[Draft] Repatriation of Remains

[Separatist Peoples]

Repatriation of Remains
Human Rights | Mild

---

Acknowledging the success of international tourism and the freedom of movement among many member nations for business and education;

Regretting that the worst can occur while individuals travel abroad, leaving their corporeal remains far from family and home;

Horrified that many nations do not accommodate the kin of travelers who need to recover their remains in a timely and reasonable fashion; and,

Forming, out of compassion, a solution to these barriers.

The General Assembly hereby,

1. Requires member states make every possible attempt to identify the remains of those individuals who have entered their nation lawfully and temporarily, referred to as the deceased, and release their remains to the next of kin at the earliest possible opportunity.

2. Clarifies that the next of kin will be the closest legal relative, or their assignee, of the deceased, as determined by relevant laws of deceased's home nation. If the legal next of kin is unavailable to travel, member states will consider the closest legal relative available to travel as the next of kin for the purposes of this law.

3. Requires member states either provide or make accessible the following as soon as possible:

1. Preparation of the deceased for transportation in an equitable manner, as prescribed by the next of kin,
   
2. Necessary certification from a certified coroner or medical examiner, including as many death certificates or relevant documentation as the deceased's next of kin requires, medical reports of any relevant findings, and clearance to safely transport the remains;
   
3. A coffin or appropriate receptacle for the deceased's remains that conform to the standards of the International Transportation Safety Committee; and
   
4. Freight booking and transportation services.

4. Allows member states to transport the remains without the next of kin escorting it, provided accommodations are made to receive them, and explicit permission by the next of kin is granted.

5. Strongly encourages member states offer these services free of cost, but allows member states to require compensation for these services from the estate of the deceased, the relevant financial institution, or the deceased's nation of origin.

6. Requires member states establish or expand their national customs authorities to liaise, while maintaining a single point of contact, with foreign nations to standardize and facilitate the transfer of remains between customs authorities.

7. Requires that member states create and issue emergency visas, subject to extant international law, provided they are not wanted criminals in that nation's jurisdiction, for:

1. The next of kin, or their assignee, of the deceased seeking to recover the deceased;
   
2. Any necessary medical technicians required to perform post mortem autopsies, embalm, or otherwise prepare the body for transportation and repose; and
   
3. Appropriate religious clergy required to administer appropriate last rites for the deceased, as determined by their next of kin.

8. Allows member states to refuse emergency visas if they are able to provide medical or religious personnel qualified to offer those services domestically.

9. Permits member states to further restrict the release of the deceased where:

1. The remains constitute a biohazard and there exists no practical alternative for transportation, or
   
2. The remains are evidence in a criminal investigation that requires a full autopsy. Member states will attempt, in as much as possible, to preserve the body by using minimally invasive techniques, and will release the body at the conclusion of the medical examination to the next of kin.

10. Permits member states to dispose of the remains in the local custom if the next of kin does not claim the deceased in a time frame conducive to sanitary conditions. Member states will accord such remains respect in laying them to rest.

11. No member state may prevent or bar the transportation of remains through their territory except where doing so constitutes a violation of safety regulations promulgated by the ITSC.

OOC: Not to put too fine a point on it, but my uncle recently passed away while traveling abroad, and my aunt had the devil's own time getting his body back home. Hopefully, I can do better than the Italian national government.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Now, this stuff, I can get behind.

[Separatist Peoples]

Now, this stuff, I can get behind.

OOC: the war project is damn near complete. Seemed appropriate to spread into new territory.

[Wallenburg]

"What if the next of kin does not want these remains Ambassador? I know it is a strange choice, but in a multiverse of so many people, it is going to happen."

[Separatist Peoples]

"What if the next of kin does not want these remains Ambassador? I know it is a strange choice, but in a multiverse of so many people, it is going to happen."

"Then this doesn't especially apply. If the next of kin doesn't come to claim a body or refuses to receive it, the host nation isn't beholden to anything in particular."

[Wallenburg]

"What if the next of kin does not want these remains Ambassador? I know it is a strange choice, but in a multiverse of so many people, it is going to happen."

"Then this doesn't especially apply. If the next of kin doesn't come to claim a body or refuses to receive it, the host nation isn't beholden to anything in particular."

Requires member states make every possible attempt to identify the bodies of those individuals who have entered their nation on a lawful, temporary visa, henceforth referred to as the deceased, and release the remains to the next of kin at the earliest possible opportunity.

"I'm clearly reading this differently, Ambassador. Perhaps you could tweak the language to make this clearer? It's mostly a concern over the minutia. We are prepared to support this proposal."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Then this doesn't especially apply. If the next of kin doesn't come to claim a body or refuses to receive it, the host nation isn't beholden to anything in particular."

Requires member states make every possible attempt to identify the bodies of those individuals who have entered their nation on a lawful, temporary visa, henceforth referred to as the deceased, and release the remains to the next of kin at the earliest possible opportunity.

"I'm clearly reading this differently, Ambassador. Perhaps you could tweak the language to make this clearer? It's mostly a concern over the minutia. We are prepared to support this proposal."

"I'm not entirely certain it's necessary. Once the obligation of reaching and notifying the next of kin is made, refusing to take possession if the remains is rather like allowing the host nation to do as they will with it. In most nations, a certificate of death is necessary for financial and tax reasons, so it is exceedingly unlikely that any individual will be silent on the process."

[The Defwaen Confederation]

Instead of a "those who have entered with a lawful temporary visa", why not just say "entered lawfully". That way no nation can claim they don't need to comply because they don't use visas.

I'm worried that the requirement of nations to prepare the deceased may be abused. For instance, requiring the body may be encased in gold.
The proposal is also silent about cost and payment. I'd like it explixitely stated that a nation may charge for provided services, but possibly limit such charges to not cost more than double thr actual cost.

[Separatist Peoples]

Instead of a "those who have entered with a lawful temporary visa", why not just say "entered lawfully". That way no nation can claim they don't need to comply because they don't use visas.

I'm worried that the requirement of nations to prepare the deceased may be abused. For instance, requiring the body may be encased in gold.
The proposal is also silent about cost and payment. I'd like it explixitely stated that a nation may charge for provided services, but possibly limit such charges to not cost more than double thr actual cost.

"There's nothing that says that a state cannot charge for the service. If an individual wants a body gilded, and they can't afford it, a state won't have to cover it. I'm concerned that, by explicitly stating it, I'll be inviting attention to a theoretical loophole for abuse, for all that overpriced embalming for foreigners would likely be discriminatory and illegal.

"I'm open to possible wording for the visa bit. You're right, but I'm also concerned that entering lawfully also includes citizens returning from abroad, who don't need these protections at all."

[The Defwaen Confederation]

Instead of a "those who have entered with a lawful temporary visa", why not just say "entered lawfully". That way no nation can claim they don't need to comply because they don't use visas.

I'm worried that the requirement of nations to prepare the deceased may be abused. For instance, requiring the body may be encased in gold.
The proposal is also silent about cost and payment. I'd like it explixitely stated that a nation may charge for provided services, but possibly limit such charges to not cost more than double thr actual cost.

"There's nothing that says that a state cannot charge for the service. If an individual wants a body gilded, and they can't afford it, a state won't have to cover it. I'm concerned that, by explicitly stating it, I'll be inviting attention to a theoretical loophole for abuse, for all that overpriced embalming for foreigners would likely be discriminatory and illegal.

"I'm open to possible wording for the visa bit. You're right, but I'm also concerned that entering lawfully also includes citizens returning from abroad, who don't need these protections at all."

That price gouging still exists though. I'll try to think of a way to control it.

Would there be any harm by having this proposal also impact locals who don't need it? Now that I think about it, having it do so would be a boon. If a person lives and dies in the CDSP but all their family lives in Defwa, required emergency visas and basic funeral provisions could only do good, right?

[Kaboomlandia]

What if the nation in which the deceased lie is currently at war with the homeland of the deceased? How exactly would that work?

[Separatist Peoples]

[
That price gouging still exists though. I'll try to think of a way to control it.

Would there be any harm by having this proposal also impact locals who don't need it? Now that I think about it, having it do so would be a boon. If a person lives and dies in the CDSP but all their family lives in Defwa, required emergency visas and basic funeral provisions could only do good, right?

"That price gouging would have to be done by the state or regulated by the state under the provisions of CoCR. Discriminatory price gouging based on nationality, an arbitrary distinction for this situation. It's going to be covered by extant law.

"You know, I can definitely see that being an advantage, including long term expats. I can work that into the next version for sure."

What if the nation in which the deceased lie is currently at war with the homeland of the deceased? How exactly would that work?

"Exactly no different than in peacetime. Why should wartime be functionally different than peacetime in regards to the transportation of a body?"

[Sierra Lyricalia]

...Preparation of the deceased in the manner proscribed by the next of kin;...

"It's clear you meant 'prescribed' here, since as is this requires nations to go out of their way to actively disrespect the wishes of the decedent's family. Honestly I will come back later on with something more constructive and useful than this nitpick, but right now that's the most glaring issue I see."

[The Defwaen Confederation]

I think they may be concerned with enemy combatants coming in under the guise of a funeral procession, which I suppose isn't completely impossible. Right now there doesn't seem to be any way to deny visas if the target nation can't fulfill some requests.

[Imperium Anglorum]

What if the nation in which the deceased lie is currently at war with the homeland of the deceased? How exactly would that work?

"Exactly no different than in peacetime. Why should wartime be functionally different than peacetime in regards to the transportation of a body?"

Parsons: Maybe because our men would be shot whilst trying to comply with the resolution? If that occurs, then both sides would refuse to comply out of danger of their men being killed.

[Separatist Peoples]

I think they may be concerned with enemy combatants coming in under the guise of a funeral procession, which I suppose isn't completely impossible. Right now there doesn't seem to be any way to deny visas if the target nation can't fulfill some requests.

"Intentionally so. If the host nation cannot supply an embalming expert, one needs to be brought in immediately, or the body will rot. An emergency visa is not a free pass. It's often a short term, very limited pass. 72 hours with points of entry and exit controlled would be totally reasonable."

"Exactly no different than in peacetime. Why should wartime be functionally different than peacetime in regards to the transportation of a body?"

Parsons: Maybe because our men would be shot whilst trying to comply with the resolution? If that occurs, then both sides would refuse to comply out of danger of their men being killed.

"Why would your troops be involved? This is a transfer of a body through civilian shipping, and at best, the only living individuals being transported are the next of kin, doctors, and priests. This has nothing to do with wartime deceased, which is already covered."

...Preparation of the deceased in the manner proscribed by the next of kin;...

"It's clear you meant 'prescribed' here, since as is this requires nations to go out of their way to actively disrespect the wishes of the decedent's family. Honestly I will come back later on with something more constructive and useful than this nitpick, but right now that's the most glaring issue I see."

"Now that's a hell of a typo. I'll definitely fix that ASAP."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I think they may be concerned with enemy combatants coming in under the guise of a funeral procession, which I suppose isn't completely impossible. Right now there doesn't seem to be any way to deny visas if the target nation can't fulfill some requests.

"But I don't see anything that would, say, prohibit the host nation from monitoring the mourners, limiting the scope of their movements, posting armed guards, etc. And the trouble it would take to conjure up a dead tourist just to smuggle a tiny combat team into a hostile country in the most open and public conceivable way, seems far greater than any likely benefit. The worst that could reasonably happen is that the decedent or his receptacle might be used to smuggle intelligence (microfilm, flash drive, molecular dot matrix, etc.) back to the belligerent home country. That might be a valid concern; few would argue the host nation shouldn't be permitted to take reasonable and respectful precautions against that, the resolution's own current language among them."

[Separatist Peoples]

I think they may be concerned with enemy combatants coming in under the guise of a funeral procession, which I suppose isn't completely impossible. Right now there doesn't seem to be any way to deny visas if the target nation can't fulfill some requests.

"But I don't see anything that would, say, prohibit the host nation from monitoring the mourners, limiting the scope of their movements, posting armed guards, etc. And the trouble it would take to conjure up a dead tourist just to smuggle a tiny combat team into a hostile country in the most open and public conceivable way, seems far greater than any likely benefit. The worst that could reasonably happen is that the decedent or his receptacle might be used to smuggle intelligence (microfilm, flash drive, molecular dot matrix, etc.) back to the belligerent home country. That might be a valid concern; few would argue the host nation shouldn't be permitted to take reasonable and respectful precautions against that, the resolution's own current language among them."

"The final clauses allow for restrictions on transporting the body to be made while investigating a crime. Espionage is generally a crime. Nothing, then, would prevent investigation of a suspected spy and confiscation of any illegal material discovered on his or her person, alive or otherwise."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Parsons: Maybe because our men would be shot whilst trying to comply with the resolution? If that occurs, then both sides would refuse to comply out of danger of their men being killed.

"Why would your troops be involved? This is a transfer of a body through civilian shipping, and at best, the only living individuals being transported are the next of kin, doctors, and priests. This has nothing to do with wartime deceased, which is already covered."

Because someone is dead and we need to repatriate their remains if this resolution were to become law. Then again, those who have invaded our territory might not altogether be 'legally' entering the nation by our laws. Naturally, the existence of some level of duplication would be cause of calling it illegal by North Sentinalese logic, but I generally don't try to make mice into dragons.

[Normlpeople]

OOC.. Sorry to hear about your uncle. As to the draft, I'll post later. Just a heads up to remember 136 in the current conversation in regards to invading military.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Also offer my sympathies regarding your uncle.

IC: "The preparation clause needs clarification. What exactly is preparation in an equitable manner? Also, we'd be concerned that the next of kin might impose unreasonable and costly prescriptions. The nature of the preparation should be consistent with the standards and practices of the host country, IE if you die in Ballygobackwards then your body is dealt with the same way as the bodies of the locals are. Anything beyond that, let the next of kin deal with.

"Generally we'd be concerned with the cost of the whole thing. In our opinion, the estate of the deceased, or the home government should bear the cost the entire enterprise."

[Vanquaria]

I will definitely support this.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Why would your troops be involved? This is a transfer of a body through civilian shipping, and at best, the only living individuals being transported are the next of kin, doctors, and priests. This has nothing to do with wartime deceased, which is already covered."

Because someone is dead and we need to repatriate their remains if this resolution were to become law. Then again, those who have invaded our territory might not altogether be 'legally' entering the nation by our laws. Naturally, the existence of some level of duplication would be cause of calling it illegal by North Sentinalese logic, but I generally don't try to make mice into dragons.

"That scenario is unequivocally covered already by previous law."

OOC: Also offer my sympathies regarding your uncle.

IC: "The preparation clause needs clarification. What exactly is preparation in an equitable manner? Also, we'd be concerned that the next of kin might impose unreasonable and costly prescriptions. The nature of the preparation should be consistent with the standards and practices of the host country, IE if you die in Ballygobackwards then your body is dealt with the same way as the bodies of the locals are. Anything beyond that, let the next of kin deal with.

"Generally we'd be concerned with the cost of the whole thing. In our opinion, the estate of the deceased, or the home government should bear the cost the entire enterprise."

OOC: in Italy, they generally don't embalm their dead like they do in the US. So my uncle couldn't be embalmed until a doctor from a nation that did do so could be brought in to do it. This isn't a fair situation. So, the host nation can either provide a doctor to do things to the next of kin's specification, or issue an emergency visa to somebody who can, which a foreign consulate will often locate and contact for the victim's next of kin. This way, a nation that stalwart lot refuses to, say, embalm the dead can't force a foreigner to not embalm the remains of their loved ones against their will, while still not compromising their convictions.

IC: "Since the issue of cost keeps coming up, I'll address it encouraging nations to offer this free of cost out of compassion, but allowing them to bill the next of kin or their nation's consulate."

[Bananaistan]

OOC: in Italy, they generally don't embalm their dead like they do in the US. So my uncle couldn't be embalmed until a doctor from a nation that did do so could be brought in to do it. This isn't a fair situation. So, the host nation can either provide a doctor to do things to the next of kin's specification, or issue an emergency visa to somebody who can, which a foreign consulate will often locate and contact for the victim's next of kin. This way, a nation that stalwart lot refuses to, say, embalm the dead can't force a foreigner to not embalm the remains of their loved ones against their will, while still not compromising their convictions.

IC: "Since the issue of cost keeps coming up, I'll address it encouraging nations to offer this free of cost out of compassion, but allowing them to bill the next of kin or their nation's consulate."

"It really depends on how reasonable the requirements of the next of kin are when they significantly differ from the customs of the host nation. We don't want the situation that the next of kin can demand a gold coffin such as was the case with a different draft on the topic by a different author.

"At the moment the draft only speaks to compensation from the estate of the deceased. There is no mention of what should happen if the estate is insufficient to bear the full cost. This is where we feel that the home nation should stump up.

"Furthermore, as currently the stated, the second requirement clause imposes requirements on the state in respect of all individuals, not just those on foreign travel. This really only applies to the first sub clause, as the other sub clauses could be seen as just relating to international travel, which means that the state must be responsible for the preparation of the remains of all individuals who happen to die when within their borders."

- Ted Hornwood

[Separatist Peoples]

"It really depends on how reasonable the requirements of the next of kin are when they significantly differ from the customs of the host nation. We don't want the situation that the next of kin can demand a gold coffin such as was the case with a different draft on the topic by a different author.

"At the moment the draft only speaks to compensation from the estate of the deceased. There is no mention of what should happen if the estate is insufficient to bear the full cost. This is where we feel that the home nation should stump up.

"Furthermore, as currently the stated, the second requirement clause imposes requirements on the state in respect of all individuals, not just those on foreign travel. This really only applies to the first sub clause, as the other sub clauses could be seen as just relating to international travel, which means that the state must be responsible for the preparation of the remains of all individuals who happen to die when within their borders."

- Ted Hornwood

"Your first point is one I can't necessarily agree with. If the estate is insufficient, there exist mechanisms to pursue or settle debt in every society. Moreover, a coffin of solid gold, which is the popular trope, is entirely irrelevant for the transportation of remains. Nothing prevents a nation from shipping the dead in a pine box and letting the gold coffin come about after the remains are repatriated. This doesn't deal with the final rest of the remains, just the transportation to the home nation.

"Your second point is perfectly valid. I'll see what I can do to clear it up."