by Los Campos » Wed Nov 07, 2018 8:24 pm
by The Niceties of Normal Moral Constraints » Wed Nov 07, 2018 8:43 pm
Los Campos wrote:DENOUNCING the World Assembly overreach by nation's leading efforts to erode the sovereignty of nations; and,
Los Campos wrote:3.) That the World Assembly member nations shall have the power to interpret World Assembly resolutions at the domestic level and enforce them accordingly, provided that the intention of the law is reasonably executed;
Los Campos wrote:4.) That the World Assembly member nations shall have the power to base domestic laws on the resolutions passed by the World Assembly;
Los Campos wrote:5.) That the Security Council may compel a divergent nations to adjust their domestic interpretation of World Assembly resolutions if the members of the World Assembly decide to condemn the divergent nations for malicious insubordination to International Law.
by Imperium Anglorum » Wed Nov 07, 2018 9:29 pm
by Jebslund » Wed Nov 07, 2018 9:41 pm
Los Campos wrote:Title: Sovereign Nations Act
Category: Furtherment of Democracy
Co-Author: The Palace of God 2
Description:
The World Assembly,
RECOGNIZING the sovereignty of its member nations; and,
NOTING the diversity between member nation's cultures and ideologies; and,
CONVINCED that the World Assembly must respect the aforementioned; and, Nope.
DENOUNCING the World Assembly overreach by nation's leading efforts to erode the sovereignty of nations; and, What sovereignty? You agreed to follow the rules when you joined the WA. This is like saying having a code of conduct leads to efforts to erode the sovereignty of nations.
CONFIDENT in the capacity of the World Assembly to further world peace without infringing upon the sovereignty of member nations unnecessarily, The WA infringes upon the sovereignty of its member nations by the very fact that it has supranational authority.
Hereby establishes:
1.) That International Law shall be defined as rules passed by the World Assembly regarding the international affairs of World Assembly members, and that the welfare of the world shall be considered an international affair; This should be in the Preamble.
2.) That the World Assembly member nations shall continue to enforce International Law within their borders; This is already being done.
3.) That the World Assembly member nations shall have the power to interpret World Assembly resolutions at the domestic level and enforce them accordingly, provided that the intention of the law is reasonably executed;
4.) That the World Assembly member nations shall have the power to base domestic laws and court decisions on the resolutions passed by the World Assembly; ... So, you are wasting words to give permission to member nations to follow the international laws they are already required to follow?
5.) That the Security Council may compel divergent nations to adjust their domestic interpretation of World Assembly resolutions if the members of the World Assembly decide to condemn the divergent nations for malicious insubordination to International Law. Even mentioning the Security Council is a Metagaming violation, to speak nothing of the... You know what? Read. These. Threads.
by Los Campos » Wed Nov 07, 2018 10:13 pm
The Niceties of Normal Moral Constraints wrote:Los Campos wrote:DENOUNCING the World Assembly overreach by nation's leading efforts to erode the sovereignty of nations; and,
"Might your Honorable Excellency explain in precisely which manner the World Assembly is overreaching? Or which, and in what way, nations are eroding the sovereignty of (presumably Member) nations?"
The Niceties of Normal Moral Constraints wrote:Los Campos wrote:3.) That the World Assembly member nations shall have the power to interpret World Assembly resolutions at the domestic level and enforce them accordingly, provided that the intention of the law is reasonably executed;
This is probably illegal for meta-gaming, to the extent that Compliance is an automatic and non-optional for Member States. If a resolution passes, your nation implements it, and you get a nice telegram to that effect. If any "intrepretation" occurs, its during drafting, debating, and voting. But, once a vote is held and the resolution is adopted, you implement it
The Niceties of Normal Moral Constraints wrote:Los Campos wrote:4.) That the World Assembly member nations shall have the power to base domestic laws on the resolutions passed by the World Assembly;
What's the intent here? As already noted, Compliance with passed resolutions is already automatic and non-optional.
The Niceties of Normal Moral Constraints wrote:Los Campos wrote:5.) That the Security Council may compel a divergent nations to adjust their domestic interpretation of World Assembly resolutions if the members of the World Assembly decide to condemn the divergent nations for malicious insubordination to International Law.
If I understand correctly, this is probably illegal for meta-gaming to the extent that the GA may not compel the SC in any particular way. But, even if specific reference to the "Security Council" were removed, this would probably also be illegal for being contrary to GAR #2, Article 10 ("compel" strongly implies some sort of police or other interventionist force of that nature, which is presently verboten).
by Los Campos » Wed Nov 07, 2018 10:33 pm
Jebslund wrote:[OOC: You don't have any Endorsements. You need two to submit this.
Jebslund wrote:What sovereignty? You agreed to follow the rules when you joined the WA. This is like saying having a code of conduct leads to efforts to erode the sovereignty of nations.Los Campos wrote:DENOUNCING the World Assembly overreach by nation's leading efforts to erode the sovereignty of nations; and,
Jebslund wrote:... So, you are wasting words to give permission to member nations to follow the international laws they are already required to follow?Los Campos wrote:4.) That the World Assembly member nations shall have the power to base domestic laws and court decisions on the resolutions passed by the World Assembly;
Jebslund wrote:Even mentioning the Security Council is a Metagaming violation, to speak nothing of the... You know what? Read. These. Threads.Los Campos wrote:5.) That the Security Council may compel divergent nations to adjust their domestic interpretation of World Assembly resolutions if the members of the World Assembly decide to condemn the divergent nations for malicious insubordination to International Law.
by Los Campos » Wed Nov 07, 2018 11:37 pm
by Kenmoria » Thu Nov 08, 2018 12:52 am
by Jebslund » Thu Nov 08, 2018 4:12 am
Los Campos wrote:Jebslund wrote:What sovereignty? You agreed to follow the rules when you joined the WA. This is like saying having a code of conduct leads to efforts to erode the sovereignty of nations.
This is a point you should make in-character. To answer your question, I mean the sovereignty outlined in GAR #2, which my nation understands has been blatantly violated. Of course, I can't reference this in the resolution itself, but I hope the explanation if sufficient for you at an OOC level. I argue that we agreed to follow the rules when we joined the World Assembly, yes, and part of the rules respected national sovereignty, so clearly, anything that breaks that rule has to be opposed. There were proposals you voted against and rules you've changed since you joined the assembly. even if you agreed to follow them. This is the same thing.
Los Campos wrote:"Wasting words" is a strong way to put it. It was my fault for not being clearer, but essentially I'm not giving permission for nations to follow laws they are already required to follow, as you put it. I am giving nations permissions to create laws that facilitate the implementation of the laws they're already required to follow, as well as base court rulings on assembly resolutions instead of just domestic law. This is actually what allows the Congress of the United States, for example, to do things that they aren't expressly given the power to do by the Constitution. Suppose they have a duty to fulfill, but don't have the legal power to fulfill it. This is what lets them create the laws necessary for them to be able to fulfill that duty.
Compliance
That's how World Assembly people would interpret it. In reality, though, roleplaying nations which are purportedly WA members often disregard the WA resolutions altogether. It all depends on what crowd you're playing with; if you tried to call someone on violating the Rights And Duties of WA States or for using landmines (a violation of resolution 40) in the International Incidents forum, you're likely to get laughed at. On the other hand, this is an accusation that might carry some weight in the General Assembly forum itself and probably provoke a bit of debate, or at least someone telling you that you're wrong. However, this isn't really the sort of thing you often see in the General Assembly forums, where "RP" is almost exclusively debate on proposals.
As a matter of game mechanics, non-compliance is simply impossible. Upon a resolution's passage, the "WA gnomes" come into your nation and make it compliant, leaving behind a little telegram as a token of their visit. While there are times when you can select a non-compliant issue option, the general consensus is that the gnomes then come in and make everything compliant again. There is a contradiction here, which is expected to be resolved at about the same time hell freezes over, so one would be best advised to just live with it. Many of the "unwritten rules" have to do with reconciling the gameplay and the roleplay universes with as few tears in the space-time continuum as possible; this is one of those cases.
Some players do roleplay non-compliance of a sort: Omigodtheykilledkenny for example, has a Creative Solutions Agency which seeks out and exploits loopholes in resolutions the nation just doesn't want to comply with. Indeed, there is a certain bit of leeway in every resolution because there is a inevitably room for interpretation. But if you waltz in and declare that some resolution doesn't apply to you because you've redefined "yellow" to mean "green" or that you consider "minutes" to be equal to seven years, all you're likely to do is provoke eye-rolling. You've got to be more subtle than that. For instance, you may not like a resolution that says you must make patent infringement illegal, so you RP that you've passed a law making patent infringement punishable by a fine of one dollar. Of course, some still might have a problem with that, but it's certainly a much more acceptable way to go about "non-compliance". However, as far as we're concerned, flat-out non-compliance with both the letter and spirit of a resolution is utterly impossible. Going back to the previous example, you might make the penalties for patent infringement laughably lenient, but you still must enact and enforce those laughably lenient laws.
Los Campos wrote:
The mention of the Security Council was a slip. I will make the fix soon. I did read the threads, but thank you for providing them. I would advise that you review them yourself, because I was fairly surprised that you didn't know about the right to national sovereignty and precedents defending cultural diversity.
by Liberimery » Thu Nov 08, 2018 4:43 am
by Jebslund » Thu Nov 08, 2018 4:47 am
Liberimery wrote:OOC: So was skimming through the bit about avoiding compliance and the "don't define Yellow as Green" might need a better analogy. I understand the spirit of the rule, but this is an actual thing in the real world. There are some languages where the distinction between green and blue are not made. They are the same color in the language (common in Eastern Asian languages, mostly Sino-families). Similarly the English word "Orange" is unrhymable because it is a lone word. Historically, it was first recorded use was in 1512 and derives from the Arabic word narange (via French). Prior to this the color was called "yellow-red" (for dark Orange colors), "Yellow-saffron" (light orange colors) or recognized the color as just a shade of "Red" which is why we call some people with orange colored hair are still described as Red Heads when being technical about the description.
A better analogy would be saying that if a resolution describes "2+2" as four, you cannot say in your country "2+2 = 5" to get around compliance.
by Los Campos » Thu Nov 08, 2018 10:17 am
by Arasi Luvasa » Thu Nov 08, 2018 10:36 am
by Los Campos » Thu Nov 08, 2018 10:45 am
Jebslund wrote:OOC stuff
by Los Campos » Thu Nov 08, 2018 10:49 am
Arasi Luvasa wrote:As was mentioned earlier, if it is not forbidden by a resolution then you can expect that nations are already empowered to do so.
by Separatist Peoples » Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:00 am
Los Campos wrote:Arasi Luvasa wrote:As was mentioned earlier, if it is not forbidden by a resolution then you can expect that nations are already empowered to do so.
This isn't a right enumerated anywhere, so there's no legal basis for this belief; additionally, it implies that since the right isn't mentioned elsewhere, then it can be written out of existence with other resolutions. One thing is certain though, and that's that nations currently do not have leeway in how they implement WA resolutions. This would change that without going into conflict with existing Compliance resolutions. I do not see why we would oppose a resolution expanding member nation's rights to control their own governments, especially when the integrity of the World Assembly isn't endangered.
by Jebslund » Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:39 am
Los Campos wrote:Jebslund wrote:OOC stuff
OOC: I will make the appropriate amendments to the proposal. However, I believe that our disagreement stems from different interpretations of the existing laws. I would like to point out that my proposed resolution is based almost entirely on "that the WA's place is to rule on *international* issues, not micromanage member-nation internal issues" (you put it better than I could). My nation believes that the WA has been used to micromanage its affairs (whether or not my citizens are armed is not an international issue, for example). I feel that the beauty of the World Assembly is that rules can be changed after one joins them to better reflect their nation's agenda, and in this case, "sovereignty" is being used as an excuse to less enthusiastically implement other resolutions that they feel aren't in agreement with their beliefs. This, without breaching any previous resolutions regarding compliance. On the note of compliance with game mechanics, this resolution still requires you to comply, so it should be good. The resolution only allows for countries to implement the resolutions in a way unique to their nation, and to the furthest extent possible by the nation.
by The Niceties of Normal Moral Constraints » Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:43 am
Los Campos wrote:"In the governments of the world, the power of law is derived either from the people, as is the case in a democracy, from the crown, which in turn derives its power from the divine, as is the case with monarchies and theologies, and so on. Whichever the case, there is no question that what defines the nations is its laws, which are derived from its people, its crown, or its divine figure. To answer your question, I must first present another. Is not the concept of the nation abolished when the laws of a nation are, instead of determined by its nationals, determined by the will of a foreign people who know nothing about the nation's customs, or a foreign crown motivated by their own agenda, or a divine figure not recognized by the government of the nation, as the World Assembly currently allows? Is this not a contradiction of the World Assembly's oath to respect national sovereignty? I say it is, and those who will vote in affirmation agree. What right does the World Assembly have to force sovereign nations to comply with resolutions disguised as International Law that do nothing to further the mission of the assembly. Different contexts call for different measures, but instead the World Assembly compels us member nations to act uniformly, without the consent of the people, the crown, or where ever our governments derive their mandates to rule from? This act will still require that member nations comply with the resolutions, but will give us the legal right to apply the resolution in the way that best works for the spirits of our nations."
by Los Campos » Thu Nov 08, 2018 12:41 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:"Not true, ambassador. Nations have sovereign authority by virtue of being states, and cede it voluntarily by joining the World Assembly. Ergo, they can do, or refrain from doing, anything that falls outside the authority granted to the General Assembly by virtue of membership."
by Jebslund » Thu Nov 08, 2018 12:51 pm
Los Campos wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:"Not true, ambassador. Nations have sovereign authority by virtue of being states, and cede it voluntarily by joining the World Assembly. Ergo, they can do, or refrain from doing, anything that falls outside the authority granted to the General Assembly by virtue of membership."
The Los Campos Delegate addresses the secretariat
"I'd be motivated to concede if your interpretation of my proposal were accurate. However, you are claiming that the nations have sovereignty in that they can decide whether or not to be members of this World Assembly, to which their sovereignty becomes ceded upon joining. That this is a necessary infringement upon the sovereignty of our nations. And, you say this as if the sovereignty of nations is already defended and respected. It is not. It is being attacked directly, as sovereignty is not the ability to leave or join international organizations, but rather the ability to control what happens within their own borders. You will argue that this sovereignty was ceded the moment the nation joined the World Assembly, but that is false. What was ceded to the World Assembly was the governance of our international affairs, not our domestic affairs. To regulate international trade is fine by these standards, but to impose laws reforming our judiciaries is not. Member nations never agreed to have their governments micromanaged.
The World Assembly is meant to act as an international organization for diplomacy, not a World Federation of Semi-Autonomous States with a unicameral legislature known as the World Assembly, and it is precisely that what it has become. A world government cannot effectively manage the domestic affairs of its constituent states, the member states; and so, there are laws that contradict the cultural customs of justice of some nations, and there are laws that directly contradict the right for these nations' domestic affairs to be unregulated by this foreign power.
To explain what this proposal does, understand that what I advocate in favor of is the ability for member states to only be required to implement assembly resolutions to the best of their ability and in the context of their cultures and history, so as for judgement of their compliance to be fair and so as to promote political stability. This is not making compliance optional; this is abolishing a pretentious international standard for the execution of resolutions, which currently entraps incapable nations without the resources to comply into non-compliance, and promotes political instability in governments with cultural opposition to passed resolutions. This international standard will instead be reliant on each member nation's own standards, subject to adjustment by the Independent Adjudicative Office if the international community deems that a nation has deviated from honest compliance with the World Assembly resolutions.
by Separatist Peoples » Thu Nov 08, 2018 1:12 pm
Los Campos wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:"Not true, ambassador. Nations have sovereign authority by virtue of being states, and cede it voluntarily by joining the World Assembly. Ergo, they can do, or refrain from doing, anything that falls outside the authority granted to the General Assembly by virtue of membership."
The Los Campos Delegate addresses the secretariat
"I'd be motivated to concede if your interpretation of my proposal were accurate. However, you are claiming that the nations have sovereignty in that they can decide whether or not to be members of this World Assembly, to which their sovereignty becomes ceded upon joining.
That this is a necessary infringement upon the sovereignty of our nations. And, you say this as if the sovereignty of nations is already defended and respected. It is not. It is being attacked directly, as sovereignty is not the ability to leave or join international organizations, but rather the ability to control what happens within their own borders. You will argue that this sovereignty was ceded the moment the nation joined the World Assembly, but that is false. What was ceded to the World Assembly was the governance of our international affairs, not our domestic affairs. To regulate international trade is fine by these standards, but to impose laws reforming our judiciaries is not. Member nations never agreed to have their governments micromanaged.
The World Assembly is meant to act as an international organization for diplomacy, not a World Federation of Semi-Autonomous States with a unicameral legislature known as the World Assembly, and it is precisely that what it has become. A world government cannot effectively manage the domestic affairs of its constituent states, the member states; and so, there are laws that contradict the cultural customs of justice of some nations, and there are laws that directly contradict the right for these nations' domestic affairs to be unregulated by this foreign power.
To explain what this proposal does, understand that what I advocate in favor of is the ability for member states to only be required to implement assembly resolutions to the best of their ability and in the context of their cultures and history, so as for judgement of their compliance to be fair and so as to promote political stability. This is not making compliance optional; this is abolishing a pretentious international standard for the execution of resolutions, which currently entraps incapable nations without the resources to comply into non-compliance, and promotes political instability in governments with cultural opposition to passed resolutions. This international standard will instead be reliant on each member nation's own standards, subject to adjustment by the Independent Adjudicative Office if the international community deems that a nation has deviated from honest compliance with the World Assembly resolutions.
by The Niceties of Normal Moral Constraints » Thu Nov 08, 2018 1:31 pm
Los Campos wrote:...What was ceded to the World Assembly was the governance of our international affairs, not our domestic affairs. To regulate international trade is fine by these standards, but to impose laws reforming our judiciaries is not. Member nations never agreed to have their governments micromanaged.
...
This international standard will instead be reliant on each member nation's own standards, subject to adjustment by the Independent Adjudicative Office if the international community deems that a nation has deviated from honest compliance with the World Assembly resolutions.
by Los Campos » Thu Nov 08, 2018 3:14 pm
The Niceties of Normal Moral Constraints wrote:Los Campos wrote:"Wherein is it stated that the sole duty or purpose of the World Assembly is 'governance of our international affairs?' If anything, the 'Role of the World Assembly' as literally described in GAR #2 Section III does not appear to make any such proviso, and, in fact, explicitly states that domestic law is insufficient to excuse non-compliance, and that international law is supreme to domestic law. Since voluntary adoption of Membership necessitates voluntary adoption of standing Resolutions, including GAR #2, all Member States voluntarily agree to compliance regardless of domestic law or form of government and all Member States voluntarily agree that international law is supreme.
"In short, all Member States, by virtue of being Member States, voluntarily agree to be so 'micromanaged.' If one finds this objectionable, fair enough, but the solution (short of resignation) is necessarily repeal of GAR #2, since any additional resolution empowering domestic law to modify the terms of adopted resolutions or, more likely, simply allow total escape from compliance at all, will run up against that standing resolution.
"Couching a mechanism for non-compliance in euphemisms ('cultural opposition' in place of 'political opposition,' 'diversity' in place of 'domestic law/constitution,' etc) changes nothing. 'Member nation's own standards' is a not particularly well hidden substitution for domestic constitutions and laws, placing the proposed resolution in direct contravention of GAR #2"
by Kenmoria » Thu Nov 08, 2018 3:23 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Bears Armed, The Overmind
Advertisement