[Last Call] Rights and Duties of World Assembly Delegates

[Comfed]

Security Council Resolution

Rights and Duties of World Assembly Delegates

A resolution to express a position on international affairs and obligations.

Proposed by Comfed

The World Assembly Security Council;

Noting that World Assembly Delegates (henceforth referred to as "Delegates") often play a leading role in their regions;

Acknowledging that in some regions, the Delegate is the ultimate authority of the region, whereas in others the Delegate may have little authority beyond representing their region in the World Assembly;

Declaring that Delegates ought to be forces for good in their regions;

Hereby enacts the following as the official opinion of the Security Council:

1. World Assembly member-states may choose the Delegate of their region as they see fit, but the Security Council is under no obligation to recognise the legitimacy of Delegates who violate their region’s laws and customs;
2. If the region has an executive Founder, the Founder may choose the powers of the World Assembly Delegate;
   
   1. Upon founding a region, founders are encouraged to initially remove their executive powers to keep the region safe from attacks, and are suggested to ensure that the Delegate is a trusted figure with a secure endorsement base before granting them the executive power again;
   2. Founders are encouraged to instead grant the legitimate Delegate a Regional Officer position which reflects the appropriate nature of the powers of that region’s Delegate until such time that it is safe and appropriate to grant the Delegate executive powers;
3. World Assembly Delegates are permitted to exercise their World Assembly vote as they see fit, but are encouraged to do so in a way that represents the will of the region's residents;
4. Delegates are urged to accept and read campaigns for World Assembly proposals, and actively approve proposals as they see fit;
5. Delegates are encouraged to exchange endorsements to increase their influence and endorsement count;
6. If, in accordance with their region's laws and customs or the wishes of the incumbent Delegate, a transition to a new Delegate is required, Delegates are urged to take measures to ensure that the transition is as expedient and uncomplicated as possible;
7. In founderless regions, Delegates are ultimately responsible for the security of their region. They are encouraged to undertake whatever measures are needed to secure the region against threats;
8. Delegates are urged to respect their region, its residents, and its laws and customs. Delegates are also urged not to use their powers in ways not permitted by a region's laws or customs;

[Comfed]

Reserved.

[Greater Cesnica]

Oooh. I quite like that this draft emphasizes that Delegates should respect the wishes and will of their residents. Tentative support pending legality challenge.

[Jedinsto]

Support in principle.

[Sedgistan]

Tentative support pending legality challenge.

I'm not seeing any legality issues as currently drafted. It's the type of thing I'd expected to see within Declarations.

[Wallenburg]

I mean, it's a neat little tutorial for how regions work on the most basic level. If you want to make something worth passing, however, you could take a stand one way or another on some matter of regional control.

[Greater Cesnica]

Tentative support pending legality challenge.

I'm not seeing any legality issues as currently drafted. It's the type of thing I'd expected to see within Declarations.

Alright, sounds good.

[Lenlyvit]

I like this idea Comfed, well thought out. Imho, this should probably be the first passed Declaration, but others will probably try to beat you to it.

[Daarwyrth]

I'd love to see this being passed as the first - or one of the first - Declarations for this category, as I believe it would be very fitting. As it stands, I think it is well written!

[Comfed]

Thanks for the support and feedback everyone!

I mean, it's a neat little tutorial for how regions work on the most basic level. If you want to make something worth passing, however, you could take a stand one way or another on some matter of regional control.

That sounds like a good idea, maybe something along the lines of “new founders should make the delegate non-executive”.

[Daarwyrth]

That sounds like a good idea, maybe something along the lines of “new founders should make the delegate non-executive”.

Oh, perhaps a line such as "new founders should make the delegate non-executive, unless there are compelling reasons to do so" could be added?

[Comfed]

That sounds like a good idea, maybe something along the lines of “new founders should make the delegate non-executive”.

Oh, perhaps a line such as "new founders should make the delegate non-executive, unless there are compelling reasons to do so" could be added?

I added subclauses 2a and 2b to reflect this

[Nova Vandalia]

I think is another great attempt at the new category. I do have one question and it may initially seem dumb (honestly initially seeming dumb is on brand for me anyways XD) and it is...

What does this

"World Assembly member-states may choose the Delegate of their region as they see fit;"

mean?

Because to me it's a bit wibblywobbly loosey goosey in meaning. Like I could see folx saying what about WAD coups, since WA member states do technically choose a Delegacy.What about endo-caps in regions, are those going to be considered an infringement on the right of WA nations to fully express who they want to be Delegate? What about regions with established election cycles opened to non WA members for Delegacy, should regions neglect non WA member votes? (I want to say I fully understand that of course not none of those are in the spirit of this declaration and ask these as a devils advocate kind of stance)

So I think that this statement needs just a little more definition and clarification and specificity, given the numerous ways WAD's are chosen and elected under governmental systems in NS from region to region. I know you talk about regional law latter on but I think there is an argument to be made of if one take priority over the other and which one that is. I understand if folx disagree with me asking for more definition on clause 1 as well and I think saying Declarations actually don't do much other than express opinion, so it's not needed is a super valid answer too, I mean this category is new for us all. Other wise super well written, definitely going to be referenced in future Condemns and Liberation if it passes which will be cool.

[Comfed]

<snip>

That clause basically means that the Delegate is whoever has the most endorsements, but I see what you mean.

[Daarwyrth]

Oh, perhaps a line such as "new founders should make the delegate non-executive, unless there are compelling reasons to do so" could be added?

I added subclauses 2a and 2b to reflect this

Sounds good to me!

[Honeydewistania]

Acknowledging that in some regions, the Delegate is the ultimate authority of the region, whereas in others the Delegate may have no authority;

I'm probably being unnecessarily pedantic here, but to state that delegates have no authority is inaccurate. Delegates represent a region's official opinion on a World Assembly proposal through their collective votes, in addition to being the only nation in the regions that can approve proposals.

Clarifying that this resolution does not apply to Delegates of Warzone regions;

Why not? It's not like this resolution really "applies" to anyone anyway.

World Assembly member-states may choose the Delegate of their region as they see fit;

If the region has an executive Founder, the Founder may choose the powers of the World Assembly Delegate;

Neither of these are "rights" or "duties" of World Assembly delegates. It's just restating game mechanics.

Upon founding a brand new region, founders are urged to remove the all possible powers of the Delegate unless there is a compelling reason not to do so;

Founders are encouraged to instead grant the legitimate Delegate a Regional Officer position which reflects the appropriate nature of the powers of that region’s Delegate;

Again, not "rights" or "duties" of a delegate. You should choose a title that more accurately reflects the resolution.

[Meretica]

I have asked our Delegate to read and (hopefully) support this proposed SC legislation.

[Comfed]

Acknowledging that in some regions, the Delegate is the ultimate authority of the region, whereas in others the Delegate may have no authority;

I'm probably being unnecessarily pedantic here, but to state that delegates have no authority is inaccurate. Delegates represent a region's official opinion on a World Assembly proposal through their collective votes, in addition to being the only nation in the regions that can approve proposals.

Fixed.

Clarifying that this resolution does not apply to Delegates of Warzone regions;

Why not? It's not like this resolution really "applies" to anyone anyway.

The point of Warzone Delegates would go against the point of this resolution

World Assembly member-states may choose the Delegate of their region as they see fit;

If the region has an executive Founder, the Founder may choose the powers of the World Assembly Delegate;

Neither of these are "rights" or "duties" of World Assembly delegates. It's just restating game mechanics.

Upon founding a brand new region, founders are urged to remove the all possible powers of the Delegate unless there is a compelling reason not to do so;

Founders are encouraged to instead grant the legitimate Delegate a Regional Officer position which reflects the appropriate nature of the powers of that region’s Delegate;

Again, not "rights" or "duties" of a delegate. You should choose a title that more accurately reflects the resolution.

It is mostly rights and duties, but I can come up with a better title.

EDIT: and I have added this clause:

[*]Delegates are urged to accept and read campaigns for World Assembly proposals, and actively approve proposals as they see fit;

[Comfed]

Any more suggestions, feedback, etc?

[Meretica]

Given that I am now our delegate, this has my full support.

[Praeceps]

Clarifying that this resolution does not apply to Delegates of Warzone regions;

Why should it not?

World Assembly member-states may choose the Delegate of their region as they see fit;

While I recognize that this resolution only urges, I'm not a fan of this as it limits democracies which want to have non-WA members determine their Delegate or regions which may choose to have their Delegate be appointed by another elected official.

World Assembly Delegates shall be permitted to exercise their World Assembly vote as they see fit, but are encouraged to do so in a way that represents the will of the region's residents;

I disagree, a region may choose to have it that their vote is always reflected by the WA populace (determined by onsite voting, RMB voting, or off-site voting). I'm not sure why the more undemocratic option is being taken here.

Overall, I find this resolution rather uninspiring and lacking a need for it.

[Comfed]

Clarifying that this resolution does not apply to Delegates of Warzone regions;

Why should it not?

Because warzone delegates aren’t meant to be constructive - that’s not the point of warzones.

World Assembly member-states may choose the Delegate of their region as they see fit;

While I recognize that this resolution only urges, I'm not a fan of this as it limits democracies which want to have non-WA members determine their Delegate or regions which may choose to have their Delegate be appointed by another elected official.

There is a later line about delegates being urged to respect transitions as required by regional law.

World Assembly Delegates shall be permitted to exercise their World Assembly vote as they see fit, but are encouraged to do so in a way that represents the will of the region's residents;

I disagree, a region may choose to have it that their vote is always reflected by the WA populace (determined by onsite voting, RMB voting, or off-site voting). I'm not sure why the more undemocratic option is being taken here.

Again, delegates are later urged to respect the region’s laws and customs. And a delegate may see fit to vote democratically.

Overall, I find this resolution rather uninspiring and lacking a need for it.

Well, there isn’t really a need for any SC resolutions

[Praeceps]

Why should it not?

Because warzone delegates aren’t meant to be constructive - that’s not the point of warzones.

While I recognize that this resolution only urges, I'm not a fan of this as it limits democracies which want to have non-WA members determine their Delegate or regions which may choose to have their Delegate be appointed by another elected official.

There is a later line about delegates being urged to respect transitions as required by regional law.

I disagree, a region may choose to have it that their vote is always reflected by the WA populace (determined by onsite voting, RMB voting, or off-site voting). I'm not sure why the more undemocratic option is being taken here.

Again, delegates are later urged to respect the region’s laws and customs. And a delegate may see fit to vote democratically.

Overall, I find this resolution rather uninspiring and lacking a need for it.

Well, there isn’t really a need for any SC resolutions

Not going to bother going quote by quote since it's a pain to edit when quoting someone who is quoting you.

It was a rhetorical question—that rationale should be put in the draft.

The bit about transitions is irrelevant, the resolution communicates that there should be a narrow way in which Delegates are selected without considering the diverse regions in NS and how they may select their Delegate in different ways yet remain legitimate. The issue is that the resolution elevates certain government methods as being better than others

[Comfed]

Because warzone delegates aren’t meant to be constructive - that’s not the point of warzones.
There is a later line about delegates being urged to respect transitions as required by regional law.
Again, delegates are later urged to respect the region’s laws and customs. And a delegate may see fit to vote democratically.

Well, there isn’t really a need for any SC resolutions

Not going to bother going quote by quote since it's a pain to edit when quoting someone who is quoting you.

It was a rhetorical question—that rationale should be put in the draft.

The bit about transitions is irrelevant, the resolution communicates that there should be a narrow way in which Delegates are selected without considering the diverse regions in NS and how they may select their Delegate in different ways yet remain legitimate. The issue is that the resolution elevates certain government methods as being better than others

[Karteria]

I don't usually comment on WA proposals all too much but feel as though this is the one most relevant to me I've seen to date, so I guess I ought to.

In general, I support this proposal since it coincides with our the delegate practices in the New West Indies and promotes a good message for other delegates. However, I am a bit confused on why this shouldn't apply to Warzones. The main argument seems to be that the proposal inherently is inapplicable because Warzones are de jure supposed to be about vying for control "rather than [building] the region". However, I see two reasons why the res could still apply to them.

1. Once the delegate gets control, it seems like the proposal is still readily applicable. Warzone delegates should still act as regular delegates would: vote on resolutions according to the opinion of the regional populace, approve new resolutions, solicit endorsements, etc., all of which the resolution urges. The only mechanically inapplicable portion is the stuff about founders, but I imagine that could be severed for the purposes of Warzones. In essence, I assume the WA still wants Warzone delegates to participate in the WA like any other Delegate.

2. The current language of the clause and later justification in the thread seem to indicate that Warzone delegates are not meant to be constructive in their region, so the res doesn't apply. (1) makes this sort of irrelevant in my mind, but furthermore, I believe this line of thinking incorrectly assumes that because they are not "meant" to be constructive means they shouldn't be constructive. While vying for control might come first, there's no reason to believe Warzones won't care about voting in the WA or building up a stable government. At face value, Warzone Asia seems to be a good example, i.e., they have a long-time delegate and a roleplay.

If I'm completely off-base, feel free to correct me.