Damanucus wrote:I'm going to guess, Ard, that that was not a mod posting, and hence not a legality ruling, right?
Que? It was modly advice on how to avoid a problem. "I wouldn't kill a proposal ..." doesn't really sound to me like a player comment.
We all (should) know the WA can't affect non-WA nations. An attempt to do so would render the proposal illegal. I've been reading your proposal as referring to WA nations only. I endorsed CP's suggestion that you specify "member nations" throughout, because that will avoid any attempt to challenge it as affecting non-WA nations, and this, being a proposal involving national borders, is likely to generate challenges.
But a ruling? That's for when there are opposed views that the players can't reconcile. You've reconciled them.
CP, on your "neutrality" point, I'm reading the proposal as allowing the WA to be neutral
between member nations. It is obliged to follow this when Nation A is being blockaded by Nation B, but also when Nation B is being blockaded by nation A.
On the "military" aspect, there's this:
ensuring that medical supplies are used for non-military, medical purposes, and personnel shipped under these terms are not assigned to military positions.
That seems to me as comprehensive as you're gonna get. You know the WHA will do it because, like other WA committees, the WHA does exactly what it's told to do. If you feel it's not sufficiently prescriptive, though, please continue the discussion.
In case anyone wants to say that it's inevitable that some fond GP will smuggle medical supplies to his injured beloved, who's holed up in the mountains with her guerilla group, that's RP, and outside the ambit of the proposal. Again, as long as the WHA continues to do this for all member nations, under the limitations specified, it's neutral.
Damanucus, on your original legality question, though, which I understand to be whether this duplicates GA#6: in the basic concept, no, it doesn't. GA#6 is about getting the stuff there, and yours is about what to do when it gets there.
However, this:
Damanucus wrote:STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that member-nations, in the instance of being blockaded, transport medical supplies separately from other commodities, and provide, upon request, a crew and cargo manifest ascertaining their contents.
while not an exact duplication, still reads to me as an attempt to amend (improve, expand) this:
GA#6 wrote:2. DISCOURAGES the practice of transporting humanitarian cargoes in the same vessel(s) or convoy as materials directly supporting combat operations,
and this:
GA#6 wrote:9. FURTHER REQUIRES humanitarian vessels to present a cargo manifest and to submit to the above inspection,
That is, member nations are already required to do, or are discouraged from doing, the things you require them to do or discourage them from doing. In fact, GA#6 is stronger, as it specifies they can't transport supplies in the same convoy, either. The one new thing is that you ask them to provide a crew manifest as well.
As your proposal is about the distribution, rather than the transport, of supplies, you may still have wriggle room to rewrite as a clause specifying the conditions in which supplies may be distributed and applied, if you consider that much detail is vital.
You also asked earlier in the thread for mods to rule on whether it violated any other drafting rules; but that's asking for a blanket check, which we won't be doing. We don't send queried proposals back signed and stamped "undebatable", just "this particular argument has been resolved thusly". If there are any other specific queries, hit the delegates with 'em, and if they can't sort it, we'll toss the dice.