[Draft] Resolution 388

[Excidium Planetis]

In the wake of the astounding defeat of WA Peacekeeping Charter, it's become clear I need the support of super delegates next time around to stand a chance. I have posted the current draft here for review. I will be drafting this across multiple region's forums, so the version on the NS forums may not match this one. Rest assured, before I submit this (10 months from now?) I will make sure that all versions are combined into a final version.

Further background: While it isn't yet explained why the General Assembly Secretariat declared my last attempt illegal, I have taken the approach of reducing WA involvement in anything outsight of tasks the WA is already doing, instead entrusting the defense of WA personnel to member nations on a voluntary basis. This may still not be legal, but I intend to find out. So far none of the GenSec members who have commented on this new version have claimed it violates GA#2's Article 10.

Resolution 388
~Flavor Text~


Category: International Security | Mild | Proposed by: Excidium Planetis

---

The Assembly of Worlds,

Believing that the prevention and resolution of conflict is one of the foremost goals of this Assembly,

Regretting that the safety of WA personnel acting in conflict zones has not been prioritized in earlier resolutions,

Seeking to right this,



Article I - Restrictions on WA Force

Prohibits any WA organizations or committees (not member nations) from engaging in offensive military actions with any WA member states, or affiliated organizations, for any reason;

Prohibits WA committee members and employees of the WA itself (not national delegations) from carrying lethal weapons while in the jurisdiction of WA member nations;

Article II - Scope of Operations and Standards

Expands the role of the WA Disaster Board (WADB) to include the following duties:

• Identifying potential or real causes of international conflict, especially factors leading to armed conflict.
• Determining plans of action for the WA to resolve or prevent conflicts at the request of member nations.
• Sharing information between WA agencies to promote inter-agency cooperation and more effectively fulfill the mandates of this resolution.
• Coordinating the efforts of national militaries and police forces who have volunteered to protect WA personnel deployed to member nations which are in a state of armed conflict or at risk of armed conflict.
• Dismissing units of the above volunteer forces which are not necessary for WA efforts or which pose a hazard to the fulfillment of these efforts.
• Forming clear and achievable mandates in its efforts.

Tasks the World Assembly Demining Agency, World Assembly Chemical Weapons Commission, and World Assembly Commission on Biological Agents, with working together to assist member nations, at the request of those nations, with disarmament of military weapons at the conclusion of, or to prevent, armed conflict;

Also tasks the Explosive Remnants of War Action Subcommittee with inspecting such disarmament operations to ensure their safety;

Extends the mandate of the Organization for Electoral Assistance to include assisting nations in rebuilding or restructuring their governments, if requested by those nations, where such government reordering comes at the conclusion of hostilities or carries the risk of igniting international conflict;

Expands the role of the International Mediation Foundation to include, at the request of involved parties, monitoring ceasefires and international pacts, especially to investigate as to whether the terms of these treaties are being followed in good faith, and to liaise with the above WA committees where their work is directly involved in the terms of the treaties;

Mandates that the WADB, in the efforts it coordinates, shall be held to the following standards:

• Consent of all parties involved in its operations. No effort shall be made without the consent of all WA member nations involved, and without the request of at least one member nation involved.
• Impartiality in proceedings and conflicts. WA personnel shall maintain professionalism at all times and give equal consideration to the involved parties.
• Non-use of force. Except in cases of self defense, WA personnel are to refrain from using lethal force, and shall be prohibited from carrying lethal weapons. WA Personnel are to refrain from using force on state actors, except in self defense.

Authorizes the WADB to:

• request appropriate WA funds to support its operations,
• conduct research into safe and effective non-lethal weapons systems, armor, and defense technologies to increase the security of WA personnel

Clarifies that none of the above committees are military or police forces, nor are they ever to be used as such,

Article III - Responsibility of Member Nation-States

Encourages WA Member nations to make a genuine commitment to maintaining peace, maintain a Unity of Purpose with the WA, actively support WA efforts where possible, refrain from hindering WA operations or movement, and communicate effectively with WA personnel;

Strongly Urges WA member nations to volunteer military or police units for the defense of WA efforts in conflict zones, as described in Article II, Clause 1 of this resolution;

Requires military and police units involved in WA efforts to abide by WA law, and, where reasonable, the laws of the nations they are deployed to, and to protect the rights of civilian non-combatants;

Prohibits member nations from using WA organizations or committees to defend themselves from other nations, from fraudulently requesting WA efforts, and from intentionally launching military, terrorist, or criminal attacks against WA property or officials.

Spoiler

Resolution 388
~Flavor Text~


Category: International Security | Mild | Proposed by: Excidium Planetis

---

The Assembly of Worlds,

Believing that the member nations of the World Assembly really need help,

Reaffirming prior resolutions seeking to rectify delegation literacy and promote comprehensive reading of resolutions in order to make informed voting decisions,

Resolving to make this resolution as readable as possible,

Article I - Restrictions on WA Force

Prohibits any WA organizations or committees (not member nations) from engaging in offensive military actions with any WA member states, or affiliated organizations, for any reason;

Prohibits WA committee members and employees of the WA itself (not national delegations) from carrying lethal weapons while in the jurisdiction of WA member nations;

Article II - Scope of Peacekeeping Operations and Standards

Expands the role of the WA Disaster Board (WADB) to include the following duties:

• Identifying potential or real causes of international conflict, especially factors leading to armed conflict.
• Determining plans of action for the WA to resolve or prevent conflicts at the request of member nations.
• Sharing information between WA agencies to promote inter-agency cooperation and more effectively fulfill the mandates of this resolution.
• Coordinating the efforts of national militaries and police forces who have volunteered to protect WA personnel deployed to member nations which are in a state of armed conflict or at risk of armed conflict.
• Dismissing units of the above volunteer forces which are not necessary for WA efforts or which pose a hazard to the fulfillment of these efforts.
• Forming clear and achievable mandates in its efforts.

Tasks the World Assembly Demining Agency, World Assembly Chemical Weapons Commission, and World Assembly Commission on Biological Agents, with working together to assist member nations, at the request of those nations, with disarmament of military weapons at the conclusion of, or to prevent, armed conflict;

Also tasks the Explosive Remnants of War Action Subcommittee with inspecting such disarmament operations to ensure their safety;

Extends the mandate of the Organization for Electoral Assistance to include assisting nations in rebuilding or restructuring their governments, if requested by those nations, where such government reordering comes at the conclusion of hostilities or carries the risk of igniting international conflict;

Expands the role of the International Mediation Foundation to include, at the request of involved parties, monitoring ceasefires and international pacts, especially to investigate as to whether the terms of these treaties are being followed in good faith, and to liaise with the above WA committees where their work is directly involved in the terms of the treaties;

Mandates that the WADB, in the efforts it coordinates, shall be held to the following standards:

• Consent of all parties involved in its operations. No effort shall be made without the consent of all WA member nations involved, and without the request of at least one member nation involved.
• Impartiality in proceedings and conflicts. WA personnel shall maintain professionalism at all times and give equal consideration to the involved parties.
• Non-use of force. Except in cases of self defense, WA personnel are to refrain from using lethal force, and shall be prohibited from carrying lethal weapons. Peacekeepers are to refrain from using non-lethal force on state actors.

Authorizes the WADB to:

• request appropriate WA funds to support its operations,
• conduct research into safe and effective non-lethal weapons systems, armor, and defense technologies to increase the security of WA personnel

Clarifies that none of the above committees are military or police forces, nor are they ever to be used as such,

Article III - Responsibility of Member Nation-States

Encourages WA Member nations to make a genuine commitment to maintaining peace, maintain a Unity of Purpose with the WA, actively support WA efforts where possible, refrain from hindering WA operations or movement, and communicate effectively with WA personnel;

Strongly Urges WA member nations to volunteer military or police units for the defense of WA efforts in conflict zones, as described in Article II, Clause 1 of this resolution;

Requires military and police units involved in WA efforts to abide by WA law, and, where reasonable, the laws of the nations they are deployed to, and to protect the rights of civilian non-combatants;

Prohibits member nations from using WA organizations or committees to defend themselves from other nations, from fraudulently requesting WA efforts, and from intentionally launching military, terrorist, or criminal attacks against WA property or officials.

---

 

[Sil Dorsett]

After my initial read-through, I haven't found anything substantial in the content of the resolution I object to yet, but I'm still looking. I'll have to read through and cross-check all the GA resolutions and GA rules to be extra sure, but I do agree that the GAR 2 Article 10 challenge is resolved.

However, while I work on that, let's talk about the preamble...

The Assembly of Worlds,

Minor issue: We are not the Assembly of Worlds. We are the World Assembly. One world, many nations, not many worlds.

Believing that the member nations of the World Assembly really need help,

Minor issue: In what way do member nations need help? Can you elaborate on this? What help will this resolution provide?

Reaffirming prior resolutions seeking to rectify delegation literacy and promote comprehensive reading of resolutions in order to make informed voting decisions,

Resolving to make this resolution as readable as possible,

Major issue: To me, this sounds like you're insulting the delegations that struck down your first attempt as being illiterate. I suggest removing these two lines entirely. Don't chance it.

Critical issue: Your preamble is not an introduction to the content in the resolution and does not provide a good reason as to why any of it should be supported. Your final line in the preamble should state clearly "Here is why the World Assembly proposes this resolution and this is why you should vote for it." This is where you make your sales pitch.


I'll start with that, but I will continue to review the rest of it. Please understand I'm not trying to strike down your resolution. I want it to succeed. The intent is positive and constructive. Plus it goes with my nation's theme of being pacifist.

 

[Ash]

This reads like an entirely new proposal. The previous critiques I had regarding the violation of GA Res #2 have been addressed almost completely. There may be some people that still try to kill your proposal based on the non-lethal force provision, but I don't think it should sink it. The key is to get GA Secretariat feedback prior to submitting it next time.

---

Sil Dorsett provided you with some excellent constructive feedback. I would take it to heart and rework some of the clauses he addressed, particularly the introductory clauses.

 

[Excidium Planetis]

After my initial read-through, I haven't found anything substantial in the content of the resolution I object to yet, but I'm still looking. I'll have to read through and cross-check all the GA resolutions and GA rules to be extra sure, but I do agree that the GAR 2 Article 10 challenge is resolved.

However, while I work on that, let's talk about the preamble...

The Assembly of Worlds,

Minor issue: We are not the Assembly of Worlds. We are the World Assembly. One world, many nations, not many worlds.

Believing that the member nations of the World Assembly really need help,

Minor issue: In what way do member nations need help? Can you elaborate on this? What help will this resolution provide?

Reaffirming prior resolutions seeking to rectify delegation literacy and promote comprehensive reading of resolutions in order to make informed voting decisions,

Resolving to make this resolution as readable as possible,

Major issue: To me, this sounds like you're insulting the delegations that struck down your first attempt as being illiterate. I suggest removing these two lines entirely. Don't chance it.

Critical issue: Your preamble is not an introduction to the content in the resolution and does not provide a good reason as to why any of it should be supported. Your final line in the preamble should state clearly "Here is why the World Assembly proposes this resolution and this is why you should vote for it." This is where you make your sales pitch.


I'll start with that, but I will continue to review the rest of it. Please understand I'm not trying to strike down your resolution. I want it to succeed. The intent is positive and constructive. Plus it goes with my nation's theme of being pacifist.

Thank you for your feedback so far. I intend to do everything I can to develop a well crafted resolution on this issue.

I understand your concerns about the preamble. It was drafted almost immediately after it became clear that WA Peacekeeping Charter was going to be defeated, and was a snipe at voters who were voting against for reasons that simply weren't true. I really don't feel that the joke is worth sacrificing the proposal's quality, so I wrote out a more appropriate preamble (and entered in the current version of the proposal as written on NS, which removed some of the left over language from the Peacekeeping Charter that no longer fit). I hope you find the new one an improvement.

As for "The Assembly of Worlds", I am afraid that you are a little late on that objection. I've already referred to the WA in such a way in a passed resolution.

This reads like an entirely new proposal. The previous critiques I had regarding the violation of GA Res #2 have been addressed almost completely. There may be some people that still try to kill your proposal based on the non-lethal force provision, but I don't think it should sink it. The key is to get GA Secretariat feedback prior to submitting it next time.

Oh, no worries, I plan to get a GenSec ruling on it before submitting. I can't take any chances this time.

Do you have any further feedback on the resolution itself? It has been suggested in the NS thread that I narrow the scope of the proposal by eliminating some of the coordination between committees and turning that into a separate resolution. Do you agree with this proposed change?

 

[Sil Dorsett]

Spoiler: Withdrawn

Continuing my review.
I've reviewed previous resolutions and the GA rules for proposals.

Considering only the previous resolutions, I prepared recommendations to improve on consistency with those past resolutions. But after considering GA rules, especially the rule against amending resolutions and the House of Cards concept, there are some serious issues.

Article I:
Clause 1 looks good.

Clause 2, the lethal weapon prohibition: Creates risk to WA employees. Instead, I recommend that WA employees be able to carry lethal weapons, with the understanding that they will be prosecuted for crimes, both in accordance to local law. They are not diplomats. GAR 22 does not apply.

Perhaps this would work better:

Reminds WA committee members and employees of the WA itself that the unlawful use of weapons while in the jurisdiction of a WA member nation will be prosecuted under that nation's laws.

Article II:

Spoiler: invalid argument

Clause 1: I assume you mean the World Assembly Disaster Bureau. The WADB does not consider intentional events such as war, terrorism, and political attacks to be disasters it has jurisdiction over . The WADB deals with natural disasters like hurricanes, earthquakes, etc. The rest of it looks good, but some other agency needs to do it.
[border=red,1,solid]GA Rules:[/border] This is an amendment to the role of the WADB, a supplementary set of clauses that modifies GAR 105. This is not permitted. To fix this, a new agency should be created.

Clause 2:

• I believe the World Assembly Demining Agency no longer exists, as the resolution that created it, GAR 40, was repealed by GAR 304. Demining operations are the responsibility of the party that deployed them (GAR 356).
  [border=red,1,solid]GA Rules:[/border] Contradicts GAR 304, as the WADA no longer exists. If GAR 40 had not been repealed, this would have been an amendment on that.
• World Assembly Chemical Weapons Commission is already tasked with disarmament (GAR #272, Clause 7, Subclause C), and thus its involvement in this clause is redundant.
  [border=red,1,solid]GA Rules:[/border] Redundancy. House of Cards, as it depends on GAR 272's continued existence.
• World Assembly Commission on Biological Agents (GAR 242, Clause 4) is a health organization tasked with assisting civilians impacted by biological attacks, but also assists with creating bio-defense programs.
  [border=red,1,solid]GA Rules:[/border] Amends GAR 242. An agency tasked with disarming biological weapons would have be created, as the World Assembly Chemical Weapons Commission only disarms chemical weapons and the World Assembly Commission on Biological Agents does not disarm biological weapons.

Clause 3: ERWAS currently monitors demining operations, not full scale disarmament.(GAR #358)
[border=red,1,solid]GA Rules:[/border] Amends GAR 358

Clause 4: OEA mandate extension could possibly be challenged by GAR 2 Article 1. "Every WA Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government." I believe this would prohibit the mandate extension from restructuring governments. Please have GenSec review this.
[border=red,1,solid]GA Rules:[/border] Possibly contradicts GAR 2 Article 1, but amends GAR 130 anyways.

Clause 5: IMF expansion. I can't find the GA resolution that created the IMF. If none exists, I don't have an objection since it is a listed agency and no other resolution sets their role. There would be no house of cards.

Clause 6:

• This provision depends on whether Article II Clause 1 is revised. Changing WADB to New Agency will fix this.
• Subclauses A and B look good.
• Subclause C is redundant to Article 1 Clause 2 of this resolution and can be removed. The self-defense clause is implied, especially if the change I recommended is included.

Clause 7: Amends GAR 105 / WADB. Changing to New Agency will fix this.

Clause 8: Looks good.

Article III:
In its entirety, looks good to me.

There's a lot of work to do here. I know these amendment flags gut quite a bit of the resolution. Remember that resolutions must be new concepts. My suggestion is to revisit the resolution that failed and see if we can use some of the clauses from this copy and reword the original to nullify any concerns about GAR 2 Article 10. I still think we can fix this.

Edit #1: Full name of WADB
Edit #2: Formatting. Also, I have yet to read the revisions on the forum. I'll have a look.
Edit #3: As pointed out in the response to this post, I missed a big relevant rule concerning comittees. A lot of this argument is invalid. Excidium Planetis, thanks for pointing it out. I will review this again.
Edit #4: Post entirely withdrawn, but will leave it in a spoiler for historical record.

 

[Excidium Planetis]

Continuing my review.
I've reviewed previous resolutions and the GA rules for proposals.

Considering only the previous resolutions, I prepared recommendations to improve on consistency with those past resolutions. But after considering GA rules, especially the rule against amending resolutions and the House of Cards concept, there are some serious issues.

snip

[border=red,1,solid]GA Rules:[/border] This is an amendment to the role of the WADB, a supplementary set of clauses that modifies GAR 105. This is not permitted. To fix this, a new agency should be created.

This right here is an incomplete understanding of the GA rules. Expanding the mandate of WA Committees is not illegal for amendments, in fact, the WADB has has its duties expanded before (in GA#289 Radiological Terrorism). Looking through the numerous GA resolutions, I am sure you will find many instances of committees having their roles expanded (such as the recently passed GA#386 Reducing Statelessness, which expanded the remit of GESTAPO). This applies to all committees you mentioned as amendments.

I believe the World Assembly Demining Agency no longer exists, as the resolution that created it, GAR 40, was repealed by GAR 304. Demining operations are the responsibility of the party that deployed them (GAR 356).
[border=red,1,solid]GA Rules:[/border] Contradicts GAR 304, as the WADA no longer exists. If GAR 40 had not been repealed, this would have been an amendment on that.

From the GA Rules:

Committees: Committees cannot be the sole purpose of the proposal. It is an addition to the proposal and designed to carry out specific duties related to the proposal.
A proposal cannot define: who can/cannot staff the committee, how members are chosen, and term lengths
Committees continue to exist after its resolution is repealed if it's used in another resolution
Single-use committees that died when its resolution was repealed, may be revived for a relevant new proposal

Nothing prohibits me from reusing WADA.

World Assembly Chemical Weapons Commission is already tasked with disarmament (GAR #272, Clause 7, Subclause C), and thus its involvement in this clause is redundant.
[border=red,1,solid]GA Rules:[/border] Redundancy. House of Cards, as it depends on GAR 272's continued existence.

The proposal does not rely on GA#272's existence, as the WACWC will continue to exist and will continue to be tasked with assisting in disarmament by this resolution even with GA#272's repeal. But I will get a ruling on this.

Clause 4: OEA mandate extension could possibly be challenged by GAR 2 Article 1. "Every WA Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government." I believe this would prohibit the mandate extension from restructuring governments. Please have GenSec review this.

Article 1 only prohibits member nations from dictating each other's governments, not the WA. Otherwise all resolutions would be illegal for contradiction of GA#2. I will also bring this up in the Legality challenge, however.

Clause 5: IMF expansion. I can't find the GA resolution that created the IMF. If none exists, I don't have an objection since it is a listed agency and no other resolution sets their role. There would be no house of cards.

That would be GA#348 Convention on Ceasefires. As before, expanding the role of a committee is not illegal.

Subclause C is redundant to Article 1 Clause 2 of this resolution and can be removed. The self-defense clause is implied, especially if the change I recommended is included.

You're right, that is redundant. It was left over from the previous resolution and applied only to the Peacekeepers, so I will likely remove this.

 

[Sil Dorsett]

You got me. I missed the rule on committees. I was too focused whether changing functionality of committees would have been considered amendments. A lot of my previous post has been marked invalid.

Concerning WADA, you are right. Conflicting with a repeal is impossible and I goofed that up. However, do you know if there are any other resolutions that used WADA? I'd have to look through again. If there were no other resolutions that used WADA, then it ceased to exist when GAR 40 was repealed. You would be recreating it, and the appropriate operative clause would be Establishes rather than Tasks.

Edit: After my initial review of this, and after reading the thread on the Compliance Commission, which I just could not make sense out of, and its legality challenge, I've come to realize I'm ill-prepared, unequipped, and too inexperienced to be able to sort out, review, and comment on resolutions. Other than the my comments on the preamble, which you have already addressed, I withdraw my entire review and ask that others help make this work. I'll just step back and try to learn.

 

[Excidium Planetis]

Alright, the Secretariat finally posted their official ruling.

The Majority ruled that the previous WA Peacekeeping Charter violated GA#2 for mandating that the Peacekeepers "prevent and end conflict", which 4 of the Council members believed was a violation of GA#2's Article 10.

This means that the following line:

Determining plans of action for the WA to resolve or prevent conflicts at the request of member nations.

Will have to be removed or altered for this draft to stand a chance at being legal.

However, I think the overly broad prohibition mentioned in the ruling can be avoided if the scope of the operations is narrowed down significantly to specific tasks the WA already does in other contexts. If not, and this is still ruled illegal, I will probably have to pursue a repeal of GA#2, on grounds I have already criticized it for, as well as for this new reason. It is a serious handicap if the WA cannot even work to end conflict.

I'll focus more on the concurring opinions of Sierra Lyricalia and Bears Armed, both of whom mentioned that the WA Peacekeeping Charter was illegal mostly for mandating police actions, with specific references to the authorizations to use non-lethal weapons and the duty to uphold the rule of law and protect the rights of citizens. To better ensure that this draft fits within those opinions, I will remove the authorization to conduct non-lethal weapons research and restrict all use of force by the WA to self-defense.

Any other suggestions?