[RULE CHANGE] New Legislation

[Imperium Anglorum]

*** Public consultation on new legislation rule revision ***

The GA Secretariat proposes revision to the new legislation rule. This change emerges from a recent discussion to align the ruleset more closely to the tests used to evaluate violations.

The rule currently reads as follows.

A repeal cannot introduce new legislation and can only seek to repeal the existing resolution. A new proposal on the same topic may be submitted after passage of the repeal.

The change would rewrite it to read:

No repeal clause may encourage or require any act or omission other than repeal of the target resolution. However, one may encourage drafting and passage of a replacement (as well as specifics thereof). A replacement must be submitted as a new proposal separate to any repeal.

The Secretariat again is mainly focused on making it clearer how exactly a proposal is tested and what burdens must be met. The current language takes "new legislation" as a self-evident thing: this would replace that wording with a definition viz "require or block any substantive act or omission". Clarification is also added to legitimise clauses encouraging replacement.

The Secretariat requests comment.

1. Should the prohibition on encouragement clauses in repeals – eg in a repeal of a blocker of a death penalty ban "Encourages member nations to institute a moratorium on executions" – be retained? If not retained, encouragement clauses would not gain blocking effect from [2017] GAS 11.
   
   
2. Is this revision understandable and clear, especially for new players?

This is intended to be a clarification only and not substantively change enforcement, which already uses this standard. We would appreciate comments and responses to be topical.

Those voting in favour of the given wording were Imperium Anglorum, Kenmoria, Desmosthenes and Burke, and The Ice States. Under the procedures, this comment period will end in two weeks (17 May 2024), subject to finalisation.

---

Related resources.

"The NatSov Repeal Rule" (4 May 2015), viewtopic.php?f=36&t=340129.
[2017] GAS 11, viewtopic.php?p=32663234#p32663234.

[Wallenburg]

The new language is self-contradicting and as a result very confusing. We're better off with the existing rule.

[Bisofeyr]

The new language is self-contradicting and as a result very confusing. We're better off with the existing rule.

I agree with this

[Fachumonn]

Trying to find a problem with every rule in the rulebook doesn't always work... I honestly think the current rule is fine.

[Simone Republic]

Maybe something like

A repeal cannot introduce new legislation and can only seek to repeal the existing resolution. A new proposal on the same topic may be submitted after passage of the repeal. Clearly labelled opinions on calls for a specific direction on any potential replacements is permitted.

Just a thought.

[The Overmind]

"No repeal clause may encourage or require any act or omission other than repeal of the target resolution. However, one may encourage drafting and passage of a replacement (as well as specifics thereof). A replacement must be submitted as a new proposal separate to any repeal."

"No repeal clause may encourage or require any act or omission other than the repeal of the target resolution, except to give counsel on a hypothetical replacement (which must still be submitted as a separate proposal)."

[Haymarket Riot]

Don’t fix what ain’t broke, as others have already said. Not sure how this proposal really even changes that much. That being said if you all in the GenSec are convinced it needs to be changed, second on Overmind’s language.

[The Overmind]

Don’t fix what ain’t broke, as others have already said. Not sure how this proposal really even changes that much. That being said if you all in the GenSec are convinced it needs to be changed, second on Overmind’s language.

I think the difference most people on this thread have missed is that it explicitly carves out the possibility of counseling on a possible replacement in a repeal text, which is a potential argument, in and of itself, for a repeal, but isn't clearly allowed under the old rule wording.

[Barfleur]

Adding my two cents, I think the current wording is preferable. The new wording, even if not contradictory, has the effect of likely confusing players who may not understand the nuances between what is allowed and not allowed, whereas the current wording clearly forbids legislation and does not touch on suggestions.

[Tsomayim]

*** Public consultation on new legislation rule revision ***

The GA Secretariat proposes revision to the new legislation rule. This change emerges from a recent discussion to align the ruleset more closely to the tests used to evaluate violations.

The rule currently reads as follows.

A repeal cannot introduce new legislation and can only seek to repeal the existing resolution. A new proposal on the same topic may be submitted after passage of the repeal.

The change would rewrite it to read:

No repeal clause may encourage or require any act or omission other than repeal of the target resolution. However, one may encourage drafting and passage of a replacement (as well as specifics thereof). A replacement must be submitted as a new proposal separate to any repeal.

The Secretariat again is mainly focused on making it clearer how exactly a proposal is tested and what burdens must be met. The current language takes "new legislation" as a self-evident thing: this would replace that wording with a definition viz "require or block any substantive act or omission". Clarification is also added to legitimise clauses encouraging replacement.

The Secretariat requests comment.

1. Should the prohibition on encouragement clauses in repeals – eg in a repeal of a blocker of a death penalty ban "Encourages member nations to institute a moratorium on executions" – be retained? If not retained, encouragement clauses would not gain blocking effect from [2017] GAS 11.
   
   
2. Is this revision understandable and clear, especially for new players?

This is intended to be a clarification only and not substantively change enforcement, which already uses this standard. We would appreciate comments and responses to be topical.

Those voting in favour of the given wording were Imperium Anglorum, Kenmoria, Desmosthenes and Burke, and The Ice States. Under the procedures, this comment period will end in two weeks (17 May 2024), subject to finalisation.

---

Related resources.

"The NatSov Repeal Rule" (4 May 2015), viewtopic.php?f=36&t=340129.
[2017] GAS 11, viewtopic.php?p=32663234#p32663234.

1. I think encouragement clauses should be allowed.

2. The new wording is confusing. I can't really tell what it would be changing.

[The Overmind]

Adding my two cents, I think the current wording is preferable. The new wording, even if not contradictory, has the effect of likely confusing players who may not understand the nuances between what is allowed and not allowed, whereas the current wording clearly forbids legislation and does not touch on suggestions.

I would be in favor of the old wording if it is made clear via some future legality challenge ruling that the precedent is that it is permissible to counsel on the need or form of a replacement in the act of arguing for the repeal. I think admitting such counsel-as-argument could enrich repeal texts.

[Tinhampton]

Support. But... if "Encourages member nations to institute a moratorium on executions" is not suitable language for a death penalty ban repeal, then how about "Encourages the World Assembly to institute a moratorium on executions following this repeal?" How about expressing a hope that such a moratorium be instituted?

[Merni]

I agree broadly that the new proposal is less clear than the current wording.

A repeal cannot introduce new legislation and can only seek to repeal the existing resolution. A new proposal on the same topic may be submitted after passage of the repeal. Clearly labelled opinions on calls for a specific direction on any potential replacements is permitted.

Perhaps a simpler addition could be "Encouragement clauses in a repeal are permitted if they are related to any potential replacements"? That is, if an addition is needed at all -- I think general encouragements should be allowed in repeals whether they are replacement-related or not.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I think the proposal to use "new legislation" alone is like saying "horse: everyone knows what a horse is" (An old TIL). The "self-contradicting" aspect comes with the exception provided. But in general I agree we should try to find clearer wordings, even if this one is not so. The version from Overmind with "give counsel" seems okay but "give counsel" is not, in terms of meaning, itself self-evident.

[Bisofeyr]

Repeals may not institute a new burden on any member nations, or otherwise legislate beyond the actual repeal of the target resolution. General desires for future action by the World Assembly is permitted.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Is "encourages member nations to subsidise canned soup" a burden on a member nation?

[Bisofeyr]

I think it would fall under "otherwise legislate", but I see how that loosely runs into the same issue as the current wording.

The current Strength rule uses the language "affecting... policy", so using that we can maybe say Repeals may not affect policy beyond the actual repeal of the target resolution. General desires for future action by the World Assembly is permitted.

Though, reading that over it somewhat runs into the same issue as "introduce legislation". Regardless, I would definitely stand by the phrasing of the second sentence in my proposal, which (in my opinion) is preferable to the overly verbose clause in the presently proposed rule.

EDIT: Maybe Repeals may take no action beyond the repeal of the target resolution. Expressing a general desire of future action by the World Assembly is permitted.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Does "encourages member nations to subsidise canned soup" affect policy? The optionality rule would say no. This sort of precision problem is why we settled on the new operative clause wording with "encourages or requires a member state or entity therein to make an act or omission". What is a "general desire" in your second sentence?

[The Overmind]

Repeals may not institute a new burden on any member nations, or otherwise legislate beyond the actual repeal of the target resolution. General desires for future action by the World Assembly is permitted.

Notwithstanding an opinion on the wording as a whole, since I haven't had time to arrive at one yet, I think "General desires for future action by the World Assembly is permitted." is okay because the WA is distinct from member nations, and this makes no implication that general desires for future action by member nations is permitted. I don't think it suggests "encourages" clauses for member nation behavior can be included in repeal texts.

[Bisofeyr]

Does "encourages member nations to subsidise canned soup" affect policy? The optionality rule would say no. This sort of precision problem is why we settled on the new operative clause wording with "encourages or requires a member state or entity therein to make an act or omission".

And I can understand that point, but I would generally contend that although the language you provide is more specific, the extent to which it is more helpful to the average person interpreting what it says is actually minimal. I edited my post above (which I acknowledge you likely didn't see given the timing of our posts) to something that may be more specific. I would also be amenable to something along the lines of "Repeals may have no operative clauses beyond the repeal of its target" or something to that effect.

What is a "general desire" in your second sentence?

It's intentionally vague; under the proposed wording, the phrase "Hoping that the World Assembly never again succumbs to the level of micromanagement as dictated by the target," would not fall under the exception (though I would contend that it would not fall afoul of the restriction of additional legislation to begin with, if we're clarifying what is and is not permitted in repeals, to say that one thing is permitted would likely suggest that other similar items would not be permitted, especially to those unfamiliar with the rules). Similarly, saying "Encouraging the World Assembly to refrain from making a replacement to this Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad resolution" would be clearly illegal under the proposed ruleset, which I would see as sub-optimal. My proposed language is vague enough that if an author wants to make some unorthodox suggestion for future actions of the WA, beyond the extent of merely encouraging replacement, they are clearly permitted to do so while standing clear of illegality.

[Imperium Anglorum]

How about, adapting the OP, including the gist of the ending sentence of the original rule, and the suggestion above:

No repeal clause may take any action beyond the repeal of the target resolution. However, one may encourage drafting and passage of a replacement (as well as specifics thereof). New legislation may only be submitted in a non-repeal proposal.

[Merni]

How about, adapting the OP, including the gist of the ending sentence of the original rule, and the suggestion above:

No repeal clause may take any action beyond the repeal of the target resolution. However, one may encourage drafting and passage of a replacement (as well as specifics thereof). New legislation must be submitted in a non-repeal proposal.

The first two sentences are fine. The third creates an implication (in my view) that a non-repeal proposal is mandated to contain "new legislation", which a contradiction of the Strength rule if encouraging doesn't constitute "legislation". Perhaps "New legislation must be submitted only in a non-repeal proposal" (or "must only be submitted in...")?

[Bisofeyr]

How about, adapting the OP, including the gist of the ending sentence of the original rule, and the suggestion above:

No repeal clause may take any action beyond the repeal of the target resolution. However, one may encourage drafting and passage of a replacement (as well as specifics thereof). New legislation must be submitted in a non-repeal proposal.

Obviously I find this better, but I still object to specifying encouragement of a replacement, but not mentioning other future guidance. If your objection is based in the phrase "general desire", perhaps we could phrase the second sentence as something along the lines of "Guidance on relevant future policy action by the World Assembly is permitted, and may include details surrounding potential replacement or lack thereof."


EDIT: For a real policy example, let's take GA 639 "Repeal: 'LGBTIQA Inclusiveness in Schools Act'"; specifically, the final clause:

Hoping that in the future, the World Assembly stops passing haphazardly written resolutions on the sole basis that they grant rights to certain marginalised groups, and instead consider the technical merit of a proposal before rushing to vote in favour based on premise alone, hereby:

This clearly would not fall under the exception granted under the current wording. Though, one could make the claim that "Hoping" does not rise to the level of burden that the first sentence of the rule would require, under either the original proposal or IA's most recent wording (and this claim may very well be true). Regardless, if the phrasing of rules are made to be as clear as possible to newcomers, or folks who are not intricately familiar with the current ruleset and/or precedent, by explicitly allowing one type of future hope for replacement would seem to imply that other types of future hopes are not permitted, as they were not specified in the same way. Clearly, if the clause I'm referencing changed "Hoping" to "Encouraging", I would contend that it would have to be marked illegal under the proposed rule phrasing; this is not something that seems desirable to me, as it imposes a relatively arbitrary restriction.

And yes, I am perfectly aware that "Previous resolution is now illegal" is not necessarily an argument against a rule change, but I rather bring this up to show that my argument is not just based in a hypothetical, and show the exact undesirable conditions that I think the proposed second/third sentences would bring.

[The Overmind]

"No repeal clause may do anything other than advance an argument for the repeal of the target resolution, but may convey a preference regarding replacement legislation in so doing."

[Second Sovereignty]

A bit of editorializing in repeals is, I think, fine. We should absolutely not strictly limit repeals to arguing only for the repeal itself, and non-binding clauses that do, literally nothing, in real effect, should be generally permitted; I see no reason a bit of empty encouragement or hope regarding future legislation ought to be culled from them. It'd make repeals awfully boring.