NATION

PASSWORD

[DISCUSSION] GA 2 & enforcement in int'l waters

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10855
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

[DISCUSSION] GA 2 & enforcement in int'l waters

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Mon Sep 20, 2021 9:04 am

Emerging from a number of various discussions around the neighbourhood on GA 2 being incompatible with the WA deputising or authorising enforcement of GA law in int'l waters by member nations, I think it's worthwhile to split the thread. See eg viewtopic.php?f=9&t=509857. Now, in Suppress Int'l Piracy, there is this clause which was brought up as non-binding precedent for a permissible authorisation under GA 2:

Urges and authorises all WA member nations to do as much as they reasonably can to suppress international piracy within any areas (such as ‘international waters’) that are not under any nation’s effective control, and its bases wherever those are;

The other main thing is GA 2's provision:

the WA will not engage in ... ratifying ... or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner.

Bears, others, and I discussed in these posts (correct me if I'm mischaracterising positions, I'm converting them to succinct tags):

viewtopic.php?p=38980441#p38980441 (IA. authorisation in int'l waters ratifies police action)
viewtopic.php?p=38980783#p38980783 (Bears. Fris said it was legal)
viewtopic.php?p=38981373#p38981373 (Wayne. Agree with IA)
viewtopic.php?p=38981476#p38981476 (IA. Text reflects actual intent, not gloss by author)
viewtopic.php?p=38982309#p38982309 (Bears. Action was only against non-state actors)
viewtopic.php?p=38983003#p38983003 (IA. Police action is usually against non-state actors; only sov cits disagree)
viewtopic.php?p=38983027#p38983027 (Sep. WA is encouraging; GA 2 "police action" really means use of armed force, enforcement might not mean that)
viewtopic.php?p=38983096#p38983096 (IA. It both encourages and authorises)
viewtopic.php?p=38983190#p38983190 (Bears. "Authorises" means "permits"; perhaps GA 2 refers to specific authorisation rather than general)



A few responses to the tags on police action on non-state actors, police action as armed force, and GA 2 being specific or general.

The way I view "police action" in GA 2 is in terms of the WA police: it includes things such as setting up a police force. This isn't clearly established. Resolution 393 [2017] GAS 2 deals only with peacekeeping and neutrality and doesn't touch on police except in mentioning that calling police to join would violate the GA 2's non-participation requirement. Regardless, as to piracy, if the WA is urging and permitting member nations to apprehend pirates, this requires armed force. Pirates are only credible threats to their prey with a showing of armed force. Apprehending them, especially if they would be subjected to severe punishments, would almost certainly require the use of armed force, creating an armed conflict.

The idea that GA 2 applies only to state conflicts is incompatible both with the wording "police action" and with the neutrality clause ("the World Assembly as a body maintains neutrality in matters of civil and international strife") which should be read harmoniously. Police routinely take action against non-state actors. Every person arrested in the aftermath of the 6 January attack on the US Capitol were non-state actors, regardless of laughable claims to the contrary. Moreover, nations generally recognise only one entity during civil wars. The cold civil war between China and the mainland communist rebels is an example of this one-entity principle. While the Korean War was hot and for some time after the partition of Germany, similar one-side-only recognition was practised.

The applicable definition of ratification is one related to authorisation:

ratification n. Confirmation of an act. If, for example, X contracts with Y as agent for Z, but has in fact no authority to do so, Z may nevertheless adopt the contract by subsequent ratification. An unenforceable contract made with a minor can become enforceable if the minor ratifies the contract when he comes of age. "ratification", Oxford Dictionary of Law (6th edn, OUP 2006).

There are other definitions in the dictionary, related to approval of a treaty in international law and sanctioning of irregular activities in company law. Both are not relevant here. Authorising or permitting the extraterritorial application of WA law in international waters would be confirmation of such action and, therefore, ratification. Ratification of such police action violates GA 2. (On a total Roman history note, this usage also is common in reference to Pompey's settlement of the east or Caesar's conquests in Gaul. Those actions became political issues in whether the senate would ratify those actions ex post.)

As to the last point, that GA 2 applies only to specific conflicts, this is an interesting argument in the GA's roleplay. But OOC, it would reduce GA 2 to blocking no WA army or police force, which is what has been held by previous precedent. The GA doesn't handle any specific roleplay. It doesn't say "In the war between Vrama and the int'l coalition, the int'l coalition wins". That would be forced roleplay and possibly metagaming. Such an interpretation would be a large departure from existing practices.
Last edited by Imperium Anglorum on Mon Sep 20, 2021 11:56 am, edited 8 times in total.

Author: 1 SC and 42 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Twice-commended toxic villainous globalist kittehs
Delegate for Europe
Elsie Mortimer Wellesley (EMW); OOC unless otherwise indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3191
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bananaistan » Mon Sep 20, 2021 9:05 am

What's the question?
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.
Ideological Bulwark #281
THIS

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10855
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Mon Sep 20, 2021 9:22 am

Bananaistan wrote:What's the question?

Post was incomplete. I edited it for completion.

Author: 1 SC and 42 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Twice-commended toxic villainous globalist kittehs
Delegate for Europe
Elsie Mortimer Wellesley (EMW); OOC unless otherwise indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 20399
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Mon Sep 20, 2021 9:32 am

Perhaps it might be worthwhile reposting here my last post from that list you give:

Bears Armed wrote:OOC: As I meant it -- although of course that might not be how GenSec as a whole now interprets it -- the "authorises' just meant "It's legal under GA law to do that".

Maybe the distinction we should consider under GA Res#2 is between authorizing a general course of action (legal) and authorising action in specific cases (illegal)?
ALSO, maybe we should ask the Mods to move the last few posts -- and any more made on the subject of GA Res#20 & how it interacts with GA Res#2-- into a separate thread of their own?
The Confrederated Clans (and other Confrederated Bodys) of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Population = just under 20 million. Economy = only Thriving. Average Life expectancy = c.60 years. If the nation is classified as 'Anarchy' there still is a [strictly limited] national government... and those aren't "biker gangs", they're traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies', generally respected rather than feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152, 1474.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10855
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Mon Sep 20, 2021 9:54 am

Sure, that's useful. Do tell me if I mischaracterised your position on it.

I think the last paragraph of my post responds substantively to the general-specific distinction you created there. The paragraphs with the quote also respond to the "authorises" distinction. Both I think are distinctions without differences.

Author: 1 SC and 42 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Twice-commended toxic villainous globalist kittehs
Delegate for Europe
Elsie Mortimer Wellesley (EMW); OOC unless otherwise indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 20399
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Mon Sep 20, 2021 10:51 am

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Sure, that's useful. Do tell me if I mischaracterised your position on it.

I think the last paragraph of my post responds substantively to the general-specific distinction you created there. The paragraphs with the quote also respond to the "authorises" distinction. Both I think are distinctions without differences.

I'm thinking about this, and will probably post something tomorrow.

I've been doing some research since my previous thread: Apparently it was Hack (author of the rules-set that was in use at the time) rather than Fris (author of GA Res#2 & its 'historic' precursor who ruled that clause in [what became] G.A. Res#20 to be legal.
Incidentally, during that research I found the thread for an attempt at repealing G.A. Res#20 (viewtopic.php?f=9&t=331812&hilit=%26quot%3Bpolice+action%26quot%3B) and it seems that at that stage you regarded the clause as okay (posting.php?mode=quote&f=9&p=23666588)...
Last edited by Bears Armed on Mon Sep 20, 2021 10:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Confrederated Clans (and other Confrederated Bodys) of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Population = just under 20 million. Economy = only Thriving. Average Life expectancy = c.60 years. If the nation is classified as 'Anarchy' there still is a [strictly limited] national government... and those aren't "biker gangs", they're traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies', generally respected rather than feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152, 1474.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10855
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Mon Sep 20, 2021 11:51 am

Bears Armed wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Sure, that's useful. Do tell me if I mischaracterised your position on it.

I think the last paragraph of my post responds substantively to the general-specific distinction you created there. The paragraphs with the quote also respond to the "authorises" distinction. Both I think are distinctions without differences.

I'm thinking about this, and will probably post something tomorrow.

I've been doing some research since my previous thread: Apparently it was Hack (author of the rules-set that was in use at the time) rather than Fris (author of GA Res#2 & its 'historic' precursor who ruled that clause in [what became] G.A. Res#20 to be legal.
Incidentally, during that research I found the thread for an attempt at repealing G.A. Res#20 (viewtopic.php?f=9&t=331812&hilit=%26quot%3Bpolice+action%26quot%3B) and it seems that at that stage you regarded the clause as okay (posting.php?mode=quote&f=9&p=23666588)...

My thoughts on that clause were then related only to the "urges" portion, which was filtered through the post above the one I posted. I don't see a contradiction. Even if there is one, my opinion can change in six years.
Last edited by Imperium Anglorum on Mon Sep 20, 2021 11:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

Author: 1 SC and 42 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Twice-commended toxic villainous globalist kittehs
Delegate for Europe
Elsie Mortimer Wellesley (EMW); OOC unless otherwise indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 20399
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Mon Sep 20, 2021 1:11 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Bears Armed wrote:I'm thinking about this, and will probably post something tomorrow.

I've been doing some research since my previous thread: Apparently it was Hack (author of the rules-set that was in use at the time) rather than Fris (author of GA Res#2 & its 'historic' precursor who ruled that clause in [what became] G.A. Res#20 to be legal.
Incidentally, during that research I found the thread for an attempt at repealing G.A. Res#20 (viewtopic.php?f=9&t=331812&hilit=%26quot%3Bpolice+action%26quot%3B) and it seems that at that stage you regarded the clause as okay (posting.php?mode=quote&f=9&p=23666588)...

My thoughts on that clause were then related only to the "urges" portion, which was filtered through the post above the one I posted. I don't see a contradiction. Even if there is one, my opinion can change in six years.

Re the latter point, true. For comparison, combining my current thinking on G.A. Res#20 with my opinion of the relevant clause in GA Res#2 (for which I read 'police action' in the "military activity against non-state actors" sense rather than as "activity by police"), if Excidium Planetis were to resubmit the original version of their 'WA Peacekeeping Charter' now I'm not sure that I could call even that illegal... although I suspect strongly that a majority of GenSec would do so anyway. (For the revised version, which I did consider legal, I was outvoted 5:1...)
Last edited by Bears Armed on Mon Sep 20, 2021 1:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Confrederated Clans (and other Confrederated Bodys) of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Population = just under 20 million. Economy = only Thriving. Average Life expectancy = c.60 years. If the nation is classified as 'Anarchy' there still is a [strictly limited] national government... and those aren't "biker gangs", they're traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies', generally respected rather than feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152, 1474.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10855
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Mon Sep 20, 2021 1:56 pm

Bears Armed wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:My thoughts on that clause were then related only to the "urges" portion, which was filtered through the post above the one I posted. I don't see a contradiction. Even if there is one, my opinion can change in six years.

Re the latter point, true. For comparison, combining my current thinking on G.A. Res#20 with my opinion of the relevant clause in GA Res#2 (for which I read 'police action' in the "military activity against non-state actors" sense rather than as "activity by police"), if Excidium Planetis were to resubmit the original version of their 'WA Peacekeeping Charter' now I'm not sure that I could call even that illegal... although I suspect strongly that a majority of GenSec would do so anyway. (For the revised version, which I did consider legal, I was outvoted 5:1...)

I would imagine even in terms of military action against non-state actors, anti-piracy enforcement would easily take a moniker of a naval deployment, which seems another distinction without a difference from "military activity against non-state actors". Eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-pira ... y_presence. I don't think this isn't a military deployment. So it would also be with the Royal Navy detachment which used military force against Atlantic slave traders from 1808 to the 1870s. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Africa_Squadron.

And even if we pretend that the only enforcement would be by police or coast guard forces (the latter not having police powers in places like the UK), when you start giving the coast guard ships like this:

Image

It also feels pretty disingenuous not to call it military activity. The US Coast Guard is larger than the Irish Navy. It something like that were to go in guns blazing yelling Stop, pirates, you have violated the law! it seems little more than rebranding.
Last edited by Imperium Anglorum on Mon Sep 20, 2021 2:14 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Author: 1 SC and 42 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Twice-commended toxic villainous globalist kittehs
Delegate for Europe
Elsie Mortimer Wellesley (EMW); OOC unless otherwise indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Desmosthenes and Burke
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 383
Founded: Oct 07, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Desmosthenes and Burke » Mon Sep 20, 2021 3:56 pm

I have not been really involved in this discussion, but I always read "police action" in GA2 as action taken by a military organization (which the US Coast Guard is, by the way, along with France's gendarmerie for instance, despite largely engaging in what might otherwise be considered police work.) This accords well with the normal definition of "police action" as "geographically limited military activity against those violating international peace/order/law"1,2,3,4. Nothing in the standard definition of police action requires it to be taken against a non-state actor. It would be a serious stretch to call the conflict in Korea a conflict against non-state actors unless we are seriously going to pretend that the PRC and DPRK are not States and their military forces are not state actors (which is absurd on its face) or, more recently, the 2011 intervention in Libya was most obviously taken against state actors despite being, explicitly, a police action.

Were I arguing now, I would challenge on the basis that the most natural reading of GA20 would be a violation of GA2. The most natural reading is calling on member states to deploy military force against pirates. I am in agreement with IA in broad terms. Since, however, the resolution is legal by virtue of having been passed, I suppose we are stuck reading it as encouraging us to send sternly worded letters of admonition to international pirates and asking them nicely to stop.



1. https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... e%20action
2. https://www.britannica.com/topic/police-action
3. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/police-action
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_action
香港加油!林郑月娥一定要去!自由香港万岁!五毛回家!| Carrie Lam must go! Long Live Free Hong Kong | La France pour les Français et Ceux Qu'en Veut Devenir Un.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10855
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Mon Sep 20, 2021 5:57 pm

Desmosthenes and Burke wrote:Were I arguing now, I would challenge on the basis that the most natural reading of GA20 would be a violation of GA2. The most natural reading is calling on member states to deploy military force against pirates. I am in agreement with IA in broad terms. Since, however, the resolution is legal by virtue of having been passed, I suppose we are stuck reading it as encouraging us to send sternly worded letters of admonition to international pirates and asking them nicely to stop.

Re the topic of past and present: I think it's still relevant. GA 20 gives a type of clause which one could put into a proposal. Marine Protection Act for example is literally unenforceable by the WA. The whaling proposal earlier (linked in the OP) similarly would be so unenforceable. I think GA 2 should be repealed so to create such an enforcement system, perhaps something like a coalition fleet, which would be able to interdict and enforce such legislation.

Author: 1 SC and 42 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Twice-commended toxic villainous globalist kittehs
Delegate for Europe
Elsie Mortimer Wellesley (EMW); OOC unless otherwise indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 16357
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Mon Sep 20, 2021 6:04 pm

This does bring up an interesting question about how to treat passed illegal resolutions. Resolutions are not illegal by virtue of being resolutions, but that concept really arose to avoid use of illegalities in the context of repeals. You cant repeal GAR#20 because it violates the rules.

I think it is possible, especially as we look hard at the ruleset, that we have suffered from mission creep and tend to interpret rules around existing laws. I think this is a poor approach, and it may be worth adjusting how we consider our treatment of passed resolutions and illegalities.

I also suspect that we have been applying "police action" very inappropriately. That said, the No Police rule has been so aggressively followed in the GA that it may not be a good idea to reverse that precedent via challenge or even GenSec fiat. It may be worth taking the time to discuss a change of interpretation of this magnitude with the GA the same way we discuss rule changes. Or repeal GAR#2.

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat, Authority on All Existence, Arbiter of Right, Toxic Globalist Dog, Dark Psychic Vampire, and Chief Populist Elitist!
Separatist Peoples should RESIGN!

User avatar
Morover
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1355
Founded: Oct 14, 2018
Libertarian Police State

Postby Morover » Mon Sep 20, 2021 7:48 pm

Separatist Peoples wrote:Or repeal GAR#2.

It's long overdue, anyways.
World Assembly Author
ns.morover@gmail.com

User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3191
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bananaistan » Tue Sep 21, 2021 12:37 am

All member states are obliged to enforce international law. Enforcing international law outside the jurisdiction of member states has to be carefully worded to avoid legislating on non-members. GAR#20, section 5, is probably sufficiently carefully worded to avoid that problem IMO.

When does enforcing international law become police action? As soon as it's outside the jurisdiction of a member state?

Also think repealing GAR#2 just so the GA can enforce its will by military force would be a terrible idea. ICly there's a delicate balance between advantages and disadvantages of WA membership. This would tip the balance towards disadvantages outweighing advantages in respect of the sort of regime that the GA might target. And then to put themselves outside the reach of such action, they need only resign.

Aside from this sort of technicality, it would be a serious retrograde step for the GA to do such an about turn on policy - go overnight from promoting peace and goodwill, and trade and so on, to an imperialist power bent on flexing its military muscle. One would wonder if there'd be a coalition of non-member states which would want to get in preemptive action against GA member states?
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.
Ideological Bulwark #281
THIS

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10855
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Tue Sep 21, 2021 9:42 am

I think what's above basically ignores the statutory interpretation question to focus on the meta gaming one ("legislating on non-members"). While that's fine, it doesn't deal with the core issue at hand, which relates to international waters and not invasion of member or non-member nations. International waters are inherently international. I think the discussion of GA 2 repeal is entirely separate; this thread's main issue is inhered to GA 2 being good law.

Author: 1 SC and 42 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Twice-commended toxic villainous globalist kittehs
Delegate for Europe
Elsie Mortimer Wellesley (EMW); OOC unless otherwise indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3191
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bananaistan » Tue Sep 21, 2021 1:59 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:I think what's above basically ignores the statutory interpretation question to focus on the meta gaming one ("legislating on non-members"). While that's fine, it doesn't deal with the core issue at hand, which relates to international waters and not invasion of member or non-member nations. International waters are inherently international. I think the discussion of GA 2 repeal is entirely separate; this thread's main issue is inhered to GA 2 being good law.


Well I did ask this question: When does enforcing international law become police action? As soon as it's outside the jurisdiction of a member state?
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.
Ideological Bulwark #281
THIS

User avatar
Wayneactia
Minister
 
Posts: 2292
Founded: Aug 01, 2014
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wayneactia » Tue Sep 21, 2021 2:21 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:International waters are inherently international.

Are they? What makes a body of water "international waters"? Treaties? WA Law? And if it is WA law, which doesn't apply to non-members, what's stopping a non-member nation from sailing up right to your shoreline (I assume you are England...) and declaring all of those waters their territory?

Bananaistan wrote:Well I did ask this question: When does enforcing international law become police action? As soon as it's outside the jurisdiction of a member state?

Same question as above. What is stopping a non-member nation from making a territorial claim, and thus placing whatever police action which is being contemplated within their jurisdiction? I understand this would likely be frowned up as godmoding, but their is nothing within WA law that prevents it.
Last edited by Wayneactia on Tue Sep 21, 2021 3:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sarcasm dispensed liberally.

User avatar
Desmosthenes and Burke
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 383
Founded: Oct 07, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Desmosthenes and Burke » Tue Sep 21, 2021 2:23 pm

Bananaistan wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:I think what's above basically ignores the statutory interpretation question to focus on the meta gaming one ("legislating on non-members"). While that's fine, it doesn't deal with the core issue at hand, which relates to international waters and not invasion of member or non-member nations. International waters are inherently international. I think the discussion of GA 2 repeal is entirely separate; this thread's main issue is inhered to GA 2 being good law.


Well I did ask this question: When does enforcing international law become police action? As soon as it's outside the jurisdiction of a member state?


My answer, at least, is as soon as it involves the use of military force, at which point we might as well say the use of force in general when it comes to a State trying to enforce the law against another State or entity.
香港加油!林郑月娥一定要去!自由香港万岁!五毛回家!| Carrie Lam must go! Long Live Free Hong Kong | La France pour les Français et Ceux Qu'en Veut Devenir Un.

User avatar
Wayneactia
Minister
 
Posts: 2292
Founded: Aug 01, 2014
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wayneactia » Tue Sep 21, 2021 3:28 pm

Desmosthenes and Burke wrote:
Bananaistan wrote:
Well I did ask this question: When does enforcing international law become police action? As soon as it's outside the jurisdiction of a member state?


My answer, at least, is as soon as it involves the use of military force, at which point we might as well say the use of force in general when it comes to a State trying to enforce the law against another State or entity.

Why does it have to be military force? Take for instance DEA operations in Central America. They are not military members, yet are taking police action within another nation. The whole term "police action" was coined by Truman so he didn't have to get congress to declare war on North Korea. It is a severely outdated and very overused term by all Presidents since Truman to justify any invasion they want as a "police action".
Sarcasm dispensed liberally.

User avatar
Desmosthenes and Burke
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 383
Founded: Oct 07, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Desmosthenes and Burke » Tue Sep 21, 2021 3:47 pm

Wayneactia wrote:
Desmosthenes and Burke wrote:
My answer, at least, is as soon as it involves the use of military force, at which point we might as well say the use of force in general when it comes to a State trying to enforce the law against another State or entity.

Why does it have to be military force? Take for instance DEA operations in Central America. They are not military members, yet are taking police action within another nation. The whole term "police action" was coined by Truman so he didn't have to get congress to declare war on North Korea. It is a severely outdated and very overused term by all Presidents since Truman to justify any invasion they want as a "police action".


Because that, nevertheless, remains the definition of the phrase within the context of international relations and has not been defined in any resolution to mean anything more or less expansive. I am a committed advocate of hardcore textualism: the law means precisely what it says with the words it used and not a single thing more or less. Its use (or overuse) by American presidents is neither here nor there. The DEA is not engaged in a "police action" because they are not a part of the US military. Also, Truman did not invent the phrase or its meaning. It first occurred in 1883 in reference to an Anglo/Dutch attempt at freeing hostages and was added to Webster's dictionary with the meaning referenced above in 1933, well before Truman was talking about Korea.

Now, personally, I would be quite happy if the WA ruleset was broader in scope so as to encompass such backhanded workarounds, but I also am firmly in the NatSov, WA needs fewer powers camp, and, nevertheless, on principle concede that is not what the law says currently. Of course, my feelings on the matter are also not in any way binding, and GenSec may well disagree.
香港加油!林郑月娥一定要去!自由香港万岁!五毛回家!| Carrie Lam must go! Long Live Free Hong Kong | La France pour les Français et Ceux Qu'en Veut Devenir Un.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10855
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Thu Sep 23, 2021 8:15 pm

Bananaistan wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:I think what's above basically ignores the statutory interpretation question to focus on the meta gaming one ("legislating on non-members"). While that's fine, it doesn't deal with the core issue at hand, which relates to international waters and not invasion of member or non-member nations. International waters are inherently international. I think the discussion of GA 2 repeal is entirely separate; this thread's main issue is inhered to GA 2 being good law.

Well I did ask this question: When does enforcing international law become police action? As soon as it's outside the jurisdiction of a member state?

I think D&B raises some good points. Looking back at the words "police action", I think now that they should also take a military character per noscitur a sociis. While the historical view has been that GA 2 prohibits deployment of police rather than military forces, I'm not so sure: "police action" in terms of its context seems to refer only to military interventions, punitive expeditions, etc rather than enforcement of international law. I know that Sep wanted to avoid this specific topic due to it possibly upending a lot of "settled" interpretation, but one could view it as possible within scope.
Last edited by Imperium Anglorum on Thu Sep 23, 2021 8:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Author: 1 SC and 42 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Twice-commended toxic villainous globalist kittehs
Delegate for Europe
Elsie Mortimer Wellesley (EMW); OOC unless otherwise indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration


Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads