[GA - Defeated] Protecting World Assembly Neutrality

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

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

Acknowledging the World Assembly as an international organization with a defined role in establishing international law;

Recognizing that the World Assembly has historically been neutral in armed conflicts between individual member states;

Disappointed that the World Assembly is currently silent on its historic neutrality and lack of armed force;

Therefore, the World Assembly 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 shall remain neutral in all matters of civil or international conflict.

3. The World Assembly shall be prohibited from establishing either a military or police force.

4. The World Assembly shall be permitted to establish an armed security force for the purpose of protecting international World Assembly owned facilities, providing security services at the request of member states, or assisting in humanitarian crises.

5. The World Assembly urges individual member states to act with open-mindedness and respect in international affairs and conflict resolution, acknowledging that the ultimate goal of such efforts is peaceful resolution.

6. Nothing in this legislation shall prevent individual member states from establishing their own military or police force, or engaging 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
1600
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Overview
This proposal seeks to mandate World Assembly neutrality in law enforcement and military affairs. It does this by requiring the World Assembly to stay "neutral" in all matters relating to conflict (which it defines as "armed combat between opposing forces or member states"); and prohibiting the World Assembly from having a military or police force, with the singular exception of "an armed security force for the purpose of protecting international World Assembly owned facilities, providing security services at the request of member states, or assisting in humanitarian crises".

Recommendation
This proposal has two main issues. Firstly, the scope of the proposal's exception is left extremely ambiguous. It fails to clearly define what it means, for instance, to "assist in humanitarian crises". Is it "assisting in humanitarian crises" to militarily intervene against a genocidal member nation? What about invading a nation which harbours anti-World Assembly terrorists; is this "protecting international World Assembly owned facilities"? These matters are ultimately left unanswered by the proposal's text, substantially hindering its effectiveness.

Secondly, even if this proposal had no issues in its execution, we are still opposed to the principle of proscribing World Assembly military or police force. The World Assembly should be permitted to military intervene against active genocide in a member nation where no other means have worked to halt the genocide; or provide convoy escorts to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian supplies by humanitarian organisations.

For the above reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote Against the General Assembly resolution at vote, "Protecting World Assembly Neutrality".
 
Last edited:
Still against on principle. I restate my comments in the previous thread, that 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.

Regarding humanitarian interventions, I would prefer to have a resolution allowing the WA to perform them, and bar individual member nations from engaging in them in other member nations without the latter's consent. A "neutral" state can also have biases, ulterior motives, etc hindering its ability to effectively conduct said functions; and much more so than the World Assembly would.
 
I am against this proposal. There is not a need for a blocker on this topic, and the preamble is poorly-argued.
 
Ah yes, so apparently the World Assembly can take a side when the conflict is unarmed, but when it becomes armed, the World Assembly must remain neutral. 100% logical.

Against.

(Not saying there are no other flaws, but, well, this one stands out as the most straightforward one)
 
Last edited:
Fregerson:
Ah yes, so apparently the World Assembly can take a side when the conflict is unarmed, but when it becomes armed, the World Assembly must remain neutral. 100% logical.
Click to expand...
Diplomatic shouting matches are matters of international conflict.
 
Definitely against. This sounds like a replacement of the "rights and duties in war" section of the now-repealed GA#2, but it still fails in its goal especially when considering how the World Assembly has to stay neutral in large-scale wars, especially ones including authoritarian governments.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top