NationStates Jolt Archive

I have recently introduced a rather lengthy proposal to repeal the "Rights and Duties of WA Member States" resolution. I, as well as my brothers in the British Empire region and elsewhere, believe that this resolution too strongly prohibits the freedoms of individual member states. I hope that any Regional Delegates who agree that this resolution infringes on the sovereignity of every individual member state will approve of my repeal, and help push it onto the voting block.

Thank you,
New Anglos,
Proud Member of the British Empire

You mean this one?
Repeal "Rights and Duties of WA States"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal
Resolution: #2
Proposed by: New Anglos

Description: WA Resolution #2: Rights and Duties of WA States (Category: Political Stability; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: There comes a time in the course of human events when it becomes necessary to review international law. Upon review of "The Rights and Duties of WA Member States," no judgement can be made by civilized men other than the judgement that this document has no place in the grand scrolls of the World Assembly. In the name of international freedom, and the sovereignity of the member states within the World Assembly, it is proposed that this document be repealed.

First and foremost, it must be stated that the "Rights and Duties of WA Member States" is a contradictory document. The document cites that, "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."
However, the rest of the document proceeds to dictate exactly what a member nation can and cannot do, completely abandoning the idea of "independence" and the right to "exercise freely, without dictation... all its legal powers."

While this protest applauds the attempts of the author to regulate international warfare, the means of achieving international safety through international law work towards the detriment of international freedoms. It was Benjamin Franklin who said, "Those who would sacrifice their freedom for a little temporary safety deserve neither freedom nor safety."
Therefore, at the cost of international safety, this protest appeals to those who would embrace their naturally endowed right to exercise their freedoms. The only safety this world needs is the sovereignity of the countries within it.

In Section III, The Role of the World Assembly, the first article, being Article 8, contradicts the basic rules of the World Assmebly. According to the traditions and rules of the World Assembly, Regional delegates are more important, and by all means not equal to, regular member states. This rule contradicts the goal of Article 8, which seeks "equality in law with every other WA Member State" for each state within the World Assembly. Seeing as this is unattainable, it should be rejected.

Article 11, possibly known as the "Freedom-guilt clause" completely renounces the freedom of the member states, eradicating the privelages given to these member states in Section I, Article 1. The fact that this document could be passed with such a sweeping statement like, "the sovereignity of each WA Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law" is stunning. We cannot allow this World Assembly to interfere so titanically in the affairs of its member states as this document empowers it to.

In closing, this protest is aimed towards liberating the world from the tyranny that is condoned in this document. This protest fights for those member states who have not spoken out, and who are not free, because it was Clarence Darrow who said, "You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man's freedom. You can only be free if I am free."
Well, apart from the fact that it's illegal for Real World references thanks to quotes attributed to Franklin and Darrow, I must say that I don't care for it. I'll leave it to another mod to delete it for illegality, to avoid any apparent conflict of interest complaints.

The hoary complaint about "all its legal powers" is immediately moot, as the remainder of the document proceeds to define those legal powers in pretty much explicit detail. The simple fact is that the WA DOES in fact supersede any local laws in game terms, so whining about sovereignty is pointless when it doesn't actually exist.

The bit about "equality in law" is not at all the same as "equality in representation". Had I wanted to claim all nations had equality of representation, I'd have had to delete the thing myself for game mechanics violations. In fact, nations do share equality in law, as every WA member nation receives an equal impact from every passed resolution. The fact that such impact may have a lesser or greater effect in changing the nature of that nation is easily explained by the fact that nations who were already close to the ideal of any proposed legislation will have to change less to adapt to the new rules. Such is the nature of "equality of law".

Your complaint about Article 11 is equally moot, as you do in fact renounce elements of your sovereignty by the simple act of joining the WA. If you want unfettered sovereignty, you have but to resign. As long as you remain a member, passed resolutions will ride roughshod over any purely local changes you might desire.

None of the complaints you make will be in any way changed by the repeal of this resolution. All you'll be doing is removing the IC justification for game mechanics rules. It's an utterly pointless repeal ... but go ahead and clean up the illegalities and resubmit if you wish. It's your own time you'll be wasting.

You mean this one?

Well, apart from the fact that it's illegal for Real World references thanks to quotes attributed to Franklin and Darrow, I must say that I don't care for it. I'll leave it to another mod to delete it for illegality, to avoid any apparent conflict of interest complaints.

The hoary complaint about "all its legal powers" is immediately moot, as the remainder of the document proceeds to define those legal powers in pretty much explicit detail. The simple fact is that the WA DOES in fact supersede any local laws in game terms, so whining about sovereignty is pointless when it doesn't actually exist.

The bit about "equality in law" is not at all the same as "equality in representation". Had I wanted to claim all nations had equality of representation, I'd have had to delete the thing myself for game mechanics violations. In fact, nations do share equality in law, as every WA member nation receives an equal impact from every passed resolution. The fact that such impact may have a lesser or greater effect in changing the nature of that nation is easily explained by the fact that nations who were already close to the ideal of any proposed legislation will have to change less to adapt to the new rules. Such is the nature of "equality of law".

Your complaint about Article 11 is equally moot, as you do in fact renounce elements of your sovereignty by the simple act of joining the WA. If you want unfettered sovereignty, you have but to resign. As long as you remain a member, passed resolutions will ride roughshod over any purely local changes you might desire.

None of the complaints you make will be in any way changed by the repeal of this resolution. All you'll be doing is removing the IC justification for game mechanics rules. It's an utterly pointless repeal ... but go ahead and clean up the illegalities and resubmit if you wish. It's your own time you'll be wasting.

pwnd

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA