[GA - Inquorate] Protecting World Assembly Neutrality

Status
Not open for further replies.
Chipoli

Chipoli

Security Councilor
-
-
-
Pronouns
he/him
TNP Nation
Chipoli
Discord
chipoli
ga.jpg

Protecting World Assembly Neutrality
Category: Globa Disarmament | Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Namwenia, Co-author: Second Sovereignty | Onsite Topic​

Acknowledging that the World Assembly is a global organizational body with the purpose of establishing international law.

Further acknowledging that the World Assembly has historically remained neutral in armed conflicts between individual member states.

Noting that the World Assembly should promote peaceful resolution to conflict and demilitarization wherever possible.

Disappointed that the World Assembly is currently silent on its historic neutrality and its traditional prohibition on the use of armed forces.

Concerned about the risks of a militarized World Assembly which could be abused to mobilize said forces to push specific political objectives and harm to member states through a tyrannical future majority.

The World Assembly hereby enacts the following articles:
1. For the purpose of these articles, conflict shall be defined as armed combat between opposing forces or member states.
2. The World Assembly (WA) shall remain neutral in all matters of civil or international conflict.
3. The WA shall be prohibited from establishing either a military or police force. Therefore, the WA shall further be prohibited from participating in any armed conflict, police, or military actions except to assist in a humanitarian crisis caused as a consequences of civil or international conflict.
4. The WA urges individual member states to act with respect in international affairs as well as matters of conflict resolution with a goal of peace.
5. Nothing in this legislation shall prevent individual member states from the ability to establish their own military or police force, or to engage in armed conflict with another member state.
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
01000
 
Last edited by a moderator:
(Non-WA) There are multiple minor grammatical and punctuated errors in the proposal, indicative of a lack of time spent drafting. I also entirely oppose the complete ban on a military or police-force for the WA. Hence, I am against this proposal.
 
For. Frankly, I am becoming less and less convinced that a "charter" type resolution is necessary because all of its articles except for the ones this resolution targets will functionally be pure fluff.
Against, because it seems to have only been drafted for a week and reads poorly as a result. I still think the principle is good, though.
 
Last edited:
Magecastle:
Strongly against. People seem to not realise that warmongering is not the only use of a WA military or police. This would ban WA convoy escorts, a police force to guard the WA Headquarters, WA humanitarian interventions, and so on.
Click to expand...
^^ This. There is a need often for a WA military/police to be used in peace-keeping operations, when trying to enforce ceasefires or treaties between 2 nations. Also for humanitarian interventions. So AGAINST
 
Fregerson:
^^ This. There is a need often for a WA military/police to be used in peace-keeping operations, when trying to enforce ceasefires or treaties between 2 nations. Also for humanitarian interventions. So AGAINST
Click to expand...
There has never actually been a WA police or military force before, ever. it was one of the things effectively banned by GA#2.
 
Fregerson:
^^ This. There is a need often for a WA military/police to be used in peace-keeping operations, when trying to enforce ceasefires or treaties between 2 nations. Also for humanitarian interventions. So AGAINST
Click to expand...
Neutral state militaries can fulfil all of these functions.
 
As per Magecastle's points
I am firmly against.
Along with those points, I have issues with clause four.
"[The WA] Urges individual member states to act with respect..."
A rubbish clause. It would fulfil barely any purpose, and would only serve as a catalyst for further war.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top