NationStates Jolt Archive

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 ;)

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.

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. ?

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.

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. :)