International Conference on World Assembly Overreach

[Codd]

The Prime Minister takes his seat at the table and clears his throat. This conference is to discuss the World Assembly's continued growth of power over the authority of nations. Recently, more resolutions have been passed that continue to curb a nation's control over how it functions or what actions it may take in certain situations. I'm sure I'm not the only one that is concerned over the growing power of the World Assembly, and I seek to listen to what other like-minded leaders think of the situation.

[UniversalCommons]

The Prime Minister takes his seat at the table and clears his throat. This conference is to discuss the World Assembly's continued growth of power over the authority of nations. Recently, more resolutions have been passed that continue to curb a nation's control over how it functions or what actions it may take in certain situations. I'm sure I'm not the only one that is concerned over the growing power of the World Assembly, and I seek to listen to what other like-minded leaders think of the situation.

Senator Deek Cruonis, takes a hammer and starts banging on the pew in front of him, "The World Assembly must be stopped. This is crypto hegemonic domineering organization interferes in every nations sovereignty. They are secretly sending out black helicopters with mind control beams to control other nations and make them join this Machiavellian despicable organization. We demand sovereignty for all nations. " Deek Cruonis shatters an empty glass bottle on the floor. " We would see them shattered as they take away our freedoms and rights and no nation should join them. Stand for freedom. Stand against the World Assembly."

[East Gondwana]

"Some examples and more specific concerns would be appreciated. It's hard justify these concerns with such vague language."

[Kashida]

If I may introduce myself I am Varen Kershan head of the KOFA( Kashidan office of foreign affairs) my nation has never spoken in one of these discussions before, but this time I feel we must. The recent WA ban on conversion therapy is a gross overstepping of the WAs authority as the topic of LGBT matters is a deeply controversial topic across all nations and this WA legislation force hot hot button issue of trans rights to be solved not by the nation themselves but by the WA.Essentially we feel that in stead of regulating law between nations this violates that and force WA law in nations.

[New Excalibus]

"Ahem. I fully agree with this statement. The World Assembly should allow nations to, if they vote no, be able to not accept the law in their territory, as we do not like when we vote no, but the WA forces the law on us because more voted yes." -King Edward of Hemlock

[East Gondwana]

If I may introduce myself I am Varen Kershan head of the KOFA( Kashidan office of foreign affairs) my nation has never spoken in one of these discussions before, but this time I feel we must. The recent WA ban on conversion therapy is a gross overstepping of the WAs authority as the topic of LGBT matters is a deeply controversial topic across all nations and this WA legislation force hot hot button issue of trans rights to be solved not by the nation themselves but by the WA.Essentially we feel that in stead of regulating law between nations this violates that and force WA law in nations.

"The WA has always made a priority of legislating to protect human and sapient rights. This is no more of an overreach than the various economic regulations it has passed in the past, in fact as this is a matter of protecting fundamental human and sapient rights it is less of an overreach."

[East Gondwana]

"Ahem. I fully agree with this statement. The World Assembly should allow nations to, if they vote no, be able to not accept the law in their territory, as we do not like when we vote no, but the WA forces the law on us because more voted yes." -King Edward of Hemlock

"The GA is a (albeit flawed) democracy of nations. It would be rendered pointless if complying with its legislation was voluntary. All member nations have the right to leave or submit repeals proposals at any time, and all nations are aware of their obligations and responsibilities as members prior to joining."

[UniversalCommons]

Citizen Senator Deek Cruonis, "The example is their mere existence, they are vampires against the people, green and healthy on the outside and full of the peoples blood on the inside." He takes a small watermelon and smashes it, then holds a piece of the watermelon in the air. "The World Assembly has blood on its hands. They control others and destroy sovereignty. We are not a member of the World Assembly and ask others to free themselves from international bondage. Free. Live Free! Stand against the World Assembly. You as a nation should march on the assembly building to remind them of your rights. Why right now, our citizens are preparing to protest against this hegemonic bondsmaking controlling organization. Stand up, freedom is calling."

[Bruke]

Benyam Mekonen, Member of Parliament for a district in Central Province, rises to speak.

"There are several problems with the World Assembly, but one problem is the formation of large voting blocs of nations -the WALL would be a prominent example of this- which have enormous influence over whether or not a proposal is approved at vote. Many have said that there is no clear proof that these blocs have real influence in legislative matters, but I would argue that it is what we are not seeing that speaks volumes. Who knows how many good proposals have never seen the light of day because of them, or have been altered to fit their globalist, elitist agenda?"

"Another major problem is the consistent support for degeneracy: the recent Ban on Conversion Therapy is only the latest example of a long line of attacks on the laws of nature and nature's God. How dare the World Assembly continue to attack the beliefs of millions, no, billions, of God-fearing, upstanding people, in Bruke and around the world! We shall suffer under the tyranny of the cesspools of the world no longer!"


OOC: This is not the official opinion of the Brukean government, or the Parliament, merely the opinion of one politician and his party, the National Party.

[Bruke]

If I may introduce myself I am Varen Kershan head of the KOFA( Kashidan office of foreign affairs) my nation has never spoken in one of these discussions before, but this time I feel we must. The recent WA ban on conversion therapy is a gross overstepping of the WAs authority as the topic of LGBT matters is a deeply controversial topic across all nations and this WA legislation force hot hot button issue of trans rights to be solved not by the nation themselves but by the WA.Essentially we feel that in stead of regulating law between nations this violates that and force WA law in nations.

"The WA has always made a priority of legislating to protect human and sapient rights. This is no more of an overreach than the various economic regulations it has passed in the past, in fact as this is a matter of protecting fundamental human and sapient rights it is less of an overreach."

"And who decides what rights are fundamental? You? In a world where different peoples have values that are often at odds, is is not better to leave these issues where they belong- in the hands of member states?"

[East Gondwana]

"The WA has always made a priority of legislating to protect human and sapient rights. This is no more of an overreach than the various economic regulations it has passed in the past, in fact as this is a matter of protecting fundamental human and sapient rights it is less of an overreach."

"And who decides what rights are fundamental? You? In a world where different peoples have values that are often at odds, is is not better to leave these issues where they belong- in the hands of member states?"

"Not if member states are going to allow their citizenry to be subject dangerous and harmful "treatments", that are designed to change something fundamental to their nature as people that has no harmful impacts on them or their society.

Besides, it is not I who decides what rights are fundamental - it is the World Assembly, when it democratically votes on proposals. And anyway, the resolution makes a very clear argument that was obviously accepted by an overwhelming majority of the international community."

[Bruke]

"And who decides what rights are fundamental? You? In a world where different peoples have values that are often at odds, is it not better to leave these issues where they belong- in the hands of member states?"

"Not if member states are going to allow their citizenry to be subject dangerous and harmful "treatments", that are designed to change something fundamental to their nature as people that has no harmful impacts on them or their society.

Besides, it is not I who decides what rights are fundamental - it is the World Assembly, when it democratically votes on proposals. And anyway, the resolution makes a very clear argument that was obviously accepted by an overwhelming majority of the international community."

"What is the World Assembly, if not its member states- and your nation is a member state, and a very active one at that, from what I've heard. It's not that the Ban on Conversion Therapy is a particularly egregious error- rather, it ought to be considered in light of the collective impact of other legislation, such as Reproductive Freedoms. These address moral issues on which there can and will be great disagreements, between religions, or cultures, or worldviews. Democracy implies consensus, and true consensus comes when the perspectives of all are taken into account. In forcing a particular perspective on those who disagree, the World Assembly is forcing many nations to choose between the values of their people and the international prestige of being a member state."

[East Gondwana]

"Not if member states are going to allow their citizenry to be subject dangerous and harmful "treatments", that are designed to change something fundamental to their nature as people that has no harmful impacts on them or their society.

Besides, it is not I who decides what rights are fundamental - it is the World Assembly, when it democratically votes on proposals. And anyway, the resolution makes a very clear argument that was obviously accepted by an overwhelming majority of the international community."

"What is the World Assembly, if not its member states- and your nation is a member state, and a very active one at that, from what I've heard. It's not that the Ban on Conversion Therapy is a particularly egregious error- rather, it ought to be considered in light of the collective impact of other legislation, such as Reproductive Freedoms. These address moral issues on which there can and will be great disagreements, between religions, or cultures, or worldviews. Democracy implies consensus, and true consensus comes when the perspectives of all are taken into account. In forcing a particular perspective on those who disagree, the World Assembly is forcing many nations to choose between the values of their people and the international prestige of being a member state."

"We understand your argument a little better now, and admit it has merit. However, the World Assembly will never reach 100% consensus on any resolution and member states must accept that upon becoming members. Proposals that make quorum almost always have been subject to weeks, if not months, of open discussion in the General Assembly Forum. How else could legislation be made more democratic, short of rendering the institution useless by allowing compliance to be voluntary? Of course, we would contest that the voting system, particularly the power wielded by the Delegates, desperately needs reform, but to allow nations to pick and choose which resolutions to comply with makes the World Assembly pointless.

If you were to argue that the World Assembly should be relegated to legislating solely on international affairs and issues that concern interactions between nations such as immigration, exclusivve economic zones, international wars etc., then you would have a more solid and reasonable argument (one we would disagree with but would not contest as it is a result of a differing view as to the purpose of the WA)."

[Bruke]

"What is the World Assembly, if not its member states- and your nation is a member state, and a very active one at that, from what I've heard. It's not that the Ban on Conversion Therapy is a particularly egregious error- rather, it ought to be considered in light of the collective impact of other legislation, such as Reproductive Freedoms. These address moral issues on which there can and will be great disagreements, between religions, or cultures, or worldviews. Democracy implies consensus, and true consensus comes when the perspectives of all are taken into account. In forcing a particular perspective on those who disagree, the World Assembly is forcing many nations to choose between the values of their people and the international prestige of being a member state."

"We understand your argument a little better now, and admit it has merit. However, the World Assembly will never reach 100% consensus on any resolution and member states must accept that upon becoming members. Proposals that make quorum almost always have been subject to weeks, if not months, of open discussion in the General Assembly Forum. How else could legislation be made more democratic, short of rendering the institution useless by allowing compliance to be voluntary? Of course, we would contest that the voting system, particularly the power wielded by the Delegates, desperately needs reform, but to allow nations to pick and choose which resolutions to comply with makes the World Assembly pointless.

If you were to argue that the World Assembly should be relegated to legislating solely on international affairs and issues that concern interactions between nations such as immigration, exclusivve economic zones, international wars etc., then you would have a more solid and reasonable argument (one we would disagree with but would not contest as it is a result of a differing view as to the purpose of the WA)."

"I would say that both arguments are connected: if the World Assembly would focus on matters that solely concern international relations, then it would not bother with matters that are better left under the purview of its member states, particularly those matters which concern the great moral questions of our time."

[East Gondwana]

"Unfortunately, based on the structure and powers of the World Assembly as it currently exists, and reams of extant legislation (not least GAR#02), such a repositioning of the role of the WA would require masses of repeals and a voluntary consensus of a majority of the membership to commit to this.

This is extremely unlikely to happen, as most nations at least accept the powers of the GA to enact legislation that affects their nations domestic affairs and their responsibility to abide by this. One would need to radically alter the culture and climate of international diplomacy."

[Bruke]

"Unfortunately, based on the structure and powers of the World Assembly as it currently exists, and reams of extant legislation (not least GAR#02), such a repositioning of the role of the WA would require masses of repeals and a voluntary consensus of a majority of the membership to commit to this.

This is extremely unlikely to happen, as most nations at least accept the powers of the GA to enact legislation that affects their nations domestic affairs and their responsibility to abide by this. One would need to radically alter the culture and climate of international diplomacy."

"Thus we are left with the current situation, in which nations have no recourse as the World Assembly, or more specifically the General Assembly, runs roughshod over their values and their sovereignty. If I recall, most nations are not members of the World Assembly. This in itself is damning evidence of the failure of the organization in its current form."

OOC: by the way, is this your WA ambassador that's speaking? I'd like to know because this'll turn into a story for the national broadcaster (with your permission of course).

[East Gondwana]

"Unfortunately, based on the structure and powers of the World Assembly as it currently exists, and reams of extant legislation (not least GAR#02), such a repositioning of the role of the WA would require masses of repeals and a voluntary consensus of a majority of the membership to commit to this.

This is extremely unlikely to happen, as most nations at least accept the powers of the GA to enact legislation that affects their nations domestic affairs and their responsibility to abide by this. One would need to radically alter the culture and climate of international diplomacy."

"Thus we are left with the current situation, in which nations have no recourse as the World Assembly, or more specifically the General Assembly, runs roughshod over their values and their sovereignty. If I recall, most nations are not members of the World Assembly. This in itself is damning evidence of the failure of the organization in its current form."

OOC: by the way, is this your WA ambassador that's speaking? I'd like to know because this'll turn into a story for the national broadcaster (with your permission of course).

"And as such, nations are free to make the decision to abide by the Assembly's legislation, try to work within and try to change it through repeals and debate, or leave. That is the simple reality."

OOC: yes, this is my WA ambassador. I don't have a name for then though, but yes you absolutely can use this

[Codd]

I say that the World Assembly does serve a just purpose and is needed. However, there must be limitations to their power. It is indeed the member states of the World Assembly that give them such power and influence, which is why a greater emphasis on the protection of the sovereignty of member states should be exercised. There are pros and cons to both sides of this argument and issues to be resolved. However, the main concern is the World Assembly's seemingly growing disregard for the right of member nations to decide their own laws in various political issues. For example, I would not tolerate being told by some international body that my nation doesn't have the right to conduct convention therapy within its own sovereign borders, or the right to decide on the debate of reproductive freedoms and related issues. Issues like these should rightfully be left for member nations to decide and not the World Assembly. Therefore, the growing power of the World Assembly should be a great cause for concern as to how this institution continues to amass such strength and power.

[Bruke]

"Thus we are left with the current situation, in which nations have no recourse as the World Assembly, or more specifically the General Assembly, runs roughshod over their values and their sovereignty. If I recall, most nations are not members of the World Assembly. This in itself is damning evidence of the failure of the organization in its current form."

OOC: by the way, is this your WA ambassador that's speaking? I'd like to know because this'll turn into a story for the national broadcaster (with your permission of course).

"And as such, nations are free to make the decision to abide by the Assembly's legislation, try to work within and try to change it through repeals and debate, or leave. That is the simple reality."

OOC: yes, this is my WA ambassador. I don't have a name for then though, but yes you absolutely can use this

"Working within the current system is not an option, the system is too far gone to salvage. Either the World Assembly must reform itself, or watch as nations renounce the body in favor of working with organizations of their own creation, or if that is not possible, limiting their international commitments altogether."

[Codd]

"And as such, nations are free to make the decision to abide by the Assembly's legislation, try to work within and try to change it through repeals and debate, or leave. That is the simple reality."

OOC: yes, this is my WA ambassador. I don't have a name for then though, but yes you absolutely can use this

"Working within the current system is not an option, the system is too far gone to salvage. Either the World Assembly must reform itself, or watch as nations renounce the body in favor of working with organizations of their own creation, or if that is not possible, limiting their international commitments altogether."

I agree

[Bruke]

"Working within the current system is not an option, the system is too far gone to salvage. Either the World Assembly must reform itself, or watch as nations renounce the body in favor of working with organizations of their own creation, or if that is not possible, limiting their international commitments altogether."

I agree

"I propose that nations which object to the growing tyranny of the World Assembly form their own international body that respects the values and sovereignty of each partner, or at the very least that us like-minded patriots form an organization dedicated to preventing its abuses. What say the rest of you?"

[Codd]

Aye

[Bruke]

Aye

"Thank you for your vote of confidence sir. As I am merely an MP, I cannot speak for the Royal Republic in international relations. Of course, that will change with the elections, God willing. For the moment, all I can suggest is forming a political body."

[Codd]

Well, I am in full support of forming an independent body that would allow nations to retain their sovereignty and would not have near as much power and control as the World Assembly.

[Bruke]

Well, I am in full support of forming an independent body that would allow nations to retain their sovereignty and would not have near as much power and control as the World Assembly.

OOC: If the other people vote yes, we really ought to make a separate thread for this alternate World Assembly so that this thread doesn't get derailed.