Declarations are, by their very nature, non-binding. Additionally, there hasn’t been a serious declaration passed in over a year and most declarations nowadays are joke proposals or low-quality queue stuffers. There has never been a declaration that has been substantial enough to the point of adoption by this Assembly, which is why this bill proposes to get rid of the section alltogether.
…
4. Legal Impact of Security Council Declarations
(1) Declarations adopted by the World Assembly Security Council shall not be recognized, abided by, or considered law within areas subject to the jurisdiction of the South Pacific unless adopted as law by the Assembly.
I agree with @ProfessorHenn , I also oppose, I don’t TSP be accused of supporting a declaration, that if it’s a bad declaration, I don’t want us to be seen agreeing with it as law of TSP.
I’m not super deep into WA resolutions, but with my current understanding Security Council Declarationsresolutions are just commendations + condemnations, and a slew of things related to regions that can make R and D easier or harder, right?
@Legend Their is also in the Security Council proposals, something called Declarations which is expressing your point of view on an issue. This is what this clause is talking about, and what @Banexet wants to be repealed/amended.
I’m naturally sympathetic to this proposal, as I don’t really see the underlying provision as necessary. Indeed, I proposed that it be cut in the recent overhaul of the WA Act. That said, I recognize that others feel differently and see their reasons. At the end of the day, I’m left wondering–what’s the harm in just leaving it? It may be unnecessary, but it’s not actively harmful.
Opposed. Every declaration made by the WA security council may not always be in accordance with the South Pacific. As such, I believe the section should stay.