Attalahonia wrote:I would just like to point out that the Concientious Objector Act should never have even been brought to vote.Rights and Duties of WA States wrote:Section 1, Article 1 § Every WA Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.
Section 2, Article 4 § Every WA Member State has the right of individual or collective self-defense against armed attack.
Section 3, Article 10 § Whilst WA Member States may engage in wars, the World Assembly as a body maintains neutrality in matters of civil and international strife. As such, the WA will not engage in commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner.
The Concientious Objector Act broke 1,1, in that in took the legal power to maintain a proper military from its member states. It broke 2,4, in that it prohibits a proper method to maintain a force for self-defense, by allowing anybody, under any circumstance, to refuse military service. It broke 3,10, in that military recruitment is a military activity, so that the passing of this resolution is the organising of a military activity.
Wrong, take a look at Article 2 of Rights and Duties.
Rights and Duties of WA States wrote:Article 2 § Every WA Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.
The bolded section means that the WA can pass whatever resolution they want without contradicting Rights and Duties.
As for your claims about contradicting Article 10, that has nothing to do with national militaries, that's basically the "No WA Army" rule in resolution form.
Bob Flibble
WA Representative