10-25-2017, 03:01 PM
RailanaOct 25 2017, 02:30:23 AMIt occurs to me that we need to consider how this proposal interacts with non-member states.
If a member state subject to fines and sanctions ceases to be a member of the World Assembly, what happens? Do the sanctions imposed by other member states still apply? Are the fines and sanctions automatically re-imposed if and when the member state rejoins?
I wonder if you could effectively enforce WA law on non-member states (or perhaps just former WA member states) in compliance with the OOC ruleset by requiring that member states simply sanction non-member states that do not comply with WA law as judged by the IAC. I think this would only be morally acceptable insofar as the law being enforced coincides with a clear objective moral norm, as is the case for most international human rights law.[/quote]While I think it is possible that the WA could indirectly direct members to coerce nonmembers into compliance, I don't think that here, the IAO could appreciably extend it's mandate to pursue fines from nations that resign. ICly, that's too derived from it's statutory authority, and OOCly, that interpretation would probably be illegal. Since the member state sanction aspect of this is contingent on IAO's failure to pursue a fine, I think this issue is avoided.
As for re-joining, I would say that discretion is up to the WACC: If there is sufficient delay in rejoining such that the later noncompliance (I assume the state in question in no way changes it's law in between) such that the specific facts change, a new trial likely needs to begin. If nothing materially changes and the timeframe is short enough, I don't see why the WACC can't pick up and start again. More importantly, I don't see it being a big problem for the WA either way. This allows some creativity for nations to deal with WACC investigations while preventing any "nope, not complying" responses.
If a member state subject to fines and sanctions ceases to be a member of the World Assembly, what happens? Do the sanctions imposed by other member states still apply? Are the fines and sanctions automatically re-imposed if and when the member state rejoins?
I wonder if you could effectively enforce WA law on non-member states (or perhaps just former WA member states) in compliance with the OOC ruleset by requiring that member states simply sanction non-member states that do not comply with WA law as judged by the IAC. I think this would only be morally acceptable insofar as the law being enforced coincides with a clear objective moral norm, as is the case for most international human rights law.[/quote]While I think it is possible that the WA could indirectly direct members to coerce nonmembers into compliance, I don't think that here, the IAO could appreciably extend it's mandate to pursue fines from nations that resign. ICly, that's too derived from it's statutory authority, and OOCly, that interpretation would probably be illegal. Since the member state sanction aspect of this is contingent on IAO's failure to pursue a fine, I think this issue is avoided.
As for re-joining, I would say that discretion is up to the WACC: If there is sufficient delay in rejoining such that the later noncompliance (I assume the state in question in no way changes it's law in between) such that the specific facts change, a new trial likely needs to begin. If nothing materially changes and the timeframe is short enough, I don't see why the WACC can't pick up and start again. More importantly, I don't see it being a big problem for the WA either way. This allows some creativity for nations to deal with WACC investigations while preventing any "nope, not complying" responses.