[GA - Passed] The Civil Charter of the World Assembly

Status
Not open for further replies.
Magecastle

Magecastle

Wolf of the North
Pronouns
He/Him
TNP Nation
Magecastle_Embassy_Building_A5
Discord
red_canine
ga.jpg

The Civil Charter of the World Assembly
Category: Political Stability | Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Magecastle Embassy Building A5, Co-authored by: Kenmoria | Onsite Topic​

Whereas there exists an ominous silence surrounding a charter resolution to codify the role of the World Assembly and its relationship with its many member nations;

And whereas a governing charter of the World Assembly, formally codifying the rights, lefts, obligations, and freedoms of member nations in peacetime, would facilitate the ability of the World Assembly to take a strong, collective stance for the rights and dignities of sapient beings around the world, and also against a certain goblinoid menace which occasionally rampages against this grand bureaucracy; be it hereby declared as follows—



  1. Each World Assembly member nation shall be recognised as a sovereign power, both by the World Assembly and by its individual member nations. To that end, no member nation shall be restricted in its ability to determine its own affairs, including its own system of government, its own borders, and its own legislation, subject to the limitations of relevant international law, including that of the World Assembly.

  2. Likewise, each member nation shall have the right to freely conduct its international relations and activity, subject to the limitations of relevant international law, including that of the World Assembly.

  3. In accordance with its sovereignty, each member nation has consented to being subject to World Assembly law by virtue of its membership in this august body. As a result, every member nation must fully comply with all active World Assembly law, including this resolution, in good faith, to the very best of its ability, and without any preventable delay. This shall apply regardless of any other law binding that member nation, whether subnational, national, or international.

  4. The World Assembly shall have the ability to, via resolution, directly and indirectly enforce penalties upon any member nation which fails in its duty under Section 3, including through measures such as fines and trade sanctions.

  5. Every member nation should be treated fairly under World Assembly law, as this supremacy grants this assembly great power over its member nations. Therefore, member nations shall maintain full equality under all World Assembly law.
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
12803
 
Last edited:
Overview
This proposal seeks to replace the recently-repealed GA #2, "Rights and Duties of WA States", following the defeat of a previous replacement. It does this by establishing a set of mandates which declare the sovereignty of member nations subject to World Assembly law, formally bind member nations to comply with World Assembly law in good faith, allow the World Assembly to directly and indirectly penalise member nations which fail to do so (as done by resolutions such as GA #440), and require World Assembly law to treat all member nations equally.

Recommendation
While we remain of the opinion that the repeal of GA #2 was an unnecessary and worthless endeavour, we also believe that the replacing the mandates of GA #2 after its irreversible repeal is important to effectively uphold the legitimacy of the World Assembly. The proposal notably does not address some aspects of GA #2 such as the ability of the World Assembly to use armed force, but nonetheless we find that it is an effective replacement of the original charter resolution.

For the above reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote For the General Assembly resolution at vote, "The Civil Charter of the World Assembly".
 
Last edited:
For. As the author, I do not disclaim obvious bias. However, I believe that a replacement such as this one is necessary to seal the door shut on this matter of a resolution acting as a constitutional charter of the World Assembly, as GA #2 did. If passed, this would address matters regarding such a charter resolution, formally codifying the means by which the World Assembly operates; while allowing for future extensions in resolutions addressing other aspects such as an international military or police force.
 
Last edited:
You people created this mess and all the trouble that has come as a result of it. The ominous silence was entirely unnecessary and fabricated by the repeal effort you championed, so I read that with more than a little eye roll. I remain incredibly displeased by the whole affair, and though you’ll have my vote because duh, we got to get it back in there, I continue to shake my fist at you troublemakers.

For
 
Pallaith:
You people created this mess and all the trouble that has come as a result of it. The ominous silence was entirely unnecessary and fabricated by the repeal effort you championed, so I read that with more than a little eye roll. I remain incredibly displeased by the whole affair, and though you’ll have my vote because duh, we got to get it back in there, I continue to shake my fist at you troublemakers.

For
Click to expand...

Against. All of GA#2 or nothing. Also by the way this is very far from quorum.
 
Last edited:
(Non-WA) I am for this proposal. As a coauthor, I am clearly prone to bias, but I do regard this proposal as being an appropriate way to replace GA #002. It takes the key elements of compliance in good faith and equality of member-nations, so as to leave room for more detailed legislation on specific topics.

EDIT: Actually, this is a WA vote, since I have since joined the WA.
 
Last edited:
Present. I tend to agree with Simone on this issue.
 
Last edited:
Kasto, please add (Non-WA) to your votes in the future if you are not a current member of the World Assembly. Otherwise, we will have to edit them ourselves.

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.
Click to expand...
 
Non-WA against.

I'm iffy on the implications of the whole 'fully comply' with all WA law. The way I read it, this includes complying with non-binding parts such as encouragements and recommendations. That seems unreasonable
 
Last edited:
Honeydewistan:
Non-WA against.

I'm iffy on the implications of the whole 'fully comply' with all WA law. The way I read it, this includes complying with non-binding parts such as encouragements and recommendations. That seems unreasonable
Click to expand...
1) Why didn't you bring this up during drafting? 2) If a clause is non-binding, then following the recommendations would not be necessary to "fully comply" with the resolution. This same language was in the original Rights Wrongs proposal, and it was not a problem there so it should not be a problem here.
 
Magecastle:
1) Why didn't you bring this up during drafting? 2) If a clause is non-binding, then following the recommendations would not be necessary to "fully comply" with the resolution. This same language was in the original Rights Wrongs proposal, and it was not a problem there so it should not be a problem here.
Click to expand...
1) didn't notice the potential problems it would cause before

2) Why?

3) like I said, I didn't notice the potential problem in Rights Wrongs. If that went up to vote now I would also be against
 
Honeydewistan:
1) didn't notice the potential problems it would cause before

2) Why?

3) like I said, I didn't notice the potential problem in Rights Wrongs. If that went up to vote now I would also be against
Click to expand...
If a clause has the GA recommending something, then a member-nation complies by simply having that course of action recommended to it. That is the rule we use for why recommendatory proposals do not violate the optionality-rule: the mandatory compliance with those proposals is simply being encouraged, urged, recommended, et cetera. I also had not noticed that as being a potential issue, but, on reflection, I do not think that it is, especially given that member-nations likely would not adopt that interpretation.
 
Magecastle:
1) Why didn't you bring this up during drafting? 2) If a clause is non-binding, then following the recommendations would not be necessary to "fully comply" with the resolution. This same language was in the original Rights Wrongs proposal, and it was not a problem there so it should not be a problem here.
Click to expand...

Honeydewistan:
Non-WA against.

I'm iffy on the implications of the whole 'fully comply' with all WA law. The way I read it, this includes complying with non-binding parts such as encouragements and recommendations. That seems unreasonable
Click to expand...

I am against this resolution (for different reasons), but I am also inclined to think that "fully comply" with laws does not mean complying with all the "encourage(ments)" "recommendations" etc.

Otherwise the Optionality Rule in General Assembly Rules and Procedures does not have to exist. And that overrides anything in character.
 
Last edited:
Kenmoria:
(Non-WA) I am for this proposal. As a coauthor, I am clearly prone to bias, but I do regard this proposal as being an appropriate way to replace GA #002. It takes the key elements of compliance in good faith and equality of member-nations, so as to leave room for more detailed legislation on specific topics.
Click to expand...
Cloud:
Non-WA For
Click to expand...
You may also want to make your votes WA now that you're both members since this vote is very close as-is :P
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top