Search results

It was wonderful sailing with you all o7

Hey there TNP o/ I just wanted to come in and try to explain my intention with some of the clauses that seem to be received poorly. I hope that's ok! I think context on some of these may be helpful, as there's a limit to how much I could ramble on in the proposal itself (both in characters and...

Ahh, thank you for explaining. I think you may have misunderstood the intention of section 4.2., in which case hopefully an explanation from me can clear that up - Basically, the way this works is that clause 3. allows member states to interfere in non-violent assembly to address any ongoing...

This is an understandable worry, but the particular language used is "hatred" on the basis of gender identity - not merely "discrimination". Absent the use of rhetoric belittling or showing aggression to women, or something along that line, I do not think advocation against the funding/legality...

Hello! I'm happy to answer any questions people may have on this, feel free to send them my way here or in private or elsewhere. May I ask what you find unfavourable about that language? Perhaps I can try and clarify the purpose of it :) This is correct. As far as I know, GC didn't like my...

I understand where you're coming from - it is always difficult to close all the loopholes in your language - but I thought I should mention that is something we actively tried to focus on improving in our replacement (here). The GA#27 language really is incredibly broad when you think about the...

Hello! I'm just dropping in to address a couple of things if that's okay, and I can try answer any questions if people have them. As a note our replacement draft can be found here for anyone who would like to have a look. Re: the "Appalled" clause - while there may be (as you point out about...

In the World Assembly - both GA and SC, though arguably to different extents - we have the difficult problem that out of probably a little under 10,000 regular voters, only a handful put any effort into informing themselves about the resolution at vote, whether by researching the topic online...

This draft is mainly supposed to be about preventing ethnic cleansing and the like by member states – I would be very grateful for any feedback!

I'd be happy to try and address specific concerns about clause 4.4, if that's helpful. It would not be right to force member states to allow freedom of movement to reporters to the detriment of their own military endeavours; the repercussions for entire nations could be huge in such situations...

I've submitted this - the proposal text is as follows:

In clause 2 - "quality standards" is very vague. I think it could be worth extracting that out, giving it its own clause, and making member nations set these standards to ensure that products are safe to own and use/have instructions for safe use where necessary, etc., if you want this to have...

So I revived this recently and am hoping to submit at some point soon. I'd be very grateful for feedback on the latest version :)

I'm hoping to submit this in a week, and so would be very grateful for any feedback from anyone here. Here's the updated version:

Oh, thanks for posting this here! I was in fact intending to post it after you guys had gotten a new delegate and cabinet and everything so I could get permission to post it here from the next MoWAA. So yeah, any feedback is greatly appreciated, I'll be keeping an eye on this thread.

Yes, that's what I was talking about before. The member nation can take that soldier prisoner of war but allow them to be cured in their own medical facility, making sure they don't escape - and then take them away after they're able to survive away from their own medical facility.

If neither of the nations concerned has medical facilities in the proximity which can provide adequate medical treatment, I don't really see what can be done about it?

Then ... they die? I feel like I've still misunderstood you?

I see - but my point is that after they have received the necessary emergency treatment in the medical facility, and their life is not in danger any more, they can be taken as prisoners of war.

Sorry, not sure what point you're making there? Are the "your soldiers" you refer to the ones taking a patient prisoner of war?

No, the proposal wouldn't let you do that (under 3.b.) - but you can still take the patient as a prisoner of war when their life is not in danger anymore.

I just think there are so many conditions to meet and other possibilities on the list before you get down to relying on the principle of MAD - which I think should be a last resort scenario - that, in this case at least, it would never really get that far. If your nation is incapable of...

To Praetor re: interaction with non-member states - I know we had this discussion extensively already in the WALL subforum, and I feel like I'm only repeating myself here, which probably means we've reached a standstill: but there are valid reasons for member nations being forbidden from using...

Yep, it would have to be non-violent.

They can still hold the patient prisoner of war in their own medical facility.

Fair enough, re:precedent - but I still think it's valid to bring up passed resolutions with relevance. Just as you argue there is a reason for a lack of a complete ban on nuclear weapons, I argue there is a reason civilians are protected from war crimes irrespective of their nation's WA status...

I'm not trying to say that there's any such thing as "binding GA precedent," whatever that would mean ... just that it isn't such a crazy thing as you're making it out to be, because the GA does do it already. I can't see a justification to responding to war crimes with war crimes. There are...

Why doesn't precedent apply in the GA? (May well be a GA "thing" I'm just not aware of ...) And could you name these specific detriments in context of this draft? I've gone through and specifically tried, at least, to address them, but discussing generalities makes it quite hard for me to...

Not entirely sure what you mean by that. I'm just making the point that the GA has, in the past - and still does - protected citizens of non-member nations from war crimes and I don't really know why you think it's a problem? I'll go clause by clause. The disadvantage provided by clause 2 is...

A very similar thing has been done for civilians. There is precedent for this.