[Submitted] Subject State Enforcement Act

Status
Not open for further replies.
Morover

Morover

Primarily a Lurker
TNP Nation
Morover
ga.jpg


Concerning Vassals and Subsidiaries

Political Stability - Significant
Click to expand...
The World Assembly,

Aware that the World Assembly may not affect non-member-states directly,

Concerned, however, at the possibility for nations to bypass international legislation through the use of vassals, protectorates, thralls, tributaries, or any other type of state at the mercy of a parent state,

Recognizing the possibility to resolve this issue,

Believing that no reasonable state should hold a subject state at any standard which it does not hold itself,

And convinced that, despite the inability to directly affect non-member-states, the World Assembly may impose its will upon member-states, which, in turn, can affect non-member-states,

Hereby,

  1. Defines the following, for the purposes of this resolution:
    • "Subject state" as any state which totally or partially lacks sovereignty, especially with regards to its military, economic, or political aspects; and
    • "Parent state" as any state which is a member of the World Assembly and has one or more subject states either totally or partially under its control;
  2. Demands that all parent states hold all of their subject states to the same laws, both national and international, to which the parent state is subject, insofar as it has the legislative authority to do so,
    • Notes that an exception may be made for national laws which are only directly relevant to the parent state and can either cause harm or unintended consequences which the parent state is not also at risk of having;
    • Clarifies that laws may be enacted in subject states which are not enacted in a parent state, given that said law is in no contradiction of World Assembly Law and will not cause undue harm to residents or visitors to the subject state;
  3. Clarifies that any subject state which is currently a member of the World Assembly, under the dominion of a non-member-state, need not appeal to their parent state to follow World Assembly Law;

  4. Demands that the above provisions supplied by the resolution be equally applied to any subject states whose parent states are subject states to a member-state; and

  5. Asks that member-states, in a nonviolent manner, urge non-member-states, even if the non-member-states are not affected by this resolution, to follow World Assembly Law, either partially or fully.
Click to expand...
NS Forums Drafting Thread
Theoretically, this will be submitted on January Second. Some feedback, in the meantime, would be highly appreciated.
 
Last edited:
Just taking a brief look at it; what does a subsidiary do when they are operating in a non-member, non-subject state which has an opposing law than the WA? I can look up an example when I have more time if you don't understand my point.

Some well needed legislation though.
 
Praetor:
Just taking a brief look at it; what does a subsidiary do when they are operating in a non-member, non-subject state which has an opposing law than the WA? I can look up an example when I have more time if you don't understand my point.
Click to expand...
I think I understand what you're saying, but honestly, I think it may be for the best to leave subsidiaries (which must be run by the government of a state that does follow world assembly laws) to be required to follow WA law regardless of whichever nation they're operating in, since them breaking WA Law would mean that the state running it would also have to break the WA Law.

Of course, I could implement something excepting it from being implemented in non-member, non-subject states, but, again, I think it's less than ideal - especially considering that a majority of subsidiaries, as defined by this proposal, are created simply to manage internal economics.

Thoughts on this would be appreciated though.
 
Morover:
I think I understand what you're saying, but honestly, I think it may be for the best to leave subsidiaries (which must be run by the government of a state that does follow world assembly laws) to be required to follow WA law regardless of whichever nation they're operating in, since them breaking WA Law would mean that the state running it would also have to break the WA Law.

Of course, I could implement something excepting it from being implemented in non-member, non-subject states, but, again, I think it's less than ideal - especially considering that a majority of subsidiaries, as defined by this proposal, are created simply to manage internal economics.

Thoughts on this would be appreciated though.
Click to expand...
I was thinking along the lines of aviation in communist nations where the regulations of the other nation are contrary to the WA. I do see your point however about the state running it would be breaking the WA Law.
 
Praetor:
I was thinking along the lines of aviation in communist nations where the regulations of the other nation are contrary to the WA. I do see your point however about the state running it would be breaking the WA Law.
Click to expand...
See, you have a valid point there, but it's a lot harder to make a clause that is broad enough to allow exceptions to all cases similar to that, where it may be necessary (or at least preferable) to adhere to non-WA regulations, while not allowing exceptions where not necessary. I'll think about it and hopefully come up with a change sometime within the next day or two.

Honestly, it's not the end of the world if nothing's possible with that, but I can see why it would be more ideal to have some sort of provision for it.
 
In which case, it the restrictions on corporations should be expanded to prevent a Trump sort of situation. If the US was a WA member, the Trump Organization would not have to comply with the WA in a non-member state.
 
Praetor:
In which case, it the restrictions on corporations should be expanded to prevent a Trump sort of situation. If the US was a WA member, the Trump Organization would not have to comply with the WA in a non-member state.
Click to expand...
I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by this.
 
ga.jpg


Concerning Vassals and Subsidiaries

Political Stability - Significant
Click to expand...
The World Assembly,

Aware that the World Assembly may not affect non-member-states directly,

Concerned, however, at the possibility for nations to bypass international legislation through the use of vassals, protectorates, thralls, tributaries, or any other type of state at the mercy of a parent state,

Recognizing the possibility to resolve this issue,

Believing that no reasonable state should hold a subject state at any standard which it does not hold itself,

And convinced that, despite the inability to directly affect non-member-states, the World Assembly may impose its will upon member-states, which, in turn, can affect non-member-states,

Hereby,

  1. Defines the following, for the purposes of this resolution:
    • "Subject state" as any state which totally or partially lacks sovereignty, especially with regards to its military, economic, or political aspects;
    • "Parent state" as any state which is a member of the World Assembly and has one or more subject states either totally or partially under its control; and
    • "Subsidiary" as any company or corporation which is run partly or entirely by the government of any member-state or subject state;
  2. Demands that all parent states hold all of their subject states to the same laws, both national and international, to which the parent state is subject, insofar as it has the legislative authority to do so,
    • Notes that an exception may be made for national laws which are only directly relevant to the parent state and can either cause harm or unintended consequences which the parent state is not also at risk of having;
    • Clarifies that laws may be enacted in subject states which are not enacted in a parent state, given that said law is in no contradiction of World Assembly Law and will not cause undue harm to residents or visitors to the subject state;
  3. Requires all member-states to hold subsidiaries to all World Assembly Law;
    • Allows subsidiaries to violate necessary World Assembly Law when operating in non-member-states, following a request from the member-state which runs the subsidiary to the Compliance Commission (henceforth known as the WACC), and the WACC deems it absolutely necessary for such a violation to occur; and
    • Demands that privately-owned corporations not owned by the government of a member-state but instead by high-ranking officials of the member-state must be held to the same standards as subsidiaries.

  4. Clarifies that any subject state which is currently a member of the World Assembly, under the dominion of a non-member-state, need not appeal to their parent state to follow World Assembly Law;

  5. Demands that the above provisions supplied by the resolution be equally applied to any subject states whose parent states are subject states to a member-state; and

  6. Asks that member-states, in a nonviolent manner, urge non-member-states, even if the non-member-states are not affected by this resolution, to follow World Assembly Law, either partially or fully.
Click to expand...
Changes have been reflected in OP.

I posted the following to the NS Forum Thread:

OOC:
So, I've thought a lot about this proposal. I think the current definition is the only adequate way to do things. I'll edit the wording a bit, but, ultimately, the meaning will remain the same. Of course, if between now and the time I submit it 40 hours (unless I did some terribly mistaken math, but that should be right), someone can come up with one which more effectively does what this proposal aims to accomplish, I'll certainly go with that one instead.

Additionally, I have added subclauses 3(a) and 3(b), following feedback from the TNP Forum (see here).

This will be submitted soon.
Click to expand...
To be exact, I will be submitting this after the minor update (minor? major? I can never keep track. I believe it's the minor - the one at noon EST) on January 2nd, unless some major issue comes up. Some final feedback would always be greatly appreciated.
 
Praetor:
Seems to adequately address the points I raised.
Click to expand...
Do you have a particularly strong opinion on the use of the WACC to screen such requests? The only way I could really figure out to feasibly do it without overly restricting or loosening subsidiaries was through a committee, and the WACC seemed the most appropriate, to me.
 
Morover:
Do you have a particularly strong opinion on the use of the WACC to screen such requests? The only way I could really figure out to feasibly do it without overly restricting or loosening subsidiaries was through a committee, and the WACC seemed the most appropriate, to me.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I spoke too soon. While I have no preference for methods of exemption, I have realized that the second issue I raised is not sufficiently resolved.

A high ranking government official could easily get their spouse, relative, friend to lead the corporation in their stead.

My suggestion would be to expand necessitating compliance to ALL corporations in a WA member state if they are in a non-member state. Again, they can apply for exceptions as you list.
 
Praetor:
Sorry, I spoke too soon. While I have no preference for methods of exemption, I have realized that the second issue I raised is not sufficiently resolved.

A high ranking government official could easily get their spouse, relative, friend to lead the corporation in their stead.

My suggestion would be to expand necessitating compliance to ALL corporations in a WA member state if they are in a non-member state. Again, they can apply for exceptions as you list.
Click to expand...
See, I don't necessarily disagree with you, I just don't think it's really appropriate for this proposal, if that makes any sense. That seems like such a big task that it seems wrong to just shoehorn into this seemingly unrelated issue. While I would be happy to draft up a proposal that does do that, I'd prefer to do so in a different proposal - and, if you agree with me, I'll probably just take 3(b) out.
 
Morover:
See, I don't necessarily disagree with you, I just don't think it's really appropriate for this proposal, if that makes any sense. That seems like such a big task that it seems wrong to just shoehorn into this seemingly unrelated issue. While I would be happy to draft up a proposal that does do that, I'd prefer to do so in a different proposal - and, if you agree with me, I'll probably just take 3(b) out.
Click to expand...
Might as well just take out any mention of subsidiaries in that case.
 
Praetor:
Might as well just take out any mention of subsidiaries in that case.
Click to expand...
Perhaps that would be for the best. I didn't wish to rid the proposal entirely of it, but I can see that including it may lead to more problems than it solves.

EDIT: OP has been updated with most up-to-date draft.
 
Last edited:
Morover:
Perhaps that would be for the best. I didn't wish to rid the proposal entirely of it, but I can see that including it may lead to more problems than it solves.

EDIT: OP has been updated with most up-to-date draft.
Click to expand...
Just means another resolution for you to write :P
 
Praetor:
Just means another resolution for you to write :P
Click to expand...
Perhaps so, if someone else doesn't snatch it up. Ideally, I'd like to get a few of the proposals I have in the drafting process on the NS Forum out before starting new ones.

Any other issues? I was wrong with the timing before, this should be submitted in about 47 hours from now.
 
Last edited:
Morover:
Perhaps so, if someone else doesn't snatch it up. Ideally, I'd like to get a few of the proposals I have in the drafting process on the NS Forum out before starting new ones.

Any other issues? I was wrong with the timing before, this should be submitted in about 47 hours from now.
Click to expand...
Only other question—trade deals, defensive pacts, etc. partially give up sovereignty to another. If a non-member makes a trade deal with a member, they must follow WA law now. Is this a bug or a feature?
 
Praetor:
Only other question—trade deals, defensive pacts, etc. partially give up sovereignty to another. If a non-member makes a trade deal with a member, they must follow WA law now. Is this a bug or a feature?
Click to expand...
Only to the extent that the member has sovereignty over ("insofar as it has the legislative authority to do so,"). E.G. If a non-member-nation gives up their automobile industry to a member-nation for either sponsorship or direct industry, the non-member-nation would have to follow WA Law in regards to the automobile industry, as the member-nation has control over it. For the most part, trade deals don't actually give up sovereignty in the way that one nation gains legislative authority over another, so normal trade deals would be largely exempt.

I'm willing to edit the wording a bit, but it's kind of hard to make it super clear without droning on and on. As it stands, I feel it's fine, though.
 
Morover:
Only to the extent that the member has sovereignty over ("insofar as it has the legislative authority to do so,"). E.G. If a non-member-nation gives up their automobile industry to a member-nation for either sponsorship or direct industry, the non-member-nation would have to follow WA Law in regards to the automobile industry, as the member-nation has control over it. For the most part, trade deals don't actually give up sovereignty in the way that one nation gains legislative authority over another, so normal trade deals would be largely exempt.

I'm willing to edit the wording a bit, but it's kind of hard to make it super clear without droning on and on. As it stands, I feel it's fine, though.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't exactly be opposed to it having the full effect.

Either way, no more concerns from I. :D
 
Praetor:
I wouldn't exactly be opposed to it having the full effect.

Either way, no more concerns from I. :D
Click to expand...
Neither would I, but it may be a bit overbearing (and also may be deemed illegal - I'm already riding a fine line, there), and I'd probably even have to increase the strength to strong.

Regardless, I appreciate the feedback.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top