(Approved) WMD Regulation Act

New Tarajan wrote:First of all, I wish to remember to Eurussia that the debate period was prepared exactly for this reason, but you didn't propose any of these arguments during the debate.
By the way, all these arguments are already addressed by the law itself.
If you read it carefully, you can find your answers. I'll list them:

1) The answer to this question is the same as for every other law approved by the World Alliance Government: nations shall compel with the provisions of the law because they accepted the World Alliance Constitution. And we have a Court of Justice exactly for this reason, too. I'll personally create a topic in the section reserved to Registries, where every country will register the number and type of itw own weapons.

2) This law does not provide for compulsory dismantlement, as I've repeatedly pointed out. So, the question is unnecessary. By the way, if a country wishes to dismantle its own arsenal, we have many organization, linked to the WA government which could easily assist the same country during this process.

3) Once again, your question would be the same for every law or resolution taken by the WA Government. And the answer is always the same. It happened already in the past that some countries refused to implement a law or a resolution of the WA Government but this is the duty of a government, precisely: to enforce law and resolutions. Only because one or two countries would refuse to implement it, doesn't mean the law is flawed. Also, both the WAAF and the WADSJ are fully able to operate their mandates, as already demonstrated in the past, and the Council will cooperate through diplomacy and mediation.

4) A State can invoke sovereignty against practically any action taken by the WA Government. What we have done in the past? So, we will do in the future.

As you can see, these objections could be presented against any kind of law, regulation, resolution or any other thing, approved by the WA Government and its Organizations. Thus, what we can do now is to do our job as WA Council; when the time for implementation will come, we have the agencies, the organizations, and the Court of Justice.

I hope to have clarified all the questions.
Now, let us proceed with the vote.

Great Eurussia wrote:

New Tarajan wrote:First of all, I wish to remember to Eurussia that the debate period was prepared exactly for this reason, but you didn't propose any of these arguments during the debate.
By the way, all these arguments are already addressed by the law itself.
If you read it carefully, you can find your answers. I'll list them:

1) The answer to this question is the same as for every other law approved by the World Alliance Government: nations shall compel with the provisions of the law because they accepted the World Alliance Constitution. And we have a Court of Justice exactly for this reason, too. I'll personally create a topic in the section reserved to Registries, where every country will register the number and type of itw own weapons.

2) This law does not provide for compulsory dismantlement, as I've repeatedly pointed out. So, the question is unnecessary. By the way, if a country wishes to dismantle its own arsenal, we have many organization, linked to the WA government which could easily assist the same country during this process.

3) Once again, your question would be the same for every law or resolution taken by the WA Government. And the answer is always the same. It happened already in the past that some countries refused to implement a law or a resolution of the WA Government but this is the duty of a government, precisely: to enforce law and resolutions. Only because one or two countries would refuse to implement it, doesn't mean the law is flawed. Also, both the WAAF and the WADSJ are fully able to operate their mandates, as already demonstrated in the past, and the Council will cooperate through diplomacy and mediation.

4) A State can invoke sovereignty against practically any action taken by the WA Government. What we have done in the past? So, we will do in the future.

As you can see, these objections could be presented against any kind of law, regulation, resolution or any other thing, approved by the WA Government and its Organizations. Thus, what we can do now is to do our job as WA Council; when the time for implementation will come, we have the agencies, the organizations, and the Court of Justice.

I hope to have clarified all the questions.
Now, let us proceed with the vote.

Eurussia is satisfied with the clarification. Hence, our government votes in favor of this proposal.

United States of Europe wrote:As Secretary General of the WAAF and WADSJ, our nation considers good the bill, can finally give an outline regulatory regional weapons of mass destruction.
These organizations will comply immediately with the creation of an specific executive agency.

New Tarajan wrote:With 5 votes in favour and 2 abstained, I hereby declare the WMD Regulation Act APPROVED by the Council.

Great Eurussia wrote:

New Tarajan wrote:With 5 votes in favour and 2 abstained, I hereby declare the WMD Regulation Act APPROVED by the Council.

Eurussia commends its passage. We are ready to support it at the WA Parliament and see its passage into law.

New Tarajan wrote:

Great Eurussia wrote:

New Tarajan wrote:With 5 votes in favour and 2 abstained, I hereby declare the WMD Regulation Act APPROVED by the Council.

Eurussia commends its passage. We are ready to support it at the WA Parliament and see its passage into law.

Honestly, I'm not sure this law should be submitted to the Parliament too for approval. Indeed, the bill is more a regulatory framework than a law in the true sense of the word, thus requiring only the approval of the Council.
I'll personally ask for an opinion of the CoJ and the Speaker of the Parliament.

New Tarajan wrote:Yes, but also in the past the Council approved such kind of acts without interference from the Parliament.
Anyway, we will simply wait for the opinion of the CoJ and the Speaker.

Great Eurussia wrote:

New Tarajan wrote:Yes, but also in the past the Council approved such kind of acts without interference from the Parliament.
Anyway, we will simply wait for the opinion of the CoJ and the Speaker.

Then what are these? If there is indeed any?

New Tarajan wrote:

Great Eurussia wrote:

New Tarajan wrote:Yes, but also in the past the Council approved such kind of acts without interference from the Parliament.
Anyway, we will simply wait for the opinion of the CoJ and the Speaker.

Then what are these? If there is indeed any?

The Judicial Protocol Act, for example, which shares also the same nomenclature, paradoxically, with this bill.

Anyway, as I said, we shall wait for the opinion of the Speaker and the CoJ. If necessary, I'll personally submit this bill to the Parliament.

Europe and Asia wrote:I can confirm Eurussia's point, the bill must go to parliament also.