[GA - FAILED] Repeal: "Supporting and Valuing the Humanities"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cretox

Cretox

Somehow, Palpatine has returned
TNP Nation
Cretox State
Discord
Cretox#0125
ga.jpg

Repeal: "Supporting and Valuing the Humanities"
Category: Repeal | Target: GA #495
Proposed by: Tinhampton | Coauthor: Imperium Anglorum | Onsite Topic​
General Assembly Resolution #495 “Supporting and Valuing the Humanities” (Category: Education and Creativity; Area of Effect: Educational) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The World Assembly,

Reminding member nations that the General Fund, which relies on “donations from member states”, is not a bottomless pit of money;

Appalled that GA 495 does not sufficiently ensure that the World Humanities Fund does not pay for wasteful programmes that are only tangentially related to its objectives or permit member nation subdivisions to request funding for local educational needs;

Troubled that GA 495 fails to require that Fund-bankrolled programmes could not be paid for adequately by recipients without WA money;

Dismayed that this failure creates incentives for member nations to pawn off costs to the World Assembly and then pocket the difference, encouraging reckless spending of other peoples’ money;

Incensed at section 5’s requirement that “the GAO... cease the allowance of funds to the transgressing nation or organization” “if incorrect use of funds is reported” without adequate due process;

Interpreting that provision to apply to all GAO disbursements, rather than just World Humanities Fund handouts, even if nations or organisations receive funding in separate programmes with different oversight for separate purposes, such as:
  1. preventing radioactive leakage,
  2. primary education,
  3. healthcare for people in poverty, and
  4. economic development;
Extremely concerned that, by cutting off member nation ministries from resources voted to them in previous resolutions for the wrongdoings of unrelated ministries, GA 495 would then:
  1. weaken safety standards in uranium mines, increasing the risk of widespread nuclear disaster,
  2. worsen primary education in other topics, harming literacy and basic education as a whole,
  3. hamper the ability of health systems in developing nations to cope with infectious diseases, and
  4. destroy jobs in weak economies, plunging workers into poverty; and
Convinced that GA 80 “A Promotion of Basic Education”, which already requires schools in member nations to offer more humanities courses than the bare-minimum single course required in Article 2 of the target resolution, renders the target resolution unnecessary, hereby:

Repeals GA 495 “Supporting and Valuing the Humanities”.

Co-authored with Imperium Anglorum.
Click to expand...
Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations and NPA personnel will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote.
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!
[TR][TD] For [/TD][TD] Against [/TD][TD] Abstain [/TD][TD] Present [/TD][/TR][TR][TD]13[/TD][TD]13[/TD][TD]1[/TD][TD]2[/TD][/TR]


This proposal FAILED 9,029 votes to 4,649 votes (40.0% support).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"Repeal: 'Supporting and Valuing the Humanities'" seeks to strike out its target resolution on the basis of poor management of the World Assembly General Fund pursuant to the implementation of its mandates. The specific concerns presented are twofold: they include the resolution not placing strict enough limitations on the acquisition or use of WA funds, potentially permitting member nations to acquire funding they don't need to use on wasteful programs of no practical benefit; and the resolution's wording arguably requiring all funding to be ceased after receiving any mere report of improper use of funding, potentially stripping member nations of all WA funds due to frivolous reports. Additionally, the presence of other extant resolutions dealing with education means that the negative consequences of repealing the target will not be too severe.

However, these arguments are the subject of a not insignificant level of controversy. Opponents of this repeal argue that the resolution does not, in fact, mandate that all funds be ceased due to any reports, as the intended meaning of "funds" is clear in the context of the legislation. Additionally, the resolution does not actually lay out a concrete process for the submission of reports of improper use of funding, nor does it explicitly authorize the filing of reports. Further, this is inherently a technicality-based repeal, and the absence of any planned replacement does this attempt no favors.

We feel that this is a unique case in which we cannot readily offer a concrete recommendation in one direction or another. For this reason, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs issues no recommendation on which way to vote on the General Assembly proposal "Repeal: 'Supporting and Valuing the Humanities'", and instead urges individual nations to make an informed decision on the matter with the above points in mind.
 
Last edited:
I don't think the "Interpreting..." clause is a good faith interpretation of the target resolution. Besides that, the other reasons listed do not seem particularly strong. Yes, some nations will pay for other nations, but that's true for every use of the Fund—the proposal fails to explain why this use of the money is not worth it.

Against.
 
Last edited:
saintpeter:
I don't think the "Interpreting..." clause is a good faith interpretation of the target resolution. Besides that, the other reasons listed do not seem particularly strong. Yes, some nations will pay for other nations, but that's true for every use of the Fund—the proposal fails to explain why this use of the money is not worth it.
Click to expand...
If you believe this is true, given the provisions of GA 2, you should challenge the proposal for being an Honest Mistake violation.

At a more broad level, I wrote some time in mid-August a long explanation as to why I feel the interpretation made here is both correct and the best supported by the text (insert "The law does what the law says" and "Only the written word is the law" reacts here). You can find the recent version of the draft at this link.
 
Last edited:
Non WA for - target resolution has large problems, and repealing it will not be disastrous to education
 
Imperium Anglorum:
If you believe this is true, given the provisions of GA 2, you should challenge the proposal for being an Honest Mistake violation.

At a more broad level, I wrote some time in mid-August a long explanation as to why I feel the interpretation made here is both correct and the best supported by the text (insert "The law does what the law says" and "Only the written word is the law" reacts here). You can find the recent version of the draft here: .
Click to expand...
I'll respond more in-depth later.
 
In short—

The World Assembly primarily relies on money taxed from member nations in GA 17 “WA General Fund”. Member nations cannot bear unlimited expenditures, especially when the World Assembly cannot borrow. When resources are expended, they ought to be used under tight constraints on projects which directly go towards actually accomplishing their goals.

GA 495 states "The WHF shall exist to provide funding to constituent nations and non profit organisations within them to accomplish either in part or in full the following objectives". There is no clause requiring that requestors only receive money for projects which they could not pay for themselves. This permits the sort of buck-passing which resolutions like GA 97 “Quality in Health Services” avoided, as nations can now choose to defund their domestic programmes and replace their money with General Fund money, and pocket the difference.
  1. The kinds of projects which would be approved are not limited in scope only to projects which have their primary effect in achieving the goals listed in the resolution. The inclusion of the words “accomplish either in part or in full” does not put a floor on how little is accomplished, opening the doors for massive waste:

  2. Building a lazy river for university students to relax on is included, as the project in part helps to “strengthen the academic enrichment of courses and create [humanities] electives”, if a member nation also allows people to paint murals on the walls.

  3. Organisations sending theology professors to theme parks also would count, as it in part helps to “hold nationwide symposiums to put on . . . advancements in the various areas of the humanities”.

  4. A nation defunding its own humanities departments and shuffling the freed-up money to its government's foreign bank accounts would create a need to “support university degree programs that fall within the definition of the humanities”, a problem at which this committee could then throw money.
The target resolution establishes a fundamentally broken control mechanism which states that another committee will "[ensure] that money accepted by nations or organisations from the WHF is used for the above established purpose". It also states that "if incorrect use of funds is reported, the GAO will cease the allowance of funds to the transgressing nation or organisation".

“[E]nsuring that money accepted by nations or organisations from the WHF is used for the above established purpose” does nothing when the money is already authorised for wasteful purposes. The clause is intended to stop nations from taking the money they receive and directly diverting it to other purposes. But the clause does not stop indirect diversion or to prevent the WHF from funding inherently wasteful projects with only tangential benefits for the humanities.

The control mechanism also creates massive harms for member nations. The passive construction of the section 5 suggests that the mere reporting of incorrect use of funds triggers an embargo on World Assembly funds. The General Accounting Office has no discretion to reject false or malicious reports. Throwing member nations before an appeals process where they likely must prove their own innocence creates massive harms to poorer member nations. Moreover, the embargo, by saying “allowance of funds” shall cease, covers other resolutions.

The World Assembly provides lots of money to member nations for various purposes: money from the GAO in GA 263 “Uranium Mining Standards Act” s 8 to prevent radiological accidents, GAO funds given in GA 97 “Quality in Health Services” to support universal healthcare in poor countries, and funds disbursed in GA 80 “A Promotion of Basic Education” to ensure that disadvantaged children are educated. All of those funds are shut off until a member nation can complete its appeal with a favourable verdict. The extent of the embargo is also not limited only to the specific sub-division which is allegedly corrupt, as the resolution applies to the “transgressing nation”. An education department buying school supplies with money allocated for building repairs can defund the health services or undermine safety in uranium mines.

Wasteful spending programs also also harm all other programmes. Waste means there is less money left over for food aid, for pandemic relief, and for basic education. Feel-good resolutions cannot be supported when they are coupled with draconian punishments and provisions which leave open massive doors for squandering World Assembly money. Nor is it just to deprive member nations – without due process and, at best, on minor irregularities – of what they need to educate, to heal, and to protect their citizens.
 
Reluctantly for. I don't like this repeal, I don't like how it was written, and I think it uses way too much filler. I would normally call a repeal like this a bad faith interpretation, but the target resolution here doesn't really leave any room for interpretation. The main problematic part is clause 5:
If incorrect use of funds is reported, the GAO will cease the allowance of funds to the transgressing nation or organization. The decisions to cease funding by the GAO can be appealed by the nation or organization to the Independent Adjudicative Office.
Click to expand...
This clause very clearly states that, should the committee receive any report of incorrect use (it can be frivolous dog poo by some random citizen for all it matters), the committee will cease allowance of funds in general (meaning all funds). The way this mandate is constructed, any discussion of committee interpretations or good faith is essentially irrelevant. The committee cannot maneuver around being unreasonable because the resolution gives it no room to maneuver. Given the existence of other education resolutions, the WA wouldn't suffer much from a repeal of this. Furthermore, it should be fairly straightforward to fix this issue and submit a replacement.

The only way I can really see this language working is if a committee can somehow ignore a resolution's mandates for being unreasonable in the eyes of that committee.
 
I will keep it short because I'm typing on my phone.

First, to say that the GAO must act on "any" report is not a proper interpretation of the target resolution. Not just does the target resolution not use this wording, it does the opposite. In clause 4, the DEA is created with the explicit task of reporting improper use of funds to the GAO. Nowhere does the proposal authorise members to file reports. It is then abundantly clear that clause 5's reference to reporting refers to reports by the DEA. Perhaps some malicious nations may try to misinterpret, but the GAO is competent enough not to.

Similarly, where this proposal refers to "funds", it does not say "all funds". However, it is from the context clear what it is referring to, and I trust the WA's god committees to use a normal interpretation.

I would buy the concerns over wasteful spending only if a good alternative proposal were presented—which hasn't happened.
 
saintpeter:
First, to say that the GAO must act on "any" report is not a proper interpretation of the target resolution. Not just does the target resolution not use this wording, it does the opposite. In clause 4, the DEA is created with the explicit task of reporting improper use of funds to the GAO. Nowhere does the proposal authorise members to file reports. It is then abundantly clear that clause 5's reference to reporting refers to reports by the DEA. Perhaps some malicious nations may try to misinterpret, but the GAO is competent enough not to.

Similarly, where this proposal refers to "funds", it does not say "all funds". However, it is from the context clear what it is referring to, and I trust the WA's god committees to use a normal interpretation.
Click to expand...
Sciongrad and I discussed this argument. I wrote my conference paper on the topic. See https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9192857/. The paper argues there is no reason to believe that the nebulous executive under, possibly Catherine Gratwick, would not fall under political pressure or internal turnover to interpret provisions in a certain way. In the real world, this is especially the case re the US Office of Legal Counsel, which is mostly a tool of the President's policy goals.

As to the use of 'funds', GenSec interpretation of the scope of words without explicit exceptions trends towards imputing absoluteness. Repeal "On Universal Jurisdiction", [2018] GAS 9; cf "Spending without controls", WA L Rev working paper 2020/01 note 6. Regardless, the normal interpretation of the text is exactly what it says, without any invisible clauses saying "funds but only those used incorrectly" or "funds but not to other subdivisions". The GAO itself also is the main provider of funds, saying "the GAO will cease the allowance of funds to the transgressing nation" (target resolution, s 5) implies that the funds provided for the purposes stated in "Spending without limits" at 3–4 are no longer provided.

The important thing to understand here is that the nation is the unit of embargo, not the project. And that the GAO is the main source of transfers to other nations. Eg World Assembly Finance Act, (2013) 1 IAM 22 (stating "the General Fund is the main [or] major... way of funding the WA" as to why the General Fund is so central in this matter).

If you believe that the nation is not in fact the unit of embargo, there is an honest mistake and you should challenge the proposal for being illegal.
 
Last edited:
simone_republic:
This seems confusing either way
Click to expand...
Why are you confused? Although I cannot vote (being neither a World Assembly member in TNP nor holding any rank in its Army) and, since I am the author, it would not be right for me to formally vote in any case, I can happily present to you the following telegram I sent to Esperantist Mars, a WA Delegate who I recall sought from me an explanation of what is now the proposal at vote when I first submitted it in June - although this is admittedly a highly simplified explanation:

There is a thing that supports more funds to art. Those funds cannot be given to local government to support local projects. They can be given to central government or an NGO/charity to support projects within a few areas defined in GA#495. They can be given to projects that are only just humanities-related.​
​
Those funds cannot be misused. If they are, the Arts-Funding Thing will know and the International Funding People will stop giving any funds to the country that abuses those funds. This is despite the fact that the International Funding People guarantee all countries the right to certain funds by international law.​
​
This is wrong. GA#495 should therefore be repealed.​
 
Cretox State:
Reluctantly for. I don't like this repeal, I don't like how it was written, and I think it uses way too much filler. I would normally call a repeal like this a bad faith interpretation, but the target resolution here doesn't really leave any room for interpretation. The main problematic part is clause 5:

This clause very clearly states that, should the committee receive any report of incorrect use (it can be frivolous dog poo by some random citizen for all it matters), the committee will cease allowance of funds in general (meaning all funds). The way this mandate is constructed, any discussion of committee interpretations or good faith is essentially irrelevant. The committee cannot maneuver around being unreasonable because the resolution gives it no room to maneuver. Given the existence of other education resolutions, the WA wouldn't suffer much from a repeal of this. Furthermore, it should be fairly straightforward to fix this issue and submit a replacement.

The only way I can really see this language working is if a committee can somehow ignore a resolution's mandates for being unreasonable in the eyes of that committee.
Click to expand...

Is this thus a recommendation for voting in favour?
 
Against. While I see where the arguments are coming from, I find the manner in which they are presented very distasteful, and they don't sound like the correct way in which we should interpret the original resolution. I am not saying they don't make sense or is wrong, I am just feeling that this should be better written.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top