NationStates Jolt Archive

Rights and Duties of WA States

A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.

Category: Political Stability
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Frisbeeteria

Description: World Assembly membership in NationStates is a choice, not a requirement. Those of us who chose to participate have certain responsibilities to ourselves, each other, and the entire NationStates community. At the same time, we as NationStates have certain rights and responsibilities that we do not willingly relinquish when we chose to join the World Assembly.

It is therefore vital to clearly delineate what constitutes sovereign law versus international law passed by this World Assembly. This document will attempt to enumerate those most basic of rights, as they exist within and as defined by the World Assembly of NationStates.

A Declaration on Rights and Duties of WA States:

Section I:

The Principle of National Sovereignty:

Article 1 § Every WA Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

Article 2 § Every WA Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

Article 3 § Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

Section II:

Rights and Duties in War:

Article 4 § Every WA Member State has the right of individual or collective self-defense against armed attack.

Article 5 § War in the World of NationStates is defined as a consensual act between two or more NationStates. WA Member States may, at their discretion, intercede against declarations of war on behalf of NationStates who wish to avoid war.

Article 6 § Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from fomenting civil strife in the territory of another NationState, and to prevent the organization within its territory of activities calculated to foment such civil strife.

Article 7 § Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from giving assistance to any NationState which is acting in violation of Article 5 or 6. Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from recognizing any territorial acquisition by another NationState acting in violation of Article 5 or 6.

Section III:

The Role of the World Assembly:

Article 8 § Every WA Member State has the right to equality in law with every other WA Member State.

Article 9 § Every WA Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, including this World Assembly, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty.

Article 10 § Whilst WA Member States may engage in wars, the World Assembly as a body maintains neutrality in matters of civil and international strife. As such, the WA will not engage in commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner.

Article 11 § Every WA Member State has the duty to conduct its relations with other NationStates in accordance with international law and with the principle that the sovereignty of each WA Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law.
Older Version

Description: World Assembly membership in NationStates is a choice, not a requirement. Those of us who chose to participate have certain responsibilities to ourselves, each other, and the entire NationStates community. At the same time, we as NationStates have certain rights and responsibilities that we do not willingly relinquish when we chose to join the WA.

It is therefore vital to clearly delineate what constitutes sovereign law versus WA sanctioned international law. This document will attempt to enumerate those most basic of rights, as they exist within and as defined by the World Assembly of NationStates.

A Declaration on Rights and Duties of WA States:

Section I:

The Principle of National Sovereignty:

Article 1 § Every WA Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

Article 2 § Every WA Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

Article 3 § Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

Section II:

Rights and Duties in War:

Article 4 § Every WA Member State has the right of individual or collective self-defense against armed attack.

Article 5 § War in the World of NationStates is defined as a consensual act between two or more NationStates. Any and all NationStates may, at their discretion, intercede against declarations of war on behalf of NationStates who wish to avoid war.

Article 6 § Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from fomenting civil strife in the territory of another NationState, and to prevent the organization within its territory of activities calculated to foment such civil strife.

Article 7 § Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from giving assistance to any NationState which is acting in violation of Article 5 or 6. Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from recognizing any territorial acquisition by another NationState acting in violation of Article 5 or 6.

Section III:

The Role of the World Assembly:

Article 8 § Every WA Member State has the right to equality in law with every other WA Member State.

Article 9 § Every WA Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty.

Article 10 § Whilst WA Member States may engage in wars, the World Assembly as a body maintains neutrality in matters of civil and international strife. As such, the WA is expressly forbidden from commanding, engaging, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner.

Article 11 § Every WA Member State has the duty to conduct its relations with other NationStates in accordance with international law and with the principle that the sovereignty of each WA Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law.

Pardon me for jumping on the bandwagon of those apparently offering old UN material for the new World Assembly, but I feel that this is the operative time for inclusion of those most basic of definitions. Rights and Duties enjoyed quite a bit of popularity under the old system, and I feel it deserves a place at the beginning of the queue in the WA.

Rights and Duties of UN States may have been the first of the collaborative proposals, one that welcomed forum participant input. While the nation of Frisbeeteria carries Author status, it was truly a collaborative effort. The NSwiki page lists the contributors to that effort, and I welcome new contributors on this effort.


Notable difference between this version and the prior version are
A reduction in Strength from Significant to Mild, as this truly doesn't change anything, but merely reinforces in IC terms what is already true in the metagame.
A new title for Section II
Article 5: The removal of the mention of IGNORE cannons, along with a rephrasing of that article to remove the suggestion that the WA had the authority to intervene militarily.
Article 7 & 8 have been compressed into a single article, which refers back not only to Article 5 but Article 6 as well.
Article 10 is entirely new, and is the one article that I'd most like input on. In this Article I've attempted to definitively deny the ability to create a UN Army, which as you know is forbidden under game rules. This turns the OOC prohibition into an IC prohibition.
The remainder of the proposal is the same as Resolution #49, with the exception of substitution of WA for UN in all cases.


Your feedback is desired and welcome. In the event of the passage of the current resolution, I'd very much like this to be the first proposal in the new WA Canon. Any assistance with encouraging Delegates towards that end would be most welcome.

The United States supports this resolution

Drasanga offers their full support with this issue as a whole. Having said that, we do not feel that the WA, should it be formed, should be banned from haveing the ability to try and orginize a peace colition in order to try and defuse a potentially dangerous situation. This should of course be contingant on a full vote of the WA.

The UN will never have that power. As Fris stated, this resolution's only effect is to enforce game rules already in effect, which state that the UN is not entitled to govern a military/police entity.

Hmm...I've carefully combed through the entire resolution, and can't find any real objections to anything. Article 10 is a masterful stroke of explicitly defining the 'no armies' rule IC.

Article 10 § Whilst WA Member States may engage in wars, the World Assembly as a body maintains neutrality in matters of international strife and civil wars. As such, the WA is expressly forbidden from commanding, engaging, organising, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner. Neither will the WA give its approval to any NationState choosing to engage in such activities.

My suggested edits are in bold. They're just additions for the sake of completeness.

Original:
Article 10 § Whilst WA Member States may engage in wars, the World Assembly as a body maintains neutrality in matters of international strife. As such, the WA is expressly forbidden from commanding, engaging, organising, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner.

Revised:
Article 10 § Whilst WA Member States may engage in wars, the World Assembly as a body maintains neutrality in matters of civil and international strife. As such, the WA is expressly forbidden from commanding, engaging, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner.

Question related to article 10. What is the in game purpose of the WA?

The Grand Holy Empire of Imota gives this measure our unequivocal support.

Burgen Alsonis, Ambassador to the World Assembly

The newly renamed Democratic Republic of Willagee and its new government, support this proposal.

Archon Aristides

In the past you didn't permit proposals to 'forbid' the UN from doing something. Will the WA be allowed to do that now? Because if not, your clause 10 - while an excellent idea, in my view - would appear to be illegal. A way round it would, as OMGTKK's failed proposal did, to prohibit member nations from assembling military forces under the banner of the WA.

TMZ approves of this measure as it stands, particularly section 10

Article 10 § Whilst WA Member States may engage in wars, the World Assembly as a body maintains neutrality in matters of civil and international strife. As such, the WA is expressly forbidden from commanding, engaging, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner.

In the past you didn't permit proposals to 'forbid' the UN from doing something.That's... hrm.

In the past you didn't permit proposals to 'forbid' the UN from doing something.

I thought the only forbidden activity was preventing future legislation, i.e. "No future proposal may add <foo> unless this resolution is first repealed." This is action, not legislation.

No matter what we do, it's essentially sophistry. I'm using my status as the original author and position as a Game Mod to push through a one-time-only acknowledgment of an existing metagame rule. If you can help me with the phrasing so that it doesn't appear to invite similar, non-legal phrasing, I'd welcome the effort.

We could try phrasing that uses a statement of resolute intent rather than a prohibition. For example, "The WA will not engage in..." rather than "The WA is expressly forbidden from engaging in..."

If you can help me with the phrasing so that it doesn't appear to invite similar, non-legal phrasing, I'd welcome the effort.
A way round it would, as OMGTKK's failed proposal did, to prohibit member nations from assembling military forces under the banner of the WA..

"The WA will not engage in..." rather than "The WA is expressly forbidden from engaging in..."

I think I prefer this to Kenny's sidestep. Does that resolve it, or just soften it?

Well, I simply thought before we were not allowed to issue negative statements: 'the UN cannot, will not, etc.', but I can't find a link after browsing a couple of relevant old threads.

If you are allowed to say: 'the WA will refrain from commanding...', then that's fine by me. I'm not about to start calling you on the rules, given I don't have a past explicit decision to point to. I was just flagging up a concern.

One other point, from another thread. You refer several times to 'international law', but it might be clearer if you either defined this as only referring to WA resolutions, or used 'WA law' o.w.t.t.e. instead. This way, the WA won't appear to be endorsing international treaties that not all member nations are party to.

How about adding a section about the Duty to contribute towards the WA's finances, perhaps in the form of annual membership fees, to settle that point too?

H'mm. Doesn't {Section 1, Article 1} technically make the use of 'UN puppets' that actually possess this status IC -- like the various "[Nation name] UN Mission" ones, or the St Edmundan Antarctic -- technically illegal?

"[Nation name] UN Mission" is in fact the only relevant WA member nation. The parent nation, not being a member of this Assembly, has no rights within it.

A RL parallel would be in Vatican City was actually an Italian protectorate, and VC joined the WA but Italy didn't. The WA would have no standing in Italy, even though Italy may choose to implement every resolution as quickly as it passed.


As for the finance issue, I think that would be a resolution killer. "Political Stability" does not carry financial implications, so I'd have a hard time shoehorning it into this proposal. It would make a good early proposal though - anything to keep UN Res #4 from reappearing would be welcome.

You refer several times to 'international law', but it might be clearer if you either defined this as only referring to WA resolutions, or used 'WA law' o.w.t.t.e. instead. This way, the WA won't appear to be endorsing international treaties that not all member nations are party to.

Doesn't the phrase "WA sanctioned international law" in the Preamble adequately cover this as a definition? Perhaps we could rephrase that as international law passed by this World Assembly.

I know there's a tacit belief on the part of some forum regulars that the preamble isn't actually law, but I disagree with that interpretation. If it passes, it's ALL law.

As for the finance issue, I think that would be a resolution killer. "Political Stability" does not carry financial implications, so I'd have a hard time shoehorning it into this proposal. It would make a good early proposal though - anything to keep UN Res #4 from reappearing would be welcome.Wasn't UN Funding Act filed under Political Stability?

Wasn't UN Funding Act filed under Political Stability?

Didn't it fail to make quorum?

Didn't it fail to make quorum?

It quorumed, it just failed to pass.

"[Nation name] UN Mission" is in fact the only relevant WA member nation. The parent nation, not being a member of this Assembly, has no rights within it.

A RL parallel would be in Vatican City was actually an Italian protectorate, and VC joined the WA but Italy didn't. The WA would have no standing in Italy, even though Italy may choose to implement every resolution as quickly as it passed.

The parent nation has no rights, true, but as the clause currently refers to freedom from control by "any other NationState" rather than by "any other Member-Nation", thus _
Article 1 § Every WA Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

doesn't it require that Member Nations must be independent states in their own right... or, at least, give them an inherent right to reject their parent-states' authority?

Article 1 § Every WA Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

This faintly worries me, but only to the extent of the fuzziness of "all its legal powers". Would I be right to assume that anything the WA passes a resolution to declare illegal is no longer a "legal power" that a member state has any right to exercise?

"Every WA Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government."

That means, when a resolution is passed, we don't have to allow it to be put into law in our nation. Selective following of WA rules. Sweet.

This faintly worries me, but only to the extent of the fuzziness of "all its legal powers". Would I be right to assume that anything the WA passes a resolution to declare illegal is no longer a "legal power" that a member state has any right to exercise?

I would think something outlawed by the WA would be illegal, and therefore not a legal anything.

That means, when a resolution is passed, we don't have to allow it to be put into law in our nation. Selective following of WA rules. Sweet.

You can't pick and choose which parts of a resolution apply in your nation. Try reading Article 11. The WA wins, exactly as it did when this was UN Res #49.

No matter what we do, it's essentially sophistry. I'm using my status as the original author and position as a Game Mod to push through a one-time-only acknowledgment of an existing metagame rule.

The Catawaban Ambassador the UN..ermm...WA stifled a chuckle at the skit running through his head (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=De1shHUwO_E). He gained control of his mirth and spoke up. "The Catawaban government has nothing new to add but supports this measure with all its heart...as Grandpoobahchairman Frisbeeteria commands."

You can't pick and choose which parts of a resolution apply in your nation. Try reading Article 11. The WA wins, exactly as it did when this was UN Res #49.More importantly, that brand of wankery was thoroughly squashed (I believe by GMC) previously. The WA is not a "nationstate": it is an extra-national ruling body, and is therefore not restricted in the slightest by Article 1.

This faintly worries me, but only to the extent of the fuzziness of "all its legal powers". Would I be right to assume that anything the WA passes a resolution to declare illegal is no longer a "legal power" that a member state has any right to exercise?

The original source of this document (since heavily modified for NS) was a UN document called A Declaration of Rights and Duties of UN Member States. That phrase survives unchanged from the source. I don't feel it needs additional fine-tuning, but I'll listen to suggestions.

What the heck. Submitted.

You're right, Article 11 is the trump that flattens attempts to wank non-compliance via Article 1. All is happy in the rubble over here, and good luck with reaching Quorum.

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

Sorry to hijack, but:
submitted a proposal to the World Assembly Political Stability Council entitled "Rights and Duties of WA States".
Not sure I'm that keen on the idea that each category has its own 'council'. Did anyone notice if it was that way under the brief coincidence of UN/National Happenings?

Actually, Quod is Gruen. ;)

Sorry to hijack, but:

Not sure I'm that keen on the idea that each category has its own 'council'. Did anyone notice if it was that way under the brief coincidence of UN/National Happenings?I don't remember the name of the Council, but yes, when I submitted "Repeal 'International Trafficking'" (oh, hey, that's a bright spot in my day :) ) it was filed before its very own special council.

Approvals: 104 (Catawaba, NewTexas, Karianis, The Narnian Council, Rubina, Embarc, Rosmnia, Arunsey, WZ Forums, Azemica, Golugan, Flibbleites, Anarchy works, Nova Nova Roma, Quintessence of Dust, Stephanephpolis, King chedder 2, Maelkochburg, Finsvenigor, DesMonies, Jake and Elwood Blues, Tatarica, Cimbabwe, Cartographic Boxes, Great Atlantea, Crockeria, Gina Toscano, Digalia, Epasradian Islands, Cordova I, COMUNI, Decapod Ten, Graalium, Iron Felix, Pagemaster, Si Se Puede, JMDS, QWERTY9223, Rantchess, South Oceana, 46566, Amyrkah, Oshanla, Slices Right, Mikeswill, The Great Macedonians, Ephidael, The Overlook Hotel, Oriskany Falls, Xenofungus, Southern Realm, Camericana, Chazzistan, Indian Gangs, New Alboria, 12 Colonies of Kobol, Minateras, Tinis, OmniAthena, Globalist America, Ransium, TiredFaith, Dyrath, Gwenstefani, Santa clauses8, Jeggerzlovakia, Warsaw and Poland, The Artic Republics, The Streets Of Dresden, DukeCurtis, Sark813, TheDeadEye, Tilgate, Great New France, Betelgeuse XII, Vaantage, Bjarred, LithuanianEmpire, Black Empire, Rotovia-, Rabah, The Digital Network, Dolvaria, Crapooza, Dokta, Zoingo, Charlotte Ryberg, Jibrilchan, Holy Crap It Is a Doll, Aeron Land, Great British Islands, Belarum, Axelton, Norwedenland, Jey, Slacktonovich, Bay Islands, Ascendas, William The AWESOME, Brunelian BG advocates, Sancte Michael, Althzakar, The Crazy King, Teamgeist)

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

Yay! http://209.85.48.12/6802/45/emo/hg%2520%2828%29.gif

Congrats Fris. Lets see it pass.

I've been made the W.A. delegate for Tierra Del HORN recently. I will have to give this some thought and get some input from the nations in our region. How democratic of me.

Our region is newish to the game, and the sudden disolusion of the former UN is a unique chance to wipe the slate clean and start fresh.

I'll be back with input very soon.

Greetings from Tierra del HORN.

Article 3 § Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

I gotta be honest, this line has always had me a little concerned. It just feels like it's coming awfully close to making war illegal. Not a huge sticking point for me, though.

Article 6 § Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from fomenting civil strife in the territory of another NationState, and to prevent the organization within its territory of activities calculated to foment such civil strife.

A part of me really wants to argue against this article. That's the part of me that likes to watch others struggle and suffer while I have popcorn and soda. We're not going to listen to that part of me. Not right now anyways.

Article 7 § Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from giving assistance to any NationState which is acting in violation of Article 5 or 6. Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from recognizing any territorial acquisition by another NationState acting in violation of Article 5 or 6.

Okay, here I have a real issue. While I could readily accept that we shouldn't acknowledge territory acquired directly through illicit means, this isn't actually making stipulations. This is saying that if nation A is illegally acquiring territory from nation B that we also shouldn't acknowledge any territory they may acquire through purchase, trade, or whatever other legal means from nation C. I'm not sure I care for that. I think I understand where the intent lies, in that we won't reward their malice with acknowledging their spoils, but shouldn't we still allow them there fairly gotten gains?

That being my only proper complaint, I'm still obviously willing to be convinced, else I wouldn't be here speaking, I'd just be off in some corner muttering about conspiracies. Maybe I'm reading it all wrong. I'm willing to accept that possibility.

All things considered, though, I think this could make for a great first WAR.

The Sacred Eternity of Subistratica has voted in favor of this resolution, and is pleased to annouce their return to this newly renamed august body.

Eros Tatriel
WA Ambassador for Subistratica

Re: Article 3; May I have a definition for what would constitute a requested "intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState"?

Re: Article 10; This means that WA, under no circumstance, has the obligation to protect, that protection is left entirely to individual NationStates. Is this article sacrosanct or can it be amended?

With the greatest regret, the Holy Empire of Bakamyht feels compelled to vote against this measure. It affirms the right to collective and individual self defence (a principle to which we have no objection), without also renouncing aggressive warfare as an instrument of foreign policy.

Re: Article 3; May I have a definition for what would constitute a requested "intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState"?
I don't have a definition to offer, but some examples might be: assistance in infrastructure building, a loan, the sending of policy of advisers, supplying a peacekeeping force, providing conflict mediation. I think the key is that the intervention be done only on receipt of a request by the recognised authority with jurisdiction.
Re: Article 10; This means that WA, under no circumstance, has the obligation to protect, that protection is left entirely to individual NationStates. Is this article sacrosanct or can it be amended?
Amendments are illegal, so yes, the article would stand as it is if the proposal passed.
With the greatest regret, the Holy Empire of Bakamyht feels compelled to vote against this measure. It affirms the right to collective and individual self defence (a principle to which we have no objection), without also renouncing aggressive warfare as an instrument of foreign policy.
That's not entirely true. Article 3 prohibits 'unrequested intervention', which would clearly include aggressive warfare (I can't imagine circumstances under which an aggression invasion would be requested).

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison, Department of WA Affairs
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

Article 6 § Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from fomenting civil strife in the territory of another NationState, and to prevent the organization within its territory of activities calculated to foment such civil strife.


What's up with this? Can someone please explain to me exactly what this does? It would be nonsense and highly irresponsible and unenforceable for the WA to ban covert operations inside another nation that is hostile to your country...

Thank you, Quintessence of Dust (lovely name, by the way).

Your answer gets to the heart of the matter. What if it were a case of the government abusing it's own citizens? Would those citizens, not being the "recognised authority with jurisdiction" be able to request the protection of another nation? This action to protect could very well be construed by the recognized authority as an aggressive act which provides you with a scenario whereby an "aggressive invasion" is being requested, just not by the governing power.

This is the problem with trying to differentiate between defensive and aggressive warfare; it depends on your perspective.

Re: Article 10; This means that WA, under no circumstance, has the obligation to protect, that protection is left entirely to individual NationStates. Is this article sacrosanct or can it be amended?Even if it could be amended (which Quod has already said it cannot), this article is pretty much sacrosanct and probably would not be edited out or modified anyway. It's a long-held rule of this game that the UN (now the WA) does not interfere in international theaters of conflict and does not get a military or police force of its own. Moderators routinely delete resolutions that purport otherwise.

It affirms the right to collective and individual self defence (a principle to which we have no objection), without also renouncing aggressive warfare as an instrument of foreign policy.

Feel free to post your own resolution on that topic. Passage of this one won't prevent passage of that one.

I didn't include anything on that topic because I wanted this resolution to pass. Denying war ignores human behavior and is wishful thinking at best. Please, I encourage you to campaign for a proposal demanding that WA nations renounce war. Come back here after the vote and we'll compare how they did.

MJ Donovan, CEO Emeritus,
The Conglomerated Oligarchy of Frisbeeterian Corporate States.

Not that I'm voting against this one anyway, but it does seem to me as if someone voted against this resolution they'd be saying, "Hell no, I'm not going to abide by already existing game rules!"

Just a thought.

Let me just point out one vital word here ...

Every WA Member State has the duty ...
This is not a mandatory clause, it's a definition clause. If you violate your duty, you accept that you may be subject to various penalties under international law. It doesn't prevent you from acting, only from acting without consequence. What those consequences might be have yet to be defined, but we've laid the groundwork for them.

The rest is up to you as members of the World Assembly.

This is not a mandatory clause, it's a definition clause. If you violate your duty, you accept that you may be subject to various penalties under international law. It doesn't prevent you from acting, only from acting without consequence. What those consequences might be have yet to be defined, but we've laid the groundwork for them.

The rest is up to you as members of the World Assembly.

Consider me mollified. Nicely done. My support is yours.

The government has no dispute against it.

As representative of the Confederacy of Wencee, I must say we can not vote in favor of this resolution. We support complete and total political freedom; and are opposed to anything that restricts it in any fashion. And Furthermore urge other Nations to reject this plan.


Confederacy of Wencee-

Ambassador Gardner wanders in. "Er. Yes. Plutoni has returned, for the time being, in hopes to help guide this legislative body along more...divergent...paths than its illustrious predecessor. One for one so far.

Despite a general distrust of infringement upon our political rights I have been ordered to support this resolution without exactly knowing why. The closest thing I got to an explanation involved the deterioration of the mythical entity known as the "space-time continuum".

Anyhow, Plutoni supports the resolution."

The current resolution at vote in the WA is a disgrace to Dunyastan. As a matter of principle, Dunyastan believes that the WA should be a place of dialogue followed by action, not empty chatter.

As the Sultan of Dunyastan, I implore you to vote against this resolution. I would like to personally warn all of us against the folly of deluding ourselves into thinking we are doing something by just talking, when in fact, we are just talking.

we need more of a "league of nations deal" we cant have anything restricting freedoms, no matter why, because the purpose of the UN and its sucessor, the WA is to further freedom. we MUST stop this proposal and limit the WAs power before its to late!

As representative of the Confederacy of Wencee, I must say we can not vote in favor of this resolution. We support complete and total political freedom; and are opposed to anything that restricts it in any fashion. And Furthermore urge other Nations to reject this plan.


Confederacy of Wencee-

Anarchy Works is behind you. We are also opposed to this resolution, you know, the whole anarchy IS freedom deal? we cant restrict that freedom, and I call for ALL nations who love freedom to vote against this, I will start civil war if I have to, I will do anything, make any sacrifice, endure any hardship, to see to it this resolution doesnt pass and we limit the powers of the WA

WHOS WITH ME?? WHO WANTS TO STOP THIS ENCROACHMENT ON OUR FREEDOMS?? WHO WANTS TO PRESERVE WHAT I THOUGHT THE WA WOULD UPHOLD?? (freedom and goodwill, justice, peace, and prosperity)

Please stop shouting, it's not likely to get anyone to agree with you.

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

I will start civil war if I have to
You go right ahead. We'll be selling popcorn and pay-per-view rights.


I will do anything, make any sacrifice, endure any hardship, to see to it this resolution doesnt pass and we limit the powers of the WA
Are you even aware of what kind of organization you've joined? Whether it passes or not, the power of the WA is unlimited.

EVERY.
SINGLE.
RESOLUTION.
WILL!
CHANGE.
YOUR.
NATION.

... probably in ways you don't like. You can either a) post consecutive, irrational rants or b) resign your membership. Only the second is likely to have any effect on the deliberations of this body.

You go right ahead. We'll be selling popcorn and pay-per-view rights.



Are you even aware of what kind of organization you've joined? Whether it passes or not, the power of the WA is unlimited.

EVERY.
SINGLE.
RESOLUTION.
WILL!
CHANGE.
YOUR.
NATION.

... probably in ways you don't like. You can either a) post consecutive, irrational rants or b) resign your membership. Only the second is likely to have any effect on the deliberations of this body.

so, beating down people who value freedom seems to please you guys, what else do you do when your bored? also how does one shout on the internet? it also comes to mind that you psted this resolution, so of course you want to quickly silence all opposition....

so, beating down people who value freedom seems to please you guys, what else do you do when your bored? also how does one shout on the internet?

What about this resolution destroys your freedoms any more than simply joining the World Assembly? Don't respond with a rant or some arbitrary reversing insult, explain your problem in a rational way. Perhaps then you'll get rational responses.

ALL CAPS is considered shouting. Don't do it.

What about this resolution destroys your freedoms any more than simply joining the World Assembly? Don't respond with a rant or some arbitrary reversing insult, explain your problem in a rational way. Perhaps then you'll get rational responses.

ALL CAPS is considered shouting. Don't do it.

uh, huh, so now the WA wants to reguLATE the VOluMe of My VOicE?
my problem is that it says at the top it restricts freedoms, sorry, cant have that. ever. need freedom.
also, the WA is supposed to help resolve disputes, assist developing nations and prevent chemical weapons and genocide. not tell nations that they need to adhear to someone elses viewpoint because it became a resolution.

uh, huh, so now the WA wants to reguLATE the VOluMe of My VOicE?
my problem is that it says at the top it restricts freedoms, sorry, cant have that. ever. need freedom.
also, the WA is supposed to help resolve disputes, assist developing nations and prevent chemical weapons and genocide. not tell nations that they need to adhear to someone elses viewpoint because it became a resolution.

i agree this bill infringes on my freedoms and the freedoms of my country. As supreme Dictator of The Democratic Republic of Huorn 101 i cannot standby and allow the WA to regulate my dealings with other countries that should be up to me. the WA should be there to resolve disputes if things get out of hand but they should not be allowed to prevent me from taking over weak and useless states. not to mention i want to be able to control the actions within other nations through puppet leaders and this bill would make that illegal i will not stand for such a foolish measure that infringes so greatly on my nations freedoms!

EVERY.
SINGLE.
RESOLUTION.
WILL!
CHANGE.
YOUR.
NATION.


Is the intent of this resolution to become a sort of "charter"?

The type of argument you are advocating for above sounds much like the mommy-state world government model, where people rely upon the coded aspects of NationStates to justify 100% compliance with resolutions. I was honestly hoping that with a change from the UN to the WA, that moderators might encourage more roleplaying and support those of us that actually feel nations can choose when to comply and not to comply with resolutions.

You will *still* have the gameplay issue of issues conflicting with resolutions, as eventually somebody will write a resolution that forces nations to a position that they will later have the ability to completely reverse and hence move right back out of compliance.

Frisbeeteria, may I get your input on the question of "requested intervention" as it may pertain to Article 3?

In response to my question of what would define a "requested intervention", Quintessence of Dust offered the following:
"I don't have a definition to offer, but some examples might be: assistance in infrastructure building, a loan, the sending of policy of advisers, supplying a peacekeeping force, providing conflict mediation. I think the key is that the intervention be done only on receipt of a request by the recognised authority with jurisdiction."

I then proposed the scenario of citizens of a nation being abused by their own government and those citizens asking for protection from another nation. By Quintessence of Dust's parameters, this would violate Article 3 as the request did not originate with the "recognised authority" and would be construed by that authority as an act of aggression and an "unrequested intervention".

What then of the NationState that feels it has the responsibility to protect? Would they be censured under Article 3?

I think the key is that the intervention be done only on receipt of a request by the recognised authority with jurisdiction.
If that's how the government of Quintessence of Dust chooses to recognize their duty, then that's how it works for them.

I then proposed the scenario of citizens of a nation being abused by their own government and those citizens asking for protection from another nation.
If that's how the government of Cocoa Puffy chooses to recognize their duty, then that's how it works for them.

The old organization had a rich tradition of independent interpretation of passed resolutions. I'm assuming that the World Assembly will retain that independence. Absent specific law to the contrary as further defined by this body, your interpretation is as valid as any other. Likewise, anyone who disagrees with you about your interpretation has the right to object.

The law is what is written. The implementation is, and always has been, a matter of interpretation. Until or unless this body defines a Judiciary* to make final rulings of intent and practice, I don't see that changing.



* Problematic, as there really isn't a category or game mechanic possible for one.

The type of argument you are advocating for above sounds much like the mommy-state world government model, where people rely upon the coded aspects of NationStates to justify 100% compliance with resolutions. I was honestly hoping that with a change from the UN to the WA, that moderators might encourage more roleplaying and support those of us that actually feel nations can choose when to comply and not to comply with resolutions.
The poster's argument was about the description line, not the content of the resolution:
A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.
If he wants to attack the game mechanic, I'll point out his foolish behavior.

As for your desire to comply or not comply, that's never been taken away from you. The LAW in your nation changes with WA law, just like before. If you or your government choose to break that law, then you'll simply have to accept the possible consequences, whatever those are.

Punishments are rarely implemented via resolution, so enforcement and sentencing are usually the province of the individual nation ... or their enemies, using your illegal activities as an excuse to take you to war. To me, that's where the interesting opportunities lie.

uh, huh, so now the WA wants to reguLATE the VOluMe of My VOicE?No, it's a matter of etiquette.

Dear friends and enemies,

The assembly of the Wierd Anarchist have decided to vote against this resolution.

We have problems with article 3 and 6. Our nation is flocked with refugees from other nations. They fled for dictators and others. They want to return to thier nation but can only do so when in that nation more freedom will be. So they organise political support for the freedom fighters in the countries of origin. Our nation supports them. We will do so even when this resolution will pass and article 3 and 6 will forebide that.

But we will stay member of the WA. We will use every inch of possibilities we or our lawyers see to tell we comply to such resolutions. But in fact we will never leave those freedom fighters alone.

As others said we think WA is good for improving the world of Nation States, it can stop our freedoms sometimes (when we hurt nature, health or freedom), but it cannot be that it will force all nations totally from doing thier things on their way. Which we cannot beat, we will join, which we want and can beat, we will stop.

Greetings,
Cocoamok,
coordinator of the Wierd Anarchists

Dear friends and enemies,

The assembly of the Wierd Anarchist have decided to vote against this resolution.

We have problems with article 3 and 6. Our nation is flocked with refugees from other nations. They fled for dictators and others. They want to return to thier nation but can only do so when in that nation more freedom will be. So they organise political support for the freedom fighters in the countries of origin. Our nation supports them. We will do so even when this resolution will pass and article 3 and 6 will forebide that.

But we will stay member of the WA. We will use every inch of possibilities we or our lawyers see to tell we comply to such resolutions. But in fact we will never leave those freedom fighters alone.

As others said we think WA is good for improving the world of Nation States, it can stop our freedoms sometimes (when we hurt nature, health or freedom), but it cannot be that it will force all nations totally from doing thier things on their way. Which we cannot beat, we will join, which we want and can beat, we will stop.

Greetings,
Cocoamok,
coordinator of the Wierd Anarchists

yea, we need to oppose this resolution, it gives the WA more power then it needs or should have.

Article 9 § Every WA Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, including this World Assembly, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty.

Ok so basically here is my big problem. This whole resolution goes to trying to establish and distinguish the roles and sovereignty of nation states vs. the WA. What the duty and roles of each are. However with this one clause you've stripped any and all sovereignty away from any member state.

it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty.

So wait, if a resolution is passed that conflicts with a constitutional document, a document that forms a nation and its base laws, then international laws trump it and renders the document voided, or at least the part that applies.

This worries me to no end as, while using hyperbole as part of my argument, it is conceivable that a resolution could be past removing all borders and establishing a single government and country under the powers of the WA. So why would any nation want to willingly give up the entirety of there sovereignty in one fell swoop with this resolution?

I urge all sovereign nations to vote against this resolution and draft a new one with stronger language supporting REAL sovereignty among it's member nations.

Greater Acention and the people of Libertarian that I represent cannot and will not accept this article of the resolution.

Greater Acention;13591813']I urge all sovereign nations to vote against this resolution and draft a new one with stronger language supporting REAL sovereignty among it's member nations.

The answer to this issue hasn't changed in the last five years, and it's the same answer in the World Assembly as it was in the NSUN.

The World Assembly already has this power. WA Member States will be affected when a resolution forces a change in their constitution.

Rights and Duties is an in-game roleplay acknowledgment of the actual game mechanics. You could right National Sovereignty resolutions until you were blue in the face, but they wouldn't change the way the game works.

Vote for it, don't vote for it, I really don't care. But understand WHY you're voting, please.

The United Socialist States of lamhari votes for




Thats all.


Dante quincy, Head Secretary of State Of The United Socialist States of lamhari.

The Most Serene Republic of Cocoa Puffy votes for implementation of the Rights and Duties of WA States as written.

The states arguing against might as well resign from the WA as they don't seem to find any value in a world governing body that, by it's very existence, takes mutually agreed upon precedence over sovereign states in specific instances.

I, for one, would like to see a broadening of the responsibilities and duties of the WA for non-military intercession when NationStates and their regions violate human rights instead of waiting for individual NationStates to intercede with their own often violent methods in an honest attempt to help the beleaguered citizens or in an opportunistic attempt to wrest control from the powers that be.

The Most Serene Republic of Cocoa Puffy votes for implementation of the Rights and Duties of WA States as written.

The states arguing against might as well resign from the WA as they don't seem to find any value in a world governing body that, by it's very existence, takes mutually agreed upon precedence over sovereign states in specific instances.

I, for one, would like to see a broadening of the responsibilities and duties of the WA for non-military intercession when NationStates and their regions violate human rights instead of waiting for individual NationStates to intercede with their own often violent methods in an honest attempt to help the beleaguered citizens or in an opportunistic attempt to wrest control from the powers that be.
wow....

This resolution is propostorous!Nations living in the world should have the right to invade,have weapons,and occupy territories which have been won by them.They should also have the right to control citizens if need be,and help nations which ARE invading or occupying other territories.This resolution should be abolished or repealed right away.It is just another resolution to keep nations from excersizing their rights.

The Most Serene Republic of Cocoa Puffy votes for implementation of the Rights and Duties of WA States as written.

The states arguing against might as well resign from the WA as they don't seem to find any value in a world governing body that, by it's very existence, takes mutually agreed upon precedence over sovereign states in specific instances.

I, for one, would like to see a broadening of the responsibilities and duties of the WA for non-military intercession when NationStates and their regions violate human rights instead of waiting for individual NationStates to intercede with their own often violent methods in an honest attempt to help the beleaguered citizens or in an opportunistic attempt to wrest control from the powers that be.

And I for one will oppose and hinder it if I may. We need not a Nanny-WA

"sovereignty of each WA Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law"

The W Confederation has a problem with its sovereignty being a subject of international law.

Fenmouth must vote no on this resolution. We fear it gives too much control to the WU over a nation's military and espionage activities.

The Commonwealth of Fenmouth agrees with Garcia-DeLeon and The W Confederation this issue.

Wily Topographers must vote against the resolution, and our own regional delegate. Unfortuantely, we do not believe it serves the interests of our peoples to have our actions dictated by a commanding body. The WA is fashioned as a discourse, not a mandate for common control. Wily Topographers feels this goes beyond the limits of the WA's outreach and directly infringes upon the rights of the State to do as it pleases.

If countries have a problem with defense or sovereignty, they should consider investment in a nuclear plan rather than the authority of a surrounding body. Having just found a uranium plot of our own, we'll got on fine without the blanket-dropping of this body's authority over our state.

This resolution is propostorous!Nations living in the world should have the right to invade,have weapons,and occupy territories which have been won by them.They should also have the right to control citizens if need be,and help nations which ARE invading or occupying other territories.This resolution should be abolished or repealed right away.It is just another resolution to keep nations from excersizing their rights.

And I for one will oppose and hinder it if I may. We need not a Nanny-WA

"sovereignty of each WA Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law"

The W Confederation has a problem with its sovereignty being a subject of international law.

Fenmouth must vote no on this resolution. We fear it gives too much control to the WU over a nation's military and espionage activities.

The Commonwealth of Fenmouth agrees with Garcia-DeLeon and The W Confederation this issue.

Wily Topographers must vote against the resolution, and our own regional delegate. Unfortuantely, we do not believe it serves the interests of our peoples to have our actions dictated by a commanding body. The WA is fashioned as a discourse, not a mandate for common control. Wily Topographers feels this goes beyond the limits of the WA's outreach and directly infringes upon the rights of the State to do as it pleases.

If countries have a problem with defense or sovereignty, they should consider investment in a nuclear plan rather than the authority of a surrounding body. Having just found a uranium plot of our own, we'll got on fine without the blanket-dropping of this body's authority over our state.Wow, you guys just don't listen do you?

The answer to this issue hasn't changed in the last five years, and it's the same answer in the World Assembly as it was in the NSUN.

The World Assembly already has this power. WA Member States will be affected when a resolution forces a change in their constitution.

Rights and Duties is an in-game roleplay acknowledgment of the actual game mechanics. You could right National Sovereignty resolutions until you were blue in the face, but they wouldn't change the way the game works.

Vote for it, don't vote for it, I really don't care. But understand WHY you're voting, please.

Personally I voted for this back in the UN and I am happy to vote FOR this once again here in the WA.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

The poster's argument was about the description line, not the content of the resolution:

If he wants to attack the game mechanic, I'll point out his foolish behavior.


Agreed. That is a really trivial thing to do.

Towards the end of the rewrite, I honestly feel that the language is vague enough to support the view I have of the game. (Obviously I'm talking OCC.)


As for your desire to comply or not comply, that's never been taken away from you. The LAW in your nation changes with WA law, just like before. If you or your government choose to break that law, then you'll simply have to accept the possible consequences, whatever those are.


I didn't say desire. I said the player's ability to roleplay. Your own above statement that the LAW in each nation is automatically changed is just as much a game mechanics semantic argument as the original posters.

[
Punishments are rarely implemented via resolution, so enforcement and sentencing are usually the province of the individual nation ... or their enemies, using your illegal activities as an excuse to take you to war. To me, that's where the interesting opportunities lie.

This is a large part of the reason I'm advocating that RPed compliance / non-compliance should be encouraged. :)

To make this clear, your defense of the language is difficult to tell if it is a mod ruling or merely a player defending his idea. I think it is a (natural) bit of both. :)

However, I think that it should be made clear that when you state that laws are no matter what changed that: (1) you admit that this is you explaining a game mechanic, and (2) make it clear if this is an official policy of the game or not.

Why this matters, is I might continue to play in NationStates, but if the moderators are going to use gamemechanics to trump RPing and creativity, the World Assembly is gonna be just as boring as the UN has been for the past few years ... it sort of has been a debate society based on language and less on the ideas behind the resolutions. While *some* players (perhaps even many) like this, I think that simply stating that the mods have no policy one way or the other, balances the game enough to permit RP / storytell / idea focused players a chance to explore as well.

Greater Acention;13591813']Ok so basically here is my big problem. This whole resolution goes to trying to establish and distinguish the roles and sovereignty of nation states vs. the WA. What the duty and roles of each are. However with this one clause you've stripped any and all sovereignty away from any member state.



So wait, if a resolution is passed that conflicts with a constitutional document, a document that forms a nation and its base laws, then international laws trump it and renders the document voided, or at least the part that applies.

This worries me to no end as, while using hyperbole as part of my argument, it is conceivable that a resolution could be past removing all borders and establishing a single government and country under the powers of the WA. So why would any nation want to willingly give up the entirety of there sovereignty in one fell swoop with this resolution?


I read the quoted clause differently. To me it said that governments need to make a good faith effort to adopt WA ideas, it did not MANDATE a time table or measurable standard for what these good faith efforts are.

To be perfectly clear, the language of the resolution itself is fine by me (and naturally my imaginary country). It is the debates and interpretations from moderators that has me a bit worried. See, not to sound mean, as I appreciate your IC comments, but they aren't "rule". It is when mods RP (which they should do), that they need to at some point recap what is a mod ruling and what is just RPing.

Your question "why would any nation want to willing give up the entirety of their sovereignty (if the mod ruling is that LAWS ARE AUTOMATICALLY CHANGED)", still might be answered by the belief that by making highly legalistic arguments and being super active in the WA, nations hand over some power in exchange for overriding other nation's laws. This is just one of many reasons. The problem with it is, I probably have a couple of hours a week on-line for games like these. It honestly is difficult for many working professionals or parents like myself to take advantage of the WA and rewrite other nations laws if I've got maybe minutes here and there. This isn't a knock on people who spend lots of time in the game ... I once did too! :) It is fun!

if the moderators are going to use gamemechanics to trump RPing and creativity, the World Assembly is gonna be just as boring as the UN has been for the past few years.

I'm not sure that you and I are describing the same thing when we say 'roleplay'. If you're talking about the language of a resolution IC, I may come in to the thread OOC in mod persona to clarify the rules perspective, but I generally only consider that partially IC. The stuff that goes on in NS and II, I don't even read it except when requested for a ruling. As to Frisbeeterian roleplay, it's just not gonna happen. Long boring story. If I ever RP in here, it's with anonymous puppets.

I'm the most prickly of UN mods, but to the best of my knowledge, I've never dropped the Hammer of Mod on UN roleplay. The only thing I really care about from a moderation perspective is the language of what goes into the proposal queue. How you spin it after it passes, or play with it during the discussion, is pretty much your business.

If that's not the perception, perhaps a TG to me would help me understand the perspective without clogging up this topic.

How you spin it after it passes, or play with it during the discussion, is pretty much your business.

:)

That is exactly what I was hoping you'd say, and answers my question.

Personally I voted for this back in the UN and I am happy to vote FOR this once again here in the WA.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

While we respect your consistency of ignorance, we cannot embrace such activity as one in accord with our own nation, and in so much as we stand against a proposal on solid ground, we do it in the purest nature of defiance. We do this because five years ago, there was no Wily Topographers. We do this because five years is too long to be off the mark. We do this because the questions of freedom and authority merit re-introduction into the global sphere. This proposal is a recognition of authoirty. And I say, if you've taken the time to recognize such an authority, it is our obligation if we would have stood in opposition to it once and if in principle, we feel against it once more, that we should challenge the basis of that authority.

After further study of the resolution and the first joint session of the Markham Congress and World Council in almost 2 years, Subistratica has withdrawn its vote and may recast within the next 48 hours.

Good day.
-Eros Tatriel

Section III:

The Role of the World Assembly:

Article 8 § Every WA Member State has the right to equality in law with every other WA Member State.

Article 9 § Every WA Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, including this World Assembly, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty.

Article 10 § Whilst WA Member States may engage in wars, the World Assembly as a body maintains neutrality in matters of civil and international strife. As such, the WA will not engage in commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner.

Article 11 § Every WA Member State has the duty to conduct its relations with other NationStates in accordance with international law and with the principle that the sovereignty of each WA Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law.

This Section of the Resolution does not clearly define the role of the World Assembly as an organized body, but rather, defines the roles of each member-state. This should be amended before the proposal becomes a Resolution.

The Proposal states "Role of the World Assembly". It should be corrected immediately to state "Role of WA Member States"

The Dominion has rejected this proposal.

Edward Mountain Dew Camacho
Ambassador General to the World Assembly
Dominion of Serra Avatar

cameroi would like to see the world assembly grant NO member nation the 'right' to initiate hostilities.

cameroi would like to see the world assembly have the super soverign authority to tax member nation and maintain its OWN international force thus enabling it to ENFORCE international aggreements, such as peace, environmental and civil rights initiatives (though NOT to impose them as 'one size fits all' 'solitions by remote control' which never work because one size never does fit all and every real place differs from every other real place to some degree in its real needs).

cameroi would like to see the world assembly have its own 'district of columbia' i.e. world federal district territory, to prevent giving unwarented favoritism to any nation or nations hosting its tangable assets/facilities.

most particulalry

cameroi would like to see the world assembly made sole authority for inter and intra galactic dealings with other multi-nation worlds and multi-planetary federations, the later of which it may or may not, upon its consensual authorty, choose or not, to join and or allie with.

it is good for nations to have a neutral international debating society, but even to protect itself from the vested intrests of national soverignties, and nonsoverign and parasoverign interests backed by national soverignties and otherwise, it must needs have its own position of streingth.

cameroi undestands the principal that if attacked by one nation or its aggreements abrocated by one nation member, that all other nations will in principal rally to its defence and support. while this sounds good were it to actually be reliable, we have seen on other worlds, one called earth in particular, where one or a small number of very large and powerful nations, can easily over power the few who might otherwise rally to what all or a majority have mutually aggreed upon.

cameroi does not see this weakness as desirable. it gives international aggreements no more power then as conceptual legal precidents, which are good as far as they go, but hamstrung to protect or bennifit to the degree they otherwise might, real people, places and things.

cameroi aggrees that local authority should remain in local hands, and that all broader authority be based upon the more local. that more local being more so then many soverign nations themselves at present.

none the less, to prevent the situation of one or a powerful few of nations, riding roughshod over otherwise universal aggreements, and doing so with impunity, such an international need be granted some degree and real means, of settling such matters and ENFORCING such settlements.

=^^=
.../\...

This should be amended before the proposal becomes a Resolution.Way too late for that.

The Kingdom of Daxion gives it's full support to this resolution.

Honorary Delegates of the World Assembly,

On behalf of his majesty, the King of Pasier Rise, Lord Asriel, the Kingdom of Pasier Rise has voted FOR this resolution. After the dissolution of the UN, the WA must be reorganised quickly, so that this mess, and more pressing issues can be dealt with by the WA community.

On behalf of the King of Pasier Rise, Lord Asriel,
Ahmad Firdaus, Prime Minister of Pasier Rise
Gen. James Solomon, Ambassador to the WA

Way too late for that.

then i urge the delegates to vote against it or a repeal will be done in the future which would question this resolution.. it will be an awful waste of time.

"sovereignty of each WA Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law"

The W Confederation has a problem with its sovereignty being a subject of international law.Then you should probably resign from the WA, seeing as how that's the entire point to this institution.

then i urge the delegates to vote against it or a repeal will be done in the future which would question this resolution.. it will be an awful waste of time.Heh. Right, we should vote against the entire document, simply because you disagree with how one of the sections is labeled?

This resolution is propostorous!Nations living in the world should have the right to invade,have weapons,and occupy territories which have been won by them.They should also have the right to control citizens if need be,and help nations which ARE invading or occupying other territories.This resolution should be abolished or repealed right away.It is just another resolution to keep nations from excersizing their rights.

I agree! the WA has a Purpose but preventing me from taking over failed NS is not the one!!!

This resolution is propostorous!Nations living in the world should have the right to invade,have weapons,and occupy territories which have been won by them.They should also have the right to control citizens if need be,and help nations which ARE invading or occupying other territories.This resolution should be abolished or repealed right away.It is just another resolution to keep nations from excersizing their rights.

How incredibly hypocritical, coming from a nation that outlawed gambling and made racist remarks illegal. If you want your claims to your nation's rights taken seriously, start showing us that you take rights seriously in your own nation.

In my nation, folks have the right to do whatever the hell they want. So when we say that our nation should have every right possible, we're walking the walk, not just talking the talk like y'all tinpot despots that wouldn't know rights if they fired a grenade launcher at you.

HotRodian WA Representative
Accelerus Dioce

There is a WA proposal under vote to reduce political freedom in the name of law and order. I would urge as many nations as possible to vote against this proposition as most resolutions are passed by default and sacraficing freedom in the name of order is a slippery slop. Many thanks

"A slippery slop, indeed."

How incredibly hypocritical, coming from a nation that outlawed gambling and made racist remarks illegal. If you want your claims to your nation's rights taken seriously, start showing us that you take rights seriously in your own nation.

In my nation, folks have the right to do whatever the hell they want. So when we say that our nation should have every right possible, we're walking the walk, not just talking the talk like y'all tinpot despots that wouldn't know rights if they fired a grenade launcher at you.

HotRodian WA Representative
Accelerus Dioce

um he is talking about rights the government has not the citizens you fool. the citizens should not have so many rights they arnt smart enough to use them! that is why the government should be all powerful and controlling we know whats best for our citizens! and we should be allowed to do what we want to our neighbour NS without the WA having a say! the governments rights should not be impeded!

um he is talking about rights the government has not the citizens you fool.

Have a little respect for your elders, boy. Accelerus Dioce has written more about national sovereignty in the WA's predecessor organisation than you'll ever be able to read, and I can assure you that he knows all there is to know about freedoms in this Assembly.

[OOC: flaming is bad. Flaming a moderator is worse. Flaming a moderator who has authored and passed multiple resolutions before he was made a mod is a really bad idea. Knock it off.]

um he is talking about rights the government has not the citizens you fool. the citizens should not have so many rights they arnt smart enough to use them! that is why the government should be all powerful and controlling we know whats best for our citizens! and we should be allowed to do what we want to our neighbour NS without the WA having a say! the governments rights should not be impeded!

Only individuals have rights. Governments have only the duty to protect those rights.

As the World Assembly Delegate and Imperial Prime Minister of the British Empire I wish to declare to the General Assembly today that the British Empire REJECTS this proposal and furthermore URGES you all to also Vote AGAINST it.

HM Imperial Government believes that it is floored and will be detrimental to many regional governing bodies, inhibiting their ability to administer law and justice over their constituent nations and regions.

This proposal will remove the rights and authority of Regional Governing Bodies, be they Union Organisations or Imperial Governments or anything in between to exercise their delegated authority over their constituent parts.

In the case of the British Empire, the Democratically Elected Imperial Parliament will struggle to enforce Imperial Laws in accordance with our Imperial Constitution 2007 over our 10 Colony regions.
Her Majesty's Government cannot allow this to happen, as it will severely restrict the safety and governance of the colonies and dependencies, not to mention the member states of all our regions.

This will allow revolutionary nations to tear away from the Empire unchecked and the Imperial Government will be powerless to stop them, as they will ivoke the right to their own self-determination as a defence for treason.
HM Privy Council will experience difficulties in dealing with such a security threat.

Further more this leislation proposal restricts the World Assembly from holding any united official position on armed conflict throughout the world, thus making it totally innefective.
If the power to condemn or endorse any particular armed conflict is removed from the World Assembly, then global security is in GRAVE DANGER.

These clauses in this proposal will not only strip the power and authority of Governing Regional Bodies, but will make the WA powerless to show any sort of solidairty and security.

This is UNACCEPTABLE, and The British Empire will seek to REPEAL it if it goes through on the above grounds,

Therefore the British Empire votes AGAINST this bill.

After another round of careful deliberations and joint meetings of the Council of Nevesá and the World Council, Subistratica has once again voted FOR this resolution.

Good day.
-Eros Tatriel

I'm a little confused as to why all this incandescent wrath has only surfaced now, given the document is an almost exact replica of a previous UN resolution (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=48) that attracted precious few attempts at repeal. Why didn't the UN crumble and fall when this was passed originally?

And yes, smartarse, I know the UN then actually did crumble and fall, but only later.

-- Samantha Benson

Have a little respect for your elders, boy. Accelerus Dioce has written more about national sovereignty in the WA's predecessor organisation than you'll ever be able to read, and I can assure you that he knows all there is to know about freedoms in this Assembly.

[OOC: flaming is bad. Flaming a moderator is worse. Flaming a moderator who has authored and passed multiple resolutions before he was made a mod is a really bad idea. Knock it off.]

[ooc: sure i know but first its in character secondly he missed the point that the original (by OP i do mean the person he was replying to) poster was making, the point the OP was making was about rights of a government the point he was making was about rights of citizens within a country.]

Only individuals have rights. Governments have only the duty to protect those rights.

there are rules a government must follow and there are rules citizens must follow in the WA a government is effectively a citizen and therefore has its own set of rights. my citizens dont know what is best for them so i give it to them! I know whats best for my country so i debate it within the WA.

We don't need it because the Resloution before this one is expaling the same thing and I and my nation will do anthing to stop it.

I vote Down.

From the Rosie'kan WA Ambassador.

After a careful reconsideration of the matter in Dunyastan's Council of the People, Dunyastan affirms it's old position that this resolution will only make the WA into a place of useless talk and no action. Dunyastan all affirms a new position that this resolution restricts the freedoms of member nations, by not allowing them to attack other member nations.

Since the WA has no authority to enforce such a restriction of aggression, any member nation can attack another member nation at will. The attacked member nation will then be defenseless against the attacker, if it wanted to abide by WA rules.

Since nothing proposed in this resolution will actually be enforceable by the WA, Dunyastan very strongly urges all member nations to vote against this resolution. Not voting against it will only result in "useless talk", and a waste of everyone's time because the resolution will be repealed anyways.

[ooc: sure i know but first its in character secondly he missed the point that the original (by OP i do mean the person he was replying to) poster was making, the point the OP was making was about rights of a government the point he was making was about rights of citizens within a country.]

OOC: The lack of connection between the two types of rights (national and individual) was very much Mr. Dioce's point. The implication of his statements was that it is inconsistent to yammer on about rights for one entity but completely ignore any rights for the others.

He didn't miss the point. But your character, whoever he/she/it is, certainly did.

the article 10 is better than the old

We support this resolution.:)

I think it's a good idea-as someone has already pointed out we're already playing with these rules. I also think they're good rules whether we're already playing by them or not. :)

OOC: The lack of connection between the two types of rights (national and individual) was very much Mr. Dioce's point. The implication of his statements was that it is inconsistent to yammer on about rights for one entity but completely ignore any rights for the others.

He didn't miss the point. But your character, whoever he/she/it is, certainly did.

who?

Hooray it passed!

The resolution Rights and Duties of WA States was passed 7,501 votes to 2,511, and implemented in all WA member nations.

Congrats Fris! Another little bit of NS history.