Jump to content

Auralia

Members
  • Content Count

    25
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Auralia last won the day on February 16 2014

Auralia had the most liked content!

About Auralia

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

307 profile views
  1. Clause 5 of this resolution does not actually "protect" biomedical research in the manner desired by the author for the simple reason that almost anything can be characterized as a kind of "indirect harm" to sapient life. For example, this resolution (or at least its previous iteration) exists for the primary purpose of requiring member states to permit embryonic stem cell research. Nonetheless, there are clear indirect harms to sapient life associated with permitting embryonic stem cell research that would permit Auralia to prohibit such research under this resolution: Permitting the destruction of human embryos -- fellow members of the human species at an early stage of development -- for the purposes of biomedical research denies the sanctity of human life and the dignity of the human person. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church points out, "[w]hen the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined". In other words, once we deny the rights of the weakest among us, the rights of all are put at risk. There is also the simple fact that Auralia's largely Catholic population understandably experiences a great deal of emotional anguish at the thought of harmful and destructive biomedical experimentation on a certain class of human beings being made legal. (These are, of course, controversial propositions which you may not agree with. The point is that they're rational and plausible and I think entirely compatible with the "indirect harm" standard applied by the resolution.) It is interesting to note that clause 2 is not actually written with reference to clause 5. It therefore establishes general norms for sapience for the World Assembly -- all member states must "consider any temporarily or permanently incapacitated member of a species known to be sapient, to be themselves Sapient [sic]". As a result, it is possible that clause 2 requires member states to prohibit embryonic stem cell research as a violation of Prevention of Child Abuse or similar resolutions, since an embryo is arguably a "temporarily...incapacitated member of a species known to be sapient". This depends on whether or not a being that lacks a capacity but will develop it (as opposed to initially having it and then losing it) can be considered "incapacitated". However, at least one definition of the term (which is simply "unable to act, respond, or the like") does include the former case. In any event, we would support a vote against simply because the resolution is clearly motivated by a desire to compel member states to permit controversial biomedical research, even if it fails (perhaps spectacularly so) to accomplish that goal.
  2. Sounds good. I'll post a reply on the WA forums shortly.
  3. 1) Clause 3(b) defines conditions for the patentability of an invention. It has nothing to do with the status of the entity filing the application, so it would not have been appropriate to include such a requirement there. In general, it's not necessary for an entity filing a patent application to prove that they actually invented what they describe in the application. They are prima facie assumed to have done so. It's up to the challenging entity to prove they didn't. 2) If they hold a national patent, they can't file for a WAPO patent. The national patent is prior art. They have to file for a WAPO patent first. I really don't understand your objection here, though. If the socialist nation really doesn't want an international patent, then they should just disclose the invention to the public. Then nobody can patent it because it's not novel.
  4. You've given me an idea for a proposal on trade secrets, though, so thanks for these questions!
  5. The resolution defines a "patent" as a set of exclusive rights granted to the creator of an invention. The socialist nation could challenge any grant of a patent to the foreigner under clause 3(g) on the grounds that the foreigner did not actually create the invention. However, in general, I would encourage the socialist nation not to delay in filing the patent application to avoid headaches like these.
  6. The foreigner from the capitalist nation won't be granted a WAPO patent for the invention if it has already been made available to the public (see clause 3(b)(ii)).
  7. I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.
  8. I would argue that the original inventor has the right to compensation for the use of the invention in that nation. I don't see why national sovereignty excuses patent theft. Moreover, as I pointed out on the NS forums, there's nothing stopping that nation from exporting the goods resulting from the patent theft to other nations. (They're not technically counterfeit, or "knockoffs", if they're not using the inventor's trademark.) Even if it's illegal to import the goods in nations with patent systems, it's notoriously difficult to enforce such laws in real life. To fix this problem, you need to stop the manufacture of the goods at the source. This is, again, the approach taken in real life. You're right that one of the repeal's arguments was that nations shouldn't be forced to recognize patents. I'm not sure that everyone necessarily agreed with that particular argument, though. I've taken steps to address some of the other criticisms, like the arbitrary term length, in my replacement. Honestly, though, I don't think the repeal was that well written. I'm biased obviously, but I think some of the arguments it made were nonsensical, like its criticism of the requirement that the steps to create a patented invention must be published. That's the whole point of a patent: exclusive rights for a limited time in exchange for complete public disclosure, so that anyone can use the invention after the exclusivity expires.
  9. I have a nation in the region. Isn't that sufficient?
  10. This proposal mandates that all World Assembly member states legalize abortion throughout all stages of pregnancy, including late-term abortions. I strongly support a vote AGAINST, not only because of my personal opposition to abortion but because the proposal constitutes a vast overreach of World Assembly power. This issue of abortion is sufficiently controversial that it ought to be left to individual member states.
  11. The Charter doesn't actually form a military force; it merely allows one to be created. If the "no army" rule doesn't change, then this is all moot.
  12. A general obligation to "collectively address violations of human rights and threats to international peace and security" does not impose any specific obligations to intervene in war X or country Y. I really don't see the issue. I don't really understand this relates to your argument. Not exactly. I don't support wanton intervention by nations in other nations' affairs. Rather, I believe that the international community has a responsibility to protect national populations from gross human rights violations perpetrated by their government. I fundamentally disagree. An unjust war is mass murder. Generally, no. I.2 forbids "unjustified intervention in the internal and external affairs of other states." It's not, which is why the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties exists instead of a scrap of paper that says that treaties must be interpreted in "good faith". A requirement that international law be interpreted in good faith only requires an interpretation that is sincere and honest, and not necessarily accurate. As such, member nations are free to employ methods of interpretation that are blatantly incorrect, as they rely on a strict interpretation of the terms of the resolution and do not take into account the context in which the terms are used or the object and purpose of the resolution. The World Assembly should be able to form a military force that defends legitimate national governments against armed aggression by non-state actors. I don't see a problem with this.
  13. A World Assembly military force could only be deployed to World Assembly member states, due to game mechanics restrictions. More importantly, it could only be deployed with the consent of national governments, due to the fact that a member state could simply resign to avoid being the target of World Assembly intervention. In practice, this means that a World Assembly military force could only be used in the event of armed conflict involving a national government and non-state actors. As such, there is no national sovereignty issue. I would also like to point out that the proposed charter does not, in fact, establish a World Assembly military force, and that there are other, more important reasons for repealing GAR #2 than to establish a World Assembly military force.
  14. This is a repeal and replace of the founding document of the World Assembly, GAR #2 ("Rights and Duties of WA States"). Such an endeavour would, of course, only be justifiable if GAR #2 contained an absolutely appalling flaw, but I fear that this is the case. The most troubling issue is that GAR #2 has an extremely misguided conception of war: it states that war is acceptable if and only if it is consensual. This definition effectively legalizes armed conflict between two or more mutual aggressors, in which each party wishes to take control over the others' territory, population or resources, because such a war is technically consensual. At the same time, it forbids most just wars, including peacemaking operations and humanitarian interventions, because not all parties consent to the conflict. This provides a shield for dictators and tyrants that allows them to deprive their people of fundamental rights and freedoms without fear of reprisal. For this reason alone, the resolution should be repealed and replaced, though others are listed in the repeal draft. I look forward to hearing your comments, suggestions and concerns. Thanks! (You may notice that the proposed replacement charter is not credited to me, but to a nation called World Assembly Charter Working Group. This is because the original draft was a collaborative work, and the authors believed that no nation should "own" a replacement charter.) Repeal "Rights and Duties of WA States" A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation. Category: Repeal | Resolution: GAR #2 | Proposed by: Auralia Strongly affirming the need for a World Assembly charter that clearly delineates the basic rights and responsibilities of World Assembly member states, Regretting that the numerous flaws present in GAR #2, "Rights and Duties of WA States", necessitate its repeal, Condemning the target resolution's morally repugnant conception of war, which is that war is permissible so long as it is consensual, Shocked that this conception of war effectively legalizes armed conflict between two or more mutual aggressors, in which each party wishes to take control over the others’ territory, population or resources, because such a war is technically consensual, Appalled that this conception of war also forbids most just wars, including peacemaking operations and humanitarian interventions, because not all parties consent to the conflict, Distressed that the target resolution forbids nations from any unrequested intervention in the sovereign affairs of other nations, regardless of whether such intervention is justified, as in the case of peacemaking operations and humanitarian intervention, Alarmed that the target resolution's requirement that resolutions be implemented in "good faith" is sufficiently vague as to permit the effective circumvention of resolutions through sincere yet invalid interpretations of resolutions, while prohibiting the World Assembly from passing a separate resolution governing the legitimate interpretation of resolutions, Concerned that the target resolution prevents the World Assembly from taking or supporting any military action whatsoever, precluding the World Assembly from addressing violations of human rights or threats to international peace and security, Strongly hoping that a replacement charter will soon be passed, The General Assembly, Repeals GAR #2, "Rights and Duties of WA States". Charter of the World Assembly A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order. Category: Political Stability | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: World Assembly Charter Working Group We, the assembled member states of the World Assembly, in order to maintain international peace and security, to promote respect for fundamental rights and freedoms, and to further cooperation between all states in addressing social, economic, cultural, environmental and humanitarian problems, hereby establish the following World Assembly charter: Article I: National Sovereignty Section 1. All member states of the World Assembly are equal sovereign states and possess all of the rights and duties of governance, including the right to choose their own form of government and to exercise jurisdiction over their territory and everything therein, without interference from any other member state, in accordance with World Assembly law. Section 2. All member states shall refrain from unjustified intervention in the internal and external affairs of other states, in accordance with World Assembly law. Article II: Principles of the World Assembly Section 1. All member states shall endeavour to maintain international peace and security, to promote respect for fundamental rights and freedoms, to cooperate with all other states in addressing social, economic, cultural, environmental and humanitarian problems, and to promote the utilization of the World Assembly as a centre of cooperation to achieve those common goals. Section 2. All member states shall fulfill in good faith all obligations arising from World Assembly law and refrain from imposing any law or practice in violation thereof. Section 3. All member states shall interpret World Assembly law in accordance with the ordinary meaning given to the terms of each law, in the context in which they are used, in light of the object and purpose of each law and without prejudice to any special meaning given to a term as defined in each law. Section 4. All member states have the right to equality under the law with all other member states. The World Assembly shall not engage in unjust discrimination between member states. Section 5. World Assembly membership is optional. All states that are not members of the World Assembly are not subject to its jurisdiction. The World Assembly shall not directly intervene in the internal and external affairs of non-member states. Article III: International Peace and Security Section 1. All member states have the right to individual and collective self-defence against armed attack. Member states are encouraged to establish collective security agreements with other states in order to preserve international peace and security. Section 2. All member states shall first exercise all available peaceful and diplomatic means to resolve a dispute with another state. Section 3. All member states shall refrain from the unjustified threat or use of force against other states, in accordance with World Assembly law. No member state shall engage in a war of aggression with another state, and member states shall not recognize any territorial acquisitions thereof. Section 4. All member states shall not use the excuse of sovereignty to engage in acts of violence against their people. All member states have the duty to individually and collectively address violations of human rights and threats to international peace and security, including through the use of force if and when necessary, in accordance with World Assembly law.
  15. One part of the problem is that the quality is relevant, to some degree. On Abortion is extremely flawed, and so you'll keep seeing attempts to repeal it for that reason alone, from both the pro-choice and pro-life sides. A blocker has to meet a certain quality threshold before it becomes difficult to repeal. The other part of the problem is that proponents and opponents will refuse to let go of the issue so long as there is no neutral replacement. If the World Assembly takes one side, then the other side will believe they have more to gain than to lose in trying to repeal.
×
×
  • Create New...