Proposal (N/A | Target (if repeal) | Drafting Thread
A new resolution in the General Assembly is up for consideration! Please cast your vote in the poll below to help determine how OWL will order the delegate to vote:
Please post your debates below!
Let me start by saying upfront that I generally lean IntFed. That is to say that I find it more important to protect the rights of people, and to be proactive about solving international issues, than it is to protect the “rights” of states. Of course, I also find it important to not overreach, and agree that national sovereignty of states should be respected unless absolutely necessary to override it.
With that out of the way, I would like to make clear that I oppose this not because I’m an IntFed, but because I do not believe that the WA should make sweeping statements in support of a particular ideology, as a matter of principal; the WA is supposed to be a neutral body. The current make-up of the GA is heavily NatSov, yes, but that could very well change in the future, just as it was once different in the past. In that case, should this be repealed, and replaced with an IntFed manifesto? I would find that ridiculous, and I think the authors of this would as well. Is it really a good idea to set the precedent that the majority ideology of the day in the GA should be enshrined in law?
For real. Wdym the first resolution will be blatantly and publicly ideological? The WA is a neutral body.
All would be fair and just if the coin landed on its edge.
The WA has never been a neutral body. Any semblance of neutrality is only an inadvertent result of conflicting FA interests balancing themselves out, and not anything actually inherent to the WA. Everyone has always tried to use the WA in their favor.
In practice, that is indeed true (really, it was inevitable; a governing body is never truly “neutral”). However, I think there is a fundamental difference between being ideological in practice (particularly when the dominant ideology is fluid over time), and explicitly enshrining a particular ideology in law. The GA, at least, has always been used to advance particular goals, of course, but they have primarily been specific policy goals, which serve to do things beyond merely pushing a particular ideology onto the body as a whole.
Can someone please explain what this issue is trying to do?
“Therefore, the General Assembly hereby recognizes World Assembly member nations to be competent to manage their own affairs, and to possess sovereignty over matters within their jurisdiction unless ceded, including:
Authority over internal affairs, such as promulgating and enforcing internal policies.
Free engagement in external affairs, including entry into international agreements and association with regional and other supranational units.”
What I think it’s trying to mean is that the GA can’t interfere with nations in any way unless they are told to. Then wouldn’t powerful nations tell others to not vote the GA to do this, therefore allowing them to do whatever?
“Additionally, the General Assembly urges:
Member nations to collaborate in good faith on issues of a cross-border or borderless nature, such as public health, environmental policy, and trade.
This body’s legislative efforts to focus on issues of international character or relevance.”
Do nations have to collaborate on international events or is it “Not forcing, but asking for” nations to collaborate?
My interpretation (which could be wrong!) is that this is more of a statement of purpose for what the General Assembly should be doing rather than a binding restriction on what the General Assembly can do. Since we recently reset all past GA resolutions to a blank slate, this means there is a desire to clarify what the purpose/intent of the GA is.
I’ll answer this question in line with my previous answer as well. The clause you quoted doesn’t force nations to collaborate (vaguely) on international events. Rather, it states intent for that to be the GA’s scope.
Voted against per OWL vote.
With this new WA system, where nations are no longer obligated to adopt every resolution that passes, what exactly prevents two opposing resolutions from both being approved, since each nation can simply choose which one (if any) to adopt?
Follow-up: If I reject and do not adopt the current National Sovereignty resolution, would any later resolution that builds upon or references it still apply to me — or would my non-adoption of the original also exempt me from resolutions derived from it?
Your question is largely one of the new mechanics introduced.
There is nothing preventing you mechanically from adopting two conflicting resolutions.
If you do not adopt this resolution, but you do adopt later resolutions that reference it, you won’t be forced to adopt this resolution and you will only get the mechanical stat changes of the resolutions you do adopt.