NationStates Jolt Archive

Repeal "Neutrality of Nations"

A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal


Resolution: #14


Proposed by: Aundotutunagir

Description: WA Resolution #14: Neutrality of Nations (Category: Global Disarmament; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The World Assembly,

Acknowledging the importance of protecting the rights of neutral and non-belligerent nations,

Regretting, however, that World Assembly Resolution #14 “Neutrality of Nations” allows belligerent nations to attack neutral nations if the World Assembly “is convinced that doing so will actually improve world peace”,

Noting that there is no mechanism in place to determine how the World Assembly would be “convinced that doing so will actually improve world peace”,

Further noting that World Assembly Resolution #14 “Neutrality of Nations” does not specify the procedure for the World Assembly to authorize such attacks,

Fearing that such authorization could be granted by a simple majority, or even acclamation or voice vote,

Hereby repeals World Assembly Resolution #14 “Neutrality of Nations”.


This has reached quorum and hopefully it will remain in queue through the next update.

This is a simple procedural/housekeeping action. We felt that certain flaws in "Neutrality of Nations" justified its repeal but we are not opposed to an improved resolution protecting the rights of neutrals.

That is acceptable because I have already stated my intention to address the culprit phrase, as stated in the argument. It may be even simpler to replace it with an extra condition in which neutral states cannot already be involved in a current war.

To add to this, we don't have to wait for the repeal to pass to draft a new one. It is the submission process that matter as it is a rule of thumb to submit a replacement after the passage of the repeal, just in case it gets defeated.

Just a couple of notes.

As should be painfully obvious to all, Aundotutunagir is now a World Assembly member. In light of this, the benevolent government of Aundotutunagir has seen fit to equip me with a yurt to replace my former hovel. This will now serve as my office, as befits a World Assembly Ambassador. The interior may be seen here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Panoramique_ger.jpg) It is very nice.

Secondly, my government has instructed me to request that the name of our fair nation henceforth be pronounced "Aundooooooooooooooo-tu-tun-a-gir!"

Thank you.

This crept up out of nowhere like an assassin didn't it ? Well we will support it anyway, primarily for political reasons, since it hardly effects us, but nonetheless.


Yours,

I would throw my full support behind this bill.

In a replacement, a few things need to be addressed clearly:

Under what circumstances would the assembly deem the country a "non neutral"?
Under what circumstances would the assembly deem a previously classified "neutral" to have violated their "neutrality"

Sir Marcus Darcourt
Ambassador to the World Assembly
for the Commonwealth of Taurat.

I replied to your concerns in the debate "Redraft: Neutrality of Nations", which is in the same forum.

I would have voted for every option.

BUMP!!!!1!!!

Almost at vote.

Secondly, my government has instructed me to request that the name of our fair nation henceforth be pronounced "Aundooooooooooooooo-tu-tun-a-gir!"

(OOC: Why does that remind me of Leeroy Jenkins?...)

Once it comes to vote, we will be voting for this repeal. We wish the the ambassador from Aundooooooooooooooo-tu-tun-a-gir! the best of luck in its passing

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

(OOC: Why does that remind me of Leeroy Jenkins?...)
At least I have chicken.

OOC: I find the reasoning of this repeal dubious insofar asFearing that such authorization could be granted by a simple majority, or even acclamation or voice voteis patently untrue. Such a proposal would be illegal.

But I won't oppose it in toto as I was extremely annoyed at the original proposal being drafted by someone who did not understand what they were writing, so I'm reasonably confident there are other deficincies stowed away in there.

OOC: I find the reasoning of this repeal dubious insofar as
Fearing that such authorization could be granted by a simple majority, or even acclamation or voice vote
is patently untrue. Such a proposal would be illegal.

But I won't oppose it in toto as I was extremely annoyed at the original proposal being drafted by someone who did not understand what they were writing, so I'm reasonably confident there are other deficincies stowed away in there.
OOC: I wasn't talking about a proposal there. I was talking about the actual mechanism by which the WA would go about authorizing the belligerent nation to attack the neutral nation. Obviously it couldn't be done with a resolution because that would involve using the names of both nations.

As we all know, no mechanism for authorizing such an attack actually exists in a game mechanics sense, so I was hypothesizing how it might be authorized through RP. "Neutrality of Nations" doesn't spell out how the authorization would be granted. All it says is if the World Assembly “is convinced that doing so will actually improve world peace”. So I could see someone RPing a WA vote authorizing the attack.

That line could probably have been left out but, meh, it's in there. I probably spend too much time thinking about RP possibilities...

All was quiet in the General Assembly as the Ambassadors waited for time to pass when the vote would be tallied. At least it was until a large frigate crashed into the side of the WA building, its bow punching through te wall in the General Assembly. "Land, Ho!" a voice cried out from the crow's nest. It was proceeded by a shot that rang out from the deck below which was followed by a body falling very swiftly from the crow's nest to the main deck. A large gang plank was run out of the port side of the ship and down onto the floor of the building were a rather extravogant man (http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h239/Scotsvine/Hooksredcostume.jpg) made his way down the gang plank followed by another man (http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/francis/ministrysillywalks.jpg) who seemed somewhat reluctant to leave the ship but was being forced to do so by the sailers on board who were brandishing their cutlesses wildly. They were Captain, Henry "I'll put your eye out" Dawson and Mr. William Young Manley Peterson, or WYMP as they loved to call him. They were to serve as the new representatives of the Disputed Territories of Blasted Pirates.

As Captain Dawson made his way towards the vintage oak desk his crew was swiftly moving into position, he made notice of every single female in the room. Most of whom turned their noses and wenced, not because they were offended but mainly because his stench was almost unbearable. He and WYMP made it to the desk and took there seats, as bell rang from the ship and it back out of the building. Captain Dawson rose to address the body.

"Arrr! We be voting fer the Jubblies!!!" he said as he slammed his hook down into the desk and struggled to retrieve it, finally doing so and falling over backwards. WYMP rose to translate.

"I think what the Captain is trying to say is that Blasted Pirates will be voting for this repeal."

"Arr, ye blasted dog help me to my feet befer I run ye through."

"Not until you read through the law book I gave you. I can't keep interpreting you like this."

"Arr, agreed. You be too much of a damned weakling to speak fer me."

Scotchpinestan opposes this repeal, but since we hold the delegacy of Equinox, our opinion is rahter irrelevant. The region will determine our vote on the repeal.

As for this poll, however, we are able to vote freely, and thus we vote for defenstrations for nations who vote Aye. Or those who wish death upon the people of Aundotutunagir.

down onto the floor of the building were a rather extravogant man (http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h239/Scotsvine/Hooksredcostume.jpg) made his way down the gang plank followed by another man (http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/francis/ministrysillywalks.jpg)

(OOC: Bonus points from us for not only using John Cleese but also Jason Isaacs as Hook ;) )

I will be voting against this resolution as it restricts the sovereignty of my country. I believe that the right to every sovereign nation is to decide on it's own wheither to take a neutral side, a Pro or Against as such as it wishes to in regards to militiary/economic or other terms.

I will be voting against this resolution as it restricts the sovereignty of my country. I believe that the right to every sovereign nation is to decide on it's own wheither to take a neutral side, a Pro or Against as such as it wishes to in regards to militiary/economic or other terms.

Your nation would still be able to do that if the repeal passes, you know. There would be no legislation preventing you from doing so.

-Arjel Khazaran, Deputy Ambassador

I will be voting against this resolution as it restricts the sovereignty of my country. I believe that the right to every sovereign nation is to decide on it's own wheither to take a neutral side, a Pro or Against as such as it wishes to in regards to militiary/economic or other terms.

Okay, your reply does not make very much sense. Repealing this resolution wont affect if a nation chooses to remain neutral or engage in one side of a war, it just takes away the current guidlines for neutral nations and how they are treated so a replacement, which as you will see here in this forum is being drafted, can be put in place

Geez, with logic like this, it is no wonder the Veterans Reform Act got through in the first place

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

I will be voting against this resolution as it restricts the sovereignty of my country.
It's a repeal. How does it restrict your sovereignty?

I will be voting against this resolution as it restricts the sovereignty of my country. I believe that the right to every sovereign nation is to decide on it's own wheither to take a neutral side, a Pro or Against as such as it wishes to in regards to militiary/economic or other terms.

Captain Dawson leapt up on the Ambassador's and began taunting him with his hook.

"Arr, did ye even read the blasted thing? Ye'll be getting more of yer damned sovereignty if ye vote fer this. Now are ye going to change yer mind or do I have to make ye walk the plank?"

WYMP came along and began trying to drag the Captain back.

"We can't do that here, this is the World Assembly. Come now we need to work on your diction."

"Fine. But I'll be keeping my eye on you." Dawson said as he moved his hook to his eye then pointed at the Ambassador then did so again and jumped downoff his desk.

Can we please get a sticky fo this? Someone has already posted in the Repeal "VRA" thread thinking it was this one.

I am keeping a very close eye on this repeal. Unfortunately most of the members of the General Assembly are standing by the original.

Nevertheless a replacement/backup remains in the works.

I am keeping a very close eye on this repeal. Unfortunately most of the members of the General Assembly are standing by the original.

Nevertheless a replacement/backup remains in the works.

I guess this is what happens when people dont see the discussions that happen here. Also hurts a bit that the mods havent moved this to the top. Unfortunatly there is nothing that can be done about it since it is a game mechanics thing...

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

Can we please get a sticky fo this? Someone has already posted in the Repeal "VRA" thread thinking it was this one.
Noooo...let's see if it can be the first At Vote Resolution thread in WA history not to have a sticky.

Noooo...let's see if it can be the first At Vote Resolution thread in WA history not to have a sticky.

Right, exnay on this ickystay.

My country as a sovereign nation should have the rights to hold bilateral talks and agree on bilateral ties through an militiary pact, and if needed so, there should only be a neutrality pact in the bilateral level, not in the legislative level in the WA.

My country as a sovereign nation should have the rights to hold bilateral talks and agree on bilateral ties through an militiary pact, and if needed so, there should only be a neutrality pact in the bilateral level, not in the legislative level in the WA.

This isnt denying that, this was preserving the the rights of neutral nations. This repeal is so that better rights can be put in place

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

This is why my country is strongly against such a resolution which requires all WA members to be neutral in an event of a war in your region, neighbouring country or in the global.

If a small sovereign country was invaded out of nowhere, bombed for nothing and the country did not have sufficient militiary resources to fight of the invaders, each sovereign country has the right to an militiary foreign intervention to help balance out the forces or to help a sovereign country in need and to keep law and order in the international and that no international law is broken but this neutrality resolution prevents all this.

This is why my country is strongly against such a resolution which requires all WA members to be neutral in an event of a war in your region, neighbouring country or in the global.

If a small sovereign country was invaded out of nowhere, bombed for nothing and the country did not have sufficient militiary resources to fight of the invaders, each sovereign country has the right to an militiary foreign intervention to help balance out the forces or to help a sovereign country in need and to keep law and order in the international and that no international law is broken but this neutrality resolution prevents all this.
Have you even read proposal? You understand that this is a REPEAL of WA Resolution #14: "Neutrality of Nations", right? You do understand what a repeal does, don't you?

Here's a hint: WA Resolution #14: Neutrality of Nations (Category: Global Disarmament; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

We are not voting in favour of this repeal for a number of reasons. Amongst the lesser ones, we do not consider the proposed replacement to be a mature document yet, and in many respects we think it worse than the original. More importantly... Captain, please be careful, you could... never mind. No permanant harm done.

More importantly, we simply do not think that the argument of the repeal holds water. The question of "righteous war" is a thorny and usually false one which was debated at the time the resolution passed, and the loose wording of the resolution was generally felt to be acceptably vague. In reality the WA is unlikely to ever sanction such a war, even by simple majority. It would take truly persuasive statemanship to cause members to set any given precedent that they might forsee themselves falling foul of.

If a country is threatened and if the countries interests lies instake and there is a security threat or if there is a preparation of invasion of my country, we will act upon military means and mobalise our troops on the border or prepare an invasion of that country if it is necessary,

If a country is threatened and if the countries interests lies instake and there is a security threat or if there is a preparation of invasion of my country, we will act upon military means and mobalise our troops on the border or prepare an invasion of that country if it is necessary,

Okay, now you are just not making sense. To clarify:

Resolution #14 did not make all the nations of WA neutral, only setting out guildlines for and dealing with nations of the WA who chose to be neutral.

This is actually a repeal of that resolution, meaning that you would actually be in favour of it if it were to force neutrality anyway.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

The Federation of the Serbian Soviet Union are pleased to announced that the Federation will soon be adopting a constitution and one of the annex in the constitution will be that all new laws passed within the WA will only be implemented in the FSSU through ratification by the federal parliament.

The Federation of the Serbian Soviet Union are pleased to announced that the Federation will soon be adopting a constitution and one of the annex in the constitution will be that all new laws passed within the WA will only be implemented in the FSSU through ratification by the federal parliament.

Ok you can't do that. If you're in the WA you are in compliance with every law passed by the if you don't like it, tough. The only option is to resign. There's no such thing as "I only like Res. A,B,and C so I'll only implement those and just say I wont comply with everything else. It doesn't work that way, you're either in full compliance with evey law, or the gnomes will strike you down. Again, the only way out of it is to resign from the WA.

The Federation of the Serbian Soviet Union are pleased to announced that the Federation will soon be adopting a constitution and one of the annex in the constitution will be that all new laws passed within the WA will only be implemented in the FSSU through ratification by the federal parliament.
What in the hell are you going on about? What has any of that got to do with the repeal at vote?

Back to the topic at hand, the Xanthalian Federation opposes this repeal. Neutrality of Nations is most assuredly an imperfect resolution, but I prefer its imperfections to a repeal, which comes with the risk that a replacement will be disagreeable or fail to pass at all. Show me real instances of WA nations attacking neutral nations on the grounds that the WA has approved it and I'll reconsider.

Riley Fluffer

Ok you can't do that. If you're in the WA you are in compliance with every law passed by the if you don't like it, tough. The only option is to resign. There's no such thing as "I only like Res. A,B,and C so I'll only implement those and just say I wont comply with everything else. It doesn't work that way, you're either in full compliance with evey law, or the gnomes will strike you down. Again, the only way out of it is to resign from the WA.

Any resolution proposed by any of the WA members which are inviolation of International laws which limits what the sovereign nation can or cant do, my nation will not support it as it limits the level of the sovereignty of a nation.

Any resolution proposed by any of the WA members which are inviolation of International laws which limits what the sovereign nation can or cant do, my nation will not support it as it limits the level of the sovereignty of a nation.


It doesn't matter if you support or not. You are a member of the WA which means when a resolution is passed, you are bound by it. If we passed a law saying all marriages are banned in all member nations you have no choice but abide by it or resign from the WA, period. You have no say in the matter aside from vote.

Optionality

WA Proposals are not optional. Don't try to make one that is. Many 'Mild' Proposals will have phrases such as "RECOMMENDS" or "URGES", which is just fine. The opinionality ban refers to when language such as "Nations can ignore this Resolution if they want," which is right out.

I suggest you read this thread. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465) I would also suggest reading this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11280700&postcount=4) before you jump into another discussion without knowing what the hell you are talking about.

I hope this resolution is repealed because it infereres with the sovereignty of my nation along with every other nation that are members of WA. The constitution of the Federation of Serbian Soviet Union is underway and one of the article will be included in the constitution that everysingle resolution passed in the WA will require the ratification of the federal parliament inorder for the resolution to take effect in my country, thus protecting the rights of my nation.

I hope this resolution is repealed because it infereres with the sovereignty of my nation along with every other nation that are members of WA. The constitution of the Federation of Serbian Soviet Union is underway and one of the article will be included in the constitution that everysingle resolution passed in the WA will require the ratification of the federal parliament inorder for the resolution to take effect in my country, thus protecting the rights of my nation.

Okay...

A) How does the resolution interfere with your sovereignty?

B) WA Resolutions aren't optional, they are automatically enforced. No amendment to your constitution will get around that.

C) If you are so worried about the rights of your nation, we suggest you go to the WA page and hit resign.

If you do not wish to resign from the WA, we suggest you school yourself on how this organisation works, and the rules for resolutions.

Sorry for taking this tone, but this has gone on for long enough.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

I hope this resolution is repealed because it infereres with the sovereignty of my nation along with every other nation that are members of WA. The constitution of the Federation of Serbian Soviet Union is underway and one of the article will be included in the constitution that everysingle resolution passed in the WA will require the ratification of the federal parliament inorder for the resolution to take effect in my country, thus protecting the rights of my nation.


Arr!! Yer a bloody broken record.

1. A repeal cannot be repealed. If you meant for the original resolution to be repealed then you need to vote FOR this one.
2. It doesn't matter if your parliament ratifies a resolution or not, you HAVE to abide by what is outlined in the resolution as long as your nation is in the WA.
3. Once again, any resolution that is passed means you are automatically in compliance. You can say you aren't until the Krackens come home, but it doesn't mean squat. As long as you are in the WA you are in full compliance whether you like it or not.

Hiriaurtung Arororugul, I find it hard to pick between the two options. First option, I could vote for the repeal but risk a poorly written replacement if not kept in check. The second would be to vote against but them I would risk upsetting you. May I ask what would be best advice in this dilemma?

By the way, I've cut the last bit off from Article 1.2 because I fail to see why mere passages through territory can't affect neutrality, unless I am referring to, OOC, to the Swedish example in WW2.

Yours,

Hiriaurtung Arororugul, I find it hard to pick between the two options. First option, I could vote for the repeal but risk a poorly written replacement if not kept in check. The second would be to vote against but them I would risk upsetting you. May I ask what would be best advice in this dilemma?
You must do as your government instructs you to do, Ambassador Harper.

I have been instructed by the government of the Mind of Charlotte Ryberg to vote against the resolution at vote because of the possible issues the World Assembly may face, had it passed.

I have nothing to oppose your text in principle, but the timing is inadequate, as our backup/replacement is still in the early stages. We fear that there could be a repeat of the Veterans Act crisis if it was rushed.

However, I recognise that the principle of neutrality needs to be overhauled for the next generation, but sadly this isn't a good time for a repeal just yet.

Hold your breath please, I do want neutrality without too much WA involvement and I wish to invite everyone to help me in the drafting of the new version, before I can go on to outline a repeal at the right time.

Yours,

I have been instructed by the government of the Mind of Charlotte Ryberg to vote against the resolution at vote because of the possible issues the World Assembly may face, had it passed.

I have nothing to oppose your text in principle, but the timing is inadequate, as our backup/replacement is still in the early stages. We fear that there could be a repeat of the Veterans Act crisis if it was rushed.

However, I recognise that the principle of neutrality needs to be overhauled for the next generation, but sadly this isn't a good time for a repeal just yet.

Hold your breath please, I do want neutrality without too much WA involvement and I wish to invite everyone to help me in the drafting of the new version, before I can go on to outline a repeal at the right time.

Yours,

It appears that the repeal will not pass at this time and I have no desire to revisit the issue in the near future.

Naturally, if you choose to repeal "Neutrality of Nations" yourself you are free to use parts of my repeal text if you find it useful.

What is wrong with the world assembly being able to allow the attack of a neutral nation by vote?

For example, to stop an internal genocide (like in Myanmar) or to stop a nation craftily assisting another nation who IS a belligerent?

What enforcement mechanism does the drafter intend to use on nations which declare war on neutral nations?

What enforcement mechanism does the drafter intend to use on nations which declare war on neutral nations?
I don't intend to use any enforcement mechanism.

What is wrong with the world assembly being able to allow the attack of a neutral nation by vote?

For example, to stop an internal genocide (like in Myanmar) or to stop a nation craftily assisting another nation who IS a belligerent?

What enforcement mechanism does the drafter intend to use on nations which declare war on neutral nations?

in resolution #14, assisting a belligerent nation is not allowed by a neutral one, otherwise it will loose its neutrality status. (§4).

about an internal genocide: i am quite new to ns. isn't there something like peace keeping wa-troops? i don't think, res. #14 is relevant for such a situation...

best regards

isn't there something like peace keeping wa-troops?

No there isn't, go read the rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465).

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

What is wrong with the world assembly being able to allow the attack of a neutral nation by vote?

Because the World Assembly can not have an army to attack with

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

Seems to me this repeal is simply on the basis that there processes in which a neutral nation can be attacked have not been established to the satisfaction of the repeal author (and presumably those who endorsed the proposal, since I know delegates read these things.....;)).

Our understanding is the WA gnomes filled in the gaps in the implementation of legislation, so my government remains unconvinced by the reasoning for the repeal.

Thus, at this time, we abstain, whilst hoping for clarification on this matter from the author, or some other willing nation.

It's easy to assume that proposal #14 was being cruel when really, if a country is a threat, then you must assume that they should be taken care of.

The vote has fallen through and the bill has been defeated.

The resolution "Repeal "Neutrality of Nations"" was defeated 2,264 votes to 1,534.

Seems to me this repeal is simply on the basis that there processes in which a neutral nation can be attacked have not been established to the satisfaction of the repeal author (and presumably those who endorsed the proposal, since I know delegates read these things.....;)).

Our understanding is the WA gnomes filled in the gaps in the implementation of legislation, so my government remains unconvinced by the reasoning for the repeal.

Thus, at this time, we abstain, whilst hoping for clarification on this matter from the author, or some other willing nation.
OOC: There is no mechanism through which the WA could authorize such an attack in a gameplay sense. You couldn't pass a resolution authorizing an attack because it would have to include the name of the nation to be attacked. I was thinking in terms of a roleplayed authorization. "Neutrality of Nations" doesn't specify how such authorization would be given, it just says the attack can occur if the World Assembly “is convinced that doing so will actually improve world peace”. The Resolution implies that such an attack can happen, with the WA's blessing, but since it obviously can't happen through gameplay the implication is that it would happen through roleplay.

We regret that this repeal has not passed. I guess it is somewhat proof that the majority dont take much not of the goings on here in the forum, otherwise we feel it might have actually passed.

Our commiserations to Ambassador Arororugual at the failure of this to pass

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

This could probably be un-stickied now.