NationStates Jolt Archive

1) Defining, for the purpose of this Act:
a. National Sovereignty: The right of a Nation to be governed solely by its own laws, without interference by an outside body.
b. International Matters: All issues involving the relationships between two or more Nations, to include Treaties, Accords, Trade, War, and other matters that fall outside the jurisdiction of an individual Nation.


2) Recognizing that the World Assembly is necessary for promotion of international relations, and that the Resolutions passed by this body are powerful, and can be of great benefit to member nations.

3) Recognizing also, however, that Resolutions have historically frequently interfered with National Sovereignty.

4) Believing that some matters now in effect, and others proposed would be better handled without interference by an international body, as we member nations are varied in the beliefs of our peoples, and in our styles of governments.

5) Therefore, we propose that the jurisdiction of the World Assembly be limited to International Matters only, and that Violation of National Sovereignty be recognized as grounds for rejection of a Resolution.

6) Understanding that it will take time to reconcile Resolutions currently in effect, we propose that this Resolution, once passed, be delayed in its enforcement for an appropriate period of time to allow the repeal of offending Resolutions.

I think I may have proposed this out of order, but I'll open it up here for discussion, suggestions, criticisms, insults, etc.

All existing resolutions cover international matters, so this matter is moot.

I think this resolution is blantly illegal as it will limit the scope of future resolution.. Article 5 in particular is problematic.

I disagree, Note the many proposals involving homosexual marriage, as one example. National beliefs on such matters are strong, and I expect such proposals to continue back and forth without end, unless the WA is prevented from interfering with such matters.

Some Resolutions, such as the recent prisoner of war agreement are exactly what the WA should be dealing with, other things, such as legalizing or outlawing gambling or recreational drugs make no sense to be handled from the international level.

National Sovereignty is a matter of perspective really. I've seen NatSov being claimed on things that I thought were international, and I've taken the NatSov side before as the minority on the vote.

Article 5 really would limit what can be passed. What is international defined as? All someone would have to do is claim that it infringes on National Sovereignty and then it runs the risk of illegality based on Article 5. And believe me, that can be done with the majority of resolutions and proposals that's out there.

While it would be good to protect National Sovereignty, it seems to me that there's no way to do it while maintaining the WA's right to pass legislation.

I think of it in terms of the difference between state government and the original intent of federal government, i.e. the federal government is there as mediator between states, while the state has the majority of legislative power within its borders. (granted, that's nothing like what we have today, but you get the idea.) coming up with a WA 'constitution and bill of rights' is a little beyond my oratorical abilities, and i don't doubt it would be beyond the size limit, but i feel like this could be a very good first step, and that it should be done sooner rather than later, as the more resolutions that interfere with national sovereignty there are, the harder it will be to reconcile it all.

New Sidhe;14059062']I think of it in terms of the difference between state government and the original intent of federal government, i.e. the federal government is there as mediator between states, while the state has the majority of legislative power within its borders. (granted, that's nothing like what we have today, but you get the idea.) coming up with a WA 'constitution and bill of rights' is a little beyond my oratorical abilities, and i don't doubt it would be beyond the size limit, but i feel like this could be a very good first step, and that it should be done sooner rather than later, as the more resolutions that interfere with national sovereignty there are, the harder it will be to reconcile it all.

I would agree, but something would have to determine exactly what constitutes International and what constitutes National Sovereignty so that people know for certain what is what. Otherwise you will have people saying it infringes on NatSov.

Take The Freedom of Marriage Act, for example. Personally, I was with the NatSov side. I voted against it for that reason. But there are those who saw it as purely international.

Even if a resolution such as this were to pass, then who determines what's international and what's NatSov? We don't exactly have an international court to make that decision. We'll all be butting heads on what's what unless there is a clear definition of it.

My views, your views, everyone's views, they're likely to be different. There's over eighteen thousand WA members. That's over eighteen thousand potentially different views.

New Sidhe;14059024']I disagree, Note the many proposals involving homosexual marriage, as one example. National beliefs on such matters are strong, and I expect such proposals to continue back and forth without end, unless the WA is prevented from interfering with such matters.
Gay marriage is an international issue. If Adam is married to Bob, and Bob is injured while holidaying in Lackingtheintellectualcouragetosimplyadmittohomophobiastan, and the Lackingtheintellectualcouragetosimplyadmittohomophobiastani government doesn't recognise the marriage, it will make it difficult to Adam, who is from Couldtherepossiblybeanythinglessworthyofgovernmentinterferencetopia, to visit him, even if he is, under Couldtherepossiblybeanythinglessworthyofgovernmentinterferencetopian law, next of kin.
I think of it in terms of the difference between state government and the original intent of federal government, i.e. the federal government is there as mediator between states, while the state has the majority of legislative power within its borders. (granted, that's nothing like what we have today, but you get the idea.)
That's not really true. The Basic Law of 1949 makes it clear the federal government retains legislative sovereignty, and a clear override in any case where the state laws conflict.
coming up with a WA 'constitution and bill of rights' is a little beyond my oratorical abilities, and i don't doubt it would be beyond the size limit, but i feel like this could be a very good first step,
Fortunate, really, that we already took that first step (http://nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolutions/start=1).

Official Ruling

5) Therefore, we propose that the jurisdiction of the World Assembly be limited to International Matters only, and that Violation of National Sovereignty be recognized as grounds for rejection of a Resolution.

6) Understanding that it will take time to reconcile Resolutions currently in effect, we propose that this Resolution, once passed, be delayed in its enforcement for an appropriate period of time to allow the repeal of offending Resolutions.
Illegal due to Game Mechanics violation.

By your logic in clause 5, significant aspects of the following Category description would be severely limited or eliminated:

A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.
A resolution to legalize or outlaw gambling.
A resolution to ban, legalize, or encourage recreational drugs.
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.
A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.
A resolution to tighten or relax gun control laws.
A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts.

Your logic in Clause 6 is both Game Mechanics and Metagaming. All resolutions are implemented immediately after passage, and you cannot require that certain passed resolutions be Repealed as part of your proposal.

The whole thing is a contradiction to Res #2, Rights and Duties, which explicitly grants the WA rights to legislate in these areas.

Sorry, not gonna fly.

Frisbeeteria,
Senior WA Game Moderator.

i think a solution to the homosexual marriage problem on an international level, would be something along the lines of a 'full faith and credit' type clause, instead of flatly 'ordering' all member nations to either allow or disallow it. and as for 'original intent' i meant circa 1790 or so.

as for the other concerns over the definitions, i stated my own personal ideas in the first clause. i suppose this would be as good a place as any to debate and refine those definitions (which is why i mentioned posting out of order, as i realize i should have brought it up here first.)

alrighty then... i guess that solves this whole matter :p

New Sidhe;14059111']i think a solution to the homosexual marriage problem on an international level, would be something along the lines of a 'full faith and credit' type clause,
If you're interested in such an approach, there's a draft here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=566241).
and as for 'original intent' i meant circa 1790 or so.
Germany didn't have a federal government in 1790.

Anyway, that settles that.

Why don't you review some of the prior discussions about National Sovereignty in the WA and UN. Go to Search, select Advanced Search, and look at the 48 threads with "sovereignty" in the title. You're not exactly the first to bring this up.

To save time, have a look at this FAQ I wrote prior to being made a moderator, Validity of the National Sovereignty argument (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=381983), and glance over the pro-sovereignty group, The National Sovereignty Organization (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=496576). You can't require the WA to prohibit sovereignty-based proposals, but there are other things you can do.

This resolution, thankfully so grossly illegal as to be a total anachronism it seems, is pernicious and misguided.

The authors seems to imagine that this organistion should exist to rubber stamp national policy positions and do nothing else. The scope of the resolution would obliterate any influence this organisation currently has and replaces it with exactly nothing.

We are glad that this resolution is clearly moribund.


yours e.t.c. ,

Urgench: Though I concede the point about the 'legality' of the proposal, I do disagree with your claim that it would remove all influence from the WA. My intention was to limit the more blatant violations of national sovereignty. why should any other nation have a say as to whether or not gambling, or drugs are legal in my, or your nation? If your nation was at war with Madeupistan, and they were not WA members, and the WA passed a resolution requiring member states cut military spending in half, would you abide by that, and allow your people to be overrun? currently your only other option would be to withdraw from the WA, and your only link to the international community. Conversely, if two member nations were at war, and prisoners were taken by one side or the other, it is precisely the sort of international organization like the WA that is in the best position to make rules regarding the treatment of those prisoners, as the two warring countries aren't likely to agree out of hand. International trade, relations, travel, the list of the WA's responsibilities is long indeed, but that list shouldn't include internal national issues.

I thank you all for your time, and though this resolution may be impossible, I hope that it may at least spark some debate as to the proper role and position of the WA.

New Sidhe;14059455']Urgench: Though I concede the point about the 'legality' of the proposal, I do disagree with your claim that it would remove all influence from the WA. My intention was to limit the more blatant violations of national sovereignty. why should any other nation have a say as to whether or not gambling, or drugs are legal in my, or your nation? If your nation was at war with Madeupistan, and they were not WA members, and the WA passed a resolution requiring member states cut military spending in half, would you abide by that, and allow your people to be overrun? currently your only other option would be to withdraw from the WA, and your only link to the international community. Conversely, if two member nations were at war, and prisoners were taken by one side or the other, it is precisely the sort of international organization like the WA that is in the best position to make rules regarding the treatment of those prisoners, as the two warring countries aren't likely to agree out of hand. International trade, relations, travel, the list of the WA's responsibilities is long indeed, but that list shouldn't include internal national issues.

I thank you all for your time, and though this resolution may be impossible, I hope that it may at least spark some debate as to the proper role and position of the WA.




The Empire of Urgench has not been at war with any state be it member of the w.a. or not for a very long time but were our nation's population to be under such a direct threat as that posed i the example given by the honoured Ambassador then we would have no qualm about leaving the w.a. untill such time as we could afford to return to it.

As it happens we have been unfortunate enough to have had to submit our national interest in a very real and serious fashion to the will of the w.a. We were unsuccessful in adapting this will from directly harming our nation, but we remained members in the sure knowledge and belief that greater and more numerous benefits to the Empire of Urgench would follow. This has proven to be the case.

Our reaction to these events was not " the w.a. must be hobbled " but rather " the power of the w.a. allows us the possibility of remedying our national wounds with greater international achievement in line with our national interest".

The first reaction is totally negative and destructive, the latter is positive and constructive. We are sure the honoured Ambassador will see that the difference is profound.

yours e.t.c ,

I respect your opinions, and wish only to reiterate my original intent for this ultimately failed proposal: that there are some things that should simply be out of bounds. For the sake of argument, I'll use gambling and drugs as an example. why, why WHY should other nations be able to force you or I to allow, or forbid either or both of these things? It makes no sense to me. Some proposals that affect a nation's sovereignty I can understand, such as the current proposal addressing the rights of children. The WA, as a voluntary organization, is within its own rights to forbid membership to a nation that refuses to forbid abuse of children, but as there is no other similar organization, <ooc> nor can there be, in the current game </ooc> I believe that this matter deserves more thought and debate, at the least.

Again, I thank you all for your time, and beg your forgiveness and indulgence for my introducing an ultimately unlawful proposal, but I do urge you to give some thought to the underlying issue.

What's important to note Ambassador is that the creators of this game made the WA, so that all WA members are subject to all laws and proposal's past by the Assembly.(even though there is no way to enforce any of this).

so to propose that we should NOT follow the very purpose of the WA (the purpose created by the makers of this site) is not realistic.

also note, that such a resolution is actually illegal. You may not pass any proposal that tries to change the guidelines of the game or it's rules. So maybe you should note that.