Jump to content
Giovanniland

UTWP Project - Repeal: “Circulation of World Assembly Law"

Recommended Posts

General Assembly Resolution #442 “Circulation of World Assembly Law" (Category: Education and Creativity, Area of Effect: Educational) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The World Assembly,

Aware of the importance of understanding national and international law,

Applauding the efforts of the resolution to encourage inhabitants of member nations to seek knowledge of World Assembly laws and how they affect daily lives,

Appalled by the fact that GAR #442 leaves loopholes that can be used to circumvent the law,

Observing that governments can make laws available in foreign and/or unused languages, which bars the knowledge from being distributed to citizens,

Worried that the resolution doesn't specify which laws would be important enough to be included in educational curriculum,

Noting that due to this lack of explanation, member nations can have completely different views of important resolutions, based on their political systems,

Horrified that the resolution doesn't mention a way to check if these educational efforts are indeed being accomplished by all member nations, making possible that nations don't actually teach the intended knowledge of WA law,

Hoping that the repeal of GAR #442 will lead to a new resolution, solving the addressed problems, to take its place,

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #442.

(Authored by Aluminum Oxynitride, Arnic and Giovanniland.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Per Badger's request for for my expertise, some notes:

- The only possible illegality I see is that the horrified clause may constitute an honest mistake (telling mistruths about the target, in this case about enforcement, since that may be assumed by being a passed resolution). It'd be borderline generally I think, but I don't know which way GenSec would rule on it.

- The line of "requiring considerable time, effort, and resources of each government" is essentially redundant to the overall clause, I'd suggest removing it.

- Using words like 'also' and 'further' in your clause beginnings reads rather oddly if you haven't previously used the second word as a clause starter. It'd probably make sense to drop the 'also' and the 'further' in such cases.

 

In general, excellent draft. The one potential illegality is honestly outside my ken, but everything else is great (I disagree with some of the arguments, but that's to be expected given my personal inclinations on the GA, lol).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Magica De Spell said:

Per Badger's request for for my expertise, some notes:

- The only possible illegality I see is that the horrified clause may constitute an honest mistake (telling mistruths about the target, in this case about enforcement, since that may be assumed by being a passed resolution). It'd be borderline generally I think, but I don't know which way GenSec would rule on it.

- The line of "requiring considerable time, effort, and resources of each government" is essentially redundant to the overall clause, I'd suggest removing it.

- Using words like 'also' and 'further' in your clause beginnings reads rather oddly if you haven't previously used the second word as a clause starter. It'd probably make sense to drop the 'also' and the 'further' in such cases.

 

In general, excellent draft. The one potential illegality is honestly outside my ken, but everything else is great (I disagree with some of the arguments, but that's to be expected given my personal inclinations on the GA, lol).

Thanks for the suggestions! I fixed everything you said, except the first suggestion about the horrified clause, which I didn't really understand what should be done - should that clause be deleted entirely or just be worded in a different way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The horrified clause is essentially something that'd need a GenSec ruling (which generally obligates posting on the NS GA forum) I think. It's asserting obvously that the resolution contains no enforcement mechanisms, which may or may not be an honest mistake in that resolutions may or may not need to set up any specific ones (as opposed to just assuming the WA will take of it and monitor it). That is, I don't really think I can give a safe opinion on the legality of that clause that you could depend on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/2/2020 at 10:21 AM, Bhang Bhang Duc said:

GA law is not my area of expertise (SC yes) so I cannot really comment apart from possibly the “Remarking” clause - reads a bit like a NatSov reason which tends to weaken the overall argument.

Thanks. Maybe that clause should be removed entirely.

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.


×
×
  • Create New...