10-24-2017, 11:26 PM
Quote: Just IAO, but members and individuals can report violations to the IAO. Do I have that in there? I should add that in there to be sure.[/quote]
I think it would be a good idea to clarify that only the WACC has standing to raise a complaint to be heard by the IAO, if that is your intent.
I'm not sure this is actually a good idea, though. Some World Assembly legislation (e.g. the various human rights resolutions) is analogous to criminal law, so I would agree that is more appropriate for the WACC rather than individual member states to prosecute violations thereof, since they are an offence against all member states and their citizens.
On the other hand, other World Assembly legislation (e.g. free trade resolutions) is more analogous to civil law. It is more appropriate for individual member states as opposed to the WACC to seek redress in such cases, since they primarily have to do with injustices done against particular member states rather than the international community as a whole.
Quote: The fine is not a punishment. It is an incentive. That's where most of these trip up, they try to apply a universal standard of justice. This way, the GA's legislation can pursue justice, and the agency merely needs to pursue compliance.[/quote]
Quote: Nope. The whole point of this is inducement of compliance. Justice is for the legislators in this case.[/quote]
I do not understand the distinction you are making. This may be because I do not believe that states have a general right to use whatever incentives they wish to induce compliance with the law in any context. The inducement of compliance must itself be just. States are only permitted to use negative "incentives" for compliance, such as fines, when using them as penalties in the context of punishment. A fine that is not a punishment is simply unjust, for the same reason that the state deliberately harming anyone who has done nothing wrong is unjust.
Accordingly, any time that a state employs a negative "incentive" for compliance, that incentive must be proportionate to the extent of the non-compliance. This is true even when the incentive is insufficient to facilitate compliance. For example, a member state may not execute petty thieves because execution as a penalty is grossly disproportionate to the crime of petty theft. This prohibition holds even in cases where a thief's rate of recidivism is extremely high.
In much the same way, the World Assembly may not demand half of a member state's GDP for failing to recognize foreign copyrights for a full twenty years, for example, because such a punishment is grossly disproportionate relative to the violation. This is true even when a nation feels so strongly about not recognizing foreign copyrights for twenty years that they would rather pay whatever proportionate fine is assessed than comply with Foreign Copyright Recognition.
Quote: Not currently. Would it matter if there was? The gnomes are presumptively infallible so as to avoid any need for excessive legislation on WA anti-corruption. It's not a magic wand wave but a tool so authors needn't address structural issues at the cost of substantive ones in resolutions. Even if there was, is there any expectation that the result is different? You'd still be appealing to the WA, probably as an agency. [/quote]
I don't accept the assumption that the "gnomes" are infalliable because I don't think we should be free to ignore due process concerns in a World Assembly context. If we deal with them in a member state context, we should deal with them in a World Assembly context; otherwise we're being inconsistent about the nature of the world that the GA inhabits.
Yes, an appeal would probably go to another World Assembly body, but that's not a problem. The point is to give the World Assembly an opportunity to correct its mistakes, not necessarily to provide oversight external to the World Assembly per se -- though that also might not be a bad idea.
Quote: I looked at current free-trade resolutions, and I didn't see that any of them prevented the use of coercive sanctions or embargoes. I've looked at a few of those, and I don't think that this kind of enforcement interferes with general free-trade requirements. [/quote]
The main one I was thinking of is World Assembly Trade Rights, but it explicitly permits WA regulation, so I think you're fine there. I would also check Sciongrad's trade and labour proposals as well.
I think it would be a good idea to clarify that only the WACC has standing to raise a complaint to be heard by the IAO, if that is your intent.
I'm not sure this is actually a good idea, though. Some World Assembly legislation (e.g. the various human rights resolutions) is analogous to criminal law, so I would agree that is more appropriate for the WACC rather than individual member states to prosecute violations thereof, since they are an offence against all member states and their citizens.
On the other hand, other World Assembly legislation (e.g. free trade resolutions) is more analogous to civil law. It is more appropriate for individual member states as opposed to the WACC to seek redress in such cases, since they primarily have to do with injustices done against particular member states rather than the international community as a whole.
Quote: The fine is not a punishment. It is an incentive. That's where most of these trip up, they try to apply a universal standard of justice. This way, the GA's legislation can pursue justice, and the agency merely needs to pursue compliance.[/quote]
Quote: Nope. The whole point of this is inducement of compliance. Justice is for the legislators in this case.[/quote]
I do not understand the distinction you are making. This may be because I do not believe that states have a general right to use whatever incentives they wish to induce compliance with the law in any context. The inducement of compliance must itself be just. States are only permitted to use negative "incentives" for compliance, such as fines, when using them as penalties in the context of punishment. A fine that is not a punishment is simply unjust, for the same reason that the state deliberately harming anyone who has done nothing wrong is unjust.
Accordingly, any time that a state employs a negative "incentive" for compliance, that incentive must be proportionate to the extent of the non-compliance. This is true even when the incentive is insufficient to facilitate compliance. For example, a member state may not execute petty thieves because execution as a penalty is grossly disproportionate to the crime of petty theft. This prohibition holds even in cases where a thief's rate of recidivism is extremely high.
In much the same way, the World Assembly may not demand half of a member state's GDP for failing to recognize foreign copyrights for a full twenty years, for example, because such a punishment is grossly disproportionate relative to the violation. This is true even when a nation feels so strongly about not recognizing foreign copyrights for twenty years that they would rather pay whatever proportionate fine is assessed than comply with Foreign Copyright Recognition.
Quote: Not currently. Would it matter if there was? The gnomes are presumptively infallible so as to avoid any need for excessive legislation on WA anti-corruption. It's not a magic wand wave but a tool so authors needn't address structural issues at the cost of substantive ones in resolutions. Even if there was, is there any expectation that the result is different? You'd still be appealing to the WA, probably as an agency. [/quote]
I don't accept the assumption that the "gnomes" are infalliable because I don't think we should be free to ignore due process concerns in a World Assembly context. If we deal with them in a member state context, we should deal with them in a World Assembly context; otherwise we're being inconsistent about the nature of the world that the GA inhabits.
Yes, an appeal would probably go to another World Assembly body, but that's not a problem. The point is to give the World Assembly an opportunity to correct its mistakes, not necessarily to provide oversight external to the World Assembly per se -- though that also might not be a bad idea.
Quote: I looked at current free-trade resolutions, and I didn't see that any of them prevented the use of coercive sanctions or embargoes. I've looked at a few of those, and I don't think that this kind of enforcement interferes with general free-trade requirements. [/quote]
The main one I was thinking of is World Assembly Trade Rights, but it explicitly permits WA regulation, so I think you're fine there. I would also check Sciongrad's trade and labour proposals as well.