Proposal | Drafting Thread | Author: Mar Teret | Co-Authors: Miravana, Merethin |
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:
Feel free to debate down below!
The big issue I have with this proposal is the second clause, specifically G and H under section two. I lean NatSov but this is a bit much. These may not be necessarily “transboundary issues” and if there is a problem, this resolution will make it harder for the WA to address that- a nation destroying their environment and severely endangering their citizens in order to boost the economy past a reasonable amount could argue that they are not violating anyone’s rights. Clause 4 also strongly effects any future WA legislation, and what rights are and are not able to be affected by the WA are not set in stone. It’s quite easy for loopholes to be made.
Giving this another look just to see if I can sway more people.
I am strongly, strongly against the idea we should abstain from voting. If we want to effectively communicate our IntFed beliefs, we should vote. It would be different if this was simply a “it’s not that bad but not really a FOR vote” situation. The WA is leaning strong NatSov as is, and we need to take a stand for what we believe in, as one of the largest regions- certainly one of, if not the largest, IntFed regions as well.
That being said I woke up about 30 minutes ago. If anyone has a better reason to abstain please tell me.
Your interpretation of Clause 4 is much more staunch than mine. Any resolution should have a justification, and, ideally, should not have any unnecessary impeding upon the national sovereignty of each member nation. Clause 4 essentially states that future legislation drafted on the “core sovereign competencies” as listed should have justification for legislating on those topic(s), and that such legislation should not override sovereignty beyond what is required for the legislation. The “rights able to be affected” are “set in stone”, due to this clause, as it allows future legislation on those rights/core sovereign competencies, essentially, acting as a reasonable compromise between NatSov’s and IntFed’s.