[GA - FAILED] Requiring Promulgation Of National Laws

Status
Not open for further replies.
Morover

Morover

Primarily a Lurker
TNP Nation
Morover

ga.jpg

Requiring Promulgation of National Laws
Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Sancta Romana Ecclesia | Onsite Topic​
The World Assembly,

Cognizant of the importance of proper knowledge of the law,

Applauding the resolution GA#442:Circulation Of World Assembly Law, aimed at removing the common causes of ignorance of the World Assembly law,

Recognizing efforts of this body to ensure that laws of its members are guided by just principles,

Concerned that there is no regulation preventing nations from purposefully making their citizens ignorant of their laws by refusing to promulgate them,

Appalled that some nations may do so to perpetuate an oppressive and unfair government,

Noting that even after its promulgation there should ordinarily be a period before a law comes into force, to give citizens and state organs the time to adapt their conduct;

Hereby enacts the following as law of the World Assembly.

§ 1. For the purpose of this resolution:
  • official outlet is an outlet officially sanctioned and managed by the member nation for the purpose of promulgation of laws, and accessible to all citizens of the member nation;
  • concerned person is a reasonable person, whose rights or duties are or shall be modified by the relevant law;
  • vacatio legis is a period sufficient for a concerned person to adapt themselves to the new law;
  • amendment is a law promulgated separately that changes the text of another law or laws;
  • significant alteration of the text is a situation in which a concerned person has a trouble discerning their rights or duties contained in law, due to the amount or scope of the amendments to it;
  • consolidated text is a new text of the law, after amendments to it are accounted for.

§ 2. All laws of the member nations require for their validity to be promulgated in an official outlet. This section does not influence the validity of customs that are commonly recognized to have obtained the force of law.

§ 3. All legislation following on its promulgation has to undergo vacatio legis, during which it is not in force. Legislation may come to force without vacatio legis if it is passed in a national emergency. This section does not apply to legislation that came into force prior to this resolution being passed by the World Assembly.

§ 4. The Judicial Committee of the Compliance Commission is empowered to review the declarations of national emergency by the member nations and revert their effects regarding the length of vacatio legis, when finding that such declarations were not justified by the danger that the member nation faced at the time. In particular, any "danger" caused by the legitimate actions taken by political parties or citizens' organizations will not be admitted as justification for declaring a national emergency.

§ 5. If the text of the law was significantly altered by amendments, notwithstanding the promulgation of those amendments, the member nation is required to publish in its official outlet the consolidated text of the law.

§ 6. Laws of the member nations cannot be applied retroactively if that does not follow from their explicit meaning or purpose.

§ 7. Member nations are urged to:
  • write their laws in a manner as clear as possible;
  • contain legislation on connected matters in one act, instead of having it scattered throughout many separate acts.
Click to expand...
Voting Instructions:
  • Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
  • Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
  • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
  • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.

Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!
 
The current proposal at vote, Requiring Promulgation Of National Laws, is flawed in an assortment of ways. Primarily, this legislation is ripe for abuse on multiple levels. There is concern of a potential loophole allowing nations to abuse the period of vacatio legis to indefinitely delay the application of legislation they do not wish to comply with. Regardless of a good faith issue, the proposal does little to outline any restrictions on how vacatio legis may be used. Additionally, this mandated waiting period adds unnecessary bloat to member states' domestic legislative systems, and restricts their ability to quickly deal with any issues that demand haste. Furthermore, there is a gross overreach in empowering the Judicial Committee of the Compliance Commission to shut down emergency legislative functions during a State Of Emergency if they feel you are not in enough "danger" to justify it. Not only should that be a power held only in the hands of each nation's sovereign government, it should not be able to be reviewed by a party that does so only to evaluate the legislative processes of a government in its more dire time of action.

In accordance with the reasoning displayed above, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote Against this proposal.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Heyah TNPers! Author of this proposal (soon to be resolution at vote) here. I will be delighted to answer any questions you may have, meanwhile below is given a quick overview of what this proposed legislation addresses (at least in my eyes, which admittedly are biased, given that I wrote this thing).

My aim here is to require nations' laws to be public. It may be asked why such regulation is necessary, since much of the important legislation is required to be published already. Grace period (i.e. vacatio legis) may also be objected to. Well, to such objections, I have 4 points to make:
  1. current WA law doesn't require the publication of important national procedures (that the citizens should really know about), but only the laws they are supposed to follow;
  2. not only the natural persons are obliged to follow the law, but so are the organizations (juridical persons), these latter should have clear obligations following only from the published laws as well;
  3. on the flip side, secret laws may give unjust concessions for certain orgs over others, these preferences may be made in the published laws too but it's more risky when done publicly;
  4. the grace period may allow, in some jurisdictions, to challenge an unconstitutional law in the appropriate court before it comes to force and does any damage.
 
Against

Currently under legality challenge...

Also, this legislation is ripe for abuse on multiple levels. Nations who wish to not comply can do so by forever holding compliant legislation in this "vacatio legis" gray area where it appears it cannot be challenged by provisions set forth in ACA. Furthermore, there is a gross overreach in empowering the JCC to shut down States Of Emergencies on a domestic level if they feel you are not in enough "danger" to justify it. Not only should that be a power held only in the hands of each nation's sovereign government, it should not be able to be reviewed by a party that does so only to evaluate the legislative processes of a government at any given time. Such committee is not at all qualified to make such decisions.
 
Last edited:
Tlomz makes some interesting points. I hope the author returns to address them. While this challenge is being considered, I will hold my vote Against.
 
TlomzKrano:
Currently under legality challenge...
Click to expand...
That is technically true, but as 3 GenSec members voiced their opinions that the challenge is moot, I don't think it is going anywhere tbqh.
TlomzKrano:
Nations who wish to not comply can do so by forever holding compliant legislation in this "vacatio legis" gray area where it appears it cannot be challenged by provisions set forth in ACA.
Click to expand...
I don't believe that's true. Vacatio legis is not a grey area, it is a period when laws are not in force. As such a nation cannot argue to be in "good faith compliance", by saying "oh yeah guys, we have legislation, it's just that it is not in force". Law that is not in force isn't followed or effectual. It is important to note that nations can use this institution even now. You would have to forbid it in another resolution for this to not be the case.

Requiring the use of such a period, sufficient for a person to adapt to the changes brought by the laws, does not absolve nations out of compliance.
TlomzKrano:
Furthermore, there is a gross overreach in empowering the JCC to shut down States Of Emergencies on a domestic level if they feel you are not in enough "danger" to justify it.
Click to expand...
That is a misrepresentation as JCC could not shut down state of emergencies. There's no authorization to invalidate it, even if the committee sees it as unjustified. If JCC believes that the state of emergency is unjustified, it won't be effectual for the length of vacatio legis (i.e. legislation will still have to come to force, as if it was business as usual). But such states of emergency are still effectual for other things that happen in an emergency. What exactly happens if a nation declares emergency will be determined by the national statutes. For example, if a proper statute (on which the emergency is based) says "President, while declaring a national emergency, may suspend the following rights..." JCC won't unsuspend them by its unfavorable ruling.

This clause is only meant to ensure that nations do not opt-out from the preceding obligations on vacatio legis. It's not meant to be a complex regulation on the national emergencies.
 
Paulus Gaius Epistre:
That is technically true, but as 3 GenSec members voiced their opinions that the challenge is moot, I don't think it is going anywhere tbqh.
Click to expand...
Technically correct is the best kind of correct :P
I don't believe that's true. Vacatio legis is not a grey area, it is a period when laws are not in force. As such a nation cannot argue to be in "good faith compliance", by saying "oh yeah guys, we have legislation, it's just that it is not in force". Law that is not in force isn't followed or effectual. It is important to note that nations can use this institution even now. You would have to forbid it in another resolution for this to not be the case.

Requiring the use of such a period, sufficient for a person to adapt to the changes brought by the laws, does not absolve nations out of compliance.
Click to expand...
This entire proposal relies on proper interpretations of good faith compliance as deemed by GAR 2 3.9. If a nation can justify the use of an extended time period, one could argue that they can perpetually avoid ever enforcing the law while being in total compliance because that is a valid good faith interpretation of the current text. This would make them untouchable by the WACC and allow noncompliance to run rampant on the domestic application of WA laws.
That is a misrepresentation as JCC could not shut down state of emergencies. There's no authorization to invalidate it, even if the committee sees it as unjustified. If JCC believes that the state of emergency is unjustified, it won't be effectual for the length of vacatio legis (i.e. legislation will still have to come to force, as if it was business as usual). But such states of emergency are still effectual for other things that happen in an emergency. What exactly happens if a nation declares emergency will be determined by the national statutes. For example, if a proper statute (on which the emergency is based) says "President, while declaring a national emergency, may suspend the following rights..." JCC won't unsuspend them by its unfavorable ruling.

This clause is only meant to ensure that nations do not opt-out from the preceding obligations on vacatio legis. It's not meant to be a complex regulation on the national emergencies.
Click to expand...
One could argue that a major part of a SoE is to stream-line the legislative process so that necessary legislation may take affect as soon as possible. While you are in fact correct the JCC does not totally remove the SoE, it can remove what could be a major part of them and hamper a nation's ability to respond. This is a problem because the JCC has never been allowed this type of responsibility to take actions such as this, so questions arise if the JCC is even qualified. The JCC is a " truth-seeking commission and does not grant it the ability to enforce or compel warrants, subpoenas, or judicial action on any nation". While you can extend its permissions, the issue of qualifications and proper use still remains.
 
Last edited:
TlomzKrano:
If a nation can justify the use of an extended time period, one could argue that they can perpetually avoid ever enforcing the law while being in total compliance because that is a valid good faith interpretation of the current text.
Click to expand...
Good faith compliance is what a reasonable nation willing to comply would do. Not enforcing the law immediately, because people had no chance to adapt to it is allowed in the good faith compliance already. Meanwhile if they treat legislation implementing WA laws differently from their own and set up extended periods of time for provisions that in similarly complex and impactful domestic legislation come into force rather quickly, this is evidence of bad faith. Doing so is forbidden now and will be forbidden in an event this passes.
TlomzKrano:
While you are in fact correct the JCC does not totally remove the SoE, it can remove what could be a major part of them and hamper a nation's ability to respond. This is a problem because the JCC has never been allowed this type of responsibility to take actions such as this, so questions arise if the JCC is even qualified.
Click to expand...
Well, because the JCC is allowed to revert some effects of SoE but it's authorization is not required for it, the nations would enjoy a presumption that their emergency declaration was justified. In other words, it would have to be first disproven for the reversion to happen. This should settle that concern imo.

As for whether the committee is allowed to take this responsibility, a subdivision of it was allowed to review cases of those sentenced for death. "2. There shall be created a Capital Cases division in the Judicial Committee of the Compliance Commission, here referred to as the Division, staffed with competent jurists and forensic scientists, to review submitted cases." (cf. GAR#443: Preventing the Execution of Innocents). This is arguably broader mandate than the one I give and there's no presumption that the sentence is correct either.
 
The idea that reversing a state of emergency is less impactful than reversing a single miscarriage of justice is a massive under-appreciation of magnitude.
 
For,
however, in your last clause it could be a bit tricky with some nations. For instance i enforce a mandatory military service to all citizens, and if you served in the Armandlandian Armed Forces for ten years, you can be admitted into our legislative branch after a screening, and interview process. i thought it would be a whole lot simpler to make them two different laws, under the same military category (FRAS:30.04 and 30.05).

With the time period, and basically all other parts of this, I am 100% on board.

Acqui sayeth niy,
 
Having re-read the arguments for and against, as well as consider certain issues at mind, I am switching my vote to against. Requiring a declaration of emergency to remove the vacatio legis period sounds illogical for certain laws, such as laws pertaining to security and laws governing the army, among other things. I certainly don't want to provide a period of "non-enforcement" for the new laws that I have just passed with regards to cyber crimes, do I?
 
Last edited:
Against. At the WA level, I feel it may reach a bit too far into individual nation's governments. However at my own nation's level, I may enforce most of this resolution as it does bring up quite a few good points that would compliment my vision of Yellops.
 
Armandlandia:
i thought it would be a whole lot simpler to make them two different laws, under the same military category (FRAS:30.04 and 30.05).
Click to expand...
§ 7a and 7b are optional, the members are urged, but not mandated to adopt their recommendations.
Fregerson:
Requiring a declaration of emergency to remove the vacatio legis period sounds illogical for certain laws, such as laws pertaining to security and laws governing the army, among other things. I certainly don't want to provide a period of "non-enforcement" for the new laws that I have just passed with regards to cyber crimes, do I?
Click to expand...
I should perhaps point out here, that at least in my head, declaration of emergency does not always equal introducing a state of emergency. The term is not defined in the resolution, so there's nothing unreasonable in a nation declaring the need for an emergency legislation ("crap, we need this to come to force rn") and this being the "declaration of emergency" that is required. So long as there is a danger in delay, such action is justified imo.

Plus, morally repugnant (engaging in slavery, trafficking) or borderline criminal actions (breaching cyber security in a technically legal way) are not actions a "reasonable" citizen would engage in, imo, so nations needn't to have long non-enforcement periods for the laws prohibiting those.
 
Against. As has been said it is well written and I would support it with minor changes. However, I feel it would not be in my nation's interest to limit itself to suspending the vacatio legis period only in the event of a national emergency. I also believe that the prohibition on retroactive application of laws and the authority given to the JCC to decide what constitutes a valid emergency in my nation to be too high a degree of overreach, something I feel is the case for the resolution on the whole.
Nonetheless, it remains a commendable resolution that I would have no reservations about implementing an altered version of it domestically, regardless of its passage in the WA or not.
 
Paulus Gaius Epistre:
Plus, morally repugnant (engaging in slavery, trafficking) or borderline criminal actions (breaching cyber security in a technically legal way) are not actions a "reasonable" citizen would engage in, imo, so nations needn't to have long non-enforcement periods for the laws prohibiting those.
Click to expand...
What about these examples?
1. Anti-falsehoods law that bans people from reposting falsehoods.
2. A law which bans people from protesting on the streets without a licence.
3. A law that bans the burning of political symbols, including figures of political leaders.
Are these laws emergencies? Depends. To a liberal nation, these are ridiculous laws that should not exist, while a conservative nation/nation that favours peace and stability over anything else would argue these are emergencies. Would a "reasonable" person be likely to commit these acts? Maybe not the first one, if they know those are falsehoods. Maybe not the third one, if they think that burning such stuff is morally unjust. But the second one is a common thing that exists anywhere.
So do I need a long period of adjustment? Probably yes. Can I declare it an emergency law and not get it overturned? Maybe not. (A liberal would say that banning spread of fake news or requiring a licence to protest is against free speech and therefore say that the people do need the time to adjust.)
 
Paulus Gaius Epistre:
§ 7a and 7b are optional, the members are urged, but not mandated to adopt their recommendations.
Click to expand...

"Urged" when it comes to a legal standpoint can be tricky, as it can mean optional or mandatory in whomever is reading the statute. Also to whomever enforces it.

Acqui sayeth niy,
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top