[SUBMITTED] International Development Organs and Goals

[Adriatican]

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY,

REMINDS Member Nations of the staggering rate of poverty amongst the world’s population, especially within; minority communities, communities which reside in countries classified as “developing”, and communities who otherwise carry displaced status as; refugees, homeless persons, drug addicts, or who are deemed mentally unstable,

FURTHER REMINDS Member Nations of their; moral responsibility, economic best interest, and principled position to assure their country’s populations, in their totality, have; the opportunity to become properly educated, in a safe, productive, and stable, academic environment, the opportunity and ability to seek gainful employment should they want it, the ability to rely on the state for proper basic services including; clean and running water, a stable and sufficient electrical grid, proper waste reclamation, and proper sewage treatment, and the opportunity to seek and obtain, self sufficiency,

ENCOURAGES Member Nation’s to enshrine the above mentioned in their respective legal codexes as inalienable entitlements for the good of the world’s population, and all future generations of humanity;

CREATES the International Development Bank to assist Member Nations with their efforts to this end, provide grants, temporary loans, and otherwise; spur, manage, and facilitate investment in the; organizational, and governmental efforts of any entity who should so present to Bank authorities, a plan to reasonably; create, achieve, facilitate, or bring into being, any; entity, program, or initiative, which will ensure the presence of the above mentioned;

MANDATES oversight of the use of Bank grants and other funds by the proper W.A Authorities, and that, all nations who benefit from the Bank’s services, meet the developmental and human rights goals set forth by the Bank;

SETS FORTH the following as the above mentioned Permanent Development Goals (PDG’s) of the Bank;

• A twenty percent increase in the literacy rate amongst a Member Nations sensitive populations within a period of twenty years from the date of receiving Bank funds of any kind, and/or joining the Board;

• A twenty percent increase in the construction of affordable, environmentally sustainable housing units specifically reserved for a Member Nation’s homeless and below poverty population within a period of twenty years from the date of receiving Bank funds of any kind, and/or joining the Board;

• A twenty percent increase in the use of renewable and sustainable energies by a Member Nation within a period of twenty years from the date of receiving Bank funds of any kind, and/or joining the Board;

• A twenty percent increase in the employment rate of a Member Nation’s sensitive populations within a period of twenty years from the date of receiving Bank funds of any kind, and/or joining the Board.

[Adriatican]

Please understand that this is a rough draft, and that I will allow sufficient time for more experienced members, or indeed any members, to submit their edits, suggestions, and opinions, should they wish; I’d also immensely support a Member of the Secretariat and/or an experienced member, identifying complimentary Resolutions which may be mentioned in the “reaffirmation” section of the Resolution.

Looking forward to hearing from you all!

[Araraukar]

OOC: What category and strength/AoE (some categories have strengths, some have areas of effect, you can find the categories and descriptions in the proposal rules thread)?

This seems to lean very heavily on existing resolutions. If they were repealed, would yours have anything to lean on or would it become meaningless? If the latter, it's a House of Cards violation.

What the hell does a bank have to do with literacy? Also, as it counts as a committee for proposal rules, nations can't sit in it (or its "board of directors").

Percentage increase requirements (or even goals) are problematic because it's easy to swipe 20% out of 100%, but very difficult to swipe it out of 0.01%.

[Adriatican]

OOC: What category and strength/AoE (some categories have strengths, some have areas of effect, you can find the categories and descriptions in the proposal rules thread)?

This seems to lean very heavily on existing resolutions. If they were repealed, would yours have anything to lean on or would it become meaningless? If the latter, it's a House of Cards violation.

What the hell does a bank have to do with literacy? Also, as it counts as a committee for proposal rules, nations can't sit in it (or its "board of directors").

Percentage increase requirements (or even goals) are problematic because it's easy to swipe 20% out of 100%, but very difficult to swipe it out of 0.01%.

I’ll apprise myself further of the areas and effects and publish an advisory thereafter, as for the possible HOC violation, the Resolution simply reaffirms the cited GAR’s as a gesture of support, not as an attempt to build a foundation, thus, as the Resolution proposed does not rely on the cited GAR’s for its effect, I would argue the HoC matter is moot.

To address your concern about the relationship between literacy and the Bank proposed, said institution isn’t your typical Wells Fargo, Chase, commercial bank, nor your Goldman Saks, UBS, or Barclays type investment banks, this institution is more akin to the World Bank, which uses international contributions and revenues to fund development projects in nations across the globe, in areas like; farming, water development infrastructure, literacy, and more.

How would you suggest we restructure the board provision to comply with the WA’s committee rules, or would you just take it out entirely?

Lastly, I’m not sure what you mean about the percentages, please clarify.

Thanks for the feedback!

[Araraukar]

the Resolution proposed does not rely on the cited GAR’s for its effect, I would argue the HoC matter is moot.

OOC: The "encourages" clause does. And yes, "encourages" is a legally active clause in GA proposals.

this institution is more akin to the World Bank, which uses international contributions and revenues to fund development projects in nations across the globe, in areas like; farming, water development infrastructure, literacy, and more.

The question then becomes, why? The WA can simply order nations to do things. Why should it create an unnecessary go-between? Especially as a WA organization normally gets its funding from the WA, which equals all the WA nations. The WA's only legitimate source of income are the WA nations as a whole. (There's a resolution that mandates "involuntary donations" - thinking of it as a tax gives the least headaches.) If you were instead setting up something that worked on voluntary donations, you don't need the WA to do it, and thus it's not something that should be put into a resolution.

All in all, be VERY careful about any "giving WA money away" things, without requiring some checks to be made to ensure that the nation receiving the funds is actually incapable, rather than just unwilling, to fund it themselves. Because I can easily imagine something like RL USA, which refuses to fund healthcare for its population while maintaining huge military budget. They'd be more than happy to have the WA fund the bits of budget they don't consider important, while still having tons of money at the government's use.

How would you suggest we restructure the board provision to comply with the WA’s committee rules, or would you just take it out entirely?

I would suggest taking out the entire committee (bank) and making member nations do the things you want done.

Lastly, I’m not sure what you mean about the percentages, please clarify.

• A twenty percent increase in the literacy rate
• A twenty percent increase in the construction of affordable, environmentally sustainable housing units specifically reserved for a Member Nation’s homeless and below poverty population
• A twenty percent increase in the use of renewable and sustainable energies
• A twenty percent increase in the employment rate

^These. If literacy rate is already 100%, you can't increase it by 20% (because you can't go over 100%). If literacy rate is 0%, mathematically you also can't increace it by 20% (because zero times 0.2 is still zero). But let's assume that a nation has the population of a million people, out of whom only 5 are literate (unlikely, I know, but just for math illustration purposes). A nation would be compliant if only one more person became literate. Whereas a nation with the population of a million people out of whom 999,995 are literate, literally cannot increace literacy by 20%, because 20% out of 999,995 is 199,999 and the nation only has 5 illiterates. Who might be illiterate because they are in a coma or seriously brain damaged or otherwise incapable of becoming literate.

The rest have the same problems with the percentages. What if there aren't homeless? What if everyone has free housing? What if a nation already is 100% using renewable and sustainable energy? How can it go over 100%? What if everyone for whom there are actual jobs, are already employed? Must the nation make fake work to employ people who don't want to do fake work, or who might not be working because of health reasons? What if being unemployed is not a problem?

Do you understand the issues?

Oh and especially nix the "investment in the personal ... efforts" on the bank's mandate. Giving WA money to individuals is not a good direction to go.

[Adriatican]

the Resolution proposed does not rely on the cited GAR’s for its effect, I would argue the HoC matter is moot.

OOC: The "encourages" clause does. And yes, "encourages" is a legally active clause in GA proposals.

this institution is more akin to the World Bank, which uses international contributions and revenues to fund development projects in nations across the globe, in areas like; farming, water development infrastructure, literacy, and more.

The question then becomes, why? The WA can simply order nations to do things. Why should it create an unnecessary go-between? Especially as a WA organization normally gets its funding from the WA, which equals all the WA nations. The WA's only legitimate source of income are the WA nations as a whole. (There's a resolution that mandates "involuntary donations" - thinking of it as a tax gives the least headaches.) If you were instead setting up something that worked on voluntary donations, you don't need the WA to do it, and thus it's not something that should be put into a resolution.

All in all, be VERY careful about any "giving WA money away" things, without requiring some checks to be made to ensure that the nation receiving the funds is actually incapable, rather than just unwilling, to fund it themselves. Because I can easily imagine something like RL USA, which refuses to fund healthcare for its population while maintaining huge military budget. They'd be more than happy to have the WA fund the bits of budget they don't consider important, while still having tons of money at the government's use.

How would you suggest we restructure the board provision to comply with the WA’s committee rules, or would you just take it out entirely?

I would suggest taking out the entire committee (bank) and making member nations do the things you want done.

Lastly, I’m not sure what you mean about the percentages, please clarify.

• A twenty percent increase in the literacy rate
• A twenty percent increase in the construction of affordable, environmentally sustainable housing units specifically reserved for a Member Nation’s homeless and below poverty population
• A twenty percent increase in the use of renewable and sustainable energies
• A twenty percent increase in the employment rate

^These. If literacy rate is already 100%, you can't increase it by 20% (because you can't go over 100%). If literacy rate is 0%, mathematically you also can't increace it by 20% (because zero times 0.2 is still zero). But let's assume that a nation has the population of a million people, out of whom only 5 are literate (unlikely, I know, but just for math illustration purposes). A nation would be compliant if only one more person became literate. Whereas a nation with the population of a million people out of whom 999,995 are literate, literally cannot increace literacy by 20%, because 20% out of 999,995 is 199,999 and the nation only has 5 illiterates. Who might be illiterate because they are in a coma or seriously brain damaged or otherwise incapable of becoming literate.

The rest have the same problems with the percentages. What if there aren't homeless? What if everyone has free housing? What if a nation already is 100% using renewable and sustainable energy? How can it go over 100%? What if everyone for whom there are actual jobs, are already employed? Must the nation make fake work to employ people who don't want to do fake work, or who might not be working because of health reasons? What if being unemployed is not a problem?

Do you understand the issues?

Oh and especially nix the "investment in the personal ... efforts" on the bank's mandate. Giving WA money to individuals is not a good direction to go.

The Encourages clause does? How so?

The W.A cannot order a nation to do anything unless the thing being ordered is a provision within a previously passed Resolution. Indeed, if we’re going to go and ask “why the go-between” then I would suggest we re-examine every internal organization which the W.A uses to carry out a Resolution’s mandates. It’s simply not realistic to expect an international organization to carry out or enforce its provisos without any internal organs with which to do so.

Moreover, as was stated in the Resolution, services and funds may only be awarded when an applicant demonstrates sufficient ability to properly utilize the funds, that requirement, by default, insists that the applicant be, as you say, “incapable” of funding it themselves, and further still, by that fact, would render developmental percentage inequality concerns moot, since, if an applicant is by default, incapable of funding programs related to the development percentages (hence they’re applying for aid), it stands to reason that said applicant therefore doesn’t meet the percentages to begin with; thus rendering it impossible for a nation undeserving of aid from the Bank to receive it, as well as rendering it impossible for those who do receive it, to be required to exceed goals they’ve already met.

[Adriatican]

Edits reflected in OP

[Bananaistan]

OOC: This was submitted under the Healthcare/International Aid category/AoE. I have marked it illegal as follows: Category/AOE incorrect (there's nothing here that does anything about healthcare or having richer nations assist poorer nations regarding healthcare).

There are other issues such as the problem with percentages that Ara outlined. The SETS FORTH clause states that the Permanent Development Goals are above mentioned. If this refers to the FURTHER REMINDS clause, it does not actually call them Permanent Development Goals. The percentages clauses mention sensitive populations. What are sensitive populations? It should be stated in the proposal.

[Araraukar]

The W.A cannot order a nation to do anything unless the thing being ordered is a provision within a previously passed Resolution.

OOC: What on earth are you talking about? The WA can order a nation to do anything that isn't restricted by a previously passed resolution.

[Adriatican]

The W.A cannot order a nation to do anything unless the thing being ordered is a provision within a previously passed Resolution.

OOC: What on earth are you talking about? The WA can order a nation to do anything that isn't restricted by a previously passed resolution.

Prove it

[Adriatican]

OOC: This was submitted under the Healthcare/International Aid category/AoE. I have marked it illegal as follows: Category/AOE incorrect (there's nothing here that does anything about healthcare or having richer nations assist poorer nations regarding healthcare).

There are other issues such as the problem with percentages that Ara outlined. The SETS FORTH clause states that the Permanent Development Goals are above mentioned. If this refers to the FURTHER REMINDS clause, it does not actually call them Permanent Development Goals. The percentages clauses mention sensitive populations. What are sensitive populations? It should be stated in the proposal.

Is that a personal opinion, or an administrative one, and if it’s the latter, I’d like to be pointed to, and/or shown the guidelines, rules, regulations, etc. all Members of the Secretariat work on/from.

[Araraukar]

OOC: What on earth are you talking about? The WA can order a nation to do anything that isn't restricted by a previously passed resolution.

Prove it

OOC: *throws the rulebook and every previously passed resolution at you* It's how the GA works.

[Adriatican]

Prove it

OOC: *throws the rulebook and every previously passed resolution at you* It's how the GA works.

Nope, I’m asking for specifics, and if you can’t provide them, that’s fine, but then one must admit that they don’t know the rule book they throw, as well as the fact that whilst such doesn’t make me wrong, it doesn’t make you right either.

[Kenmoria]

OOC: What on earth are you talking about? The WA can order a nation to do anything that isn't restricted by a previously passed resolution.

Prove it

(OOC: That’s how the GA rules work. Every single passed resolution, apart from maybe a few mild ones, works that way. Mandates in resolutions are enacted as soon as they are passed, and any nation that is not compliant receives a fine from the Administrative Compliance Act.)

[Araraukar]

*snip*

OOC: Being delusional about how a game works, does not actually help you play it, you know? And making personal attacks at people trying to help you just to... I don't even know why, but anyway, it will also not help you play it.

If WA couldn't tell nations to do something it hasn't told them to do before, then it could never tell them to do anything. No resolution could ever be written and passed, because every resolution must tell the member nations to do something new.

It's like you're asking me to specifically prove that one plus one equals two. I don't need to prove something that is simply the way it is. You're the one making the extraordinary claim, so you need to be the one to offer some proof. My proof are the 476 previously passed resolutions, each of them having the WA doing something it didn't do before. What's your proof for your claim?

I’d like to be pointed to, and/or shown the guidelines, rules, regulations, etc. all Members of the Secretariat work on/from.

The two threads are on this forum. Stickies near the top. Not really hard to find.

[Adriatican]

The lack of reading comprehension round these parts is staggering.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Semicolons end sentences and delimit lists. Use them properly.

[East Meranopirus]

The lack of reading comprehension round these parts is staggering.

The lack of regard for rules, procedures, precedent and advice from you is astounding. And no, re-submitting it will not magically make it legal.

[Kenmoria]

“Ending the ‘encourages’ clause with ‘humanity’ will indubitably anger the many non-human species present in this assembly. I suggest ‘sapient peoples’, ‘sapient beings’ or something similar.”

[Bears Armed]

The W.A cannot order a nation to do anything unless the thing being ordered is a provision within a previously passed Resolution.

OOC: What on earth are you talking about? The WA can order a nation to do anything that isn't restricted by a previously passed resolution.

OOC: Unless it's something that the nations couldn't "reasonably" be expected to have the capability to do... Cure ALL illness IMMEDIATELY, for example, or give their people the power of "unassisted" flight..
Proposals based on impossibilities such as those would get rejected as illegal. (There's no appropriate 'Strength' for the Impossible...)

[Araraukar]

OOC: The WA can order a nation to do anything that isn't restricted by a previously passed resolution.

OOC: Unless it's something that the nations couldn't "reasonably" be expected to have the capability to do... Cure ALL illness IMMEDIATELY, for example, or give their people the power of "unassisted" flight..
Proposals based on impossibilities such as those would get rejected as illegal. (There's no appropriate 'Strength' for the Impossible...)

OOC: So are you saying the proposal here is illegal for being impossible for some nations? (Any nation with literacy/renewable energy/whatever over 80%.)

[Bears Armed]

OOC: Unless it's something that the nations couldn't "reasonably" be expected to have the capability to do... Cure ALL illness IMMEDIATELY, for example, or give their people the power of "unassisted" flight..
Proposals based on impossibilities such as those would get rejected as illegal. (There's no appropriate 'Strength' for the Impossible...)

OOC: So are you saying the proposal here is illegal for being impossible for some nations? (Any nation with literacy/renewable energy/whatever over 80%.)

OOC: That's definitely something to consider...
One could argue that a nation which couldn't met the goals for that reason would simply be unable to apply for help from this organisation in the first place... which wouldn't make it illegal under the 'Selectivity of Application' rule, because even a nation that currently has a value of over 80% in any of the listed features is potentially capable of dropping below that threshold and then applying for help...
Anyway, I'll call it illegal for breach of the Committee rules, because of

Member Nations sensitive populations within a period of twenty years from the date of receiving Bank funds of any kind, and/or joining the Board;

and the rule that WA Committees are staffed anonymously (by widely-accepted convention, by the 'WA Gnomes') rather than by member nations. (Forget that: The bit in question didn't make it into the submitted version....)

[Araraukar]

OOC: AS SUBMITTED

International Development Organs and Benchmarks

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Significant

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY,

REMINDS Member Nations of the staggering rate of poverty amongst the world’s population, especially within; minority communities, communities which reside in countries classified as “developing”, and communities who otherwise carry displaced status as; refugees, homeless persons, drug addicts, or who are deemed mentally unstable,

FURTHER REMINDS Member Nations of their; moral responsibility, economic best interest, and principled position to assure their country’s populations, in their totality, have; the opportunity to become properly educated, in a safe, productive, and stable, academic environment, the opportunity and ability to seek gainful employment should they want it, the ability to rely on the state for proper basic services including; clean and running water, a stable and sufficient electrical grid, proper waste reclamation, and proper sewage treatment, and the opportunity to seek and obtain, self sufficiency,

ENCOURAGES Member Nation’s to enshrine the above mentioned in their respective legal codexes as inalienable entitlements for the good of the world’s population, and all future generations of humanity;

CREATES the International Development Bank to assist Member Nations with their efforts to this end, provide grants, temporary loans, and otherwise; spur, manage, and facilitate investment in the; organizational, and governmental efforts of any entity who should so present to Bank authorities, a plan to reasonably; create, achieve, facilitate, or bring into being, any; entity, program, or initiative, which will ensure the presence of the above mentioned;

MANDATES oversight of the use of Bank grants and other funds by the proper W.A Authorities, and that, all nations who benefit from the Bank’s services, meet the developmental and human rights goals set forth by the Bank;

SETS FORTH the following as the above mentioned Permanent Development Goals (PDG’s) of the Bank;

• A twenty percent increase in the literacy rate amongst a Member Nations sensitive populations within a period of twenty years from the date of receiving Bank funds of any kind;
  
  
• A twenty percent increase in the construction of affordable, environmentally sustainable housing units specifically reserved for a Member Nation’s homeless and below poverty population within a period of twenty years from the date of receiving Bank funds of any kind;
  
  
• A twenty percent increase in the use of renewable and sustainable energies by a Member Nation within a period of twenty years from the date of receiving Bank funds of any kind;
  
  
• A twenty percent increase in the employment rate of a Member Nation’s sensitive populations within a period of twenty years from the date of receiving Bank funds of any kind.

Does this actually meet "significant" strength? It has an encouragement (and much of the stuff referred to is duplicating existing resolutions) and then the rest is about and for the fund. Where does it actually even refer to how the funds are applied for? Or what nations don't fit the list of twenty percent demands?

[Bears Armed]

OOC: AS SUBMITTED

International Development Organs and Benchmarks

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Significant

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY,

REMINDS Member Nations of the staggering rate of poverty amongst the world’s population, especially within; minority communities, communities which reside in countries classified as “developing”, and communities who otherwise carry displaced status as; refugees, homeless persons, drug addicts, or who are deemed mentally unstable,

FURTHER REMINDS Member Nations of their; moral responsibility, economic best interest, and principled position to assure their country’s populations, in their totality, have; the opportunity to become properly educated, in a safe, productive, and stable, academic environment, the opportunity and ability to seek gainful employment should they want it, the ability to rely on the state for proper basic services including; clean and running water, a stable and sufficient electrical grid, proper waste reclamation, and proper sewage treatment, and the opportunity to seek and obtain, self sufficiency,

ENCOURAGES Member Nation’s to enshrine the above mentioned in their respective legal codexes as inalienable entitlements for the good of the world’s population, and all future generations of humanity;

CREATES the International Development Bank to assist Member Nations with their efforts to this end, provide grants, temporary loans, and otherwise; spur, manage, and facilitate investment in the; organizational, and governmental efforts of any entity who should so present to Bank authorities, a plan to reasonably; create, achieve, facilitate, or bring into being, any; entity, program, or initiative, which will ensure the presence of the above mentioned;

MANDATES oversight of the use of Bank grants and other funds by the proper W.A Authorities, and that, all nations who benefit from the Bank’s services, meet the developmental and human rights goals set forth by the Bank;

SETS FORTH the following as the above mentioned Permanent Development Goals (PDG’s) of the Bank;

• A twenty percent increase in the literacy rate amongst a Member Nations sensitive populations within a period of twenty years from the date of receiving Bank funds of any kind;
  
  
• A twenty percent increase in the construction of affordable, environmentally sustainable housing units specifically reserved for a Member Nation’s homeless and below poverty population within a period of twenty years from the date of receiving Bank funds of any kind;
  
  
• A twenty percent increase in the use of renewable and sustainable energies by a Member Nation within a period of twenty years from the date of receiving Bank funds of any kind;
  
  
• A twenty percent increase in the employment rate of a Member Nation’s sensitive populations within a period of twenty years from the date of receiving Bank funds of any kind.

Does this actually meet "significant" strength? It has an encouragement (and much of the stuff referred to is duplicating existing resolutions) and then the rest is about the committee. Where does it actually even refer to how the funds are applied for? Or what nations don't fit the list of twenty percent demands?

It mandates that any nation which takes funds from the Bank must meet the goals. Maybe enough...
About the "twenty percent increase" bit: There's also the question of whether that's 20% of the maximum possibility (as you were presuming) or just 20% of those nation's current rates.

[Araraukar]

It mandates that any nation which takes funds from the Bank must meet the goals.

OOC: No, it mandates "nations who benefit from the Bank’s services". It doesn't say the nations get the funds. Or even take funds. Or apply for funds. Or anything. It more looks like the bank is the one doing things in member nations. Not the nations themselves.

About the "twenty percent increase" bit: There's also the question of whether that's 20% of the maximum possibility (as you were presuming) or just 20% of those nation's current rates.

If the latter, what's 20% out of zero, for the nations most in need for such help?