Magecastle
Wolf of the North
- Pronouns
- He/Him
- TNP Nation
- Magecastle_Embassy_Building_A5
- Discord
- red_canine
Oh, wait, you wanted more of an explanation than that?
Basically, the battle over National Sovereignty versus International Federalism is two sides of the same coin. The General Assembly (as the WA, and UN before it) exists to remove National Sovereignty. However, there are different extents to which such national powers can be affected. Additionally, most Natsovs believe that there are at least some topics that are appropriate for international legislation. (The details vary, depending on which Natsov you're talking to, but you would be hard-pressed to find one who thinks the WA should permit war crimes.) While the Natsov/Intfed war has largely died down, especially compared to eg eight years ago, it is often still relevant in GA debates.
Natsov authors are generally fans of repeals - especially of what they view as overreaching legislation - and may pass "blockers" to prevent additionally interference from the GA on particular topics. Notable blockers include the "Responsibility in Transferring Arms" and the now-repealed "Nuclear Arms Possession Act".
Natsov representatives on the NS forums are sometimes fond of finding "loopholes" within legislation that they can exploit to evade compliance. This often requires very careful wording of proposals on the part of the author in order to prevent especially damaging loopholes. (Many successful repeals are built upon problematic loopholes within a resolution's text.)
International Federalists believe that because the GA has the power to remove national sovereignty from WA member nations, it should do so wherever and whenever it can. Many of the "One Size Fits None" proposals that I mentioned above have Intfed leanings. (For the record, good Intfed legislation certainly exists!) Of course, the other side is not blameless either; there have been multiple instances of proposals being subject to quorum raiding (the controversial practice of toppling delegates approving a proposal to make it harder for the proposal to become quorate) due to being perceived as meddling too far in national affairs!
In all seriousness, I feel that being able to honestly and frankly evaluate GA legislation is based on the ability to think beyond how a proposed resolution will affect more than just your own nation. The NationStates multi-verse is composed of many different sorts of nations - different cultures, different tech levels, and even different species. (There's one nation of sapient bears that used to post frequently on the NS forums and even serve on the GA Secretariat, for example.)
For more reading on this topic, you may want to peruse this thread on the NS forums. Knootoss (the OP) is a notable National Sovereigntist. This post (within the same thread), is from Sionis Prioratus, who is a known International Federalist - and one of the notable authors that I admire and respect with such staunch Intfed bonafides.
NationStates =/= Real Life
When it comes time to read (or draft) a proposal, try to think of other nations you may have run into. While there are some nations who enjoy Role Playing extreme nations who don't have many resolutions at all that apply to them, most variations can be covered with a well-written proposal. And, of course, it's possible that many of these issues won't be discovered until your proposal is in the drafting phase on the NS forums.
Reasonable Nation Theory
Reasonable Nation Theory (aka RNT) is a commonly held standard for judging a proposal within the GA framework, as discussed above, and consists of two prongs.Throughout the long history of NationStates (and the UN/WA/GA), there have always been nations that wanted to make noise by saying, "This resolution doesn't apply to me because of X." Some of those concerns may be valid - eg my nation has outlawed cars, so your Automobile Manufacturing resolution has no effect on us. Other concerns might be a bit ... out there. For example, I believe there was a nation who stated that their nation did not know how to read during the first debate/passage of the Universal Library Coalition resolution. I even have a nation, Contrarian Extraordinaire, which posts in the thread for every passed active resolution pointing out its inability to comply due to absurd factors, such as the presence of an indelible force field which prevents wartime reporters from entering its jurisdiction. Such arguments are often dismissed as "RP wank", and the first prong of RNT is that you should not feel pressured to accomodate for patently absurd or bizarre scenarios.
This isn't to say that you should change your RP for your nation to magically fit with whatever proposal is being debated. If you have an issue with how the proposal is worded - and you feel that it is too narrow or focused - certainly say so. However, repeatedly claiming that a resolution "doesn't apply to your nation" because of increasingly convoluted rationales is generally considered poor form and rude to the proposal authors you're interacting with.
The other prong of RNT is that there are policies reasonable nations will do; this may be applied, for example, by stating that authors need not be concerned about circumvention which is patently self-detrimental to the circumventor. In a recent GA debate, it was argued that we didn't need a mandate for safe organ donations as rational nations would already impose such a mandate. This was an instance of an individual poster imposing their beliefs as to this prong of RNT (NB: instances of believing a policy principle to be unnecessary as a rational nation will already impose it is also known as "rational inevitability").
It must be noted that reasonable nation theory does not mean that a nation will act entirely in its self-interest. A nation might refuse to impose environmental legislation absent truly compelling scenarios such as WA legislation due to strife, bureaucracy or many other factors. For this reason, rational inevitability arguments cannot be made in repeals under the GA rules.
What are WA puppets, and why would you use one?
As described above, there are some nations that don't like to have the stat changes of the WA to affect their main nation ... and other nations that don't like having to comply with WA resolutions when they Role Play.Of course, there are other nations that have had their main nation ejected from the WA for rule-breaking (more on that to come in a subsequent lesson), so they can't be in the WA with their main nation. Others engage in a lot of the R/D game and designate one puppet for WA submissions. (As you only need 2 endorsements for submission, it doesn't take long to do a quick WA switch for submission and then switch your WA back to a different puppet for R/D.) These nations often have "WA Mission" or "WA Office/WA Offices" tacked onto the end of their nation name, or something similar. Actual examples include The Wallenburgian World Assembly Offices and States of Glory WA Office.
NAPA, CoCR, RITA... Huh?
There are lots of pieces of legislation that have been passed in the GA. And, because the regular GA proposal authors often refer back to a lot of the same pieces of legislation ... we get lazy and like to use Acronyms.NAPA = Nuclear Arms Possession Act
CoCR = The Charter of Civil Rights
RITA = Responsibility in Transferring Arms
... You get the point.
Don't be afraid to ask someone to spell out ACA or WSA or WPDA or ... whatever. We're lazy, but we're not mean. (... usually
) [for the record: ACA = Administrative Compliance Act, WSA = World Space Administration, WPDA = World Psychoactive Drugs Act]Sometimes, however, the acronyms are for committees - and not for resolution names. The WACC (Compliance Commission) is probably the most common committee, and it's appeared in probably a half-dozen or so resolutions, in some form or another; the IAO (Independent Adjudicative Office) is also very prominent and has appeared in a similar amount of resolutions.
A lot of these questions - and those for future assignments - won't necessarily have "right" or "wrong" answers. One of the goals for this guide is to really make you guys think about the General Assembly and what it all involves. As such, there will be a lot of short-answer questions that are more about the content and information than being "right" or "wrong."
- Where do you fall on the Natsov/Intfed spectrum? Do you associate yourself more with one group than another? Why/How? (i.e. please elaborate)
- Pick a passed GA or UN resolution. (Forum list of GA resolutions, GA rezzys sorted by category, NS GA resolution list, and Forum UN rezzy list) Find a loophole within this resolution that could be exploited. How could your nation (or another nation) use this loophole to evade compliance with this resolution? Further, how could you amend the resolution to close this loophole?