Proposal | Target (N/A) | Drafting Thread | Author: (Bisofeyri World Assembly Mission) | Co-Author (Heavens Reach)
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 begin debating!
the subject matter presents a collective action problem that member nations cannot adequately address through independent domestic action
This can be argued to apply to almost every GA resolution ever. If we strictly follow this, it’s going to be incredibly hard to prove that the subject matter cannot be addressed by individual nations. It means many important matters that don’t quite count as “fundamental rights that transcend national sovereignty” will basically never get addressed since states can argue that they can solve or choose to ignore the matter themselves.
the approach chosen is the least burdensome on the domestic governance of member nations
It’s impossible to prove that any approach is the absolute least burdensome for every nation, since the situation is going to be different for all nations. This is just going to cause deadlock for future proposals (providing they take this one into account).
mandates or prohibits the adoption of any particular form of government, political system, or governing ideology.
“Governing ideology” can also apply to almost everything. If we were to have a proposal that focuses on protecting the environment, it can be argued that it mandates the ideology of environmentalism on countries.
Similarly, this can also potentially be used to argue against proposals focusing on things like equality under the law or full suffrage, under the argument that it imposes the governing ideology of liberal democracy on nations.
Goes without saying that I will be voting against.
I think the language here is vague enough that this potential issue could be ameliorated simply with a shift in the dominant ideology of the GA. The standard of “adequately address[ing an issue] through independent domestic action” is extremely low right now in this current GA environment, but that is subject to change eventually, in which case I don’t really see this resolution limiting the ability for collective action to be taken. Now, perhaps arguing that a resolution is innocuously vague is not really a point in its favour, but I voted “abstain”, anyway, not “for”.
The way I interpret it, the prevention of mandating adoption or prohibition of a “governing ideology” is concerned with preventing the WA from fundamentally altering the way a country governs or operates, not with preventing them from taking a specific action on a particular issue.
I don’t love this proposal, but I don’t quite think it’s dangerous or excessively ideological, unlike “National Sovereignty”.
I understand that the vote is Against, and I will vote Against per the OWL vote. But I must state my opposition to the outcome (that is, that I am personally in favor of this legislation), and I hope that there will be a reconsideration by the OWL voting body during the voting period. The purpose of this legislation is immensely sensible in my view, and the primary argument that has been put forth against the resolution is a bad-faith reading of the term “governing ideology”.
I’ve switched my vote to for. As I said, I don’t love this proposal (it contains too much in the way of standard NatSov “feelgoodisms” for my liking), but is otherwise a potentially beneficial piece of legislation as a substrate for future resolutions to use. It’s going to pass anyway, so we might as well not position ourselves as outcasts over something that is ultimately harmless.
As the vote has switched, I have now voted For.