At Vote:Quorum: Repeal "Rights and Duties of WA States" [Complete] [Complete]

Abacathea

Abacathea

TNPer
Repeal "Rights and Duties of WA States"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.


Category: Repeal

Resolution: GA#2

Proposed by: World Assembly Charter Working Group​

Argument: Strongly affirming the need for a World Assembly charter that clearly delineates the basic rights and responsibilities of World Assembly member states,

Regretting that the numerous flaws present in GAR #2, "Rights and Duties of WA States", necessitate its repeal,

Condemning the target resolution's morally repugnant conception of war, which is that war is permissible so long as it is consensual,

Shocked that this conception of war effectively legalizes armed conflict between two or more mutual aggressors, in which each party wishes to take control over the others’ territory, population or resources, because such a war is technically consensual,

Appalled that this conception of war also forbids most just wars, including peacemaking operations and humanitarian interventions, because not all parties consent to the conflict,

Distressed that the target resolution forbids nations from any unrequested intervention in the sovereign affairs of other nations, regardless of whether such intervention is justified, as in the case of peacemaking operations and humanitarian intervention,

Alarmed that the target resolution's requirement that resolutions be implemented in "good faith" is sufficiently vague as to permit the effective circumvention of resolutions through sincere yet invalid interpretations of resolutions, while prohibiting the World Assembly from passing a separate resolution governing the legitimate interpretation of resolutions,

Concerned that the target resolution prevents the World Assembly from taking or supporting any military action whatsoever, precluding the World Assembly from addressing violations of human rights or threats to international peace and security,

Strongly hoping that a replacement charter will soon be passed,

The General Assembly,

Repeals GAR #2, "Rights and Duties of WA States".
 
mowa-seal.png

MINISTERIAL REVIEW
​

Genuinely, I'd hoped this would die with the death of Auralia. I'm saddened to see that it hasn't. To be honest, from the ouset, this resolution boils the blood of the Minister. This is the work of an organization that is not repealing this because it's inherently flawed, they're making a stab at it because of an alternate agenda, which was discussed at length when this was originally suggested. Primarily the concept of the WA police/army force but we'll get to that in due course. Lets address the content first.

Condemning the target resolution's morally repugnant conception of war, which is that war is permissible so long as it is consensual,

Shocked that this conception of war effectively legalizes armed conflict between two or more mutual aggressors, in which each party wishes to take control over the others’ territory, population or resources, because such a war is technically consensual,

Appalled that this conception of war also forbids most just wars, including peacemaking operations and humanitarian interventions, because not all parties consent to the conflict,
Click to expand...

This has to be the most ridiculous circular logic I've ever seen in a WA proposal. Lets examine "Condemning the permission of war as long as it's consenual" BUT "appalled this forbids a just war". I mean... This minister is actually struggling to express in words how mind boggling this is. Either you're against the permission of war, or you're not? You can't have a repeal argument lobbying for both. It's just... insane.

Distressed that the target resolution forbids nations from any unrequested intervention in the sovereign affairs of other nations, regardless of whether such intervention is justified, as in the case of peacemaking operations and humanitarian intervention,
Click to expand...

This again is a surprisingly self defeating argument. Lets examine it in alternate wording "Distressed this resolution, prevents an outsider, interfering in the sovereignty of another nation unless requested". I fail to see the issue here. At all. If you reverse this, the alternative to this would be "Pleased the resolution allows interference in the governance of other nations whether they desire it or not". Nonsense.

Concerned that the target resolution prevents the World Assembly from taking or supporting any military action whatsoever, precluding the World Assembly from addressing violations of human rights or threats to international peace and security,
Click to expand...

Translation: We've been told all along we're not allowed a military... but we want one... and we'll throw our toys out of the pram until we get one...

MINISTERS SUGGESTION​
​


To be honest, the above is the tip of things wrong this Minister see's as problematic with this proposal, and that's before you consider that Rights and Duties is a fundamentally established corner stone of the WA and almost sacrosanct by that virtue. As a result the minister vehemently supports a NAY vote on this and recommends the same to all voting members.

AS PER USUAL THIS IS SOLELY A SUGGESTED VOTE, PLEASE VOTE FOR, AGAINST OR ABSTAIN AS DESIRED BELOW.
 
I personally view GA#2 as being one of the core founding documents of the GA, and I am strongly against it's repeal - especially on such frivolous grounds. I'm sure Aba will get into the specific arguments in more detail - so I'll defer to him there - but to basically mount a repeal of this because of a desire to discuss changing the No WA Army/Peacekeepers rule? Such a (theoretical) resolution would either be astonishingly weak and ineffective, or likely run into a pile of meta-gaming violations. So ... why bother?

I strongly encourage TNP to vote no on this one - preferably early, as well.
 
Mousebumples:
I personally view GA#2 as being one of the core founding documents of the GA...
Click to expand...
It is, but that does not exclude it from criticism or replacement. Constitutions are amended from time to time.

Mousebumples:
...and I am strongly against it's repeal - especially on such frivolous grounds. I'm sure Aba will get into the specific arguments in more detail - so I'll defer to him there...
Click to expand...
I think the fact that you dismiss the repeal as "frivolous" while refusing to discuss specific arguments is quite telling.

Mousebumples:
...but to basically mount a repeal of this because of a desire to discuss changing the No WA Army/Peacekeepers rule?
Click to expand...
That's not the only or even the primary reason. You know this perfectly well, and claiming otherwise is deceptive.

Mousebumples:
Such a (theoretical) resolution would either be astonishingly weak and ineffective, or likely run into a pile of meta-gaming violations.
Click to expand...
Implying that a replacement does not exist and is purely theoretical, when you know that one actually does, is also deceptive. Further, you need to substantiate the claim that it is ineffective or illegal for metagaming.
 
As a twice former TNP Minister for WA Affairs, I'd also recommend a No vote on this.

EDIT: Indeed, please count this as a NAY vote when tallying.
 
I didn't specify arguments because Aba usually does a great job of that when he writes up his analysis, and I didn't want to make his analysis superfluous. If he doesn't do so, I'll do it myself in a few days. We've got time, but I just got off of a bunch of long overnight shifts and am catching up on sleep.

The arguments are flawed - I'm sure you think they're amazing - and this shouldn't be repealed.

Also: My "theoretical" comment was more about peacekeeping or WA army resolutions - not about a replacement.
 
I am against repeal on the basis of this,

Distressed that the target resolution forbids nations from any unrequested intervention in the sovereign affairs of other nations, regardless of whether such intervention is justified
Click to expand...

my inner libertarian non-interventionism is rearing its ugly head, i dont like a military imposing its will being policemen of the world in IRL, nor do i think the communal militaries of NS should do it either.

take care of your own and your own backyard first I say. its not your place AMERICA! to be stickin your nose in NS military play that doesnt affect your national security or that of an ally!

so yeah, against!
 
My review has been posted.

Please note my NAY vote here which brings the tally accordingly to:

3-0-0 AGAINST

To Sanctaria and Mousebumples, in order to have your votes tally accordingly, you must have a WA nation in TNP at the time of and duration of this proposal being at vote, per the new delegate voting policy. Please message me should your status's change to reflect this when this proposal hits the voting stage.
 
Well aware, Aba. I just thought I'd toss my two cents in here since I expected Auralia to state his case, which he has. Nice work on the analysis - pretty much took the words out of my mouth. :)
 
Abacathea:
This is the work of an organization that is not repealing this because it's inherently flawed, they're making a stab at it because of an alternate agenda, which was discussed at length when this was originally suggested. Primarily the concept of the WA police/army force but we'll get to that in due course.
Click to expand...
This is blatantly false. The primary argument of the repeal is that GAR #2 uses a consent-based definition of war, which is fallacious and immoral. Another key argument is that the term "good faith" is sufficiently vague as to permit creative compliance. Neither of these arguments have anything to do with establishing a World Assembly military force.

It is also untrue that my underlying agenda in repealing GAR #2 is "primarily" to establish a World Assembly military force.

Abacathea:
This has to be the most ridiculous circular logic I've ever seen in a WA proposal. Lets examine "Condemning the permission of war as long as it's consenual" BUT "appalled this forbids a just war". I mean... This minister is actually struggling to express in words how mind boggling this is. Either you're against the permission of war, or you're not? You can't have a repeal argument lobbying for both. It's just... insane.
Click to expand...
I'm afraid the only flawed logic here is your own reasoning. I'm rather surprised that you do not recognize that a) the most important criteria for determining the permissibility of a war is whether or not the war is morally just, and b) the morality of a war is independent of whether or not national governments consent to the conflict.

War can clearly be both immoral and consensual, as in the case of armed conflict between two or more mutual aggressors, in which each party wishes to take control over the others’ territory, population or resources. Such conflicts are legal under GAR #2, though they should be illegal. At the same time, war can be both moral and nonconsensual, as in the case of peacemaking operations and humanitarian interventions where all parties consent to the conflict. Such conflicts are illegal under GAR #2, though they should be legal.

I discuss this issue in more depth in my essay, Realism and the World Assembly. Suffice it to say, though, your understanding of those repeal arguments is deeply flawed.

Abacathea:
This again is a surprisingly self defeating argument. Lets examine it in alternate wording "Distressed this resolution, prevents an outsider, interfering in the sovereignty of another nation unless requested". I fail to see the issue here. At all. If you reverse this, the alternative to this would be "Pleased the resolution allows interference in the governance of other nations whether they desire it or not". Nonsense.
Click to expand...
Really? You disagree that the international community has a responsibility to protect national populations against dictators that deprive them of fundamental rights and freedoms? You believe that the international community should merely sit back and watch as bloodthirsty tyrants massacre their own people? I find that difficult to believe.

Abacathea:
Translation: We've been told all along we're not allowed a military... but we want one... and we'll throw our toys out of the pram until we get one...
Click to expand...
You know very well that Frisbeeteria has expressed a willingness to change the no army rule should this repeal pass, so I'll thank you not to imply that this is some kind of irrational tantrum.

Abacathea:
...Rights and Duties is a fundamentally established corner stone of the WA and almost sacrosanct by that virtue.
Click to expand...
And I'm seen as overly conservative?
 
Auralia:
Abacathea:
This again is a surprisingly self defeating argument. Lets examine it in alternate wording "Distressed this resolution, prevents an outsider, interfering in the sovereignty of another nation unless requested". I fail to see the issue here. At all. If you reverse this, the alternative to this would be "Pleased the resolution allows interference in the governance of other nations whether they desire it or not". Nonsense.
Click to expand...
Really? You disagree that the international community has a responsibility to protect national populations against dictators that deprive them of fundamental rights and freedoms? You believe that the international community should merely sit back and watch as bloodthirsty tyrants massacre their own people? I find that difficult to believe.
Click to expand...
This argument falls flat on one of two sets of options:

(1) WA resolutions have mandatory compliance (despite your arguments/attempts at insisting otherwise), so any human rights resolutions, etc., would automatically be enforced in WA member nations. There's nothing for the WA, as an international community to interfere with, so far as "protect(ing) national populations against dictators" on topics that are already covered by WA law. The dictators cannot be violating WA law - per the rules - so they aren't.

OR

(2) You want the WA to be able to interfere with the activities of non-member nations when they upset your sensibilities, which is ILLEGAL under WA rules.

So ... which is it? WA rules aren't enforced and need to be enforced due? Or we need to be able to much around with non-member nations?
 
I'm going to leave the first one alone, primarily because 'Bumples basically hit the nail on the head with her retort. The others though...

Auralia:
This again is a surprisingly self defeating argument. Lets examine it in alternate wording "Distressed this resolution, prevents an outsider, interfering in the sovereignty of another nation unless requested". I fail to see the issue here. At all. If you reverse this, the alternative to this would be "Pleased the resolution allows interference in the governance of other nations whether they desire it or not". Nonsense.
Click to expand...

Really? You disagree that the international community has a responsibility to protect national populations against dictators that deprive them of fundamental rights and freedoms? You believe that the international community should merely sit back and watch as bloodthirsty tyrants massacre their own people? I find that difficult to believe.
Click to expand...

You use the term in the proposal which basically sums it up: "Unless requested". Damn right, I'll handle my own affairs and if I need help, I'll ask for it, I certainly am not opening my doors to anyone who percieves I may need help when I don't and didn't ask for it.

Auralia:
Mar 17 2014, 02:08 PM
Translation: We've been told all along we're not allowed a military... but we want one... and we'll throw our toys out of the pram until we get one...
Click to expand...

You know very well that Frisbeeteria has expressed a willingness to change the no army rule should this repeal pass, so I'll thank you not to imply that this is some kind of irrational tantrum.
Click to expand...

To be honest, no I was not aware of that, I stopped paying attention to this largely when I realised despite the large amount of us loudly outcrying you all leave this be, you pursued it nonetheless, so if Fris did state that, all well and good, but I'm still against it. and I'll summarize why when I get to your next point

Auralia:
..Rights and Duties is a fundamentally established corner stone of the WA and almost sacrosanct by that virtue.
Click to expand...

And I'm seen as overly conservative?
Click to expand...

There's nothing "overly conservative" about recognizing this document as I previously stated as a fundamental and highly praised backbone of the established WA. The reality is, before this and your no army rule workings (which despite your arguments was coincidentally at the forefront of your doings at the time this all suddenly came about) it would have been inconceivable to repeal this act.

If you're trying to make history here, or really slam your name into the books, I don't fault you for the desire, but I can't support it, and I don't share your view on the arguments presented in this, nor your rebuttal.

I've said this time and time again, I have no issue with authors coming here and debating their points, in fact, McM quite likes when this occurs, but it doesn't mean I'll change my mind. And in this instance, you've failed to convince me that I should have any desire or inclination to do it.
 
Both of your arguments make no sense:

Mousebumples:
(1) WA resolutions have mandatory compliance (despite your arguments/attempts at insisting otherwise), so any human rights resolutions, etc., would automatically be enforced in WA member nations. There's nothing for the WA, as an international community to interfere with, so far as "protect(ing) national populations against dictators" on topics that are already covered by WA law. The dictators cannot be violating WA law - per the rules - so they aren't.
Click to expand...
GAR #2 forbids unrequested intervention by member states in all other states, not merely other member states. Since non-member states are not bound by World Assembly law, they are free to oppress their people without fear of reprisal by member states.

Mousebumples:
(2) You want the WA to be able to interfere with the activities of non-member nations when they upset your sensibilities, which is ILLEGAL under WA rules.
Click to expand...
I was not talking about intervention by the World Assembly in non-member states. As I have stated on numerous occasions, any World Assembly military force would only be able to intervene in member states at the request of legitimate national governments.

Rather, I was talking about intervention by individual member states in non-member states.

(By the way, it's rather interesting how you characterize denial of fundamental rights and freedoms as merely "upset[ting] [my] sensibilities.")
 
Abacathea:
You use the term in the proposal which basically sums it up: "Unless requested". Damn right, I'll handle my own affairs and if I need help, I'll ask for it, I certainly am not opening my doors to anyone who percieves I may need help when I don't and didn't ask for it.
Click to expand...
I don't know of too many tyrants and dictators who requested that members of the international community remove them from power.

Abacathea:
There's nothing "overly conservative" about recognizing this document as I previously stated as a fundamental and highly praised backbone of the established WA.
Click to expand...
Calling any human institution "sacrosanct" is a mistake. Human institutions are flawed, and should always be open to comment, criticism and reform.

Abacathea:
The reality is, before this and your no army rule workings (which despite your arguments was coincidentally at the forefront of your doings at the time this all suddenly came about) it would have been inconceivable to repeal this act.
Click to expand...
That's not at all true.

Abacathea:
If you're trying to make history here, or really slam your name into the books, I don't fault you for the desire, but I can't support it, and I don't share your view on the arguments presented in this, nor your rebuttal.
Click to expand...
(I noticed you didn't address my first two rebuttals. I'd appreciate a response.)
 
I got this TG from whatever the world assembly working group is:

Hello, The Democratic States of LibertarianLand!
Please vote FOR the current General Assembly resolution at vote, Repeal "Rights and Duties of WA States". The resolution you would be voting to repeal is fundamentally flawed for the following reasons:
the resolution contains a morally repugnant conception of war, which is that war is permissible so long as it is consensual,
the resolution effectively legalizes armed conflict between two or more mutual aggressors, in which each party wishes to take control over the others’ territory, population or resources, because such a war is technically consensual,
the resolution forbids most just wars, including peacemaking operations and humanitarian interventions, because not all parties consent to the conflict, and
the resolution prevents the World Assembly from taking or supporting any military action whatsoever, precluding the World Assembly from addressing violations of human rights or threats to international peace and security.
You may vote FOR the resolution here. Thank you for your consideration.
Click to expand...

I AM Def voting AGAINST just for this spam now.
 
Though I think it would be neat if instead of repealing the whole thing they could add the right of the WA to form a peacekeeping force kinda like the IRL "UN"..would be interresting.
 
Nay. Disregarding the potential replacement, the grounds on which this proposal wants to repeal GAR #2 are ludicrous at best, and destructive to the WA and its member nations at worst.

Where should I start? Oh yes, war. As has been stated nearly everywhere, especially by the mods, war between two or more nations can only be done through Role-Play, which in itself requires that the participants are consensual. Banning this will either: A, break the game or B, cause the largest amount of non-compliance ever seen. If you are appalled by it, don't participate. It's that simple. So called "just" wars and interventions, where not all parties are consenting, are impossible under that system. If intervention is not desired, unwanted third parties are simply blocked from derailing an RP thread, because that's all they're really doing. Unless the author wants the admins to create non-RP wars between nations, which would require an immense amount of work, and which is also illegal to ask for in WA resolutions, there is simply no real way an intervention could happen. Rules exist for a reason.

Intervention in sovereign affairs won't work either, since due to the way the game works, it would basically be "legalized account hacking". Besides the blatant rule violations, nobody, read NOBODY enjoys having someone mess around and dictate the way they manage national affairs, especially in a game whose entire reason for existence is to allow people to run their nation however they like with as little interference as possible. I'm usually not huge on NatSov arguments, but I still want to run my nation the way I want to, not how the voters in the WA want me to.

The third real argument misses the point of the "good faith" clause entirely, and is not worth discussing.

Lastly, passed resolutions are already automatically enforced. If a nation does not want to follow those resolutions, they can either resign from the WA, or RP non-compliance. Any "rights violations" or "threats to international security" must be done through RP. Any intervention force would consequently be RP'd as well. As stated in my above argument, an intervention can only happen if it is requested or permitted by all parties involved. Additionally, most RP's are too small to justify intervention by an organisation as large as the WA, as well as the fact that most RP's move too quickly for the WA to act.

To sum it all up, the author's arguments for repealing this resolution are nonsensical, and do not reflect how NationStates actually works. If this passes, I just hope that the mods shoot it down.

Did I forget to vote NAY?
 
This proposal shall be discarded as announced here. Auralia posed as the World Assembly Charter Working Group and a group is not permitted to submit a World Assembly proposal.

This is the same Auralia that broke the Security Council rules to self-commend via a multi'ed World Assembly puppet Afrasiab WA Mission. Both of those named nations were stripped of their WA membership permanently by the game moderators.

At this point Auralia should be considered as having zero credibility.

>^,,^<
Alunya
 
Huh. I didn't know that a group was not allowed to propose a WA resolution. Didn't the Osiris WA office do exactly that?

I voted against anyway.
 
As far as I understand it is not because they are a group, but because they appear to represent themselves as official representatives of the WA (flag in particular, and to a lesser extent the name).

EDIT: Actually, re-reading the thread, Alunya seems to be correct.
EDIT2: Sorry, Elke and Elba had already posted below clarifying this. I didn't refresh before starting editing.
 
Mcm: Osiris' one was removed precisely it represented a group/region. As per WA precedent, all proposals should be submitted by a country (or on behalf of a nation, as per Chester's case).

r3naissanc3r: Ruling was done on the precedent on groups/regions. This leaves us rather baffled why impersonating the WA is not banned.
 
mcmasterdonia:
Oh the Osiris one /was/ removed? I didn't know that.
Click to expand...
Yup, it was. They resubmitted it under "Temple of the Maat". It's apparently the name for their WA discussion sub-forum on their forums.
 
Acoustic Siberia:
Discarding this resolution was a detestable abuse of power.
Click to expand...
Not really. A resolution containing blatant illegalities and/or being submitted in a way that is against the rules is liable to being discarded when voting is over, though we have to wait for voting to close because of the way the game cycles the resolutions. Usually such proposals are removed from the queue before they come to vote, although I will take note that the after-vote resolution discards have been happening more than usual over the past few months. Strange

I, for one, am thankful this resolution is being discarded.
 
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.
 
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