[Legality Challenge] - Safety And Security Of WA Personnel

[Simone Republic]

Post: https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1711005721

Forum: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=547662

Argument 1: The entire resolution is committee only. Only clause 7a, "WA member states are required to respect the authority of the OSS over security services at WA facilities" requests having (I guess) a positive attitude towards staff, which does not create a "measurable burden" under the committee rule. Asking the staff to say "please", "thank you" and (certain words I omitted) to gnomes do not count and is merely paperwork.

Argument 2: the GA canon issues raised previously regarding "staff" as it applies to clause 2 of this proposal. As D&B puts it: "Is an employee of a committee or an organization or body created by a committee 'staffing' the committee within the meaning of that term in the ruleset?"
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=547691

Argument 3: duplication with GA8 operative clause 3 - "furnishing the necessary security to protect the headquarters complex and all who use it" is the responsibility of OBM, and this is countermanding at least as far as the WAHQ is concerned.

[Bisofeyr]

One reasonable definition of "respect" is (as listed by Google) "agree to recognize and abide by (a legal requirement)". If we are to suppose the use of this definition, the clause reads as:

WA member states shall recognize and abide by the authority of the OSS over security services at WA facilities.

Unsure if this quite hoists the clause beyond the threshold of "more strenuous than simply filing paperwork" laid out by the committee rule, but it certainly is more strenuous than the interpretation raised by the OP. Reading the text of what the OSS would be able to do, it seems to me that abiding the entity's authority seems to be limited to the extent of following procedures for entry and exit of the WA, which to me would indicate a requirement on the order of magnitude of filing paperwork, but perhaps slightly greater. That's my two cents, take it as you will.

[The Ice States]

I had marked it legal before as I wasn't convinced by the Operative Clause argument as raised on Discord; Committees does have a stronger argument but on first glance the above post makes a strong argument. Complying with OSS requirements indeed seems enough to not be illegal. Does the challenger have a counterargument?

[Wallenburg]

I don't see what requirements beyond matters of paperwork the challenged proposal imposes. Member states already recognize WA committees' authority, that's part of being a member state. The challenged proposals seems to attempt to invent a requirement knowing that it isn't actually imposing anything that didn't already exist.

[The Overmind]

I don't see what requirements beyond matters of paperwork the challenged proposal imposes. Member states already recognize WA committees' authority, that's part of being a member state. The challenged proposals seems to attempt to invent a requirement knowing that it isn't actually imposing anything that didn't already exist.

I'm inclined to agree. Though I don't think Simone Republic is correct in their reading of the proposal, as noted by Bisofeyr, I don't think it imposes anything new beyond the establishment of a committee. There is already an expectation of compliance with the World Assembly implicit in being a member nation as Wallenburg points out, and that includes its committees. One could also easily argue that even the enforcement of that compliance is already well-established with the existence of the Administrative Compliance Act and Compliance Commission. So I don't think that the operative clause in this proposal actually does anything that isn't already assumed by way of World Assembly membership, or, at the very least, through the aforementioned standing resolutions.

[Simone Republic]

I had marked it legal before as I wasn't convinced by the Operative Clause argument as raised on Discord; Committees does have a stronger argument but on first glance the above post makes a strong argument. Complying with OSS requirements indeed seems enough to not be illegal. Does the challenger have a counterargument?

At least it duplicates and amends GAR#8 operative clause 3, which assigns security of the WA Headquarters to the Office of Building Management, which incidentally is also not funded via the General Fund and is instead paid for with rent and shop income. So it breaches the duplication and amendment rules. "WA facilities" as defined in this proposal surely include WAHQ.

[Barfleur]

If nothing else, doesn't clause 7(c) implicitly confer upon local law enforcement the power to enforce international regulations? I am not sure if that amounts to an operative provision, but it strikes me as, strictly speaking, more than committee-only, in that it imposes powers and/or obligations outside the committee. Put simply, 7(b) provides for arrangements to be made for local law to apply over WA facilities located in member nations, while 7(c) allows for such laws to be enforced on WA grounds. That seems to pass muster for being more than only delegating powers and/or duties to a committee.

[The Ice States]

I had marked it legal before as I wasn't convinced by the Operative Clause argument as raised on Discord; Committees does have a stronger argument but on first glance the above post makes a strong argument. Complying with OSS requirements indeed seems enough to not be illegal. Does the challenger have a counterargument?

At least it duplicates and amends GAR#8 operative clause 3, which assigns security of the WA Headquarters to the Office of Building Management, which incidentally is also not funded via the General Fund and is instead paid for with rent and shop income. So it breaches the duplication and amendment rules. "WA facilities" as defined in this proposal surely include WAHQ.

Could you elaborate on how it amends GA #8? Partial duplication is not an Amendment; the standard for Duplication is that the resolution does essentially nothing novel, per (Imperium Anglorum, 2022).

[Imperium Anglorum]

This seems to be an obviously contradictory.

GA 8: "regular WA facilities shall not be subject to the jurisdiction of any nation"

Proposal: Where a facility under the WA’s jurisdiction is concerned, arrangements will be made with the host nation for the application of local law.

GA 8. viewtopic.php?p=320#p320.

I see that this point was brought up in part, though not connected to GA 8.

If nothing else, doesn't clause 7(c) implicitly confer upon local law enforcement the power to enforce international regulations? I am not sure if that amounts to an operative provision, but it strikes me as, strictly speaking, more than committee-only, in that it imposes powers and/or obligations outside the committee. Put simply, 7(b) provides for arrangements to be made for local law to apply over WA facilities located in member nations, while 7(c) allows for such laws to be enforced on WA grounds. That seems to pass muster for being more than only delegating powers and/or duties to a committee.

As to the duplication and committee actions I would reject them.

[The Ice States]

This seems to be an obviously contradictory.

GA 8: "regular WA facilities shall not be subject to the jurisdiction of any nation"

Proposal: Where a facility under the WA’s jurisdiction is concerned, arrangements will be made with the host nation for the application of local law.

GA 8. viewtopic.php?p=320#p320.

I see that this point was brought up in part, though not connected to GA 8.

Would the WA enforcing the laws of a member nation be that member nation asserting jurisdiction, or is it merely comity?

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

I agree with IA that I would dismiss the committee question and duplication is not the correct phrasing of any challenge as to the interaction of GA 8 and this proposal.

I would grant review of whether OSS and OMB's mandates are contradictory in regards to the WAHQ and also on the point raised by IA.

[The Overmind]

This seems to be an obviously contradictory.

GA 8: "regular WA facilities shall not be subject to the jurisdiction of any nation"

Proposal: Where a facility under the WA’s jurisdiction is concerned, arrangements will be made with the host nation for the application of local law.

GA 8. viewtopic.php?p=320#p320.

I see that this point was brought up in part, though not connected to GA 8.

Would the WA enforcing the laws of a member nation be that member nation asserting jurisdiction, or is it merely comity?

I think Imperium Anglorum is right. It seems the proposal extends the member nation's jurisdiction into the WA facility, rather than creating an arrangement for the sharing of security forces for the singular benefit of, or mutual benefit with, the World Assembly.

[Simone Republic]

This seems to be an obviously contradictory.

GA 8: "regular WA facilities shall not be subject to the jurisdiction of any nation"

Proposal: Where a facility under the WA’s jurisdiction is concerned, arrangements will be made with the host nation for the application of local law.

GA 8. viewtopic.php?p=320#p320.

I see that this point was brought up in part, though not connected to GA 8.

Would the WA enforcing the laws of a member nation be that member nation asserting jurisdiction, or is it merely comity?

I would assume that "local laws" do not exist (as I mentioned on Discord) because GA 8 "declares that the headquarters for the World Assembly shall be located on international neutral territory, and that regular WA facilities shall not be subject to the jurisdiction of any nation" - so at least in the case of WAHQ, there's no local laws for compliance for comity.

Also clause 2 of this resolution's validity depends on the ruling on this:
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=547691

This of course depends on the meaning of the word "staff".

[Simone Republic]

I would grant review of whether OSS and OMB's mandates are contradictory in regards to the WAHQ and also on the point raised by IA.

Also depending on the word "staff" regarding sub-clause 1(b) and clause (2) of this resolution, as you mentioned:

"Is an employee of a committee or an organization or body created by a committee 'staffing' the committee within the meaning of that term in the ruleset?"

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

GenSec has agreed to hear the challenge. We are considering the following questions:

1. Does the proposal violate the committee only rule?
2. Does clause 7B of the proposal contradict GA 8?
3. Does the OSS illegally duplicate the OMB?

Please be aware that we are not taking up the staffing clause issue in this challenge as it is being decided elsewhere. The challenger and author are encouraged to reconsider positions on this matter based upon the outcome of that challenge.

[Second Sovereignty]

To chime in perhaps unhelpfully, while 7.a is pretty clearly not sufficient to stave off a Committee-Only violation in my opinion, - it is not even so much as the burden of filing paperwork, indeed it requires Member-States to, actively, do nothing, - 7.b may very well clear the line. Requiring Member-States to interact with the Committee is enough to meet the bar, if it is reasonably burdensome, and, negotiating an arrangement with Member-States regarding jurisdiction is a good bit more than filing paperwork, even if it is a burden that is incurred perhaps only once. Whether 7.b is itself illegal on contradiction is, besides the point, here.

[Barfleur]

1. I do not consider the proposal to violate the committee-only rule, albeit by the narrowest of margins. Clauses 7(b) and 7(c), working together, serve to impose powers and obligations on member nations separate and distinct from merely defining the role of a committee. As such, this proposal, if passed, would compel member nations to do or not do specific acts, and thus the proposal exists beyond merely the committee.

2. Clause 7(b) plainly contradicts GA#8. I believe the terms "regular WA facilities" and "facilit[ies] under the WA's jurisdiction" refer to the exact same set, meaning that if the new proposal does something with that set that a prior resolution forbids, then there is a contradiction. Here, the prior resolution clearly places such facilities under the control of the WA alone, exclusive of the jurisdiction of individual nations. Clause 7(b) would allow for the laws of member nations and their political subdivisions to apply to such facilities, thus placing them, at least in part, under the jurisdiction of a nation.

3. I do not see a duplication issue, as the OMB is concerned with the physical sites of WA facilities, while the proposed OSS is concerned with the people who staff those facilities. Perhaps this is unnecessary, and the aims of the proposal could be furthered by adding more duties to the OMB rather than creating a new committee, but that strikes me as a matter of policy, not of the rules.

My conclusion: the proposal is legal on points 1 and 3, and is illegal on point 2.

[The Ice States]

I'm still not convinced that the law of a member nation being applied in the WAHQ is inherently that member nation having or asserting jurisdiction. The OSS still has jurisdiction, it is just enforcing the laws of a member nation. Is there a counterargument?

[Barfleur]

I'm still not convinced that the law of a member nation being applied in the WAHQ is inherently that member nation having or asserting jurisdiction. The OSS still has jurisdiction, it is just enforcing the laws of a member nation. Is there a counterargument?

How I see it: In this context, "jurisdiction" means applying or enforcing one's laws with respect to a specific place. Suppose the Democratic Republic of Azhukali has a law in force imposing criminal penalties for cannibalism (if you thought you could have a legality challenge without cannibalism discourse popping up...). A World Assembly regional outpost located in Azhukali is the site of a dinner party hosted by the Brasilistani mission, who serve an ornate feast with human fillet mignon as a centerpiece. Were Azhukalian law to apply to this WA facility, then all the attendees would be committing a crime under Azhukalian law. Azhukali would thus be exercising jurisdiction over a WA facility, in violation of GA#8.

[The Overmind]

I'm still not convinced that the law of a member nation being applied in the WAHQ is inherently that member nation having or asserting jurisdiction. The OSS still has jurisdiction, it is just enforcing the laws of a member nation. Is there a counterargument?

How I see it: In this context, "jurisdiction" means applying or enforcing one's laws with respect to a specific place. Suppose the Democratic Republic of Azhukali has a law in force imposing criminal penalties for cannibalism (if you thought you could have a legality challenge without cannibalism discourse popping up...). A World Assembly regional outpost located in Azhukali is the site of a dinner party hosted by the Brasilistani mission, who serve an ornate feast with human fillet mignon as a centerpiece. Were Azhukalian law to apply to this WA facility, then all the attendees would be committing a crime under Azhukalian law. Azhukali would thus be exercising jurisdiction over a WA facility, in violation of GA#8.

I think The Ice States is arguing that the local law is being enforced in the WAHQ, but is not being enforced by the member nation itself in this instance.

I would argue that this is potentially the case from a plain reading of:

Where a facility under the WA’s jurisdiction is concerned, arrangements will be made with the host nation for the application of local law.

However, given that the proposal also includes the clause:

OSS Officers have the authority to detain any person in a WA facility should they commit an offence under local law and refer that individual to local law enforcement.

I am inclined to think that the member nation is both the source of the law, and has been extended the jurisdiction to prosecute it, in the WAHQ.

[The Ice States]

Snip

Fair point; I have marked the proposal illegal now, as with the rest of Gensec. For posterity, this is my rationale,

Contradiction; GA #8 prohibits WA property from being under member nation jurisdiction. Sections 3c and 7c implies that member nations are granted partial jurisdiction, as opposed to merely the OSS enforcing member nation law. See viewtopic.php?f=9&t=548288

[Barfleur]

I completely agree with The Ice States' decision and look forward to the released opinion. I just note that regardless of whether OSS is responsible for actually enforcing national law on WA grounds, the fact that those laws have any force at all on those grounds counts as "jurisdiction." Whether a violator is thrown against a squad car or a black helicopter is irrelevant at that point.

[Simone Republic]

I'm still not convinced that the law of a member nation being applied in the WAHQ is inherently that member nation having or asserting jurisdiction. The OSS still has jurisdiction, it is just enforcing the laws of a member nation. Is there a counterargument?

How I see it: In this context, "jurisdiction" means applying or enforcing one's laws with respect to a specific place. Suppose the Democratic Republic of Azhukali has a law in force imposing criminal penalties for cannibalism (if you thought you could have a legality challenge without cannibalism discourse popping up...). A World Assembly regional outpost located in Azhukali is the site of a dinner party hosted by the Brasilistani mission, who serve an ornate feast with human fillet mignon as a centerpiece. Were Azhukalian law to apply to this WA facility, then all the attendees would be committing a crime under Azhukalian law. Azhukali would thus be exercising jurisdiction over a WA facility, in violation of GA#8.

Both outposts and WAHQ as far as I am concerned. GA#691's "ban" on "non-consensual" cannibalism should not apply to WAHQ based on the fact that the ban applies to WA states, but not to territory under WA jurisdiction. The only resolution so far where it specifically applies to WAHQ is GA#702 where I specifically wrote in that the provision of infant feeding space also applies to WAHQ.

OSS Officers have the authority to detain any person in a WA facility should they commit an offence under local law and refer that individual to local law enforcement.

I am inclined to think that the member nation is both the source of the law, and has been extended the jurisdiction to prosecute it, in the WAHQ.

I am inclined to believe that the enforcement of any local laws in the WAHQ would be absolutely illegal under GA8. Sovereignty and jurisdiction are distinct concepts but in the case of WAHQ, it is clear that sovereignty of wherever WAHQ is has been ceded to the WA in return for fair compensation.

[Imperium Anglorum]

In a place like the WAHQ I would imagine personal jurisdiction applies. The international mixed court returns... with all its complex glory.

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

*** Opinion of the Secretariat ***
Proposal: Safety and Security of WA Personnel
Date: 26 March 2024
Decision: Proposal is illegal, 5–0
Action: Contradiction (GA 8)

Desmosthenes and Burke delivered the opinion joined by Separatist Peoples, Imperium Anglorum, Kenmoria, and The Ice States:

[1] The instant challenge alleges that “Safety and Security of WA Personnel” is illegal due to violation of the committee-only rule and contradiction of GA 8, “World Assembly Headquarters.” We hold that the challenged proposal does not violate the committee-only rule, but that it does contradict GA 8, rendering the proposal illegal.

[2] The first action alleges a violation of the committee-only rule. In prior times we would have invoked the “strip-out” test as expounded upon in [2017] GAS 10, the only other time we have squarely addressed a committee-only violation. However, as noted in the opinion, there was a significant desire for reform of the committee-only rule, which has since occurred, leaving us with a matter of first impression.

[3] The committee rule currently states that “forming it [the committee] may not be the proposal’s only action.” This standard is satisfied by “requiring member states to interact with the committee somehow is sufficient, provided the interaction creates a measurable burden.” A burden is measurable if it is “one more strenuous than simply filing paperwork.”

[4] Section 3c of the challenged resolution calls upon the WA Office for Security and Safety (OSS) to detain violators of local law and to refer them to local law enforcement. Similarly, 7(c) empowers OSS to invite law enforcement to enter WA facilities to apprehend violators of local laws. Apprehending or taking custody of a miscreant is plainly more burdensome than mere paperwork and meets this test.

[5] Two issues have been put forward in relation to GA 8. The first is that GA 8 charges the Office of Building Management with providing security to the WAHQ, which is contradicted by the OSS being given powers to secure and police all WA facilities. The second theory alleges a violation of the jurisdiction clause of GA 8, which states “regular WA facilities shall not be subject to the jurisdiction of any nation”. For the reasons stated below, we reject the first but accept the second.

[6] For the first issue, World Assembly Finance Act (2013) 1 IAM 22 is persuasive. There, moderation faced a similar fact pattern of concurrent duties and ruled that the existence of the WA General Fund did not render it the only legal way to fund the WA. We see no reason not to invoke the same standard here. That the OBM is charged with providing building security for WAHQ does not mean it is the only way security can be provided. It is not a contradiction for committees to exercise the same powers or fulfil the same duties concurrently.

[7] The second contradiction hinges on the jurisdictional clause of GA 8 above. To contradict GA 8 the challenged proposal must extend the jurisdiction of a WA state to a WA facility. Section 7(b) of the challenged proposal calls upon the OSS to make arrangements with the host nation to apply local law. By itself, this clause might be able to pass, but it must also be taken in conjunction with Sections 3(c) and 7(c) discussed above. The cumulative effect of these provisions together is to establish a regime where local law applies and local authorities either take custody of violators from OSS or are invited onto WA territory to do so themselves, with the obvious, albeit implicit, intent that the host nation’s legal system take it from there. Arresting and prosecuting violators of law is a textbook exercise of jurisdiction over a person, and therefore as a whole constitutes a contradiction of GA 8.

[8] While we find no contradiction from two committees exercising concurrent powers and no committee-only violation from the arrangements the WA must make with host nations, those arrangements – even over separate sections – cumulatively constitute a contradiction of GA 8’s jurisdiction clause. The challenged proposal is illegal.

2024gas4