[Defeated] [ga]: Protecting World Assembly Neutrality

[Lenlyvit]

General Assembly Resolution

Protecting World Assembly Neutrality

A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.

Category: Global Disarmament

Strength: Mild

Proposed by: Namwenia

Acknowledging the World Assembly as an international organization with a defined role in establishing international law;

Recognizing that the World Assembly has historically been neutral in armed conflicts between individual member states;

Disappointed that the World Assembly is currently silent on its historic neutrality and lack of armed force;

Therefore, the World Assembly enacts the following articles:
1. For the purpose of these articles, conflict shall be defined as armed combat between opposing forces or member states.

2. The World Assembly shall remain neutral in all matters of civil or international conflict.

3. The World Assembly shall be prohibited from establishing either a military or police force.

4. The World Assembly shall be permitted to establish an armed security force for the purpose of protecting international World Assembly owned facilities, providing security services at the request of member states, or assisting in humanitarian crises.

5. The World Assembly urges individual member states to act with open-mindedness and respect in international affairs and conflict resolution, acknowledging that the ultimate goal of such efforts is peaceful resolution.

6. Nothing in this legislation shall prevent individual member states from establishing their own military or police force, or engaging in armed conflict with another member state.

Co-author: Second Sovereignty

This is the discussion thread. To cast your vote, go HERE

[Pantso]

I don't see any issues with this and I'm surprised it's never come up before. The Republic of Pantso will advise "For".

[Lenlyvit]

Apr 29, 2023 11:02:52 GMT -5 Pantso said:

I don't see any issues with this and I'm surprised it's never come up before. The Republic of Pantso will advise "For".

I believe it never came up before now because GAR#2 was still in effect, meaning a resolution like this could not be passed.

[Astrobolt]

Hard Against. Why should the WA remain neutral in all matters of conflict? Why should the WA remain neutral when a member state is being invaded by an aggressor, even when said aggressor is not part of the WA, which is included in the resolution’s definition of conflict.

[aloeveracity]

I'm a tentative for, but I'd like to hear some arguments against this.

[Pantso]

Apr 29, 2023 11:13:12 GMT -5 Astrobolt said:

Hard Against. Why should the WA remain neutral in all matters of conflict? Why should the WA remain neutral when a member state is being invaded by an aggressor, even when said aggressor is not part of the WA, which is included in the resolution’s definition of conflict.

Couldn't a non-neutral WA choose to side with the aggressor?

[Astrobolt]

Apr 30, 2023 6:12:11 GMT -5 Pantso said:

Apr 29, 2023 11:13:12 GMT -5 Astrobolt said:

Hard Against. Why should the WA remain neutral in all matters of conflict? Why should the WA remain neutral when a member state is being invaded by an aggressor, even when said aggressor is not part of the WA, which is included in the resolution’s definition of conflict.

Couldn't a non-neutral WA choose to side with the aggressor?

Currently right now, a non-neutral WA cannot side with anyone. The WA has no mechanism for a police force or intervening in conflicts. This resolution would block any future WA police or army resolutions. The problem is that this would block a theoretical WA force to fight against genocide. 

More worryingly, this prevents the WA from talking sides when they absolutely should. For example, if a non WA member invades a WA member, the resolution would force the WA to be neutral, even when ideally, the World Assembly should support its members if they are invaded.

In response to your concern, we could easily pass a resolution putting restrictions on when the WA can and cannot side with any particular side of a conflict. Preventing the WA from taking a side all together is an extreme overreaction.