

Of all the random resolution numbers you could pick, you had to pick the kiddie porn one?

Looks. Oh, it is. My apologies to Ara if anyone thinks that I was accusing him of actually violating it in real life. Probably has to do with the fact that we were watching a clip of 300 in History of Ancient Greece.

Oh, I absolutely knew (as I'm sure Ara did too) that you just picked a number at random, thus the instead of possibly some informal red text or relatively benign mod-stick waving.

GA 2 repeal did pass. It was discarded for a branding violation.

That vote was unduly influenced by the official-looking WA flag and nation name; the same proposal was resubmitted and failed by a wide margin, but that vote too was unduly influenced, by other nefarious factors. We've yet to really have a fair vote on this.

[Auralia]

That vote was unduly influenced by the official-looking WA flag and nation name; the same proposal was resubmitted and failed by a wide margin, but that vote too was unduly influenced, by other nefarious factors. We've yet to really have a fair vote on this.

The use of the WA flag was not against the rules. Nor was the use of a nation name that included the words "World Assembly". It was the use of a name of any group that was deemed to be a violation of the branding rule.

[Wrapper]

That vote was unduly influenced by the official-looking WA flag and nation name; the same proposal was resubmitted and failed by a wide margin, but that vote too was unduly influenced, by other nefarious factors. We've yet to really have a fair vote on this.

The use of the WA flag was not against the rules. Nor was the use of a nation name that included the words "World Assembly". It was the use of a name of any group that was deemed to be a violation of the branding rule.

Agreed, but we all know why it was passing.

[Liberimery]

So what was the other nefarious factors that influenced it the wrong way?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Oh, for example, the person who submitted it put "VOTE NAY" in huge letters over the resolution on the forum thread.

[Kowani]

Oh, for example, the person who submitted it put "VOTE NAY" in huge letters over the resolution on the forum thread.

...Who is this person and when will they be signing autographs?

[Wrapper]

So what was the other nefarious factors that influenced it the wrong way?

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=288914

We've yet to really have a fair vote on this.

I take that back, I'd completely forgotten about this one: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=328733

That said, we (myself included) should probably get back on topic here.

[Doing it Rightland]

I understand the goals, but to repeal this resolution is madness. GA #2 is foundational to everything the WA has done. To repeal it would mean there would no longer be a guarantee for the independence of any nation, as protected by Section 1. In addition, you remove guaranteed equality under WA law for every nation. Unless you find a way to validate those rights before passing such a repeal, I cannot support such a proposal.

In addition, the World Assembly does not need to maintain an army of its own. It can merely rely on member nations to lead a force that is permitted by the WA. This resolution doesn't actually stand in the way of promoting international cooperation, and instead would tear at the fabric of what cooperation we already have.