(Dismissed) WA Sovereignty Act

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

(Dismissed) WA Sovereignty Act

Post  Kingdom of Scottlands on Sat Jun 06, 2015 10:16 am

Sovereignity act

-An act of freedom-

Jointly authored by Kingdom of Scottlands and Marscida
By the great Royalist Party of the World Alliance

Preamble: Aknowledging and recognizing the moltitude of nations that composes the World Alliance

Furthermore aknowledging their countless issues, troubles, gifts and needs

Admitting and recognizing that an international supernational organization made of nations in conflict

HEREBY DECLARE

Art. I: Of national independence and freedom 
a) Each and every nation is free, independent and sovereign within its borders, to promote laws and ordinances without limitation from an international Entity.
b) Nations can join other organizations and communities and adopt shared rules and common laws.
c) This act extends to those unions/alliances/treaties.
d) Unions of states pursuing a shared ideology or law cannot force/mob/pressure third nations or third unions having different laws and/or ideals.

Art. II Of the World Alliance
a) The world alliance is to be intended as superpartes organization of cooperation; therefore no laws promoted within the WA shalt be allowed to damage or weaken other nations or subnational governments of member nations.
b) This act shall be enacted immediately after its approval.
c) Continuing comma "c" of "Art II", this act nullifyes all (if any) past regulation of the WA that would be now in contrast with this Act.

Article  III: Of WA parties
a) Parties are meant to pursue shared ideals and goals of nations that agrees and accepts such political agendas; it is forbidden, anyway, to promote or plan acts or actions against a targeted nation/kind of nation.
b) so called "RP" laws or "IC" laws must adapt to this act.
avatar
Kingdom of Scottlands
Emerging Regional Power

Posts : 314
Join date : 2014-10-07

Back to top Go down

Re: (Dismissed) WA Sovereignty Act

Post  Kingdom of Scottlands on Sat Jun 06, 2015 10:18 am

As member of World Alliance Security Council, I am granting permission to Marscida to join debates for the proposal because he is one of the authors. There is no law preventing that to happen and there is no harm about it. It will help the law to be understood better.
avatar
Kingdom of Scottlands
Emerging Regional Power

Posts : 314
Join date : 2014-10-07

Back to top Go down

Re: (Dismissed) WA Sovereignty Act

Post  Trinity Sector on Sat Jun 06, 2015 2:13 pm

Kingdom of Scottlands wrote:As member of World Alliance Security Council, I am granting permission to Marscida to join debates for the proposal because he is one of the authors. There is no law preventing that to happen and there is no harm about it. It will help the law to be understood better.

I approve of this, if Scouting cannot be present during his time, as long as Marscida understands that he cannot vote during the voting process.
avatar
Trinity Sector
Powerbroker

Posts : 211
Join date : 2015-03-03
Age : 21
Location : New York, USA

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=trinity_sector

Back to top Go down

Re: (Dismissed) WA Sovereignty Act

Post  UnitedStatesOfScouting on Sun Jun 07, 2015 3:43 am

Kingdom of Scottlands wrote:As member of World Alliance Security Council, I am granting permission to Marscida to join debates for the proposal because he is one of the authors. There is no law preventing that to happen and there is no harm about it. It will help the law to be understood better.

Upon request of the Scottish Government, I approve this motion.
avatar
UnitedStatesOfScouting
Emerging Power

Posts : 970
Join date : 2014-11-03

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=scouting

Back to top Go down

NOTICE

Post  UnitedStatesOfScouting on Sun Jun 07, 2015 3:43 am

Kingdom of Scottlands wrote:
Sovereignity act

-An act of freedom-

Jointly authored by Kingdom of Scottlands and Marscida
By the great Royalist Party of the World Alliance

Preamble: Aknowledging and recognizing the moltitude of nations that composes the World Alliance

Furthermore aknowledging their countless issues, troubles, gifts and needs

Admitting and recognizing that an international supernational organization made of nations in conflict

HEREBY DECLARE

Art. I: Of national independence and freedom 
a) Each and every nation is free, independent and sovereign within its borders, to promote laws and ordinances without limitation from an international Entity.
b) Nations can join other organizations and communities and adopt shared rules and common laws.
c) This act extends to those unions/alliances/treaties.
d) Unions of states pursuing a shared ideology or law cannot force/mob/pressure third nations or third unions having different laws and/or ideals.

Art. II Of the World Alliance
a) The world alliance is to be intended as superpartes organization of cooperation; therefore no laws promoted within the WA shalt be allowed to damage or weaken other nations or subnational governments of member nations.
b) This act shall be enacted immediately after its approval.
c) Continuing comma "c" of "Art II", this act nullifyes all (if any) past regulation of the WA that would be now in contrast with this Act.

Article  III: Of WA parties
a) Parties are meant to pursue shared ideals and goals of nations that agrees and accepts such political agendas; it is forbidden, anyway, to promote or plan acts or actions against a targeted nation/kind of nation.
b) so called "RP" laws or "IC" laws must adapt to this act.


This legislative Proposal is open for discussion for 3 days.
avatar
UnitedStatesOfScouting
Emerging Power

Posts : 970
Join date : 2014-11-03

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=scouting

Back to top Go down

Re: (Dismissed) WA Sovereignty Act

Post  England and Wales on Sun Jun 07, 2015 12:57 pm

The Senate agrees to this.
avatar
England and Wales
Powerbroker

Posts : 287
Join date : 2014-11-02

Back to top Go down

Re: (Dismissed) WA Sovereignty Act

Post  Great Eurussia on Mon Jun 08, 2015 6:23 pm

Eurussia expresses concern on the following:

Article 1-D

We believe that this should be struck down from the proposal since international politicking is part of international governance. No nation must be punished just because it exerts pressure to other nations for whatever reason. Let countries make the necessary judgement in every situation. We are not in favor of this provision.
Article 2-A

We share the objectives of the provision but we find it unnacceptable to lay down a restrictive international law that could undermine the powers of the Security Council. Interpretation of this proposed provision could lead into misunderstandings. For example, we have the existing WA Nuclear Test Ban Act and the WA Biological & Chemical Weapons Act which promotes the general welfare of mankind but somehow limits the powers of state in producing these dangerous materials. We are not in favor of this proposed provision.
Article 2-C

We ask for the proponent to struck down this provision and specify the international laws it wish to repeal as being too generalized could lead to legal issues. We are not in favor of this provision.
Article 3-A & B

We deplore this provision as this will weaken the powers of the Security Council to call for necessary interventions on international situations which could undermine the sovereignty of nations but upholds the general welfare and security of the world. We are not in favor of this.




We hope to hear the position of the proponents.
avatar
Great Eurussia
Superpower

Posts : 5336
Join date : 2013-02-04

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=great_eurussia

Back to top Go down

Re: (Dismissed) WA Sovereignty Act

Post  UnitedStatesOfScouting on Mon Jun 08, 2015 10:37 pm

Great Eurussia wrote:Eurussia expresses concern on the following:

Article 1-D

We believe that this should be struck down from the proposal since international politicking is part of international governance. No nation must be punished just because it exerts pressure to other nations for whatever reason. Let countries make the necessary judgement in every situation. We are not in favor of this provision.
Article 2-A

We share the objectives of the provision but we find it unnacceptable to lay down a restrictive international law that could undermine the powers of the Security Council. Interpretation of this proposed provision could lead into misunderstandings. For example, we have the existing WA Nuclear Test Ban Act and the WA Biological & Chemical Weapons Act which promotes the general welfare of mankind but somehow limits the powers of state in producing these dangerous materials. We are not in favor of this proposed provision.
Article 2-C

We ask for the proponent to struck down this provision and specify the international laws it wish to repeal as being too generalized could lead to legal issues. We are not in favor of this provision.
Article 3-A & B

We deplore this provision as this will weaken the powers of the Security Council to call for necessary interventions on international situations which could undermine the sovereignty of nations but upholds the general welfare and security of the world. We are not in favor of this.


The President concurs with the views of the Eurussian government.


We hope to hear the position of the proponents.
avatar
UnitedStatesOfScouting
Emerging Power

Posts : 970
Join date : 2014-11-03

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=scouting

Back to top Go down

Re: (Dismissed) WA Sovereignty Act

Post  Marscida on Tue Jun 09, 2015 3:23 am

Article 1-D

We believe that this should be struck down from the proposal since international politicking is part of international governance. No nation must be punished just because it exerts pressure to other nations for whatever reason. Let countries make the necessary judgement in every situation. We are not in favor of this provision.

Article 1 comma D is meant to maintain peace, order and a good cohabitative balance; it is meant to satisfy the will of players/nations to belong to a certain treaty, union, coalition etc that pursues a shared ideology; for example, if all the nations under a monarchical system joins a treaty, they are free to do so in order to be more protected, share their own interests and create an interactive web of same-idealistic nations. STILL, they cannot join in order to force all the other nations to become monarchists. This applies to anything: forms of government, laws, ideologies or "ethic". Because if in marscida is Ethic to be adult at 16, many nations might that they are right, and Marscida is wrong and unethical.

This act creates "clubs" of same ideas that will create such spheres of influence and order that menaces will be a thing of the past. Briefly: a nation joins a treaty/union/alliance for its own fun and to emprove relations with similar nations, but cannot say to other "we are better, let's war".

To erase this means that is favoured the struggle of nations to maintain their independence of decisions as other nations can simply bully them all in order to force this or that ideology.
Article 2-A

We share the objectives of the provision but we find it unnacceptable to lay down a restrictive international law that could undermine the powers of the Security Council. Interpretation of this proposed provision could lead into misunderstandings. For example, we have the existing WA Nuclear Test Ban Act and the WA Biological & Chemical Weapons Act which promotes the general welfare of mankind but somehow limits the powers of state in producing these dangerous materials. We are not in favor of this proposed provision.

This Article II comma "a" is very important: this states NOT to meddle with national-subnational laws by enacting the WA as superpartes organization (like United Nations). So it cannot meddle with laws, but can "dictate/promote/encourage" things that are of international interest. Such as Nuclear weapons, terrorism, etc. Single laws =/= international menaces and restrictions.
Article 2-C

We ask for the proponent to struck down this provision and specify the international laws it wish to repeal as being too generalized could lead to legal issues. We are not in favor of this provision.

Simply, article II comma C states "this act is retroactive": If in past times there has been laws restricting single nation freedom is void. As said in Article II comma A, nuclear restrictions are not subnational-laws but a threat to the world. Therefore not binded to this act, as the Sovereignity act binds to laws of nations and, eventually, subnational governments.
Article 3-A & B

We deplore this provision as this will weaken the powers of the Security Council to call for necessary interventions on international situations which could undermine the sovereignty of nations but upholds the general welfare and security of the world. We are not in favor of this.


3AB

This act shall not weaken the WASC... the WASC is already weak as can ever be: inactivity is a plague, 5 members are neither in their expected seat, already splitting in half the WASC, then a member, West Phoenicia left the WA and the Wasc without many compliments. And the president was called for impeachment after 4 days of inactivity... MEU is 5 days inactive as well...

This is called "crippling".

Focusing on the proposal, i propose that parties turns to be REAL parties... not just mere clubs where, even with this world's good will barely anything can be done as any act can simply be removed by not saying a thing for 3 days and TA DAH! Instant win of the WASC.

If there are parties, let's use them fully. It's pointless and meaningless to have parties that cannot do anything but create division within the region.

ALTERNATIVE

Not wantint to reform the parties?

Let's have democracy!

I am not a fan of democracy, but there are more than 200 members in this region that lives without technical possibilities to even speak in their own region if are not part of the CLUB of the WASC. Also, not only cannot speak totally and propose things, but can neither vote potential menaces to its nation, nor can suggest a different path if he sees an half-government deserted, while the other is plagued by inactivity.

-Any nation can vote, propose, submit acts and vote them.
-An elective Security Council matters of SECURITY COUNCIL, therefore the founder plus other 2-3 powerful ones as fixed member plus 2-3 on rotating base rules the security of the world.

What's the Security Council that eats all your possibilities as free nation while you, free nation just sit there without even having the possibility to defend yourself in politics?

Let's do emprovements!
Let's make anyone owner of its own nation!
Let's make the WA a place where is good to live!
avatar
Marscida
Emerging Powerbroker

Posts : 82
Join date : 2015-05-04
Age : 24

Back to top Go down

Re: (Dismissed) WA Sovereignty Act

Post  I.S.I.S on Tue Jun 09, 2015 7:05 am

ISIS supports
avatar
I.S.I.S
Powerbroker

Posts : 167
Join date : 2015-02-08

Back to top Go down

Re: (Dismissed) WA Sovereignty Act

Post  Serenarea on Tue Jun 09, 2015 11:48 am

Serenarea abstains.
avatar
Serenarea
Powerbroker

Posts : 179
Join date : 2014-09-03

Back to top Go down

Re: (Dismissed) WA Sovereignty Act

Post  Muchos Estados Unidos on Tue Jun 09, 2015 7:13 pm

MEU abstains
avatar
Muchos Estados Unidos
Emerging Regional Power

Posts : 391
Join date : 2014-09-04

Back to top Go down

Re: (Dismissed) WA Sovereignty Act

Post  Trinity Sector on Tue Jun 09, 2015 8:27 pm

Due to the absence of Scouting during this time, the voting process is enacted for 2 (two) days.
avatar
Trinity Sector
Powerbroker

Posts : 211
Join date : 2015-03-03
Age : 21
Location : New York, USA

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=trinity_sector

Back to top Go down

Re: (Dismissed) WA Sovereignty Act

Post  Marscida on Tue Jun 09, 2015 10:17 pm

Isn't this a bit pushed on?

There have been barely questions and sn answer... no alternate proposals... fixes.

It is "good" to me as the bill is in its complete and iriginal form... still... seems too soon.

Anyway

i don't make rules.

Let's not waste this once in a lifetime chance to enprove the life of everyone residing in the World Alliance.
avatar
Marscida
Emerging Powerbroker

Posts : 82
Join date : 2015-05-04
Age : 24

Back to top Go down

Re: (Dismissed) WA Sovereignty Act

Post  Kingdom of Scottlands on Tue Jun 09, 2015 10:19 pm

FOR
avatar
Kingdom of Scottlands
Emerging Regional Power

Posts : 314
Join date : 2014-10-07

Back to top Go down

Re: (Dismissed) WA Sovereignty Act

Post  Trinity Sector on Wed Jun 10, 2015 11:55 am

Marscida wrote:Isn't this a bit pushed on?

There have been barely questions and sn answer... no alternate proposals... fixes.

It is "good" to me as the bill is in its complete and iriginal form... still... seems too soon.

Anyway

i don't make rules.

Let's not waste this once in a lifetime chance to enprove the life of everyone residing in the World Alliance.

Scouting has begun discussion to last three days. That is the standard. It can be extended but it must be for good reason.
avatar
Trinity Sector
Powerbroker

Posts : 211
Join date : 2015-03-03
Age : 21
Location : New York, USA

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=trinity_sector

Back to top Go down

Eurussian Vote

Post  Great Eurussia on Wed Jun 10, 2015 7:24 pm

Marscida wrote:
Article 1-D

We believe that this should be struck down from the proposal since international politicking is part of international governance. No nation must be punished just because it exerts pressure to other nations for whatever reason. Let countries make the necessary judgement in every situation. We are not in favor of this provision.

Article 1 comma D is meant to maintain peace, order and a good cohabitative balance; it is meant to satisfy the will of players/nations to belong to a certain treaty, union, coalition etc that pursues a shared ideology; for example, if all the nations under a monarchical system joins a treaty, they are free to do so in order to be more protected, share their own interests and create an interactive web of same-idealistic nations. STILL, they cannot join in order to force all the other nations to become monarchists. This applies to anything: forms of government, laws, ideologies or "ethic". Because if in marscida is Ethic to be adult at 16, many nations might that they are right, and Marscida is wrong and unethical.

This act creates "clubs" of same ideas that will create such spheres of influence and order that menaces will be a thing of the past. Briefly: a nation joins a treaty/union/alliance for its own fun and to emprove relations with similar nations, but cannot say to other "we are better, let's war".

To erase this means that is favoured the struggle of nations to maintain their independence of decisions as other nations can simply bully them all in order to force this or that ideology.

If this is the case, the objectives were already achieved by Section 1 of the WASC Act.
The freedom of association is already secured thus there is no need for a law to specifically say that there must be no bullies or whatsoever. Thus, we maintain our opposition.
Article 2-A

We share the objectives of the provision but we find it unnacceptable to lay down a restrictive international law that could undermine the powers of the Security Council. Interpretation of this proposed provision could lead into misunderstandings. For example, we have the existing WA Nuclear Test Ban Act and the WA Biological & Chemical Weapons Act which promotes the general welfare of mankind but somehow limits the powers of state in producing these dangerous materials. We are not in favor of this proposed provision.

This Article II comma "a" is very important: this states NOT to meddle with national-subnational laws by enacting the WA as superpartes organization (like United Nations). So it cannot meddle with laws, but can "dictate/promote/encourage" things that are of international interest. Such as Nuclear weapons, terrorism, etc. Single laws =/= international menaces and restrictions.

If this is the case, the objectives are already addressed by Section 1 of the WASC Act which provides for a right to sovereignty. And if there is a necessity to protect and uphold that protection from meddling into a country's national laws, then there must be specific areas where there is a strong permission for Security Council regulation in terms of determining international policies like terrorism, nuclear weapons and so on.

Article 2-C

We ask for the proponent to struck down this provision and specify the international laws it wish to repeal as being too generalized could lead to legal issues. We are not in favor of this provision.

Simply, article II comma C states "this act is retroactive": If in past times there has been laws restricting single nation freedom is void. As said in Article II comma A, nuclear restrictions are not subnational-laws but a threat to the world. Therefore not binded to this act, as the Sovereignity act binds to laws of nations and, eventually, subnational governments.

With the same explanation, the same provision risks for complicated misinterpretations of the very provision. Thus, we continue to insist for the proponent to specifically cite the provisions of existing laws it wish to repeal. Thus, we maintain our opposition.

But since there is no more time for debates, Eurussia abstains.
avatar
Great Eurussia
Superpower

Posts : 5336
Join date : 2013-02-04

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=great_eurussia

Back to top Go down

Re: (Dismissed) WA Sovereignty Act

Post  Trinity Sector on Wed Jun 10, 2015 10:06 pm

I have no quarrel with the other whatsoever but, I just feel that The Sovereignty Act contradict and/or Misinterpret such acts and proposals already passed. And rejected. This Act is a move, through my observation, of libertarianism, the ideology to limit the council's efficiency and give the nation-states more freedom and independent. But also more distant from each other. What do you believe in the limitations on governmental powers or not, ironically ( or to contradict itself), in order to pass such an act you would have to use the governmental power to limit itself. This is simply my views on The Act, and I have already started the voting process, so I must simply vote Against (Nay).
avatar
Trinity Sector
Powerbroker

Posts : 211
Join date : 2015-03-03
Age : 21
Location : New York, USA

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=trinity_sector

Back to top Go down

Re: (Dismissed) WA Sovereignty Act

Post  UnitedStatesOfScouting on Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:06 am

Against
avatar
UnitedStatesOfScouting
Emerging Power

Posts : 970
Join date : 2014-11-03

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=scouting

Back to top Go down

Re: (Dismissed) WA Sovereignty Act

Post  Trinity Sector on Fri Jun 12, 2015 3:04 am

With 3 yeas, 3 abstains, and 2 nays The sovereignty Act has passed. Since i do not have the same power of Eurussia and Scouting. i ask of them to please move this to the Passed Legislation sub-form.

Thank you.
avatar
Trinity Sector
Powerbroker

Posts : 211
Join date : 2015-03-03
Age : 21
Location : New York, USA

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=trinity_sector

Back to top Go down

Re: (Dismissed) WA Sovereignty Act

Post  Marscida on Fri Jun 12, 2015 3:41 am


-Victory-
avatar
Marscida
Emerging Powerbroker

Posts : 82
Join date : 2015-05-04
Age : 24

Back to top Go down

Re: (Dismissed) WA Sovereignty Act

Post  Serenarea on Fri Jun 12, 2015 5:39 am

I don't think it passed?


Last edited by Serenarea on Fri Jun 12, 2015 1:27 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Serenarea
Powerbroker

Posts : 179
Join date : 2014-09-03

Back to top Go down

Re: (Dismissed) WA Sovereignty Act

Post  Trinity Sector on Fri Jun 12, 2015 6:52 am

Serenarea wrote:It don't think it passed?
Why do you say that?
avatar
Trinity Sector
Powerbroker

Posts : 211
Join date : 2015-03-03
Age : 21
Location : New York, USA

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=trinity_sector

Back to top Go down

Re: (Dismissed) WA Sovereignty Act

Post  Serenarea on Fri Jun 12, 2015 1:30 pm

Trinity_Sector wrote:
Serenarea wrote:It don't think it passed?
Why do you say that?
Great Eurussia wrote:Section 1) This Act shall replace the existing and current ways and methods of getting sovereign states of the WA becoming member states of the Security Council. But it shall maintain its voting requirements of sixty six percent concurrence of all its voting member states to enforce any executive, legislative, or judicial action.

Its not sixty six percent? Or am I just doing my math wrong here.
avatar
Serenarea
Powerbroker

Posts : 179
Join date : 2014-09-03

Back to top Go down

Re: (Dismissed) WA Sovereignty Act

Post  Marscida on Fri Jun 12, 2015 3:55 pm

Let's not make futule heartstrokes to me, here;

60% on 9 (West Phoenicia has been removed) is 5.4

The act states a quorum on voters, not votes FOR

Therefore,

3 for. 3 abstain. 2 negative. 8/9 on yhe voting base the quorum is reached 88.88%
avatar
Marscida
Emerging Powerbroker

Posts : 82
Join date : 2015-05-04
Age : 24

Back to top Go down

Re: (Dismissed) WA Sovereignty Act

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum