(Dismissed) WA Sovereignty Act

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Serenarea wrote:It don't think it passed?

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.