NationStates Jolt Archive


Dubious legality

Urgench
17-01-2009, 23:12
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=579245


I can see you guys are very busy, what with all the long sigs and bickering Generalites, and I'm sure my query is foolish but much debate rages ( sort of ) at the w.a. about the legality of this resolution, I was wondering if it was possible to get some modly advice on the matter.



edit: to be clear, the wording doesn't atually prevent money from the WA general fund from being spent in non-w.a. states, even though it makes it possible to do so, is that legal ?


Oh and it's reached quorum.

U ;)
Frisbeeteria
17-01-2009, 23:37
If the problem is clause 1 (d), I don't see a problem with it. It doesn't force non-WA nations to participate or fund the program, it just extends a hand to anyone who wants to join.

There were precedents for this in the old UN, and I see no reason to overturn them.
Urgench
17-01-2009, 23:56
But this isn't a humanitarian aid resolution or a conflict resolution one, in fact this might end up with large numbers of non-w.a. states having large sections of their populations living off the w.a. general fund for extended periods.

Was there precedent for that in the old U.N. ?
Frisbeeteria
18-01-2009, 19:28
I've read it over most carefully, and I don't see anything that requires the WA General Fund to pay for anything for non-WA nations.

It's not illegal. It's poorly written and deserves to fail, but it's not something that mods need to intervene to resolve. That's up to the WA membership to deal with.
Urgench
18-01-2009, 19:35
OK, I think it's going to open a pandora's box of similar projects if your right.


But thank's for taking the time to look at it and answer my question anyway. :)