[2534.AB] Amendment to the World Assembly Act Regarding Resolution Approvals

Assembly
,
1

Distinguished Members of the Assembly:

I propose the following amendments to the World Assembly Act.

Be it enacted by the Assembly of the Coalition of the South Pacific

EXPLANATORY NOTE

Purpose
The World Assembly Act, as currently written, grants only the Office of World Assembly Legislation (OWL) the authority to instruct the Delegate to approve a proposed World Assembly resolution. In practice, this requires the Prime Minister to request that the OWL Director issue such an instruction each time they wish for a resolution to be approved. This process imposes an unnecessary procedural burden, serves little purpose, and is inconsistent with both the structural logic of the World Assembly Act and the Prime Minister’s authority under the Charter as the head of the executive branch, as well as their responsibility to oversee the Coalition’s interest in World Assembly matters.

For these reasons, it would be prudent to amend the World Assembly Act to grant the Prime Minister the authority to instruct the Delegate to approve a proposed resolution. Additionally, the Act should be amended stylistically to reflect the Prime Minister’s hierarchical position vis-à-vis the OWL Director. The proposed amendment would also clarify that it is solely the prerogative of the OWL Director, alongside the Prime Minister, to instruct the Delegate to approve a proposed resolution. However, this should not be construed as limiting the Director’s ability to sub-delegate this authority to one of their appointed deputies.

Article 3, Section 1
The amendment would grant the Prime Minister the authority to instruct the Delegate to approve a proposed World Assembly resolution, alongside the OWL Director. The practical effect would be to empower the Prime Minister to issue such instructions directly, without having to request that the OWL Director do so.

Article 3, Section 2
This section is amended to reflect the inclusion of the Prime Minister under Section 1.

Article 3, Section 3
This is a stylistic amendment intended to reflect the Prime Minister’s hierarchical position vis-à-vis the OWL Director, consistent with the language used in the preceding provisions.

Article 3, Section 4
The language “for legitimate security or diplomatic reasons only” is struck from Section 4 to grant the Prime Minister the authority to instruct the Delegate to withdraw their approval of a proposed World Assembly resolution for any reason. The purpose of this change is to prevent a situation in which the Prime Minister is unable to issue such an instruction solely because the reason does not fall within the previously required categories of security or diplomacy. Since the Prime Minister exercises sole authority over the executive branch and has a duty under Article V, Section 1 of the Charter to oversee the Coalition’s interests in World Assembly matters, it is inappropriate to impose any statutory restriction on the Prime Minister’s authority in this regard.

VIEWS OF THE OFFICE OF WORLD ASSEMBLY LEGISLATION
The Office of World Assembly Legislation supports the proposed amendments.

ERSTAVIK

2 Likes
2

Support.

3

I think we should also strike section 3 from the record altogether.

4

Why?

In any case, I think that would be better left as a separate amendment.

5

Because the previous iteration of this Act did not have that requirement, and it hasn’t been used in the entire time its been in force under this version.

I don’t see why it couldn’t be addressed here since the relevant provision is already being touched.

6

I would oppose repealing that provision for the simple reason that Article V, Section 1 of the Charter assigns the Prime Minister the responsibility of “overseeing the Coalition’s interest in World Assembly matters”. I don’t see how the Prime Minister could fulfill that responsibility effectively if the Delegate were permitted to approve proposed resolutions without informing them.

7

Because the very next section remains intact :stuck_out_tongue:

All I am advocating for is a return to the status quo that existed a year ago.

8

Hasn’t it? Whenever myself or Erstavik reach out to you for a proposal approval, you respond back with “Done” or something similar when you do it. Maybe it doesn’t strike us as immediately fulfilling the provisions of the law, but I would say it does.

Separately, I support this proposal, or at least its intent. The base assumption I have of the PM’s power is that they are able to perform any action also granted to the subordinates under them, whether appointed and/or approved by the Assembly.

9

What if there is conflicting guidance from the Prime Minister and the Director on whether to approve a proposal?

10

You raise a very good point. In my view the Prime Minister’s opinion must prevail in such cases, as they exercise sole authority over the executive branch and its subordinates, including the OWL Director.

Pursuant to § 3(4), the Prime Minister may instruct the Delegate to withdraw their approval of a proposed resolution, but only for legitimate security or diplomatic reasons. Perhaps the phrase “for legitimate security or diplomatic reasons only” should be struck from that provision to reduce ambiguity and and avoid potential conflicts?

11

I have revised the proposal in accordance with the above and included a corresponding explanatory note.

12

Huh, I guess that is an alternate interpretation that I hadn’t considered.

The interpretation I was referring to was past delegates under the prior provision being able to freely approve resolutions.

13

Sure, the Prime Minister could instruct the Delegate to withdraw their approval, if they know about it. Personally I think it’s much easier for the Delegate to just say “hey, I approved this” — that takes, what, half a minute tops? — than to make the Prime Minister have to keep on checking.

I don’t know that this is that obvious in practice? If the Prime Minister asks the Delegate to approve a resolution and the OWL Director later says the administration has changed its mind, I don’t think the default position would be to assume the OWL Director is going rogue…

14

No, I don’t think so either. I was referring more to a situation where there is a disagreement between the Prime Minister and the OWL Director about whether to instruct the Delegate to approve a proposal. Suppose the OWL Director instructs the Delegate to approve a proposed resolution, but the Prime Minister disagrees. In that case, it is my view that the Prime Minister’s position must prevail.

However, under the current wording of the Act, the Prime Minister might not be able to instruct the Delegate to withdraw their approval unless it is for a security or diplomatic reason. We can resolve that issue by striking the words “for legitimate security or diplomatic reasons only”, thereby allowing the Prime Minister to instruct the Delegate to withdraw their approval for any reason. Since the authority to instruct the Delegate to withdraw an approval is vested solely in the Prime Minister, not the OWL Director, this amendment would also prevent potential conflicts between the two.

15

I move that we proceed to a vote on the bill.

16

I second this motion

2 Likes
17

I agree to this.

18

I fourth the motion.

19

Aren’t you technically fourthing the motion? :upside_down_face:

2 Likes
20

I will put this to vote momentarily, but before doing so, I wanted to put on record my objection to the breadth of this statement.

I agree with removing the “security and diplomatic reasons” restriction on the Prime Minister’s authority in the specific context addressed by this bill, namely instructing the Delegate to withdraw their approval of a proposed WA resolution. After all, the PM has blanket authority to instruct the Delegate to approve a resolution without any requirement to show a legitimate security or diplomatic reason for doing so. The current amendment simply brings the PM’s authority to instruct a withdrawal in line with their authority to order an approval in the first place.

That said, I do not agree with the statement that “it is inappropriate to impose any statutory restrictions on the Prime Minister’s authority” with respect to WA matters. The “security and diplomatic reasons” limitation on the PM’s authority to override OWL votes remains in place. And rightly so. In general, the exercise of our substantial voting power in the WA should be determined democratically, via OWL vote. It is not inconsistent with the PM’s responsibility to oversee the Coalition’s interests in WA matters to limit their authority to override such democratic decisions to situations in which our security or diplomatic relations require it. Approvals are far more numerous and far less significant than ultimate WA votes, hence why I have no objection to leaving them to the Delegate or PM in the first instance.

1 Like