[DRAFT #1] World Assembly Defence Office

[Tinhampton]

Character count: 1,023
Word count: 162

ICly by Susanna Bryant, fifth-in-line to the post of Delegate-Ambassador.

WA army ban. For WA police ban, click here.

World Assembly Defence Office
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Category: International Security

Strength: Mild

Proposed by: Tinhampton

---

Reaffirming that the World Assembly should be able to defend property under its full control, and

Believing that such defensive abilities should not be extended as to create a de-facto army under the WA's aegis...

The General Assembly enacts as follows.

1. For the purposes of this resolution:
   
   1. the "WA" means the World Assembly and its committees, and
   2. "WA property" means property owned, operated or organised by the WA.
2. The World Assembly Defence Office is established. Its remit is to protect WA property from destruction and purposeful malfunction, including armed attack, except as Article c(ii) provides.
3. Pursuant to Article b:
   
   1. under no circumstances may the WA establish its own military or fight in armed conflicts,
   2. member states must protect WA property sited within their territory, but may seek relevant assistance from other members in doing so, and
   3. members must not deliberately attack or organise attacks on WA property, nor condone the same.

[Tinhampton]

Old drafts.

[The Ice States]

Opposed on principle.

[Drusselshof]

Pursuant to Article b:
under no circumstances may the WA establish its own military or fight in armed conflicts,member states must protect WA property sited within their territory, but may seek relevant assistance from other members in doing so, andmembers must not deliberately attack or organise attacks on WA property, nor condone the same.

The creation of the Security Forces will protect the WA properties since WA is a International Organization with immunity

[Tinhampton]

Pursuant to Article b:
under no circumstances may the WA establish its own military or fight in armed conflicts,member states must protect WA property sited within their territory, but may seek relevant assistance from other members in doing so, andmembers must not deliberately attack or organise attacks on WA property, nor condone the same.

The creation of the Security Forces will protect the WA properties since WA is a International Organization with immunity

My proposal does not create "Security Forces." It creates a World Assembly Defence Office. The purpose of the WADO is also to "protect the WA properties," but not those on member state territory.

As per IA's extraterritorial metagaming test, I am satisfied that this proposal is not illegal for metagaming, because its effect on non-member states is exclusively through a WA institution, namely WADO.

[WayNeacTia]

Pursuant to Article b:
under no circumstances may the WA establish its own military or fight in armed conflicts,member states must protect WA property sited within their territory, but may seek relevant assistance from other members in doing so, andmembers must not deliberately attack or organise attacks on WA property, nor condone the same.

The creation of the Security Forces will protect the WA properties since WA is a International Organization with immunity

"Immunity" from what, exactly?

[Drusselshof]

The creation of the Security Forces will protect the WA properties since WA is a International Organization with immunity

"Immunity" from what, exactly?

Diplomatic immunity

[Republic of Mesque]

Yes. Put a halt to maniac WA supremacists, who think they can put their hands on nations’ internal affairs and military conflicts, pretending to have a moral high ground, or simply flying high in their power trips.
The mere fact that we have proposals for police or military for the World Assembly shows how far these biased nations would go to further their personal objectives, through the use of Praetorian guards - which seek to enforce their sick and deranged notion that an institution broken as this Assembly can ever have jurisdiction over such complicated matters.

[Tinhampton]

I think I'd better leave right nooooooooooooow
Yes, I will
I think I'd better leave right now
Before I fall any deeper
I think I'd better leave right now
I'm feeling weaker and weaker
I think I'd better leeeeeaaavvve riiiight nooooow

- Will Young, 2004

[HM Queen Elizabeth III]

What is the difference between the proposed WADO and a military, which this proposal seeks to ban? Additionally, why the aversion to a military division of the WA?

[Tinhampton]

What is the difference between the proposed WADO and a military, which this proposal seeks to ban?

There was concern that the late GA#2 forbade the WA from defending its own property. This resolution allows for WA defence of WA property, but only that located in non-member states and international territory - i.e. to the minimum extent necessary to ensure that the WA can protect itself while not overreaching in doing so. Member states have responsibility for protecting WA property on their own soil...

Additionally, why the aversion to a military division of the WA?

...and I don't see any other reason why the WA should get itself actively involved in armed conflicts either.

[HM Queen Elizabeth III]

Thanks for the response, Tinhampton! That all makes a lot of sense to me. I suppose my only thing is if it might be pertinent to add more about how the WADO is structured and how it relates to the leadership of the WA as a whole?

[Tinhampton]

Thanks for the response, Tinhampton! That all makes a lot of sense to me. I suppose my only thing is if it might be pertinent to add more about how the WADO is structured and how it relates to the leadership of the WA as a whole?

It is illegal to define any aspect of committee membership. I don't feel as though the WADO's remit needs to be defined any further than has already been done, unless I see a sufficiently convincing case otherwise.

[HM Queen Elizabeth III]

I see! Reading that same clause you have cited, it also mentions an interaction between the "committee" (being the WADO) and the member states. What is the interaction between the WADO and the member states that causes a "measurable burden"? It seems that the WADO and the member states are acting independently of each other. Unless "relevant assistance" in c(ii) includes requesting help from the WADO?

(Sorry for asking all of these questions, I am new to this facet of NationStates and I am just trying to learn.)

[The Orwell Society]

Opposed.

[Tinhampton]

I see! Reading that same clause you have cited, it also mentions an interaction between the "committee" (being the WADO) and the member states. What is the interaction between the WADO and the member states that causes a "measurable burden"? It seems that the WADO and the member states are acting independently of each other. Unless "relevant assistance" in c(ii) includes requesting help from the WADO?

(Sorry for asking all of these questions, I am new to this facet of NationStates and I am just trying to learn.)

The measurable-burden clause applies to the whole proposal; it does not need to be applied to each clause.

Article c(ii) is clearly a measurable burden: defending WA property is a burden further than just filing paperwork for obvious reasons. Also, the WADO is not a member of the World Assembly.

[HM Queen Elizabeth III]

I suppose the way I read the rules was that the measurable burden would be an interaction between the WADO and the member states. i.e. The WADO makes sure that the member states are in compliance, the WADO can provide assistance to member states at request, etc. But if that is a wrong interpretation, then that's my mistake.

[Tinhampton]

Measurable burdens are measurable from the member state's POV, not the committee's. Glad you asked, though.

[HM Queen Elizabeth III]

Thanks!! With my concerns out of the way, I am happy to support this Resolution.

[Tinhampton]

Could YOU be the next person to offer this proposal your backing?

[Juansonia]

"Opposed primarily on competitive grounds, with other secondary concerns." - Maria-Fernanda Novo, WA Ambassador for the Armed Republic of Juansonia

OOC: "Competitive grounds" means that I'm also drafting a proposal that's both a WA Army blocker and a WA security act. I think it's still on the first page.

[Tinhampton]

Bump, but I'm not in a super-big rush to submit anything so you can still leave comments!