[GA - Passed] Repeal "Rights and Duties of WA States"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Magecastle

Magecastle

Wolf of the North
Pronouns
He/Him
TNP Nation
Magecastle Embassy Building A5
Discord
green_canine
ga.jpg

Repeal "Rights and Duties of WA States"
Category: Repeal | GA #2
Proposed by: Lord Dominator, Co-authored by: Excidium Planetis | Onsite Topic
Replacement: Rights, Lefts, Duties, and Freedoms of WA States​

Whilst General Assembly Resolution #2, "Rights and Duties of WA States", served its purpose in the early days of the World Assembly, making order out of the cooling remains of that colossal fireball that wiped out our predecessor organisation;

The Assembly of Worlds now, however;

Saddened that many of its provisions on war and interactions between nations are illogical at best and actively detrimental to the goals of the World Assembly at worst;

Dismayed by the rather absurd definition of war, which blatantly disregards all plain understanding of actual armed conflict;

Aghast that Article 10 severely limits or eliminates the ability of the WA to protect its own facilities, operations, and personnel;

Concerned that Articles 3 and 6 together provide no definitions of “an unrequested intervention” and “fomenting civil strife” in their mandates;

Further Concerned that all of the aforementioned Articles limit the actions of member states in interactions with all nations, not just the member states that are also bound to follow them;

Hoping for a swift replacement that removes or solves these problems while retaining the important functionality of the other Articles;

Hereby Repeals Rights and Duties of WA States.
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!

ForAgainstAbstainPresent
101501
 
Last edited:
Overview
This proposal seeks to repeal "Rights and Duties of WA States", one of the key pillars to the governance of the World Assembly introduced back in 2008 as a matter of urgency, and the very first foundation resolution of the WA, covering such basic areas of law as relations between member states, national sovereignty, and the role of the World Assembly. The repeal cites concerns over various articles which we will not elaborate.

Recommendation
Attempts at repealing this resolution have appeared periodically for the last 14 years and we have consistently opposed repeal of this resolution, which would upend gameplay within the World Assembly for no clear benefits. No resolution is perfect but a rushed repeal of the main document governing war and peace and sovereignty of the WA will be a self-inflicted grievous wound to goodwill among member states. We have significant doubts on the community coming together on a widely accepted replacement - no serious attempt for a consensus has gained momentum since 2016, and any claims that a replacement is ready is far off the mark. Further, it appears that any replacement will be scattered and piecemeal, and we believe the loss will be keenly felt by the community.

It is for these above reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs strongly and with a tinge of sadness recommends a vote Against the General Assembly resolution at vote, "Rights and Duties of WA States".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Because there is a replacement, I would lean FOR this. GA #002 might be historic, symbolic, influential, and so on, but it is long-due a replacement. It was also plagiarised.
 
Against. I get it, I really do. The arguments are good, the repeal is necessary. But repealing without a replacement ready is, frankly, a bad idea. We have seen other resolutions repealed with good, meritorious arguments, but where the replacement was either not planned well ahead, or stalled during drafting. Without a replacement in a believable state of development I can't support a repeal of GAR#2.
 
Attempted Socialism:
Against. I get it, I really do. The arguments are good, the repeal is necessary. But repealing without a replacement ready is, frankly, a bad idea. We have seen other resolutions repealed with good, meritorious arguments, but where the replacement was either not planned well ahead, or stalled during drafting. Without a replacement in a believable state of development I can't support a repeal of GAR#2.
Click to expand...
Luckily there is such a replacement:
 
Attempted Socialism:
Sep clarified in the GA Discord that it is not in active development, I believe. Other drafts are also floating around out there (Magecastle just posted one, I saw). I don't think any of them are currently near-ready for submission, which is what I base my opposition on.
Click to expand...
Why does the replacement have to be ready to go immediately for you to be able to support repeal? I fail to see anything particularly urgent to replace in the target.
 
Last edited:
Against. I believe that with the very significant effects of GA#2 on interactions between member states and other member states, non member states, and the WA itself, that a completed replacement on the table is a precondition to any repeal. I agree with Attempted Socialism.
 
Magecastle:
Why does the replacement have to be ready to go immediately for you to be able to support repeal? I fail to see anything particularly urgent to replace in the target.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily immediately, but it needs to be a reasonable prospect.
For GAR#2 the ramifications of a repeal are far greater than most other resolutions. We're talking about, for good or bad, the foundational resolution governing the WA. That is IMO quite urgent to replace if repealed.
I have opposed some repeals with the same framework, that a replacement is not far enough in the drafting process, but I don't think it is an unreasonable policy to hesitate when there is a history of repeal-replace efforts faltering between the repeal and replace. I don't demand a perfect draft to be ready the instant a repeal passes, but an expectation that the replacement shows more promise than the current resolution is not setting the bar unrealistically high.
 
Attempted Socialism:
Not necessarily immediately, but it needs to be a reasonable prospect.
For GAR#2 the ramifications of a repeal are far greater than most other resolutions. We're talking about, for good or bad, the foundational resolution governing the WA. That is IMO quite urgent to replace if repealed.
I have opposed some repeals with the same framework, that a replacement is not far enough in the drafting process, but I don't think it is an unreasonable policy to hesitate when there is a history of repeal-replace efforts faltering between the repeal and replace. I don't demand a perfect draft to be ready the instant a repeal passes, but an expectation that the replacement shows more promise than the current resolution is not setting the bar unrealistically high.
Click to expand...
This ^. My reason for against too.
 
Against. I am more in favour of Comfed and Attempted Socialism's argument as well.

Not to say the arguments made since this resolution was first introduced in 2004, rolled over in 2008 (via Fris), and all of the subsequent repeal attempts. Just spending 20mins reading through the historical attempts (on this Forum alone not to say the gameside forums) gave me a headache.
 
Against

I won't support this particular repeal purely on the basis that a replacement would not be ready to vote on as soon as this gets to doing so.
 
Against

For the same reasons given above about the lack of an imminent replacement.
 
Kenmoria:
Because there is a replacement, I would lean FOR this. GA #002 might be historic, symbolic, influential, and so on, but it is long-due a replacement. It was also plagiarised.
Click to expand...

I believe what Sedgistan said back in 2016 still stands with regards to the plagiarism rule:

I also don't think copyright is an issue, I believe (as far as I know) copyright has expired already no matter how you read the Copyright Act 1968 of Australia (I actually tried to check section 186-188 of Copyright Act of Australia to try to figure this out), and whether it is even possible to claim copyright as I am confused by whether this document would have counted as "Crown Copyright" or "International Organization" copyright in Australia at the time. From my brief reading, I understand that Australian copyright law is quite complex and depends on time of publication and source of publication, but I believe should definitely be out of copyright in Australia by 1 January 2019.

I don't know if UN's statement that "[with] regard to treaties and conventions, while each individual text is in the public domain, the online UN Treaty Collection is proprietary and cannot be reproduced, translated, distributed, sold or otherwise used without a prior written permission" is meant to cover the 1949 draft either.
 
Simone_Republic:
I believe what Sedgistan said back in 2016 still stands with regards to the plagiarism rule:

I also don't think copyright is an issue, I believe (as far as I know) copyright has expired already no matter how you read the Copyright Act 1968 of Australia (I actually tried to check section 186-188 of Copyright Act of Australia to try to figure this out), and whether it is even possible to claim copyright as I am confused by whether this document would have counted as "Crown Copyright" or "International Organization" copyright in Australia at the time. From my brief reading, I understand that Australian copyright law is quite complex and depends on time of publication and source of publication, but I believe should definitely be out of copyright in Australia by 1 January 2019.

I don't know if UN's statement that "[with] regard to treaties and conventions, while each individual text is in the public domain, the online UN Treaty Collection is proprietary and cannot be reproduced, translated, distributed, sold or otherwise used without a prior written permission" is meant to cover the 1949 draft either.
Click to expand...
I agree that it is not an infringement of copyright. Legally speaking, there’s no issue, which is certainly better than the alternative. However, it is still verbatim copying of an existing text. My issue is more with the unoriginality of such a practice, and with the precedent that it sets.
 
Kenmoria:
I agree that it is not an infringement of copyright. Legally speaking, there’s no issue, which is certainly better than the alternative. However, it is still verbatim copying of an existing text. My issue is more with the unoriginality of such a practice, and with the precedent that it sets.
Click to expand...

I don't think this sets a precedent, given what Sedgistan said about it back in 2016 (as per link above).

As far as I am concerned, the Game Moderators said it was/is a one-off, and I would consider that statement to be definitive.
 
Last edited:
Attempted Socialism:
Against. I get it, I really do. The arguments are good, the repeal is necessary. But repealing without a replacement ready is, frankly, a bad idea. We have seen other resolutions repealed with good, meritorious arguments, but where the replacement was either not planned well ahead, or stalled during drafting. Without a replacement in a believable state of development I can't support a repeal of GAR#2.
Click to expand...
Comfed:
Against. I believe that with the very significant effects of GA#2 on interactions between member states and other member states, non member states, and the WA itself, that a completed replacement on the table is a precondition to any repeal. I agree with Attempted Socialism.
Click to expand...
Greater Cesnica:
Against. A replacement near-ready or ready to submit would be necessary for this to proceed.
Click to expand...
Simone_Republic:
Against. I am more in favour of Comfed and Attempted Socialism's argument as well.

Not to say the arguments made since this resolution was first introduced in 2004, rolled over in 2008 (via Fris), and all of the subsequent repeal attempts. Just spending 20mins reading through the historical attempts (on this Forum alone not to say the gameside forums) gave me a headache.
Click to expand...
Fregerson:
This ^. My reason for against too.
Click to expand...
Namwenia:
Against

For the same reasons given above about the lack of an imminent replacement.
Click to expand...
nvxl:
Against

I won't support this particular repeal purely on the basis that a replacement would not be ready to vote on as soon as this gets to doing so.
Click to expand...
On those notes, I would direct your attention to this post here by Kenmoria indicating intent to submit (their high-quality) replacement for #2, as otherwise linked in this thread upon passage/near passage of this repeal (as a replacement is necessarily going to duplicate much of the mandates, and thus be illegal).
 
Lord Dominator:
On those notes, I would direct your attention to this post here by Kenmoria indicating intent to submit (their high-quality) replacement for #2, as otherwise linked in this thread upon passage/near passage of this repeal (as a replacement is necessarily going to duplicate much of the mandates, and thus be illegal).
Click to expand...
I am swayed based on the progress I see in Kenmoria's draft. Therefore I can drop my opposition and change my vote to for.
 
For.
The reasons listed in the resolution is enough. I would add that some of the opinions on this seem to me to be a case of its not a perfect resolution but its the best we have. On this I would ask is a "bad" resolution better than no resolution given that there is and has been efforts to replace with a better resolution. Substandard legislation has routinely been denied and criticised by the world assembly yet this resolution flies in the face of the world assembly requirements for legislation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top