Mousebumples
TNPer
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 NatSov'ers believe that there are at least some topics that are appropriate for international legislation. (The details vary, depending on which NatSov'er you're talking to, but I - generally - feel that health care and education and many human rights resolutions are among those that have an international component.)
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 "Nuclear Arms Possession Act" and "Clean Prostitute Act."
NatSov representatives on the NS forums are often 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 exists. Just to clarify. *nods*)
My personal opinion is that most players - and authors - start off as being IntFed. (I know I was an true blue IntFed back in the day.) As they learn more about legislation and further develop their nation, ambassadors, etc., they may develop more NatSov leanings. Of course, some more experienced players become even more entrenched in the IntFed philosophy, but I suppose we can't all be perfect, right?
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 posts frequently on the NS forums, 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.
For example, when I was drafting my Essential Medication Act, the original draft was pretty much a blatant Medical Marijuana proposal ... until someone asked why I was legalizing medical marijuana use when marijuana may be lethal to some cultures/species. That made me think outside the box and reorient the entire proposal. It's now much more general - and therefore, I think, more generally applicable to all WA member nations.
Reasonable Nation Theory
This is a commonly held standard for judging a proposal within the GA framework, as discussed above.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 - i.e. 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 my Universal Library Coalition proposal.
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.
Of course, this isn't to be confused with what you think a reasonable nation should do. In a recent GA debate, it was argued that we didn't need a "Child Emancipation" law because nations should be using a "threshold of majority" (versus a set age of majority - i.e. 16 or 18). As all nations were (theoretically) using a "threshold of majority," 14 year olds would become adults - internationally - if they had crossed this magical threshold.
This was an instance of an individual poster imposing his beliefs of what a "reasonable nation should do," which should not be confused with the aforementioned Reasonable Nation Theory.
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" tacked onto the end of their nation name, or something similar. Actual examples include Mahaj WA Seat and Unibotian WA Mission.
NAPA, FoMA, RoAA ... 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
FoMA = Freedom of Marriage Act
RoAA = Reduction of Abortion Act
... You get the point.
Sometimes this is more confusing than helpful. For example, I was recently having a discussion with a fellow ambassador about wanting to repeal CPA. I meant Child Protection Act. He thought I meant Clean Prostitute Act. Very different pieces of legislation, and only one of those was on my To Repeal list. Definitely something to be careful about when using acronyms.
Don't be afraid to ask someone to spell out what IDE or ULC or EMA or ... whatever. We're lazy, but we're not mean. (... usually
) [for the record: IDE = International Drug Education, ULC = Universal Library Coalition, EMA = Essential Medication Act]Sometimes, however, the acronyms are for committees - and not for resolution names. The WHA (World Health Authority) is probably the most common committee, and it's appeared in probably a half-dozen or so resolutions, in some form or another.
A lot of these questions - and those for future assignments - won't necessarily have "right" or "wrong" answers. One of my goals for this class 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. (NS forum thread, NS forum thread, sorted by category, NS GA Resolution list, and NS UN Resolutions 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?
- How could you possibly reword that clause/phrase to close the loophole? Alternatively, what phrasing could you add to the resolution text to close that loophole?
.
) that are looking for ways to escape having to comply with a given resolution that we disagree with.