Maowi wrote:OOC: A little bit of feedback here but broadly in support.Morover wrote:The World Assembly,
Aware that the World Assembly may not affect non-member-states directly,
Concerned, however, at the possibility for nations to bypass international legislation through the use of vassals, protectorates, thralls, tributaries, or any other type of state at the mercy of a parent state,
Recognizing the possibility to resolve this issue,
Believing that no reasonable state should hold a subject state at any standard whichthey doit does not holdthemselvesitself (see 1.b. - I only spotted this afterwards),
And convinced that, despite the inability to directly affect non-member-states, the World Assembly may impose its will upon member-states, which, in turn, can affect non-member-states,
Hereby,
- Defines the following, for the purposes of this resolution:
- "Subject State" as any state which totally or partially lacks sovereignty, especially with regards to its military, economic, or political aspects
of the state, (unnecessary because you already have "its". Also I'd personally lose the capitalisation )- "Parent State" as any state which is a member of the World Assembly and has one or more subject states either totally or partially under
theirits control, (or alternatively change "its" in the clause above to "their" - this is just for consistency. I haven't combed through the rest of your writing in here for American/British English but as far as I know you're American (? correct me if I'm wrong) and in American English this would be "its" so I've gone with that throughout. Also add "and" to the end of this subclause.)- "Subsidiary" as any company or corporation which is run partly or entirely by the government of any member-state or subject state. (if you read the proposal as one long sentence, it doesn't make sense to have a full stop here. If you want to keep the feeling of having a longer pause, I'd replace that and all corresponding full stops with semicolons)
- Demands that all parent states hold all of their subject states to the same laws which fall under any area the member-mother-state has control over as the parent state, both national and international, (this is a personal request for clarification as much as it is a suggestion to change anything. I'm just confused by the phrasing here. Is "member-mother-state" the same as "parent state", and if not, should it be defined or clarified? What I think you might mean here could be phrased more clearly as "Demands that all parent states hold each of their subject states to the same laws as each other and their parent state, both national and international" - although I might be misinterpreting it)
- Notes that an exception may be made for national laws which are only directly relevant to the parent state (if you do make a change as tentatively suggested above you could change this to "parent or subject state") and can either cause harm or unintended consequences which the parent (likewise here) state is not also at risk of having,
- Clarifies that laws may be enacted in subject states which are not enacted in a parent state, given that said law is in no contradiction of World Assembly Law and will not cause undue harm to residents or visitors to the subject state.
- Requires all member-states to hold subsidiaries to all World Assembly Law,
- Clarifies that any subject state which is currently a member of the world assembly (capitalise), under the dominion of a non-member-state,
theyneed not appeal to their parent state to follow World Assembly Law,
- Notes, however, that if there are in
furtherthe future (?) subject states which are subject to the authority of the member-state, the member-state (for consistency) must apply all provisions supplied by this resolution unto the subject states. and (if you change the full stops to semicolons)- Asks that member-states, in a nonviolent manner, urge non-member-states, even if the non-member-states are not affected by this resolution, to follow World Assembly Law, either partially or fully.
OOC: Thanks for the feedback. I've implemented some of your changes and changed some other things to hopefully clarify the things you were confused about.
For clause 2, I'm trying to make it so that the parent states who only have control over political, militaristic, or economic factors of a subject state only have to hold the subject states to the laws regarding political, militaristic, or economic laws, respectively, of the parent state, while parent states who have total control over a subject state have to do so with all laws. I thought it came across fine, but it's obviously a bit convoluted. The member-mother-state was from when the definition for "parent state" was "member-mother-state," and I must have just missed that one to be changed. I changed the clause a little bit to hopefully better clarify the intention.
I've also made clause 4(a) into a new clause 5, in order to better serve the purpose 4(a) had.
Let me know if the changes help it at all.