World Assembly Law Review

[World Assembly Law Review]

The World Assembly Law Review is a periodical in which authors from the World Assembly are invited to share their views on the future of the World Assembly, interpretation and application of currently existing laws, and other topics of relevance to international law. We wish to be an effective research tool for proposal authors, a depository of knowledge and interpretations of legislation, and a force to help build a more constructive discourse for WA legislation.

| Articles | Submissions | Editors |

The Law Review's mission is to help analyse the actions of World Assembly and to disseminate that analysis broadly. This may be in the writing of analysis essays, thoughts, or simply recapping matters discussed elsewhere for a local audience. In the spirit of cooperation, the Review encourages authors to discuss their issues through response articles and not snarky comments following each article.

As to the question of why this is desirable in the first place. Why have editors and a system? It is a question of pre-commitment. Asking around for editors takes time and effort. Having editors volunteer themselves assists in getting them when needed. It too is important to have editors: ideas in the mind are regularly clearer than those on the page. And it too is important not only to have a place to write, but also a place where it can be seen. Blogs pass unread and undiscovered. Centralisation here solves a severe search problem that makes it difficult to find, read, or collate any thoughtful analysis on the GA.

We invite all those interested in the World Assembly to read, comment, and write.

[World Assembly Law Review]

[YEAR] WA L Rev NUM

[2015]

1. Meta: The Role of the World Assembly
2. Gameplay: How Should World Assembly Decisions Affect Gameplay?
3. Interpretation: Much Ado About Money — the WA General Fund
4. Interpretation: Response to Much Ado About Money — the WA General Fund
5. Interpretation: A Comment on 'Response to Much Ado About Money — the WA General Fund'
6. Meta: Member Participation and the Concept of an Elite

[2020]

1. Interpretation: Problems with micro-finance
2. Rules: Interpreting committee provisions

Added placeholder. Changed placeholder to actual text. Added article placeholder. Created masthead. Changed masthead image. Changed masthead to white-green. Changed edits font size. Corrected spacing error. Changed masthead image again. Divided into years.

[World Assembly Law Review]

The World Assembly Law Review is envisioned as an edited publication. We would like to foster a more academic and analytical environment inside the Review's walls instead of an argumentative and debating one, which is the primary reason for it being edited. For those who wish to respond to an argument made in the Review, we encourage you to submit an article to do so.

Articles in the Review should be focused on the World Assembly and its affairs, not on regional politics or role-plays. The Review does not deal with current events in-game. We will not publish any article on a resolution at vote until five days have elapsed from the end of its voting period. The Review is an out-of-character institution.

However, even while we want to be curated, we also do not want to restrict freedom of opinion, something extremely important to healthy debate. Thus, articles will be reviewed on a structural and grammatical level and not on a content level. We do not want, however, anything that breaks a sense of clean decorum or descends into personal attacks. In contrast also to past policy, anonymous submissions will not be accepted. Attribute your main nation – the in submissions.

It is difficult to edit texts or long documents easily on NationStates or via telegram. If you would like to submit an article, please submit it to the following email. Please do so in either a PDF, Word, ODF, Pages, or text document.

cyrilparsons.london@gmail.com

You may also want to post on the #academic-senate channel in the WA Discord for comment. Please do not send telegrams to the root nation, the telegram inbox here is checked very infrequently. Submissions might also disappear due to the telegram cut-off.

Speaking for myself (IA), I don't care what citation format or assorted formatting you use. I have my own (relatively strong) preferences on citation, which are heavily influenced by Bluebook and OSCOLA and existing resources. Eg https://bit.ly/gensec-catalogue. If you don't have any strong preferences, I'll probably put it into LaTeX unless it is meant for bbCode posting. I would encourage you to specify your aesthetic preferences vis-à-vis your submission if you really care.

Edited for change of header. Changed header again. Edits for clarity, anonymous submissions, World Assembly focus, and current events. Clarified issues regarding submission and roleplay status. Changed policy to reflect issues about anonymous posting. Added disclaimer on acceptable forms of English. Changed edits font size. Changed masthead image again. Changed policies on OOC, decorum, anonymous posting, and submission format.

[World Assembly Law Review]

RESERVED

[World Assembly Law Review]

RESERVED

[World Assembly Law Review]

The Role of the World Assembly

Cyril Parsons, Delegate for Europe and Permanent Representative for Imperium Anglorum
30 September 2015

Foreword

I joined the World Assembly two years ago, during a time when not all things were entirely determined. Then, I feel there had been some marginal existence of the group which we now call International Federalists. Today, we live at a time where National Sovereignty has become the dominant ideology of the World Assembly. It is so, and from that standpoint, that I argue.

My delegation, acting in concert with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in my home nation, has acted at many times to restrain the power of the World Assembly. We have at times opposed and supported legislation which would expand the purview of the World Assembly on certain matters. The internal undertaking and theoretical framework for these positions is not yet entirely solidified. We hope that this would, in the end, explain at least one of the views on our World Assembly.

The Role of the World Assembly

The World Assembly descends from the United Nations, an organisation which acts with deference to nations for implementing any kind of policy. Our Assembly still holds those roots, as the WA Compliance Commission states that 'laws have been enacted' to bring a nation into compliance. This means that implementation of laws is part of the rights of nations.

National sovereignty concerns itself with the eternal struggle between supranational bodies and the contexts of the many nations, as the laws we make may not always be the correct context for others. Yet, there are accepted levels of behaviour which society cannot endow with approval. Things like genocide are generally accepted as untenable. From there arises the question: what are the things for which legislation should be passed?

This Delegation would like to propose a theoretical framework for analysing what legislation should be passed. It falls into two categories, (1) wrongs and (2) welfare. In the first, the World Assembly addresses the wrongs of societies. However, since there are many cultures and contexts, such address must be for issues which can be agreed with near universality. Hence, these rights fall into two sub-categories: active harms and equal protection.

The distinction between the two is that the former is facilitative and the latter permissive, as both are subjective opinions on justice. Active harms are issues which are in practice, active bad on society. These are issues like the lack of education or access to courts. On the other hand, the permissive nature of rights is a different matter, as one cannot compel someone to speak by ensuring free speech. Both are important, as they correct wrongs which exist in the world.

The other section, that of welfare, is one where elements of the world can best be addressed as a whole. This delegation believes that speaks about social goods — areas where coordinated world action is more efficient and effective than singular national action, that is, situations where collective action is the only means where the societal welfare can be meaningfully increased.

Controlling the World Assembly

Controlling the Assembly is also important, as powers need to be distributed in a manner reflective of the context and situations of the states. Thus, we need a framework in which the World Assembly would operate. Essentially, this is the crux of the argument between National Sovereignty and International Federalism. One states the former is more important and vice versa.

Our analytical framework establishes that control of the Assembly exists in two parts: the self-imposed bounds of the World Assembly and the political nature of the Assembly. These serve as the checks and balances which govern the operation of World government.

The first element is effectively a form of constitutionalism. The framework in which the World Assembly operates is clearly constituted — with resolutions that are fundamentally popular and issues which are held as a priority by large portions of member nations. The most potent example is that of the Nuclear Arms Possession Act, whose edicts are one of the few which has so well stood the test of time. This organises World Assembly's legislative functions by blocking off areas which the public has agreed are not to be legislated upon.

Since these are all built upon resolutions which can be repealed, the check on the wilful changing of the constitution comes in a more political nature. Popular action and concerted efforts will never cease to be foundational to the Assembly by making resolutions pass or fail. Thus, mass movements have a strong role to play controlling policy.

Conclusion

The current role of the World Assembly is one lying between the two opposed weights of passing and not passing. Over time, we have built for ourselves a framework to restrict legislation and in doing so, establish the role of the Assembly. We have presented a framework in which to analyse this role: one alternating between (1) the reasons for legislation in wrongs and welfare and (2) the checks and balances of power in politics and constitutionalism.

We have established that this role can change, as wrongs are intrinsically normative, welfare is reflective of changing situations on the ground, politics is a function of popular values, and constitutionalism is nothing more than a strongly held belief codified into law. As of yet, we are unsure of how that role will change in the future, but we are sure of this: many will be part of that change should it happen and a great many of those will leave their own legacies on this World Assembly.

When the more depressing members of the World Assembly complain about élites, it is beyond cynical. To suppress the élan of your belief will not change anything for the better. Yet, the Assembly is no unchanging institution. It is living, awoken to life every morning by those who walk into its halls. Every person has the opportunity to change our world. Only extreme reactionaries would tell others to avoid doing so.

Edited for length. Corrected spacing error. Corrected some typographic errors. Corrected another typographical error. Corrected the introduction of a typographical error in the last correction. Corrected the omission of these summaries. Corrected other formatting issue. Added region and nation tags.

[The Dead Parrot]

Forward

Foreword. Every editor knows that one.

So, IC, OOC, or a combination of the two?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Forward

Foreword. Every editor knows that one.

So, IC, OOC, or a combination of the two?

Fuc*king autocorrect. Well, it would be a combination of the two. Ambiguous, as stated in the Submissions page.

[Araraukar]

So, IC, OOC, or a combination of the two?

Funking autocorrect. Well, it would be a combination of the two. Ambiguous, as stated in the Submissions page.

OOC: Combination may get confusing very fast. An IC newspaper (or whatever you want to call it) on GA has been tried several times, some of them persisted for a while, most died fast, since usually other people don't have time/want to do extra work for someone else's IC fun.

Also, forbidding snarky comments? But that's half the fun around here!

Additionally, proposals should be debated on proposal threads, and OOC discussions arguments all out flame wars about who said what and who's paranoid and whatnot, shouldn't be encouraged in any form, especially not by promising anonymity (since it'll then be you that the mods will come after).

[World Assembly Law Review]

Funking autocorrect. Well, it would be a combination of the two. Ambiguous, as stated in the Submissions page.

OOC: Combination may get confusing very fast. An IC newspaper (or whatever you want to call it) on GA has been tried several times, some of them persisted for a while, most died fast, since usually other people don't have time/want to do extra work for someone else's IC fun.

Well, it doesn't matter, since its purposefully ambiguous.

Also, forbidding snarky comments? But that's half the fun around here!

Who says I'm forbidding snark? Snark is half the fun around here! I just feel that it just shouldn't be snark for its own sake with no payoff.

[New Zepuha]

This is quite the idea. I'd like to see more things like this on NS, pseudo-academic institutions devoted to the analysis of whatever the hell it is we do around here.

[Wrapper]

Foreword. Every editor knows that one.

So, IC, OOC, or a combination of the two?

Funking autocorrect.

Foreward

Ummm... Foreword. As in, the words that come before the main text.

[World Assembly Law Review]

Funking autocorrect.

Foreward

Ummm... Foreword. As in, the words that come before the main text.

Thank you.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Funking autocorrect. Well, it would be a combination of the two. Ambiguous, as stated in the Submissions page.

OOC: Combination may get confusing very fast. An IC newspaper (or whatever you want to call it) on GA has been tried several times, some of them persisted for a while, most died fast...

Uhh, really? Do you have links to these past GA newspapers? Because I don't remember any of them.

[World Assembly Law Review]

How should World Assembly decisions affect gameplay?

Pelgaraus
1 October 2015

One of the main reasons for playing NationStates is its realism. Issues are a unique mechanic to NationStates, and it is fascinating to watch their effects on nations. While the World Assembly (WA) is a very enjoyable part of NationStates, there is next to no system which shows consequences after WA resolutions.

In role-play, the effects of WA resolutions are, of course, entirely dependent on its content. Yet, in game stats, these effects are dependent on the category and strength of the resolution. These stats undeniably exist, as the recent Minimum Standard of Living Act had adverse effects on economy scores worldwide. However, this normally invisible effect is not the same as the more direct connection from daily Issues. Notifications in National Happenings make visible the national consequences of Issues. Contrast this to, World Assembly Compliance Commission’s form telegram informing of a new resolution and new laws passed to bring nations into compliance.

This is the real issue here — law passed in the WA should have a more visible effect on nations in the same way Issues have those effects. WA resolutions are a big deal within the game. They're created by and voted on by the community and have worldwide effects. But they need to feel like they have a potentially significant impacts. At the moment their effects are invisible and oft-ignored. There are two clear ways of solving this visibility problem: impacting and long-term consequences.

Including a small report on the impact of a resolution in the Compliance Commission telegram is an easy way to increase visibility. This would be nothing more than a description of the stat effects of the resolution. No numerical data need be included, as it would but highlight the areas that a resolution has an impact on, such as economic freedoms or defence spending. It would not, however, be akin to the choices on an issue. For instance, while an issue might say something along the lines of ‘There'll be an increase on taxes, of course…', the WA report would be clearer, and say, ‘this resolution has raised your taxes’.

Extending the effects of legislation for a given amount of time based on its strength is another way of creating long-term consequences. For instance: if an environmental resolution is ‘Strong’, it would enforce a minimum amount of spending on the environment. It would then also limit national choices that reduce spending on the environment because the environmental resolution mandates otherwise. And because it, nations would have to wait some time before reducing any environmental spending.

These ideas are aimed at clarifying the effects of new resolutions and enforcing their consequences. In turn, this would increase interest in WA voting as the decisions would have long lasting effects on gameplay and clear consequences. This would encourage more campaigning and discussion over the impacts of World Assembly resolutions as well as increase activity in the World Assembly by drawing more nations into its halls.

Players would really have to take the World Assembly seriously and this would certainly highlight the maxim "WA decisions only affect you if you're in the WA". In the end, this expands upon an already complex game by introducing real consequences to World Assembly action and build a more active community.

Corrected formatting error in header. Corrected italicisation error in edits list.

[World Assembly Law Review]

Much Ado About Money — the WA General Fund

Cyril Parsons, Delegate for Europe and Permanent Representative for Imperium Anglorum
1 October 2015

Foreword

The funding of the World Assembly has always been a contentious issue. This was even so during the United Nations, where one of the first (and oldest extant Historical Resolution) resolutions simply stated 'The UN shall not be allowed to collect taxes directly from the citizens of any member state for any purpose'.

This January 2003 resolution is of but four to remain from the first twenty resolutions. The eventual solution in the late days of the UN was to replace the haphazard method of raising funds with a centralised system. However, since these attempts were widely held as contradictory to the UN Taxation Ban, all of them failed.

With the establishment of the WA, action was taken on this front. It culminated in the GA 17 "WA General Fund" (2008), citing need for 'a stable, reliable source of funding for the World Assembly and its operations', while attempting to avoid the same kind of 'coerced taxation scheme' that led to the massive failure of the directly taxing 'Ways and Means' proposal in the early days of the WA.

The WA General Fund

The resolution GA 17 "WA General Fund" (2008) is a pillar of the World Assembly. In fact, we would consider it an element of the world constitution, due to its influence and age. However, this is only convincing due to the oblique nature of the mandates in the General Fund.

Quite interestingly, if one were to replace the word 'donation' by 'tax', there would be practically no difference in operation (while also being much clearer) as the most important clause, GA 17 s 4, states that the World Assembly:

'Provides that national donations to the General Fund shall be assessed annually by the GAO, according to donors' national wealth and ability to give'.

Here, a lay reading is that GA 17's 'donations' will be assessed, i.e. evaluated or estimated. Yet, long-standing interpretation has held that General Fund is funded by mandatory contributions i.e. mandatory donations.

To examine this, we have to look at the meaning of the word assess. If we pull out our Oxford English Dictionary, we find that the word assess does have an auxiliary definition: to 'set the value of a tax, fine, etc., for (a person or property) at a specified level'. Due to that definition, the use of the word ‘assess’ to mean ‘tax’ is not an invalid interpretation.

What must be evaluated, therefore, is whether this interpretation is superior to other interpretations. From a legal perspective, normative analysis based on the World Assembly’s welfare is irrelevant. However, since a reliable record no longer exists to describe the original debate and intents on this topic, we must go solely on the context presented in prefatory and operative clauses.

The main argument against this interpretation is that 'donation' is used to describe all the contributions spoken of in the resolution. This is obvious. However, quite important is the definition of donation itself, which here must be established from context.

There is textual evidence in favour of this 'taxing assessment' in the context of the Resolution. Most important in establishing this context are the clauses which 'Recognising that donations given to the World Assembly by member nations are likely to originate from public funds' and 'according to donor's national wealth and ability to give'.

The first clause clearly implies that donations are likely to originate from public funds. This would only be so if those donations were compulsory, as otherwise, most contributions would likely come from private donors. The second clause also has this exact same connotation. Even assuming that these assessments were optional, the act of assessing for 'donor's national wealth and ability to give' would only make sense if these donations were compulsory. Hence, because the rest of GA 17 requires that the donations are mandatory, a mandatory requirement is the only way to adequately preserve logical construction.

Conclusion

This resolution is one of the more contentious in the World Assembly's history, primarily due this debate on whether donations made to the World Assembly are compulsory. Its relevance to finances makes this distinctly important.

The context-based definition of donation and assessment in the resolution’s clauses support a view that donations are compulsory. Because this is a valid interpretation of the word ‘assess’ and is also the only way to preserve logical construction of the resolution, this is also the best interpretation thereof. Thus, donations in the context of GA 17 are best thought of as compulsory.

Added region and nation tags. Added article title to the subject line of the post. Corrected some errors.

[Glen-Rhodes]

This is an interesting project. The first article makes one huge, and I would argue faulty, assumption that makes this project tilt towards NatSov by default. But maybe that'll change with more submissions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Separatist Peoples]

This is an interesting project. The first article makes one huge, and I would argue faulty, assumption that makes this project tilt towards NatSov by default. But maybe that'll change with more submissions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I read the intent as being more an opinion piece, so that's not set in stone as a universal principal.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

This is an interesting project. The first article makes one huge, and I would argue faulty, assumption that makes this project tilt towards NatSov by default. But maybe that'll change with more submissions.

I'm sure IA would welcome any articles you wished to submit.

EDIT: and no, I wouldn't agree that NatSov is the "dominant ideology" in the WA today either. The ideological bend of the WA changes very swiftly all the time; by next month IntFeds could be the "dominant ideology" again. Who knows?

[Imperium Anglorum]

This is an interesting project. The first article makes one huge, and I would argue faulty, assumption that makes this project tilt towards NatSov by default. But maybe that'll change with more submissions.

I read the intent as being more an opinion piece, so that's not set in stone as a universal principal.

Very true. The first one is nothing more than my personal opinion on what should and should not be passed. I've also got opinions on the analytical framework for resolutions, but that'll be for when I get more time to do so.

Addendum: It is very NatSov because that is where my own opinions on matters go. It is how I look at this the WA, and hence, guides my own opinions on resolutions.

I'm sure IA would welcome any articles you wished to submit.

In the hat of the Law Review, I am obligated to welcome all opinions and to help authors write clearly and effectively to that end. My opinions as Parsons are irrelevant as far as that Review goes.

EDIT: and no, I wouldn't agree that NatSov is the "dominant ideology" in the WA today either. The ideological bend of the WA changes very swiftly all the time; by next month IntFeds could be the "dominant ideology" again. Who knows?

Well, be sure to write an article on it!

[World Assembly Law Review]

Response to Much Ado About Money— The WA General Fund

Iraq Lobsters, a puppet of an unknown nation
3 October 2015

Editors Note: This is a response to the article, Much Ado About Money — The WA General Fund, published 1 October 2015. This article also uses our citation format for Resolutions based on the American Bluebook.

Foreword

Ambassador Parsons's analysis of GA 17 "WA General Fund" (2008), and its relevant interpretation, while well considered, is one that itself holds some significant reasoning flaws. Those flaws, while generally reasonable extrapolations from various interpretive considerations, nonetheless are actively detrimental to the state of legal interpretation within the General Assembly, and have far reaching consequences to that end.

Interpretation of the General Fund

The crux of Parsons’ interpretation relies on the wording of two specific clauses:

1. Declares that the World Assembly shall be funded by donations from member states; the WA will not levy taxes directly upon the citizens or residents of any nation;

2. Provides that national donations to the General Fund shall be assessed annually by the GAO, according to donors' national wealth and ability to give.

Parsons’ first point comments on the interpretation of the second clause, that the donations to the General Fund will be assessed by the General Accounting Office (GAO) annually, based on specific economic criteria.

This claim is made, specifically, to bring into question the specific term “assess” and its specific definition as it relates to the interpretation of this law. Pointed out are two possible definitions of “assess”, one of which is merely implied, yet referenced, and the other of which is recorded for the argument.

The primary definition of “assess” that Parsons rejects is, according to the same Oxford English Dictionary (OED):

Evaluate or estimate the nature, ability, or quality of

Applied to the law, this would be interpreted as ‘the GAO will evaluate the ability of nations to give their donation, estimate the future donations, and allocate that funding as needed’.

The second interpretation, which Parsons believes is the valid interpretation, is:

Set the value of a tax, fine, etc., for (a person or property) at a specified level

This is a more specific definition, as it turns what was previously a passive action into an active setting of value. The new interpretation would read that the GAO would annually set the value of the donation for every nation based on those listed economic criteria.

If one decides to utilise definitions that, in the face of ambiguity, are in the best interests of the World Assembly, than this is a valid interpretation of the word 'assess'.

However, in GA 17 s pref(a), a specific reference to the nature of these acquisitions is made.

Declares that the World Assembly shall be funded by donations from member states; the WA will not levy taxes directly upon the citizens or residents of any nation;

By the standard of the OED, a donation is:

Something that is given to a charity, especially a sum of money.

There are no alternative definitions within the OED for the term that are not variations on conjugations of the term “donate”. With Parsons’ interpretation, it is necessary that a donation is not, in reality, a donation, because to compel an entity to give something is antithetical to the very definition.

Conclusion

When interpreting legislation, and therefore establishing a standard of justice, the rules need to apply universally. To interpret two different clauses within the same law by arbitrarily different standards is not law, but sophistry. When interpreting legal writing, unless words have acquired a specific or particular meaning through definition, they are to be construed in accordance with their common usage, not merely by an auxiliary one when convenient.

GA 17, made no attempt to define either “donation” or “assess”, and, as such, it is only proper that they be defined by their common usage, not any technical or auxiliary definition that covers the gaps.

Applying our interpretation leads the letter of GA 17 to read very differently: A donation is a charitable gift that cannot be compelled without entirely changing the nature of the transaction and the task of the GAO to assess such contributions requires the Office to evaluate, estimate various donations, and their contributors, but not to set them at a particular rate.

Afterword

Opponents of this sort of view would, no doubt, have several objections, foremost of which would be the claim that, should this line of interpretation be accepted, it would make bankrupt the World Assembly and make useless GA 17. This is not acceptable, and should therefore necessitate their own interpretation.

To those, it should be pointed out that there is no such requirement or standard of World Assembly Resolutions or General Assembly code of conduct that a resolution must be effective. This resolution was passed, despite flaws in it’s wording that cause it to be less effective than it was intended. That those flaws have not been sufficient to repeal the resolution or alter the interpretations of those opponents is not the fault of interpretation, but the intractability of the flawed reasoning that has taken hold of the supporters of GA 17.

Further criticism of this approach might lead to claims that the World Assembly need not utilise the common interpretation of a word to the detriment of a law, when one can instead use an alternative definition to better effect. This belief, in the sole context of GA 17 is a viable option; it certainly has been the historically popular one. However, if one accepts that an alternative definition of “assess” is sufficient, one necessarily accepts that, as a result, one must completely redefine another word, “donation”, to fit this new paradigm, without any regard to how this redefines the term “donation”.

If the World Assembly were to accept this precedence for future law, it would necessarily follow that any word can be redefined to mean the opposite of the original definition. This would be in contempt of one of the most sacred mantras of the WA: 'the law does what the law says'. To adhere to this 'compulsory' interpretation of GA 17 is effectively to accept that the letter of the law is no longer relevant to interpretation.

Shortened citations. Modernised some citations.

[Bananaistan]

I had something I thought of submitting reading down through the thread until I came to the citation section. That's a big clunky piece of almost nonsense. What's wrong with just having GAR#17? It's also incorrect usage of the sectional symbol.

[World Assembly Law Review]

I had something I thought of submitting reading down through the thread until I came to the citation section. That's a big clunky piece of almost nonsense. What's wrong with just having GAR#17? It's also incorrect usage of the sectional symbol.

It's based off the Bluebook's citation style for Federal legislation. You have no need to learn it. I'll be implementing it for you.

If you want to submit something which uses GAR#17, that is entirely fine. Only mind that I'll change it to 1 W.A.R. § 17 (2008) before publishing (though shorten it in later uses).

[John Turner]

So this whole thing is to disprove that your so called "resolution" doesn't duplicate The General Fund? Seems like a lot of work just to be wrong in the end. Here's a newsflash for you, it duplicates the general fund. It doesn't matter how many opinion pieces you submit on various puppets, the situation is not going to change.

Perhaps if one were to drop the air of arrogance, one would see that one is not "always" right?

Food for though IA....

[Bananaistan]

I had something I thought of submitting reading down through the thread until I came to the citation section. That's a big clunky piece of almost nonsense. What's wrong with just having GAR#17? It's also incorrect usage of the sectional symbol.

It's based off the Bluebook's citation style for Federal legislation. You have no need to learn it. I'll be implementing it for you.

If you want to submit something which uses GAR#17, that is entirely fine. Only mind that I'll change it to 1 W.A.R. § 17 (2008) before publishing (though shorten it in later uses).

US centric nonsense again so. Anyway, immediately on your link I see that it mentions the sectional symbol as being used for sections. You are using it here completely stand alone international resolutions. They are not individual sections of a greater code.