NationStates Jolt Archive

Just Curious. I have heard from several delegates that the WA should have more power. Some dictatorships say it should have less power. I have even heard from anarchy's opinion that it should be :confused:abolished:confused:?

Do you think:
A.More power
B.Less Power
C.The Same
D.Abolish it!

Please tell why, as I am trying to come up with reasonable statistics.
Thank you

The wah?

The WA has no authority over non-member states, so it doesn't really need to be abolished. I have been working on some drafts for a WA resolution that would place limits on what authority the WA has over the internal affairs of nations and making its authority limited to resolving international disputes and trade matters.

Such proposals would, for what it's worth, be illegal.

Actually, I think Lord Tothe makes a good point. Why would it be illegal?

Like the European Union, the WA is another one of those entities the world can very much do without. Each nation should be free to do as they wish, it is up to the people of that nation to decide what path they take and no other nations place to interfere in the activities of another. There is always the possibility (as with the E.U) that it will get too big, become corrupt and smaller members will be ignored and forced into situations that they do not want. Abolish it.

I agree with Tothe. There's no real point in abolishing it, since the WA cannot infringe on non-WA states, I would like to RP one of my states as a WA delegate. I can't do this because most of their beliefs regarding domestic affairs would disagree with the WA's, and greatly diminish our hold over the potentially unruly subjects.

Actually, I think Lord Tothe makes a good point. Why would it be illegal?We have rules regarding what kinds of proposals members can submit, and they state you cannot forbid types of legislation the WA can introduce.

I see you people like to comment, but can you vote while doing so?:rolleyes:

Well as from my point of view it would be nice that WA have more power something like the UN with peacekeeping troops working for its cause.
Something like every year 5 top military countries give an amout of soldiers in the WA peacekeeping force,just an idea...

Could the WA ever vote on a resolution to give it more power?

If it did, it would not only infringe on the riights of member and non-member nations, but also increase the possibility of it beocming so powerful, it overwhelms everything.

The W.A. only ever has as much power as its members allow at any given time. The votes on resolutions define how much power the w.a.'s members want it to have. There is no need to pre-determine how much power the w.a. should have since its members already decide that for themselves on a resolution to resolution basis.

Well i agree with the too powerfull issiues but the modern UN has military and they are not that powerfull...

Well as from my point of view it would be nice that WA have more power something like the UN with peacekeeping troops working for its cause.
Something like every year 5 top military countries give an amout of soldiers in the WA peacekeeping force,just an idea...Also illegal. The WA has enough power over member states as it is without complicating it with military might. Urgench is exactly right as far as the realities of WA power are concerned: the WA doesn't need to create more power for itself, since it already does that naturally with every resolution it passes.

Also illegal. The WA has enough power over member states as it is without complicating it with military might. Urgench is exactly right as far as the realities of WA power are concerned: the WA doesn't need to create more power for itself, since it already does that naturally with every resolution it passes.



Hmmm you got a point there... ^^...

How could the WA have more power? I mean maybe have certain restrictions on just who could join but the WA doesn't effect anything that happens on Jolt, or at least in my experience. Maybe it's not the point that people don't even consider WA resolutions when in role-play situations but that they can't be enforced outside the game (which is where most possible infringements of the resolutions take place). That being said, however, with membership of the WA voluntary then it hardlys makes a difference to me and other non-WA members if they have more 'power'. And for that reason it's clear to me that most people would be a lot more happier if the WA had more power.

The World Assembly's current level of authority is good enough, I think. Besides, there's too much bureaucracy to go and start changing things like that, much less abolish it. :)

I really think that you shouldn't be forced to be a WA member in order to be a Delegate for your region. I want to be the Delegate for my region, but some of these new WA laws prevent me from using important strategy vs. enemy nations. The CounterTerrorism Act too harshly defined terrorism and now key strategic moves cannot be legally used by my country in war. The question for me and my nation is now: What is more important, being able to run my country as I wish or ruling over my region?

The WA is just a figure head

How could the WA have more power? I mean maybe have certain restrictions on just who could join but the WA doesn't effect anything that happens on Jolt, or at least in my experience. Maybe it's not the point that people don't even consider WA resolutions when in role-play situations but that they can't be enforced outside the game (which is where most possible infringements of the resolutions take place). That being said, however, with membership of the WA voluntary then it hardlys makes a difference to me and other non-WA members if they have more 'power'. And for that reason it's clear to me that most people would be a lot more happier if the WA had more power.Maybe for the II clique, but this isn't II. This is Gameplay, so it's not unreasonable to hold a discussion on the in-game effects of the WA here.

I really think that you shouldn't be forced to be a WA member in order to be a Delegate for your region. I want to be the Delegate for my region, but some of these new WA laws prevent me from using important strategy vs. enemy nations. The CounterTerrorism Act too harshly defined terrorism and now key strategic moves cannot be legally used by my country in war. The question for me and my nation is now: What is more important, being able to run my country as I wish or ruling over my region?That's why it's called a "double-edged sword." It carries advantages and disadvantages. You just want your cake so you can eat it too. Max doesn't see it that way.

Goodness the Metatron speaks ;)

Oops that sounded snarky, I meant it nicely.

I really think that you shouldn't be forced to be a WA member in order to be a Delegate for your region. I want to be the Delegate for my region, but some of these new WA laws prevent me from using important strategy vs. enemy nations. The CounterTerrorism Act too harshly defined terrorism and now key strategic moves cannot be legally used by my country in war. The question for me and my nation is now: What is more important, being able to run my country as I wish or ruling over my region?

Oh really, you don't think that you should have to be a member of the World Assembly to be a region's World Assembly Delegate? Just look at the tag for crying out loud.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/wa_delegate.gif