Post

Pan kath wrote:

Can you give me an example of how creative compliance works? I'm not that familiar with WA terminology, but I'd like to learn more.

Sure!

For the longest time, those who regularly participate in the General Assembly have been unable to come to a consensus on what constitutes compliance with various resolutions. As a rule of thumb, the idea is that member states will attempt to follow resolutions in good faith and that good faith is their willful compliance.

It can be a rather nuanced topic, which is why this particular question has different answers depending on who you talk to. There can be common, widely-accepted schools of thought about things that happen within the GA, but it’s not universally agreed upon what exactly good faith is since its meaning can be subjective to what member states view as acting in good faith. Because of this, some choose to look for more creative interpretations of international law or even attempt to exploit loopholes in language to get around certain provisions.

Creative compliance refers to such creative interpretations, and really it’s all about how your nation is viewed internationally. If you’re a state in non-compliance and you make it known that you don’t agree with certain resolutions and provisions and are actively attempting to get around them, your reputation will likely take a hit as a result.

In a way, you’re sort of compelled to comply. In theory, you have to. But, in practice, people can look for ways not to or seek out creative interpretations. Some believe that, even if you do this, you inevitably still end up complying regardless.

Today’s question centers around that debate.