Urges and authorises all WA member nations to do as much as they reasonably can to suppress international piracy within any areas (such as ‘international waters’) that are not under any nation’s effective control, and its bases wherever those are;
The other main thing is GA 2's provision:
the WA will not engage in ... ratifying ... or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner.
Bears, others, and I discussed in these posts (correct me if I'm mischaracterising positions, I'm converting them to succinct tags):
viewtopic.php?p=38980441#p38980441 (IA. authorisation in int'l waters ratifies police action)
viewtopic.php?p=38980783#p38980783 (Bears. Fris said it was legal)
viewtopic.php?p=38981373#p38981373 (Wayne. Agree with IA)
viewtopic.php?p=38981476#p38981476 (IA. Text reflects actual intent, not gloss by author)
viewtopic.php?p=38982309#p38982309 (Bears. Action was only against non-state actors)
viewtopic.php?p=38983003#p38983003 (IA. Police action is usually against non-state actors; only sov cits disagree)
viewtopic.php?p=38983027#p38983027 (Sep. WA is encouraging; GA 2 "police action" really means use of armed force, enforcement might not mean that)
viewtopic.php?p=38983096#p38983096 (IA. It both encourages and authorises)
viewtopic.php?p=38983190#p38983190 (Bears. "Authorises" means "permits"; perhaps GA 2 refers to specific authorisation rather than general)
A few responses to the tags on police action on non-state actors, police action as armed force, and GA 2 being specific or general.
The way I view "police action" in GA 2 is in terms of the WA police: it includes things such as setting up a police force. This isn't clearly established. Resolution 393 [2017] GAS 2 deals only with peacekeeping and neutrality and doesn't touch on police except in mentioning that calling police to join would violate the GA 2's non-participation requirement. Regardless, as to piracy, if the WA is urging and permitting member nations to apprehend pirates, this requires armed force. Pirates are only credible threats to their prey with a showing of armed force. Apprehending them, especially if they would be subjected to severe punishments, would almost certainly require the use of armed force, creating an armed conflict.
The idea that GA 2 applies only to state conflicts is incompatible both with the wording "police action" and with the neutrality clause ("the World Assembly as a body maintains neutrality in matters of civil and international strife") which should be read harmoniously. Police routinely take action against non-state actors. Every person arrested in the aftermath of the 6 January attack on the US Capitol were non-state actors, regardless of laughable claims to the contrary. Moreover, nations generally recognise only one entity during civil wars. The cold civil war between China and the mainland communist rebels is an example of this one-entity principle. While the Korean War was hot and for some time after the partition of Germany, similar one-side-only recognition was practised.
The applicable definition of ratification is one related to authorisation:
ratification n. Confirmation of an act. If, for example, X contracts with Y as agent for Z, but has in fact no authority to do so, Z may nevertheless adopt the contract by subsequent ratification. An unenforceable contract made with a minor can become enforceable if the minor ratifies the contract when he comes of age. "ratification", Oxford Dictionary of Law (6th edn, OUP 2006).
There are other definitions in the dictionary, related to approval of a treaty in international law and sanctioning of irregular activities in company law. Both are not relevant here. Authorising or permitting the extraterritorial application of WA law in international waters would be confirmation of such action and, therefore, ratification. Ratification of such police action violates GA 2. (On a total Roman history note, this usage also is common in reference to Pompey's settlement of the east or Caesar's conquests in Gaul. Those actions became political issues in whether the senate would ratify those actions ex post.)
As to the last point, that GA 2 applies only to specific conflicts, this is an interesting argument in the GA's roleplay. But OOC, it would reduce GA 2 to blocking no WA army or police force, which is what has been held by previous precedent. The GA doesn't handle any specific roleplay. It doesn't say "In the war between Vrama and the int'l coalition, the int'l coalition wins". That would be forced roleplay and possibly metagaming. Such an interpretation would be a large departure from existing practices.
_approaches_a_suspected_p.jpg){kind=link}