[At Vote] WA Peacekeeping Charter [Complete]

plembobria

plembobria

TNPer
-
WA Peacekeeping Charter

A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.


Category: Global Disarmament

Strength: Mild

Proposed by: Excidium Planetis

Description: The Assembly of Worlds,

Believing prevention of conflict or restoration of peacetime activities to be one of the foremost goals of this august body, and that an international organization dedicated to this effort would be of great use,

Reaffirming prior resolutions preventing the WA from becoming a military force used as a tool against those the majority of WA voters do not like,

Article I - Restrictions on WA Force

Prohibits any WA organizations or committees from engaging in offensive military actions with any WA member states, citizens thereof, or organizations affiliated with such states, for any reason whatsoever;

Prohibits WA personnel from carrying lethal weapons on WAHQ property. WA personnel are committee members and employees of the WA.

Article II - Scope of Peacekeeping Operations and Standards

Establishes the WA Peacekeepers, whose goal shall be to prevent and end conflict, and preserve peace. Peacekeepers shall adhere to these principles:

Consent of all parties involved in its operations. No peacekeeping effort shall be made without the consent of all WA member nations involved, and without the request of at least one member nation involved.

Impartiality in proceedings and conflicts. Peacekeepers shall maintain professionalism at all times and give equal consideration to the involved parties.

Non-use of force. Except in cases of self defense, Peacekeepers are to refrain from using lethal force, and shall be prohibited from carrying lethal weapons. Peacekeepers are to avoid using non-lethal force on state actors.

Tasks the WA Peacekeepers with the following duties:

Assistance in reintegrating former combatants back into civilian society

Assistance in disarmament and demobilizing of military forces,

Organization of elections or government reorganization or establishment, or monitoring thereof

Monitoring the fulfillment of obligations created by armistices or ceasefires

Protection of the WA-recognized rights of citizens of member nations and support for the rule of law

Assistance in international mediation and resolving potential causes for international conflict

Prohibits the WA from expanding the role of the WA Peacekeepers to include any efforts that cannot be considered one of the above duties;

Further tasks Peacekeepers with:

Maintaining the legitimacy of WA actions

Actively involving national and local governments in its operations to promote personal ownership over the success of Peacekeeping operations

Forming clear and achievable mandates in Peacekeeping efforts;

Authorizes the WA Peacekeepers to:

request appropriate WA funds to support its operations,

conduct research into safe and effective non-lethal weapons systems, armor, and defense technologies to increase the safety of WA personnel

Clarifies that the WA Peacekeepers are not a military force, nor are they ever to be used as such,

Article III - Responsibility of Member Nation-States

Encourages WA Member nations to make a genuine commitment to maintaining peace, maintain a Unity of Purpose with the WA, actively support Peacekeeping efforts where possible, refrain from hindering WA operations or movement, and communicate effectively with WA personnel

Prohibits member nations from using WA organizations or committees to defend themselves from other nations, from fraudulently requesting WA peacekeeping efforts, and from intentionally launching military, terrorist, or criminal attacks against WA property or officials.
Click to expand...
 
This resolution is currently subject to a legality challenge. The resolution seeks to establish "...the WA Peacekeepers, whose goal shall be to prevent and end conflict, and preserve peace [emphasis added]." This proposal seems to violate Section III, Article 10 of General Assembly Resolution #2, which specifically states that "...the World Assembly as a body maintains neutrality in matters of civil and international strife." Furthermore, this resolution cannot help but be at odds with the next sentence, which states "...the WA will not engage in commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner." The clause on non-use of force is fraught with errors, leaving open the option for lethal use of force against both state and non-state actors. This resolution also fails to define what "support for the rule of law" means, leaving it vague and open to interpretation.

For these reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs encourages a vote against this resolution.
 
This is..odd. I can see that the principle might be good but I'm unconvinced they've pulled it off. Currently not sure.
 
Wouldn't this violate GA2?

Article 10 § Whilst WA Member States may engage in wars, the World Assembly as a body maintains neutrality in matters of civil and international strife. As such, the WA will not engage in commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner.

No vote at this time, seeking clarification.
 
Sil Dorsett:
Wouldn't this violate GA2?

Article 10 § Whilst WA Member States may engage in wars, the World Assembly as a body maintains neutrality in matters of civil and international strife. As such, the WA will not engage in commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner.

No vote at this time, seeking clarification.
Click to expand...
This particular aspect of legality is currently being debated on the GA forums here. The General Assembly Secretariat has not yet ruled on it, but most likely will.

I argue that many of the specific actions of the WA Peacekeepers have been given to WA committees in the past (for example, before it was repealed, GA#40 had a Demining committee, which participated in disarmament of landmines). As none of the specific actions of the Peacekeepers have been ruled illegal in the past as police actions, I then argue that the WA Peacekeepers are not participating in police actions.
 
Excidium Planetis:
How can I get the support of The North Pacific for this resolution?
Click to expand...
You need to convince a majority of the WA voters in this thread, (and those in the WA Ministry, me included) why this resolution is positive.

For instance, for me, it seems to essentially want to outlaw war among WA states, which seems a little bit of an overstretch.

Additionally, while these things may have been done in the past, having them all being done by one committee whose job is very similar to a WA police is quite different, although we'll see how the secretariat rules.
 
could be a good idea, the current name "peacekeepers" might imply the use of force thouh while something like a (quite non-violent) "assistance in rebuilding and reintegration office" seems the intention. Is it still possible t rename?
 
Abbey Anumia:
Excidium Planetis:
How can I get the support of The North Pacific for this resolution?
Click to expand...
You need to convince a majority of the WA voters in this thread, (and those in the WA Ministry, me included) why this resolution is positive.

For instance, for me, it seems to essentially want to outlaw war among WA states, which seems a little bit of an overstretch.

Additionally, while these things may have been done in the past, having them all being done by one committee whose job is very similar to a WA police is quite different, although we'll see how the secretariat rules.
Click to expand...
Let me assure you, outlawing war is not my intention at all. I want to outlaw the use of the WA as a weapon of war, and I want WA member nations to be able voluntarily ask for assistance in peacemaking and peacekeeping. But outlawing war is certainly not my intent.

For those who are not aware of my track record in the GA, I have consistently opposed resolutions which would ban aggressive wars, wars of conquest, and which would severely restrict conventional or nuclear weapons. I have authored a resolution that specifically allows the use of cyber attacks in wars (GA#378 Digital Network Defense).

could be a good idea, the current name "peacekeepers" might imply the use of force thouh while something like a (quite non-violent) "assistance in rebuilding and reintegration office" seems the intention.
Click to expand...
That is indeed the intent.
 
Glen-Rhodes:
I also would like to say that it's in the author's most prudent interests to request a review of their proposal before submission, when legality issues have been raised during drafting, or the likelihood of a legality challenge is very high. Doing an end-run around GenSec or mods by submitting a proposal, campaigning, and reaching quorum overnight -- as impressive a feat as that may be -- doesn't foster a healthy debate environment. It forces us to rush through our own deliberations, robs everybody of a chance to provide input into the legality review process, and ultimately may compel the use of the Discard function that so many community regulars hate.
Click to expand...
Given the above, taken from the aforementioned Legality Challenge thread, I cannot support this proposal.

Against.
 
Ash:
Glen-Rhodes:
I also would like to say that it's in the author's most prudent interests to request a review of their proposal before submission, when legality issues have been raised during drafting, or the likelihood of a legality challenge is very high. Doing an end-run around GenSec or mods by submitting a proposal, campaigning, and reaching quorum overnight -- as impressive a feat as that may be -- doesn't foster a healthy debate environment. It forces us to rush through our own deliberations, robs everybody of a chance to provide input into the legality review process, and ultimately may compel the use of the Discard function that so many community regulars hate.
Click to expand...
Given the above, taken from the aforementioned Legality Challenge thread, I cannot support this proposal.

Against.
Click to expand...
The proposal in question was in drafting for months, with Glen-Rhodes and other GenSec members commenting on the proposal. Legality questions were raised repeatedly and I addressed them.

The proposal reaching quorum overnight was not my fault. I simply ran a campaign like anyone else. The new system requires players to make a Legality Challenge thread, and despite my notification weeks in advance that I was planning to submit, nobody made a challenge. I moved forward.

Voting Against for the sole reason that... I had a legality challenge filed last minute against my proposal?... is not fair to proposal authors who spent a considerable amount of time drafting a WA resolution.
 
Excidium Planetis:
Ash:
Given the above, taken from the aforementioned Legality Challenge thread, I cannot support this proposal.

Against.
Click to expand...
The proposal in question was in drafting for months, with Glen-Rhodes and other GenSec members commenting on the proposal. Legality questions were raised repeatedly and I addressed them.

The proposal reaching quorum overnight was not my fault. I simply ran a campaign like anyone else. The new system requires players to make a Legality Challenge thread, and despite my notification weeks in advance that I was planning to submit, nobody made a challenge. I moved forward.

Voting Against for the sole reason that... I had a legality challenge filed last minute against my proposal?... is not fair to proposal authors who spent a considerable amount of time drafting a WA resolution.
Click to expand...
You're missing the point. Glen-Rhodes suggested it would be in the best interests of the author to request a review of the proposal before submission. Was this done?

As it stands, even if your proposal is approved by a majority of WA voters, there is the very real risk of it being discarded by the GA Secretariat.

I understand how much time and effort has been placed into this proposal. Years ago, I found myself in a situation that was similar to the one you now find yourself in. Take what you learn from this experience and apply it to your next proposal. We need more people like you in this game.
 
Ash:
You're missing the point. Glen-Rhodes suggested it would be in the best interests of the author to request a review of the proposal before submission. Was this done?

As it stands, even if your proposal is approved by a majority of WA voters, there is the very real risk of it being discarded by the GA Secretariat.

I understand how much time and effort has been placed into this proposal. Years ago, I found myself in a situation that was similar to the one you now find yourself in. Take what you learn from this experience and apply it to your next proposal. We need more people like you in this game.
Click to expand...
Glen-Rhodes did not suggest that until after I had submitted it. In fact, no one suggested I file a challenge against my own proposal beforehand.

Under the mods, I never had to file a GHR against my own proposal before submitting it. That was not a complaint I got the previous 4 times I went through this. Under this new system, the only person who filed a challenge against their own proposal was Gruenberg, and he didn't even plan on submitting his proposal, he just wanted the GenSec to rule it illegal.

I am not concerned about it being discarded. Discards hurt the author most of all, as it essentially wastes their time. Unless you have some kind of personal objection to the discard function being used?
 
Ash:
Excidium Planetis:
Ash:
Given the above, taken from the aforementioned Legality Challenge thread, I cannot support this proposal.

Against.
Click to expand...
The proposal in question was in drafting for months, with Glen-Rhodes and other GenSec members commenting on the proposal. Legality questions were raised repeatedly and I addressed them.

The proposal reaching quorum overnight was not my fault. I simply ran a campaign like anyone else. The new system requires players to make a Legality Challenge thread, and despite my notification weeks in advance that I was planning to submit, nobody made a challenge. I moved forward.

Voting Against for the sole reason that... I had a legality challenge filed last minute against my proposal?... is not fair to proposal authors who spent a considerable amount of time drafting a WA resolution.
Click to expand...
You're missing the point. Glen-Rhodes suggested it would be in the best interests of the author to request a review of the proposal before submission. Was this done?

As it stands, even if your proposal is approved by a majority of WA voters, there is the very real risk of it being discarded by the GA Secretariat.

I understand how much time and effort has been placed into this proposal. Years ago, I found myself in a situation that was similar to the one you now find yourself in. Take what you learn from this experience and apply it to your next proposal. We need more people like you in this game.
Click to expand...
For.

Why is it the author's responsibility to submit a legality challenge on their own proposal?

Excidium Planetis sees nothing wrong with it so why would they challenge it?
 
Voting on this resolution has ended.

Thanks to those nations who cast their votes. Your participation is a great help to the region.

This topic has been locked and sent to the Archives for safekeeping. If you would like this topic to be re-opened for further discussion, please contact the WA Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top