[DRAFT] Recommendation WA Peacekeeping Charter

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 strikes me as well-reasoned and I am willing to sign on to this. Thoughts?

The big problem is the legality challenge right now. I wish Glen-Rhodes would finish it up already. Probably not trying very hard because the resolution is losing 10k to 3k. My big concern is if EP wins the challenge, our recommendation gets tossed into the shredder. But, if EP loses, bye bye resolution, we don't have to do anything.

Anyways...
How confident are we that the resolution violates GAR 2 Article 10? I'd say if we're 100% sure, strike the word "seems" and just say "This proposal violates..." so that readers don't have any lingering doubts. "Does it? Does it not?" "No. It does. Period."

I see no issue with releasing it as written, especially since we do get these out as soon as we can.

I'm not sure I agree that we should make the legality challenge our main argument. IF (and I appreciate that that's a fairly large if) it is ruled legal then I'd rather we focused a bit more on things like the contradictions, the unclear nature of the whole thing and the fact that even if legal, it's generally at odds with what the WA is.

That said, I don't really have any suggestions as to how to rewrite to do this, and won't oppose release as it is especially as release needs to happen soon.

I don't have any rewrite suggestions to avoid the legality challenge either. I think starting the telegram job is our best option. I see the job has already started.