Rights and Duties of WA States
To Repeal or Not to Repeal?
Written by Maowi
(September 30, Europeia) -
General Assembly Resolution (GAR) #2, Rights and Duties of WA States: the premise upon which all subsequent World Assembly (WA) legislation has been constructed since its passage on April 11 2008. Notwithstanding its huge significance for the WA, or indeed because of it, so-called “Rights and Duties” has been subjected to regular “repeal-and-replace” attempts for as long as it has existed. But it has doggedly survived every bid to eliminate it, and still remains the General Assembly’s (GA) defining document.
Rights and Duties was hastily crafted by site moderator Frisbeeteria to follow the annual April Fool’s joke event - which, in this case, turned out to be the April Fool’s no-joke event in light of the spectacular implosion of the UN-mentionable organisation from the ashes of which the WA was born. It is probably one of the most, if not the absolute most, important GAR; it establishes, to a certain extent, a vital ability for WA law to encroach on its member nations' governance, as well as imposing restraints on this ability in order to maintain a degree of national sovereignty.
In actual fact, Section I, which, by its title (The Principle of National Sovereignty), claims to safeguard member nations' governmental integrity, is probably Rights and Duties' weakest section. Article 1 grants members the right to exercise all their "legal powers" - when what it is legal for member nations to do is in the very hands of the GA - with only one named example, only one concept explicitly enshrined in law: that is, the right to choose their own form of government. Of course, this is hugely significant in-character, but has no practical impact on anything at all; proposals containing a so-called "ideological ban" are considered illegal under the GA rules themselves anyway. Articles 2 and 3 grant member nations the right to exercise due jurisdiction and forbid them from interfering with other nations' affairs without consent, respectively - "subject to the immunities recognized by international law." In other words: these are the rules (unless the WA decides you can break them). So, although certain important restrictions are placed on member nations, none are placed on the GA itself.
Section II, Rights and Duties in War, is certainly more forceful. In the days of yore that were 2008, the WA was far more immersed in roleplaying than it is today. This led to an apparently bewildering definition of war as “a consensual act between two or more NationStates,” which in most cases is entirely contradictory to our perception of war in real life, but which is absolutely necessary to fit inside the NationStates roleplaying framework. A warfare roleplay without the consent of all parties would most definitely not be a successful roleplay. However, the actual provisions of Section II, although hampered by this less than practical definition for the current atmosphere, are decisive and reasonable. It entrenches member nations' right to self-defence, enacts measures preventing "civil strife," and places regulations against member nations refusing to comply with such mandates.
The final and most controversial section of Rights and Duties deals with the role of the WA and contains a couple of important articles to unpack. Article 9 imposes on every member nation "the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, including this World Assembly." The "good faith" requirement has been the source of much contention, arising from the variety of potential implications that spring from it. Some read it as mandating compliance with the spirit of GA law, removing the possibility of "creative compliance" - that is, following the letter of the law in an extremely literal manner so as to avoid having to comply with the author's intended mandates. Alternatively, the statement that good-faith compliance is required only with "obligations arising from [...] this World Assembly" is often interpreted as suggesting that compliance according to the letter of the law only is entirely legal: the assumed spirit of the law is not an obligation explicitly arising from the legislation alone (although perhaps that is a form of creative compliance itself …). The subsequent article legislates on the position of the WA on military matters, which is made very clear: the WA shall keep out of military matters. Moreover, not only shall the WA not interfere with its member nations' decisions regarding taking part in warfare; it may not "engage in commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner." This ban on any sort of WA police force for law enforcement (which, although ambiguous, is confirmed by General Secretariat precedent) is one of the major gripes often brought up about Rights and Duties - and lies at the heart of its most recent repeal draft brought forward by Imperium Anglorum (IA), WA delegate of Europe.
As well as pointing out the in-character inaccuracy of the target resolution's definition of war, IA argues that Article 10's prohibition of the WA from taking any sort of military action severely hampers it from enforcing its legislation against genocide and terrorism, taking defensive measures to protect humanitarian cargo and diplomatic missions, and condemning flagrantly unjust warfare. These are the problems Separatist Peoples seeks to address in his replacement draft, which has IA's public support. The key differences between this draft and Rights and Duties include a clarification on "good faith" that mandates compliance with the spirit of the law, permission for the WA to intervene in member nations' internal matters in order to resolve humanitarian crises, the creation of an "International Court of Justice" - and, crucially, a complete absence of references to warfare. This last difference has been the cause of the majority of concerns raised: due to Rights and Duties' blanket ban of military WA involvement, no subsequent legislation has imposed regulations on what a WA military organisation would be permitted to do - there has simply never been the need. With Rights and Duties gone, the GA would be left with a gaping void, at risk of that void being filled with a resolution establishing an offensive military force which would tear down all the GA's extensive work towards international military, social, and economic stability and peace. Admittedly, the chances of such legislation passing are very low. But before leaving the GA with such a huge and consequential patch, perhaps voters ought to consider what sort of role they would like to see the WA playing on the international military stage. Can one, in good conscience, vote for a repeal of Rights and Duties without any knowledge of the sort of legislation that will be seen to regulate WA military interventions? What opinion WA voters hold on the issue remains to be seen.
