Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Auralia

General Assembly: "Repeal 'Rights and Duties of WA States'" and "Charter of the World Assembly"

Recommended Posts

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 For this reason alone, the resolution should be repealed and replaced, though others are listed in the repeal draft.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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You wanna have an WA Army that combats Violations of human right and threats to interntional peace and security? No WA army!

 

This whole thing certainly looks nice from a NatSov perspective, it says all the right things, but it also says some other things that are clearly not natsov in nature. Like the aforementioned WA army going around enforcing stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You wanna have an WA Army that combats Violations of human right and threats to interntional peace and security? No WA army!

 

This whole thing certainly looks nice from a NatSov perspective, it says all the right things, but it also says some other things that are clearly not natsov in nature. Like the aforementioned WA army going around enforcing stuff.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

The hell there isn't. The mere establishment of any group to "collectively address violations of human rights and threats to international peace and security" is a national sovereignty issue. I'm not sure you completely understand the term. ;)

 

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.

 

Reasons such as?

 

Let's forget about the term "consensual" by the by. A war can be declared unilaterally without consent by the other side(we'll call it a declaration of hostilities for ease of definition), but the mere act of attacking or defending yourself is itself the consent required. And since nothing about the resolution limits your ability to attack other nations(and it explicitly enshrines the right of nations to defend themselves), consent for war can be given at the end of my(or your) guns.

 

Since the most common other instance of the use "consensual" is intercourse, we can of course agree that consent can be given without it being explicitly given. That's what we're talking about here.

 

The repeal arguments are basically "This resolution says war is ok, and that is bad," "Won't let nations intervene in each others affairs, and I really really want to do that," "Doesn't hold nations to a higher standard of compliance than "good faith"" and "bans the WA from invading it's own members for one reason or another, and that's bad".

 

One: War is ok. It's like evolution for nations. I retain the right to invade whoever the fuck I want. ;)

 

Two: Should I be able to foment civil strife in my neighbors if I'd like? This is where natsov runs into natsov. It's pitting my rights to do whatever I want with my own nation against the rights of other nations to be free of my interference. I'm fine with the status quo.

 

Three: Good faith is literally the best term I can think of when it comes to compliance. There's nothing wrong with it as a phrase there.

 

Four: The WA should pass laws to address human rights issues. Not form an army. Period.

 

The repeal arguments are weak, and, without speaking for anyone else, unlikely to be supported by the remainder of TWP.

 

You want to repeal a resolution that literally enshrines national sovereignty principles into WA law, and replace it with something that doesn't do the same as effectively. Thanks but no thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The hell there isn't. The mere establishment of any group to "collectively address violations of human rights and threats to international peace and security" is a national sovereignty issue. I'm not sure you completely understand the term.

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.

Let's forget about the term "consensual" by the by. A war can be declared unilaterally without consent by the other side(we'll call it a declaration of hostilities for ease of definition), but the mere act of attacking or defending yourself is itself the consent required. And since nothing about the resolution limits your ability to attack other nations(and it explicitly enshrines the right of nations to defend themselves), consent for war can be given at the end of my(or your) guns.

Since the most common other instance of the use "consensual" is intercourse, we can of course agree that consent can be given without it being explicitly given. That's what we're talking about here.

I don't really understand this relates to your argument.

The repeal arguments are basically "This resolution says war is ok, and that is bad," "Won't let nations intervene in each others affairs, and I really really want to do that," "Doesn't hold nations to a higher standard of compliance than "good faith"" and "bans the WA from invading it's own members for one reason or another, and that's bad".

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.

One: War is ok. It's like evolution for nations. I retain the right to invade whoever the fuck I want. ;)

I fundamentally disagree. An unjust war is mass murder.

Two: Should I be able to foment civil strife in my neighbors if I'd like? This is where natsov runs into natsov. It's pitting my rights to do whatever I want with my own nation against the rights of other nations to be free of my interference. I'm fine with the status quo.

Generally, no. I.2 forbids "unjustified intervention in the internal and external affairs of other states."

Three: Good faith is literally the best term I can think of when it comes to compliance. There's nothing wrong with it as a phrase there.

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.

Four: The WA should pass laws to address human rights issues. Not form an army.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it shouldn't.  Will vote against anything with this clause in it.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Goon Show Time

 

Two ragged fiends incarnate are discussing a moot point.

 

GRYTPYPE-THYNNE: Don't point that moot at me, Moriaty.

 

Trust me, the Goon Show was better written than your...... attempt.  And a damn sight funnier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Against.

Flawed arguments, especially those which are against established rules which are being reiterated by the resolution (no WA Army, war being consensual etc.)

Also, there is a possible illegality anyway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...