NationStates Jolt Archive

National Overtime Standards
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.

Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Community Property

Description: AFFIRMING our support for individual choice in working hours, and yet

OBSERVING that unfettered choice in such matters can lead some individuals to spend too many hours at work, to the neglect of their civic and familial duties as well as their health, and that such an imbalance might not be in the general public interest, and so

BELIEVING that something must be done to address such work-life imbalances, and

PROCLAIMING that overtime laws in no way represent an impediment to individual choice in working hours, as they act upon employers and not employees, reducing the willingness of the former to offer the latter opportunities for excessive work, and therefore

ENDORSING the use of overtime laws as a way of dealing with this problem,

THESE UNITED NATIONS DO HEREBY

COMMAND all Members to investigate the question of whether work-life imbalances are causing social and economic problems within the territories under their jurisdiction, with the scope and duration of these inquiries to be determined by each Member individually,

ORDER all Members to review their existing labor legislation and determine, in light of the findings of the foregoing investigation, whether overtime laws would be beneficial to their people,

URGE all Members to act upon this review by implementing overtime laws specific to the needs of their people where they deem such laws to be appropriate,

RESERVE to all Members sole authority to make the above determination as to whether overtime laws are indeed appropriate within the territories under their jurisdiction, and therefore to decide if such laws will be promulgated within said territories,

GRANT all Members sole authority to determine such things as compensation and eligibility for, and limits on the use of, overtime in all such cases where overtime laws are enacted or maintained,

RECOMMEND that Members review these laws on a recurrent basis, as they see fit, to determine their continuing relevance to and fitness for the achievement of the ends of this Resolution, and finally

INVITE non-Members to agree to voluntarily adhere to this resolution in the name of global standards and unity, understanding that they are under absolutely no obligation to do so.

FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS RESOLUTION, WE DEFINE

“OVERTIME” as the provision of some award, bonus, premium, or other consideration above and beyond normal compensation, issued when an individual eligible to receive such a benefit works beyond a certain number of hours within a defined period; such rewards may include, but are not limited to, a lump-sum bonus or increased rate of pay, additional time off, preferential treatment in scheduling, citations or other forms of recognition, or anything else of value, pecuniary or otherwise.

Approvals: 16 (Mandlandia, Kwyliathiotarup II, Ala cuisene, Carebis Kahlne, Bordoria, Waterrock, The Delphinic Peoples, Ellenburg, The Derrak Quadrant, Firebert, Kytheros, Erith Avlantia, Errinundera, Tarmsden, Ultrasilvania, Sorgloss)
Status: Lacking Support (requires 106 more approvals)
Voting Ends: Sat Sep 23 2006

Character Count: 2787This is the second attempt at the introduction of National Overtime Standards (NOS). The first attempt failed because the resolution was deemed illegal as a consequence of category violations (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499024). See the cited thread for details (especially if you're scratching your head and wondering why this isn't a “Social Justice” issue).

In light of the rulings offered in the previous thread, this proposal has been resurrected as a “Moral Decency” issue; we are looking, in essence, to limit employers' freedom (i.e., civil right) to offer work to employees for the sake of ensuring that workers do not neglect their families, health, civic duties, etc.

Important points to keep in mind here: NOS, if enacted, would not affect your economic stats. “Moral Decency” issues affect your Civil Rights rating, not your Economy rating (metagaming, we know - but some people will want to know what the Resolution will do to their economies).


NOS does not require you to enact overtime laws, nor does it provide any legal basis for your judiciary or the U.N. Gnomes to force this outcome upon you. It promotes their use in preference to mandating them.


NOS is not a retread of the “40 Hour Work Week”. You can choose for yourself if you want overtime, if it should (where mandated) be double-time, time-and-a-half, comp time, a free toaster, a pat on the back, or three fewer lashes with the cat o' nine tails each week. You decide.


You also get to decide who's exempt (soldiers, police, hookers, bartenders, mimes, whomever...), if there are limits on how much you can get in a week or a year (and what happens when you hit those limits) - it's all up to you. The only thing required is that you must look at your nation and decide if you need overtime (which means that the God-President for Life can look out his window say, “Nah, we don't need it”, and you're essentially done).


Livng on a planet with a thousand year day? No problem. NOS lets you decide for yourself the point in your “work cycle” where overtime would apply, if ever.


So what is the purpose of NOS? In a nutshell, it's to legalize overtime (or protect its legality) where you think that it may be endangered by NSUN activism (e.g., in the case of an overly rambunctious local judiciary that misinterpreted IWF). If you want it, you can say “NOS explicitly endorses the use of overtime for the purpose of addressing work-life imbalances, so it has to be legal where my executive/legislative branch believes that it would help address these issue; all I have to do is commission a two-bit study supporting that position and I'm good to go.” The important thing here is that we're not requiring people to have overtime laws; we're permitting them to. And since not every nation needs this, we're letting you do it on a case-by-case basis.With that, let the debate begin.

I dig it. It's sovereignty-friendly and has a much better acronym than most. NOS rocks.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

I call category violation: I see nothing in this proposal that restricts civil rights.

I call category violation: I see nothing in this proposal that restricts civil rights.

Urging governments to restrict working hours to prevent people from overworking themselves doesn't strike you as Moral Decency?

I'd see restricting work hours as primarily restricting personal liberties, though it could be a restriction on businesses as well.

But:
PROCLAIMING that overtime laws in no way represent an impediment to individual choice in working hours

If they don't represent an impediment to individual choice, just what is being restricted?

But:


If they don't represent an impediment to individual choice, just what is being restricted?

Fair point. I wonder what CM will have to say about this, because that line does contradict the rest of the proposal.

If they don't represent an impediment to individual choice, just what is being restricted?An employer's right to offer any old wage he or she sees fit.PROCLAIMING that overtime laws in no way represent an impediment to individual choice in working hoursThis is just like proposals banning weaponry under the UNSA: you have to declare the weapon you want to ban “(un)necessary to defend (any) nation from attack” and then you can ban it.

Thus, the declaration that “that (unfettered choice) might not be in the general public interest” followed by the assertion “that overtime laws in no way represent an impediment to individual choice in working hours”. Essentially, we're declaring that overtime laws restrict employer freedom only, and not employee freedom.

http://pic9.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/12763225/188192901.jpg


COMMAND all Members to investigate ...
ORDER all Members to review ...
URGE all Members to act ...


Even given the definition given at the end of the resolution (shouldn't definitions be first) this resolution simply does nothing. Overtime is vaguely defined, the action clause is simply an urging, made more ironic by a specific appeal to national sovergnity that allows all nations to flatly ignore this very large but still POS.

This has more fluff to it than a dire feather bellied pelican but it still DOES NOTHING.

This has more fluff to it than a dire feather bellied pelican but it still DOES NOTHING.Not true. It explicitly legalizes overtime for nations that want to have it, without shoving it down the throats of nations that don't.

Compare it to UNR #110 (“United Nations Security Act (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/United_Nations_Security_Act)”). What precisely did that resolution do?

Would you prefer us requiring all nations to pay overtime? Or forbidding any from paying it?

Compare it to UNR #110 (“United Nations Security Act (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/United_Nations_Security_Act)”). What precisely did that resolution do?
"ENCOURAGES all member states to ensure that they have the ability to effectively defend their sovereign nation from attack in the interest of protecting their citizens."

Seems about right for a Mild IS proposal.

Not true. It explicitly legalizes overtime for nations that want to have it, without shoving it down the throats of nations that don't.

Currently all nations can legally pass overtime legislation if they want it. So my point stands the resolution DOES NOTHING. Now if it is supposed to do nothing, or in other words be a blocker against a legislation that would impose all nations pay overtime or no nations pay overtime, I would suggest that this resolution is a bit large to be a blocker for such a small matter.

UNR #110 is a blocker, but the meat of the blocker is in "DECLARES that all member states have the right to construct and utilize any and all weapons that are necessary to defend their nation from attack, except where previous legislation by this body that is still in effect has placed restrictions on that right."

A blocker needs to be short and simple, after all the purpose of a blocker is to allow a mod to give a reason to delete a proposal in the queue. You can't hide the blocker portion in a ton of fluff, because there is a chance that the mods won't see the blocker in the same way you do. The whole notion of a blocker encouraging the very thing its trying to block is somewhat at cross purposes.

A blocker needs to be short and simple, after all the purpose of a blocker is to allow a mod to give a reason to delete a proposal in the queue. You can't hide the blocker portion in a ton of fluff, because there is a chance that the mods won't see the blocker in the same way you do. The whole notion of a blocker encouraging the very thing its trying to block is somewhat at cross purposes.
Guess I really fucked up Resolution #171 then.

I have to agree with the represenative from Tzorsland. At first I wasn't quite sure what this resolution actually did, other than telling people that "overtime= good." I'm not going to argue the benefits of overtime pay or economic shit like that, because it'll just bog down the thread and no one will be happy.

But I would really like to know, what exactly will this do that can't already be done? There's no resolution explicilty banning overtime pay. Currently, that decision is left to the individual nations to make, which is where I want it to stay. If this is a blocker, it's a very confusing and confounded one.

Now, your resolution may be based on a great moral premise but I simply can't see the purpose behind passing this resolution. If you're worried about some nation proposing to outlaw overtime pay and lock all workers inside ((Triangle Shirtwaist, anyone?)), I highly doubt that's going to happen. An dif someone does, I won't approve it.

Landaman Pendankr
Ambassador to the UN

Guess I really fucked up Resolution #171 then.

Boy I must be dense. I don't get it. The resolution does more than just block, but most of that is funding and is in harmony with the blocking portions, not in opposition.

Ok...
Either put it in a secure vault and wait until there's actually a threat of a proposal banning overtime.

Or...

Expand it.
Make it about holiday time as well and perhaps make that part mandatory - you can't expect people to work 365 days a year. I believe only the NS Pope does that.
Then it does something with overtime thrown in.

Ok...
Expand it.
Make it about holiday time as well and perhaps make that part mandatory - you can't expect people to work 365 days a year. I believe only the NS Pope does that.
Then it does something with overtime thrown in.

I agree with this idea. Make this resolution about more than simply overtime and I am sure that more nations would be willing to back it. I would be one of them.

Sounds to me like employers can persuade people to work unpaid overtime. At the risk of including RL references when they should be left out, it's a useless proposal. We can pass a million proposals that do nothing and they're worth less than one proposal that requires people to pick up dog poop off of people's lawns. Or zamboni poop, if you live in IHP.

Sounds to me like employers can persuade people to work unpaid overtime.There's nothing in the proposal to support that interpretation; governments can require people to do that, but employers can only do what governments allow.Either put it in a secure vault and wait until there's actually a threat of a proposal banning overtime.Some would say that we're already there; see below.Expand it.
Make it about holiday time as well and perhaps make that part mandatory - you can't expect people to work 365 days a year. I believe only the NS Pope does that.
Then it does something with overtime thrown in.I agree with this idea. Make this resolution about more than simply overtime and I am sure that more nations would be willing to back it. I would be one of them.My take is that: Overtime pay includes holiday pay; unless I'm mistaken, the definition is broad enough to cover both.


Even if I wanted to extend it to cover holiday pay, who would define the holidays? Surely not the NSUN. No, I think the definition of legal holidays and holiday pay must be left to the Members.


Making holiday (or overtime) pay mandatory would not increase support; it would kill it.Currently all nations can legally pass overtime legislation if they want it. So my point stands the resolution DOES NOTHING.I have to agree with the represenative from Tzorsland. At first I wasn't quite sure what this resolution actually did, other than telling people that "overtime= good."

...But I would really like to know, what exactly will this do that can't already be done? There's no resolution explicilty banning overtime pay (emphasis mine - C.P.). Currently, that decision is left to the individual nations to make, which is where I want it to stay. If this is a blocker, it's a very confusing and confounded one.UNR #175, “Individual Working Freedoms”, leaves some doubt as to this assertion:3. Mandates the removal of working time regulations that serve only to reduce individual liberty, and that unfairly remove decision-making power from the individual level;It could be argued that this section prohibits the passage of overtime laws. Gruenberg did not make this claim, but the “legislative history” of the Resolution is of little value; because overtime could be viewed as a structural impediment to unfettered choice in working hours, the matter is arguable.

Now, we're sure that someone will say that it's each nation's responsibility to make sure that this doesn't happen to them if they don't want it to, but that's a cynical point of view; it assumes that what policy makers want, they can get - a nation's laws, traditions, Constitution, and courts notwithstanding. In other words, the system is putty in the hands of the government, and can be twisted into whatever shape its rulers want.

My preference is to eliminate the doubt, to explicitly place the power to draft and enact overtime laws in the hands of each nation's lawmakers - who might not be its executive authority. It is this certainty that the Resolution seeks.

[/list]UNR #175, “Individual Working Freedoms”, leaves some doubt as to this assertion:It could be argued that this section prohibits the passage of overtime laws. Gruenberg did not make this claim, but the “legislative history” of the Resolution is of little value; because overtime could be viewed as a structural impediment to unfettered choice in working hours, the matter is arguable.

I don't believe that the quoted clause means what you believe it does, but of course, that's why you're writing this proposal. In my mind, working time regulations= rules regulating how long you can work, not whether you can be compensated for those hours. Overtime compensation cannot, by definition, be an impediment to the worker's freedom, because all work performed in overtime is voluntary.
Now, we're sure that someone will say that it's each nation's responsibility to make sure that this doesn't happen to them if they don't want it to, but that's a cynical point of view; it assumes that what policy makers want, they can get - a nation's laws, traditions, Constitution, and courts notwithstanding. In other words, the system is putty in the hands of the government, and can be twisted into whatever shape its rulers want.
I don't understand your point. Policy makers generally follow tradition, laws, and courts in their decisions, because those are the institutions that give them their ability to make policy in the first place. Really, I don't know what your point is here.

My preference is to eliminate the doubt, to explicitly place the power to draft and enact overtime laws in the hands of each nation's lawmakers - who might not be its executive authority. It is this certainty that the Resolution seeks.

Why bother? The national governments already have that right, and can easily get around it if they wish. What about governments that have no legislature? The UN is chock-full of theocracies, anarchies, and authoritarian monarchies. What does it matter to Community Property how they define overtime compensation, or how they implement IWF? I mean, Gruenberg's government has a policy of borderline non-compliance with UN resolutions. If Mr. Pyandran's government believes that that clause doesn't prevent overtime compensation, they'll go right ahead and allow it! This resolution is a very vague, very disingenous attempt at a blocker. We won't be supporting it, ever.

Landaman Pendankr dan Samda
Baron of Khaylamnian Samda
Ambassador to the UN

I don't understand your point. Policy makers generally follow tradition, laws, and courts in their decisions, because those are the institutions that give them their ability to make policy in the first place. Really, I don't know what your point is here.... Why bother? The national governments already have that right, and can easily get around it if they wish.That is exactly my point: not all nations can get around it.

Let's take a RL example: the recent Supreme Court decision about due process rights and detainees. Here's an example of one branch of government telling another it can't just go do whatever it wants. Now in that particular case, the U.S. Congress can probably work around the “problem”; but that isn't always true (the example from a few decades back of Congress trying to ban the PLO from entering the U.S. to staff their observer mission to the (RL) U.N. comes to mind; the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could not supersede a treaty merely by its say-so). One can imagine a ruling based on the Geneva Convention to the effect that the U.S. military must avoid the use of so-called “Israeli” interrogation techniques because they are illegal under international law; it is not at all clear that any executive or legislative override could reverse such a ruling, in which case the U.S. government would simply be stuck unable to do some thin that its policymakers want to do.

(Note to the reader: please don't hijack this thread for the purpose of discussing that controversial ruling; my intention is to use it as an example, not to argue about whether it was rightly decided or not.)What about governments that have no legislature?Did I not use the word lawmakers? If a nation has laws, it has someone who makes those laws, does it not? Clergy, royalty, the Master Computer Program, or little purple fairies; it matters not. Whomever makes the laws is/are that nation's lawmaker/s.

Which bring me back to my point: it is cynical to say that law is always nothing more than the collective diktat of its rulers. While we are sure that many, if not most, NS states work this way, many are modeled after RL nations that have separated and enumerated powers, Constitutionally limited in force and scope. If you're basically saying, “F_ck those nations, they deserve what they've got coming, and if they don't like it they don't belong in the NSUN,” well, that's your right, and you can oppose this legislation if you please (although I don't know why anyone would unless they want to either ban overtime worldwide or jam it down everybody's throats). But I feel that there are nations out there that want overtime and are struggling with the after-effects of IWF in trying to keep their labor laws intact, and I mean to protect their right to have the laws they want. I firmly believe that that is both the proper and moral thing to do, in the name of maintaining and embracing the diversity that is the NSUN.In my mind, working time regulations= rules regulating how long you can work, not whether you can be compensated for those hours. Overtime compensation cannot, by definition, be an impediment to the worker's freedom, because all work performed in overtime is voluntary.Any good lawyer backed by and economist would disagree with you. It's like saying that poll taxes or property ownership requirements are no impediment to the exercise of the franchise: we're supposed to believe that the requirement to come up money or own property in order to vote presents no problem to poor people who want to excercise the power to do so.

The same applies here: to say that anything that increases labor costs for any employer who wants to work his or her employees beyond certain limits is not an impediment to those employers' employees working as much as they want is simply daft. Technically, I could argue that IWF requires employers to extend their business hours indefinitely so that their employees can exercise their freedom to work as much as they please, because an employer saying, “Punch out and go home; it's quitting time” interferes with employee choice (“No way, dude! I have Christmas gifts to buy, and IWF says that I have the right to work for as long as I please. We're staying open 24 x 7 until I can afford to get my kid a new minibike!”). Certainly a lawyer could, and in many societies, that lawyer would likely win.

But I'm not going to take up that issue, because most societies will respond to that by proclaiming that an employer's property rights trump employee working freedoms (“in the general public interest”) when it comes to deciding an enterprise's business hours. But given that IWF was meant as both a replacement for and a blocker to future legislation like “The 40 Hour Work Week,” it is far less certain that overtime provisions will get equal treatment.

Yet the author of IWF stated that it was not his intention to strike down overtime laws everywhere, so I feel that it's justifiable to make the clarification needed, and - in respect of the fact that there is such a difference of opinion on this issue - I'd like to do it in such a ways as to maximize the right of Members to deal with this issue locally, as they see fit - which is consistent, in the end, with the thrust of IWF.

That is exactly my point: not all nations can get around it.

Let's take a RL example: the recent Supreme Court decision about due process rights and detainees. Here's an example of one branch of government telling another it can't just go do whatever it wants. Now in that particular case, the U.S. Congress can probably work around the “problem”; but that isn't always true (the example from a few decades back of Congress trying to ban the PLO from entering the U.S. to staff their observer mission to the (RL) U.N. comes to mind; the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could not supersede a treaty merely by its say-so). One can imagine a ruling based on the Geneva Convention to the effect that the U.S. military must avoid the use of so-called “Israeli” interrogation techniques because they are illegal under international law; it is not at all clear that any executive or legislative override could reverse such a ruling, in which case the U.S. government would simply be stuck unable to do some thin that its policymakers want to do.

I'm not sure I understand what the bit about the Supreme Court refers to and how it reflects this debate. But, if you're asserting that certain nations cannot interpret IWF to allow overtime, I would say tough luck. It's not up to the UN to mollycoddle certain natiions because a proposal has an ill-effect on their state. If you don't like legislation, vote against it. If the resolution passes despite your objections, leave the UN. If your nation is so hamstrung by your own laws that you can't interpret a vaguely worded clause to mean what you want it to, maybe you should leave the UN and not worry anymore.

Did I not use the word lawmakers? If a nation has laws, it has someone who makes those laws, does it not? Clergy, royalty, the Master Computer Program, or little purple fairies; it matters not. Whomever makes the laws is/are that nation's lawmaker/s.

Yes, you did. But, you very clearly drew a distinction between "lawmakers" and "executive authority," by which I assume you meant a Head of State-type figure. By your wording, I would gather you draw a distinction between authoritarian governments and democracies.

Which bring me back to my point: it is cynical to say that law is always nothing more than the collective diktat of its rulers. While we are sure that many, if not most, NS states work this way, many are modeled after RL nations that have separated and enumerated powers, Constitutionally limited in force and scope. If you're basically saying, “F_ck those nations, they deserve what they've got coming, and if they don't like it they don't belong in the NSUN,” well, that's your right, and you can oppose this legislation if you please (although I don't know why anyone would unless they want to either ban overtime worldwide or jam it down everybody's throats). You are assuming that the NationStates world is a rational, non-cynical world. And I am saying "Fuck those nations." They lost. Deal with it. And I'm not after banning overtime or jamming it down their throats- don't try to pigeonhole my policy. I oppose this legislation because it is unnecessary, and not because I want to force the wicker-wearing peoples of Community Property to dress in polyester and bitch about upper management.

But I feel that there are nations out there that want overtime and are struggling with the after-effects of IWF in trying to keep their labor laws intact, and I mean to protect their right to have the laws they want. I firmly believe that that is both the proper and moral thing to do, in the name of maintaining and embracing the diversity that is the NSUN.

Yeah, I understand that. What I'm saying is that there is nothing preventing these nations from implementing overtime laws under the auspices of IWF as it is. I do not agree that it is proper to create unnecessary legislation that accomplishes nothing that has not been solved.


Landaman Pendankr dan Samda
Baron of Khaylamnian Samda
Ambassador to the UN

I'm not sure I understand what the bit about the Supreme Court refers to and how it reflects this debate. But, if you're asserting that certain nations cannot interpret IWF to allow overtime, I would say tough luck. It's not up to the UN to mollycoddle certain natiions because a proposal has an ill-effect on their state. If you don't like legislation, vote against it. If the resolution passes despite your objections, leave the UN. If your nation is so hamstrung by your own laws that you can't interpret a vaguely worded clause to mean what you want it to, maybe you should leave the UN and not worry anymore.Again, this is cynicism mixed with an unhealthy dose of arrogance. You're basically saying that “Nations like the United States don't belong in the NSUN.”

That is a position with which I can not agree.Yes, you did. But, you very clearly drew a distinction between "lawmakers" and "executive authority," by which I assume you meant a Head of State-type figure.Read what I said again - and this time, read carefully:My preference is to eliminate the doubt, to explicitly place the power to draft and enact overtime laws in the hands of each nation's lawmakers - who might not be its executive authority (emphasis mine - C.P.).By your wording, I would gather you draw a distinction between authoritarian governments and democracies.Actually, the distinction is between governments that excercise separation of Constitutionally enumerated powers (e.g., the United States and France) and those that don't (eg., the United Kingdom [unless you want to count the Law Lords as being separate from Parliament] and Japan).You are assuming that the NationStates world is a rational, non-cynical world.I am making no such assumption; I am suggesting, however, that we don't need to be cynical about everything.And I am saying "Fuck those nations." They lost. Deal with it.You want a repeal fight? We can have a repeal fight. It won't be pretty.Yeah, I understand that. What I'm saying is that there is nothing preventing these nations from implementing overtime laws under the auspices of IWF as it is. I do not agree that it is proper to create unnecessary legislation that accomplishes nothing that has not been solved.You think it's unnecessary. I don't.

Again, this is cynicism mixed with an unhealthy dose of arrogance. You're basically saying that “Nations like the United States don't belong in the NSUN.”

I think it's a bit more arrogant to assume that everyone shares Community Property's ideas about wage and overtime laws. If the vote queue for IWF is any indication, the makority of the UN would prefer to see decisions about working hours left to the local and individual level, not mandated by the UN. The same is probably true of overtime compensation.

Actually, the distinction is between governments that excercise separation of Constitutionally enumerated powers (e.g., the United States and France) and those that don't (eg., the United Kingdom [unless you want to count the Law Lords as being separate from Parliament] and Japan).
Now that you've explained your murky wording, I understand you. I'm still not quite sure how this is germane to the debate.

I am making no such assumption; I am suggesting, however, that we don't need to be cynical about everything.

Sounds fine. I'm really being more practical than cynical: why have unnecessary legislation on the books, when the same goals can be achieved through a reading of previous legislation? Look at it pragmatically: does it work? Yes it does.

You want a repeal fight? We can have a repeal fight. It won't be pretty.
Oooh, scary.

You think it's unnecessary. I don't.

That's why we're debating this.

Landaman Pendankr dan Samda
Baron of Khaylamnian Samda
Ambassador to the UN

it is not at all clear that any executive or legislative override could reverse such a ruling, in which case the U.S. government would simply be stuck unable to do some thin that its policymakers want to do.I just want to point out that even in this case, the government can work around. Congress has the authority to set SCOTUS's authority as well as the number of Justices. It would be a scortched-earth policy, but a ballsy enough Congress could make SCOTUS its bitch.

So while the US is a poor example, it is perfectly feasable that there's some NS nations out there that could get screwed in such a way. Carry on.

I like it. It's as mild as necessary to pass. It's just the sort of compromise resolution that speaks well of an international body.