NATION

PASSWORD

[ON HOLD] Ban on World Assembly Conscription

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
The Ice States
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2879
Founded: Jun 23, 2022
Compulsory Consumerist State

[ON HOLD] Ban on World Assembly Conscription

Postby The Ice States » Tue Feb 20, 2024 10:00 pm

Civil Rights, Mild. Update: This is on hold as per this legality challenge.

Recognising the harms caused by conscription to innocent civilians, such that it has already been restricted for member nations through GA #660, "Protecting Objectors in Combative Military Service";

Wishing to extend these protections to conscription by the World Assembly itself, while further noting that, as conscription is not a "law enforcement action" inasmuch as it does not enforce any actual law, GA #698 does not bar the World Assembly from prohibiting the creation of such a law or extralegal action by itself;

The World Assembly enacts as follows.

  1. Neither the World Assembly nor any committee or agent thereof may coerce, require, or otherwise compel any individual to:

    1. serve in any military or police force; or

    2. serve in any role in an armed conflict wherein that individual would be required to attempt to directly cause physical harm or injury to any other individual, should that individual have expressed a bona fide conscientious, moral, or religious objection against serving in that role.

  2. No member nation, or administrative or political subdivision thereof, may penalise any individual for any act or omission, with regards to a World Assembly-run military or police force, for which the World Assembly is prohibited from penalising an individual under Section 1.
Last edited by The Ice States on Mon Apr 08, 2024 5:44 pm, edited 13 times in total.
Factbooks · 46x World Assembly Author · Festering Snakepit Wiki · WACampaign · GA Stat Effects Data

Posts in the WA forums are Ooc and unofficial, absent indication otherwise.
Please check out my roleplay thread The Battle of Glass Tears!
WA 101 Guides to GA authorship, campaigning, and more.

User avatar
The Ice States
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2879
Founded: Jun 23, 2022
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby The Ice States » Tue Feb 20, 2024 10:01 pm

Drafts conscripted into the IEC.
Factbooks · 46x World Assembly Author · Festering Snakepit Wiki · WACampaign · GA Stat Effects Data

Posts in the WA forums are Ooc and unofficial, absent indication otherwise.
Please check out my roleplay thread The Battle of Glass Tears!
WA 101 Guides to GA authorship, campaigning, and more.

User avatar
Tinhampton
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13701
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Tinhampton » Tue Feb 20, 2024 11:13 pm

Support. Note that this does not mean I support the IEC or IPF as entities or concepts. Even if those resolutions are repealed, I would still not support the repeal of this resolution, lest future generations attempt to overpower WA Military Police 2.0.
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 329,537): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540, GA#549, SC#356, GA#559, GA#562, GA#567, GA#578, SC#374, GA#582, SC#375, GA#589, GA#590, SC#382, SC#385*, GA#597, GA#607, SC#415, GA#647, GA#656, GA#664, GA#671, GA#674, GA#675, GA#677, GA#680, Issue #1580, GA#682, GA#683, GA#684, GA#692, GA#693, GA#715
The rest of my CV: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; *author of the most popular SC Res. ever; anti-NPO cabalist in good standing; 48yo Tory woman w/Asperger's; Cambridge graduate ~ currently reading The World by Simon Sebag Montefiore

User avatar
Tigrisia
Envoy
 
Posts: 218
Founded: Dec 22, 2023
Democratic Socialists

Postby Tigrisia » Wed Feb 21, 2024 9:28 am

Full Support

For the Tigrisian Delegation
Brigadier General Michael Beier
Military Attachee

User avatar
Simone Republic
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1843
Founded: Jul 09, 2019
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Simone Republic » Fri Feb 23, 2024 6:46 am

Because IEC is itself a committee, isn't this a violation of the committee rule that a proposal cannot define who can/cannot staff the committee? The conscripted people are still "staff" of the committee.
Last edited by Simone Republic on Fri Feb 23, 2024 6:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
All posts OOC. (He/him). I don't speak for TNP. IC the "white bear" (it) is for jokes only.

User avatar
The Ice States
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2879
Founded: Jun 23, 2022
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby The Ice States » Fri Feb 23, 2024 6:20 pm

Simone Republic wrote:Because IEC is itself a committee, isn't this a violation of the committee rule that a proposal cannot define who can/cannot staff the committee? The conscripted people are still "staff" of the committee.

Obviously I would recuse myself from ruling on this, but I do not believe that it violates Committees as the resolution does not prohibit conscripts from serving in the IEC; rather it says that the IEC cannot compel someone to serve within it.
Last edited by The Ice States on Fri Feb 23, 2024 6:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Factbooks · 46x World Assembly Author · Festering Snakepit Wiki · WACampaign · GA Stat Effects Data

Posts in the WA forums are Ooc and unofficial, absent indication otherwise.
Please check out my roleplay thread The Battle of Glass Tears!
WA 101 Guides to GA authorship, campaigning, and more.

User avatar
Simone Republic
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1843
Founded: Jul 09, 2019
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Simone Republic » Fri Feb 23, 2024 7:08 pm

The Ice States wrote:
Simone Republic wrote:Because IEC is itself a committee, isn't this a violation of the committee rule that a proposal cannot define who can/cannot staff the committee? The conscripted people are still "staff" of the committee.

Obviously I would recuse myself from ruling on this, but I do not believe that it violates Committees as the resolution does not prohibit conscripts from serving in the IEC; rather it says that the IEC cannot compel someone to serve within it.


The wording is: "[a] proposal cannot define: who can/cannot staff the committee"

I take that as absolute.
Last edited by Simone Republic on Fri Feb 23, 2024 7:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
All posts OOC. (He/him). I don't speak for TNP. IC the "white bear" (it) is for jokes only.

User avatar
The Ice States
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2879
Founded: Jun 23, 2022
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby The Ice States » Fri Feb 23, 2024 7:19 pm

Simone Republic wrote:
The Ice States wrote:Obviously I would recuse myself from ruling on this, but I do not believe that it violates Committees as the resolution does not prohibit conscripts from serving in the IEC; rather it says that the IEC cannot compel someone to serve within it.


The wording is: "[a] proposal cannot define: who can/cannot staff the committee"

I take that as absolute.

Yes. There is a difference between banning a committee from having X in its staff and banning the committee from forcing X to be in staff.
Last edited by The Ice States on Fri Feb 23, 2024 7:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Factbooks · 46x World Assembly Author · Festering Snakepit Wiki · WACampaign · GA Stat Effects Data

Posts in the WA forums are Ooc and unofficial, absent indication otherwise.
Please check out my roleplay thread The Battle of Glass Tears!
WA 101 Guides to GA authorship, campaigning, and more.

User avatar
Lieutenant Columbo
Secretary
 
Posts: 40
Founded: Aug 09, 2016
New York Times Democracy

Postby Lieutenant Columbo » Fri Feb 23, 2024 7:37 pm

"Isn't this all prohibited under section 4b of the Convention on Heinous Crimes?"

User avatar
The Ice States
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2879
Founded: Jun 23, 2022
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby The Ice States » Fri Feb 23, 2024 8:11 pm

Lieutenant Columbo wrote:"Isn't this all prohibited under section 4b of the Convention on Heinous Crimes?"

"Thank you for the comment; I had also taken note of this argument in the repeal text. However, we do not believe that our earlier resolution would block this one, as conscription is not a 'law enforcement action' inasmuch as no actual law is being enforced. Nor is the creation of such a law itself a 'law enforcement action'. Therefore it would none of this would seem to fall under 4b."

~Robert Desak,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.
Factbooks · 46x World Assembly Author · Festering Snakepit Wiki · WACampaign · GA Stat Effects Data

Posts in the WA forums are Ooc and unofficial, absent indication otherwise.
Please check out my roleplay thread The Battle of Glass Tears!
WA 101 Guides to GA authorship, campaigning, and more.

User avatar
The Ice States
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2879
Founded: Jun 23, 2022
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby The Ice States » Fri Mar 01, 2024 7:40 pm

Bump.
Factbooks · 46x World Assembly Author · Festering Snakepit Wiki · WACampaign · GA Stat Effects Data

Posts in the WA forums are Ooc and unofficial, absent indication otherwise.
Please check out my roleplay thread The Battle of Glass Tears!
WA 101 Guides to GA authorship, campaigning, and more.

User avatar
Mesogiria
Diplomat
 
Posts: 857
Founded: Dec 03, 2009
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Mesogiria » Fri Mar 01, 2024 8:30 pm

No member nation, or administrative or political subdivision thereof, may penalise any individual for any act or omission which the World Assembly is prohibited from penalising an individual for under Section 1.


Read one way, I understand this to be a prohibition on the World Assembly bypassing the prohibitions in this resolution by having member states carry out conscription on their behalf, but read another way, it seems to also ban purely domestic conscription by making it impossible for a member state to enforce any penalty on a person who fails to comply with a conscription act. Is that deliberate, or have I over-interpreted?

User avatar
The Ice States
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2879
Founded: Jun 23, 2022
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby The Ice States » Fri Mar 01, 2024 8:34 pm

Mesogiria wrote:
No member nation, or administrative or political subdivision thereof, may penalise any individual for any act or omission which the World Assembly is prohibited from penalising an individual for under Section 1.


Read one way, I understand this to be a prohibition on the World Assembly bypassing the prohibitions in this resolution by having member states carry out conscription on their behalf, but read another way, it seems to also ban purely domestic conscription by making it impossible for a member state to enforce any penalty on a person who fails to comply with a conscription act. Is that deliberate, or have I over-interpreted?

The intent is the former; I support a full ban on member conscription, but this particular proposal is not intended to do that. Do you have any suggestions for how to make this more clear?
Factbooks · 46x World Assembly Author · Festering Snakepit Wiki · WACampaign · GA Stat Effects Data

Posts in the WA forums are Ooc and unofficial, absent indication otherwise.
Please check out my roleplay thread The Battle of Glass Tears!
WA 101 Guides to GA authorship, campaigning, and more.

User avatar
Mesogiria
Diplomat
 
Posts: 857
Founded: Dec 03, 2009
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Mesogiria » Fri Mar 01, 2024 9:05 pm

The Ice States wrote:The intent is the former; I support a full ban on member conscription, but this particular proposal is not intended to do that. Do you have any suggestions for how to make this more clear?


Ban the World Assembly from accepting the services of any conscript.

"Further, neither the World Assembly nor any committee or agent thereof may engage or accept the police or military services of any person who has been coerced, required, or otherwise compelled to render that service by a member nation."

Doesn't ban conscription and doesn't create a blocker against future legislation.

User avatar
The Ice States
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2879
Founded: Jun 23, 2022
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby The Ice States » Fri Mar 01, 2024 9:49 pm

Mesogiria wrote:
The Ice States wrote:The intent is the former; I support a full ban on member conscription, but this particular proposal is not intended to do that. Do you have any suggestions for how to make this more clear?


Ban the World Assembly from accepting the services of any conscript.

"Further, neither the World Assembly nor any committee or agent thereof may engage or accept the police or military services of any person who has been coerced, required, or otherwise compelled to render that service by a member nation."

Doesn't ban conscription and doesn't create a blocker against future legislation.

I'm not too keen on this largely because of the Committees rule; however I have qualified Section 2 to apply only to "a World Assembly-run military or police force".
Factbooks · 46x World Assembly Author · Festering Snakepit Wiki · WACampaign · GA Stat Effects Data

Posts in the WA forums are Ooc and unofficial, absent indication otherwise.
Please check out my roleplay thread The Battle of Glass Tears!
WA 101 Guides to GA authorship, campaigning, and more.

User avatar
Fachumonn
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1528
Founded: Apr 11, 2021
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Fachumonn » Sat Mar 02, 2024 11:53 am

I would be more specific about whether or not military drafts are allowed. (I would assume not)

Also, if a nation gets attacked, how are they going to be able to defend themselves? Do you think anybody wants to go to war as a soldier? The nation simply would not be able to do anything.

I like the overall premise, but this is too short to address everything that needs to be addressed.
GA Authorship Leaderboard | Guide to Campaigning | Other Resources

-11th Delegate of LSC. (May 31 2021-October 16 2022, June 9 2023-August 21 2023, November 1 2023-)

WA Ambassador: The People | Pronouns: He/Him/His| RL Ideology: Libertarian Socialism/Anarcho-Communism | GP Alignment: Independent |

User avatar
The Ice States
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2879
Founded: Jun 23, 2022
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby The Ice States » Sat Mar 02, 2024 12:13 pm

Fachumonn wrote:I would be more specific about whether or not military drafts are allowed. (I would assume not)

Also, if a nation gets attacked, how are they going to be able to defend themselves? Do you think anybody wants to go to war as a soldier? The nation simply would not be able to do anything.

I like the overall premise, but this is too short to address everything that needs to be addressed.

As above, this does not ban all conscription; just conscription enforced by the WA or to WA armies/police forces. Conscription itself, as enforced by member nations, is addressed by GA #660, although that allows further restrictions, none of which have been enacted yet.
Last edited by The Ice States on Sat Mar 02, 2024 12:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Factbooks · 46x World Assembly Author · Festering Snakepit Wiki · WACampaign · GA Stat Effects Data

Posts in the WA forums are Ooc and unofficial, absent indication otherwise.
Please check out my roleplay thread The Battle of Glass Tears!
WA 101 Guides to GA authorship, campaigning, and more.

User avatar
Fachumonn
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1528
Founded: Apr 11, 2021
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Fachumonn » Sat Mar 02, 2024 12:16 pm

The Ice States wrote:
Fachumonn wrote:I would be more specific about whether or not military drafts are allowed. (I would assume not)

Also, if a nation gets attacked, how are they going to be able to defend themselves? Do you think anybody wants to go to war as a soldier? The nation simply would not be able to do anything.

I like the overall premise, but this is too short to address everything that needs to be addressed.

As above, this does not ban all conscription; just conscription enforced by the WA or to WA armies/police forces. Conscription itself, as enforced by member nations, is addressed by GA #660, although that allows further restrictions, none of which have been enacted yet.

Thanks for clarifying.
GA Authorship Leaderboard | Guide to Campaigning | Other Resources

-11th Delegate of LSC. (May 31 2021-October 16 2022, June 9 2023-August 21 2023, November 1 2023-)

WA Ambassador: The People | Pronouns: He/Him/His| RL Ideology: Libertarian Socialism/Anarcho-Communism | GP Alignment: Independent |

User avatar
The Ice States
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2879
Founded: Jun 23, 2022
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby The Ice States » Wed Mar 06, 2024 7:53 pm

Any further comments? I will likely submit this next.
Last edited by The Ice States on Wed Mar 06, 2024 7:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Factbooks · 46x World Assembly Author · Festering Snakepit Wiki · WACampaign · GA Stat Effects Data

Posts in the WA forums are Ooc and unofficial, absent indication otherwise.
Please check out my roleplay thread The Battle of Glass Tears!
WA 101 Guides to GA authorship, campaigning, and more.

User avatar
Comfed
Minister
 
Posts: 2254
Founded: Apr 09, 2020
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Comfed » Thu Mar 07, 2024 7:23 pm

There is no need to qualify the mandate in s 2(a) with the requirement "should that individual have expressed a bona fide conscientious, moral, or religious objection against serving in that role," when your goal is to prohibit conscription by the WA entirely.

I would make this minor change to s 2 to make it somewhat easier to read:
No member nation, or administrative or political subdivision thereof, may penalise any individual for any act or omission, with regards to a World Assembly-run military or police force, for which the World Assembly is prohibited from penalising an individual for under Section 1.
Last edited by Comfed on Thu Mar 07, 2024 7:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
The Ice States
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2879
Founded: Jun 23, 2022
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby The Ice States » Thu Mar 07, 2024 7:59 pm

Comfed wrote:There is no need to qualify the mandate in s 2(a) with the requirement "should that individual have expressed a bona fide conscientious, moral, or religious objection against serving in that role," when your goal is to prohibit conscription by the WA entirely.

Thanks for the comments! That particular provision isn't about conscription as much as a (voluntary) WA soldier objecting to a particular conflict.

I would make this minor change to s 2 to make it somewhat easier to read:
No member nation, or administrative or political subdivision thereof, may penalise any individual for any act or omission, with regards to a World Assembly-run military or police force, for which the World Assembly is prohibited from penalising an individual for under Section 1.

This is done.
Factbooks · 46x World Assembly Author · Festering Snakepit Wiki · WACampaign · GA Stat Effects Data

Posts in the WA forums are Ooc and unofficial, absent indication otherwise.
Please check out my roleplay thread The Battle of Glass Tears!
WA 101 Guides to GA authorship, campaigning, and more.

User avatar
Simone Republic
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1843
Founded: Jul 09, 2019
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Simone Republic » Sat Mar 09, 2024 2:13 am

The Ice States wrote:
Simone Republic wrote:
The wording is: "[a] proposal cannot define: who can/cannot staff the committee"

I take that as absolute.

Yes. There is a difference between banning a committee from having X in its staff and banning the committee from forcing X to be in staff.


I take the words

A proposal cannot define: who can/cannot staff the committee, how members are chosen, and term lengths


as absolute, i.e., the WA cannot write a resolution to force the WA itself from not conscripting people. Because the wording is not "who can staff" but "who can/cannot staff", so conscription, i.e., forcing gnomes to be used as cannon fodder, comes under "cannot" be used as staff. In addition, the word "members" is not defined (as a committee's structure is not defined), therefore it is not clear if the conscripts are actually "members", in which case "how members are chosen" is also violated because you are preventing members from being chosen via mandatory conscription. (Members of the World Health Authority, if are included, are probably in the zillions category given the number of gnomes needed to staff it).

In addition, 1(b) also specifically conflicts with 698 since 698 clause (4)(a) implies that there is a component of using force if necessary (say if they face attacks from non-WA states).
Last edited by Simone Republic on Sat Mar 09, 2024 4:48 am, edited 7 times in total.
All posts OOC. (He/him). I don't speak for TNP. IC the "white bear" (it) is for jokes only.

User avatar
The Ice States
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2879
Founded: Jun 23, 2022
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby The Ice States » Sat Mar 09, 2024 3:14 pm

Simone Republic wrote:
The Ice States wrote:Yes. There is a difference between banning a committee from having X in its staff and banning the committee from forcing X to be in staff.


I take the words

A proposal cannot define: who can/cannot staff the committee, how members are chosen, and term lengths


as absolute, i.e., the WA cannot write a resolution to force the WA itself from not conscripting people. Because the wording is not "who can staff" but "who can/cannot staff", so conscription, i.e., forcing gnomes to be used as cannon fodder, comes under "cannot" be used as staff.

I don't think it does as the gnomes can "be used as cannon forder", they just can't be forced into it.

[qipte\In addition, the word "members" is not defined (as a committee's structure is not defined), therefore it is not clear if the conscripts are actually "members", in which case "how members are chosen" is also violated because you are preventing members from being chosen via mandatory conscription. (Members of the World Health Authority, if are included, are probably in the zillions category given the number of gnomes needed to staff it).[/quote]
This is an interesting point worth raising; I can't find any precedent on Committees as to this question, the only precedent I can find (both Moderator and Gensec) is about the Committee-Only aspect of the rule. The Consortium thread seems to imply that "members" means "staff", but then that raises the question -- are soldiers truly staff? Wikipedia seems to define "staff" in a military as meaning only high-level commanders, officers, etc; not just regular soldiers.[1]

In addition, 1(b) also specifically conflicts with 698 since 698 clause (4)(a) implies that there is a component of using force if necessary (say if they face attacks from non-WA states).

That applies only to IEC officers "acting per this mandate", and, further, is a restriction not an authorisation.
Factbooks · 46x World Assembly Author · Festering Snakepit Wiki · WACampaign · GA Stat Effects Data

Posts in the WA forums are Ooc and unofficial, absent indication otherwise.
Please check out my roleplay thread The Battle of Glass Tears!
WA 101 Guides to GA authorship, campaigning, and more.

User avatar
Fishelle
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 120
Founded: Apr 18, 2023
New York Times Democracy

Postby Fishelle » Sat Mar 09, 2024 3:16 pm

Against, what if a war happened?
News (Fishelle Canon): Fishelle is back in the WA. | Man arrested for stuffing a fish with powdered lead, mental hospitals are baffled.
Signature Stuff
I reserve the right to /stillme low effort posts and summies

User avatar
The Ice States
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2879
Founded: Jun 23, 2022
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby The Ice States » Sat Mar 09, 2024 3:18 pm

Fishelle wrote:Against, what if a war happened?

This doesn't restrict conscription into member nation militaries, just WA ones.
Factbooks · 46x World Assembly Author · Festering Snakepit Wiki · WACampaign · GA Stat Effects Data

Posts in the WA forums are Ooc and unofficial, absent indication otherwise.
Please check out my roleplay thread The Battle of Glass Tears!
WA 101 Guides to GA authorship, campaigning, and more.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Fachumonn

Advertisement

Remove ads