Kranostav wrote:So you are saying that there is no engagement between WA voters and the committee-to-be during the voting process? I was under the impression that there was IC interaction with filling the positions and discussing regulations that was assumed to happen.
No. Committees are filled with faceless WA employees - they're referred to as gnomes - meaning the WA nations have no say who goes on the committee or what their qualifications or lack of are. If the resolution text doesn't place restrictions on what the committee can or can't do to gets its job done, there's nothing restricting its power, and any decisions it does has WA law status that - given lack of any kind of appeals process in the resolution - the WA nations cannot refuse to enact.
Do you see the problem now?
The committee is constrained to only enact regulations that 'clarify and enforce' the target. No regulations can be made outside of that scope so I'm confused as to why you keep harping on the word 'further'.
The word I have problem with is "enforce", because I can think of MANY things that could be used to enforce a sterilization ban that would get a "WTF?" reaction from nations just getting them imposed. Remember that whatever the gnomes decide, goes, no restrictions. Mandatory jail time. Mandatory fines. Loss of right to practice medicine. Loss of job. Registration as sex offender (via calling it a criminal assault on someone's genitals). Hell, anything and everything that's allowed under WA law. And you don't see a problem here?
Kranostav wrote:I was under the IC impression that WA members can discuss about the committee and potential members and potential regulation that's put forth. As this would occur in a normal legislative process.
GA resolutions are not normal legislative process.
The GA is the one who can grant and take away powers from committees via resolution.
After it goes through the vote it can't be amended. At all. Only repealed.