[Draft] Repatriation of Remains

[Bears Armed]

Requires member states provide the following in as immediate a timeframe as strictly necessary:

Preparation of the deceased in an equitable manner, as prescribed by the next of kin,
Necessary certification from a certified coroner or medical examiner, including as many death certificates as the deceased's next of kin requires, medical reports of any relevant findings, and clearance to safely transport the remains;
A coffin or appropriate receptacle for the deceased's remains that conform to the standards of the ITSC;

What about any cases where, due to a risk of infection for people nearby, the "manner, as prescribed by the next of kin" is actually incompatible with "medical clearance to safely transport the remains"? Which sub-clause takes precedence over the other?

Freight booking services and airway bill production.

I am unfamiliar with this terminology. Does "airway bill production" mean that the remains must be repatriated as air freight, regardless of either the next of kin's preferences or the technological & spatial situations?

[Wallenburg]

I am unfamiliar with this terminology. Does "airway bill production" mean that the remains must be repatriated as air freight, regardless of either the next of kin's preferences or the technological & spatial situations?

"You must admit, though, the image of coffins being airdropped onto front lawns is more than entertaining."

[Separatist Peoples]

Requires member states provide the following in as immediate a timeframe as strictly necessary:

Preparation of the deceased in an equitable manner, as prescribed by the next of kin,
Necessary certification from a certified coroner or medical examiner, including as many death certificates as the deceased's next of kin requires, medical reports of any relevant findings, and clearance to safely transport the remains;
A coffin or appropriate receptacle for the deceased's remains that conform to the standards of the ITSC;

What about any cases where, due to a risk of infection for people nearby, the "manner, as prescribed by the next of kin" is actually incompatible with "medical clearance to safely transport the remains"? Which sub-clause takes precedence over the other?

"If the body is unsafe to transport, and doesn't meet ITSC standards, the body would obviously not be transported. Safety would take precedence, especially considering the numerous resolutions on preventing the spread of disease. In order to remain compliant with those laws, the safety aspect would have to come first."

I am unfamiliar with this terminology. Does "airway bill production" mean that the remains must be repatriated as air freight, regardless of either the next of kin's preferences or the technological & spatial situations?

"I don't see why, but due to the issues surrounding technological level, I wrote this from a Modern Tech perspective, like most WA proposals. Freight can refer to cargo transported by land or sea as well as air, but air travel being the most prevalent means of transportation, special mention was made."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Adjustments have been made."

[Potted Plants United]

A large potted plant in a big plantpot with wheels suddenly comes to life, revealing a large leaf curled up to form a cone, from which a somewhat hissing voice can be heard:

"We understand that our selves are probably excempt from most of this as all the soil of our own nation is also our private property, and part of the life-support system of our sapient shared consciousness, so if someone actually manages to die on our soil, the chances are that they can not be removed without it becoming an act of war. However, with this part..."

Member states may further restrict the release of the deceased where:

• The remains constitute a biohazard and there exists no practical alternative for transportation

"...we have the perfect excuse not to, since a biohazard situation would certainly exist - not from the side of the diseased, but whatever they died of, as that would most likely be from a defensive method of one of our selves, which unfortunately do count as biohazards to most animal-based species out there. Perhaps the next of kin would find some solace in the knowledge that their deceased family member will be fully recycled?"

OOC: Using the above as an example to my interpretation (which may or may not be correct) that the "biohazard" doesn't just mean "they died of a dangerous disease" but could also be used as an excuse by the government on whose soil they died on, to not let possible secrets (whether forbidden bioweapons or cutting edge medical research gone wrong, or whatever their behind the scenes reason) leak out of the country.

Also, what if the tourist wasn't there as a tourist, but actually as a spy? Or a terrorist? I get it that the "evidence in a criminal investigation" could possibly cover that, but should there be an additional clause to the effect that if the tourist died when doing non-touristy things, that the nation where the death occurred be allowed time to investigate the death (maybe "when the death occurred under unusual or suspicious circumstances") rather than have to jump to the demands of the next of kin rightaway?

The "as immediate a timeframe as strictly necessary" reads to me as "as necessary/required by the next of kin" not "as necessary/required by the circumstances". (I think I've managed to confuse myself with my wordings, so I'll stop here... ask if you're confused with what I meant, maybe I can find the right words for it.)

EDIT: Upon re-reading the debate, I notices that espionage is mentioned to come under the criminal investigation thing, but nothing in the proposal text as I read it, says the next of kin can't demand that you do what they want right now rather than give your people time to realize that "Hey, what was a tourist doing, dying of radiation, right next to Area 51? Maybe there's something here that we should look into more closely?"

Grrr, my brain doesn't want to work. I'll come back to this when it's cooperating more readily. Need to catch up on some sleep.

[Separatist Peoples]

A large potted plant in a big plantpot with wheels suddenly comes to life, revealing a large leaf curled up to form a cone, from which a somewhat hissing voice can be heard:

"We understand that our selves are probably excempt from most of this as all the soil of our own nation is also our private property, and part of the life-support system of our sapient shared consciousness, so if someone actually manages to die on our soil, the chances are that they can not be removed without it becoming an act of war. However, with this part..."

Member states may further restrict the release of the deceased where:

• The remains constitute a biohazard and there exists no practical alternative for transportation

"...we have the perfect excuse not to, since a biohazard situation would certainly exist - not from the side of the diseased, but whatever they died of, as that would most likely be from a defensive method of one of our selves, which unfortunately do count as biohazards to most animal-based species out there. Perhaps the next of kin would find some solace in the knowledge that their deceased family member will be fully recycled?"

"Regardless of the source of the biohazard, if transporting it is a problem, it shouldn't be transported. If one can ensure the remains are, in fact, safe to transfer, even if they are a biohazard, then a nation is obligated to do so. This could be as simple as encasing the body in a sealed plastic coating or totally disinfecting it with specialized medical scanning technology, but the issues surrounding biological hazards stem entirely around the risk of transportation."

OOC: Using the above as an example to my interpretation (which may or may not be correct) that the "biohazard" doesn't just mean "they died of a dangerous disease" but could also be used as an excuse by the government on whose soil they died on, to not let possible secrets (whether forbidden bioweapons or cutting edge medical research gone wrong, or whatever their behind the scenes reason) leak out of the country.

OOC: That doesn't especially change the situation. Infected bodies of foreigners are often incinerated in real life, and the next of kin gets the ashes instead of a body. That sort of medical necessity usually trumps any wishes of the next of kin or family, as there is a compelling interest in the health of the public. Besides, ashes are still, technically, remains.

Also, what if the tourist wasn't there as a tourist, but actually as a spy? Or a terrorist? I get it that the "evidence in a criminal investigation" could possibly cover that, but should there be an additional clause to the effect that if the tourist died when doing non-touristy things, that the nation where the death occurred be allowed time to investigate the death (maybe "when the death occurred under unusual or suspicious circumstances") rather than have to jump to the demands of the next of kin rightaway?

OOC: Thats all part and parcel with the exception clause detailing criminal investigation. An investigation has to be begun to warrant holding onto the body, which is essentially standard in most nations. Otherwise, it becomes illegal search and seizure of property, which remains are, essentially. Its a little bit like begging the question, though. If investigation of a death is necessary, it would be, de facto, a criminal investigation. Otherwise a basic autopsy can be performed, or not performed as is the case, without any issues. And a body can be run through an autopsy as a part of a criminal investigation and still be allowed to be buried. The records of the medical examination are sufficient to serve as evidence without keeping the actual body.

The "as immediate a timeframe as strictly necessary" reads to me as "as necessary/required by the next of kin" not "as necessary/required by the circumstances". (I think I've managed to confuse myself with my wordings, so I'll stop here... ask if you're confused with what I meant, maybe I can find the right words for it.)

OOC: I thought it was fairly obvious that necessary/required by circumstance was the interpretation. After all, there is only so fast one can get the paperwork together, the examiner to complete the work, the embalmer to embalm, and the body loaded onto a cargo ship/plane. Using the next of kin as a reference would push the boundaries of the physically possible in the event of a bitchy flibbergit claiming the body.

EDIT: Upon re-reading the debate, I notices that espionage is mentioned to come under the criminal investigation thing, but nothing in the proposal text as I read it, says the next of kin can't demand that you do what they want right now rather than give your people time to realize that "Hey, what was a tourist doing, dying of radiation, right next to Area 51? Maybe there's something here that we should look into more closely?"

Grrr, my brain doesn't want to work. I'll come back to this when it's cooperating more readily. Need to catch up on some sleep.

OOC: Espionage is generally a crime, so I don't see why it wouldn't be included as such. If espionage isn't a crime in a nation, there's no need for an investigation on potential espionage, now is there?

[Wallenburg]

"I have been considering whether to let you roll on with this and let Wallenburg slip into creative compliance, but my ethics have caught up with me."

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

"This seems a little off to me. Until identified, the deceased cannot be assumed to be the bodies of individuals entering a member nation lawfully and temporarily. But until proven to be such, the deceased need not be identifies. In addition, if a member nation decides to refuse to transport the body, they could argue that the deceased has not entered the nation temporarily, noting that the deceased will be spending a good long time underground."

[Separatist Peoples]

"This seems a little off to me. Until identified, the deceased cannot be assumed to be the bodies of individuals entering a member nation lawfully and temporarily. But until proven to be such, the deceased need not be identifies.

"Uh, ambassador, do your law enforcement officers not attempt to identify dead bodies? Assuming that any body that cannot be immediately identified as being an illegal migrant is a bit counterproductive."

In addition, if a member nation decides to refuse to transport the body, they could argue that the deceased has not entered the nation temporarily, noting that the deceased will be spending a good long time underground."

[/quote]
"The deceased has ceased to be an individual upon death. As such, the deceased is no longer subject to visas and entry requirements. This would be a reading that would have seriously dangerous impact on other facets of law, such as estate management, if it was accepted."

[Potted Plants United]

OOC: Espionage is generally a crime, so I don't see why it wouldn't be included as such. If espionage isn't a crime in a nation, there's no need for an investigation on potential espionage, now is there?

OOC: I see I failed to convey the idea. I'll get back to you with a fully functioning brain later. Tomorrow, hopefully.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Espionage is generally a crime, so I don't see why it wouldn't be included as such. If espionage isn't a crime in a nation, there's no need for an investigation on potential espionage, now is there?

OOC: I see I failed to convey the idea. I'll get back to you with a fully functioning brain later. Tomorrow, hopefully.

OOC: Totally cool. I thought I was missing something, but I couldn't figure out what.

[Wallenburg]

"This seems a little off to me. Until identified, the deceased cannot be assumed to be the bodies of individuals entering a member nation lawfully and temporarily. But until proven to be such, the deceased need not be identifies.

"Uh, ambassador, do your law enforcement officers not attempt to identify dead bodies? Assuming that any body that cannot be immediately identified as being an illegal migrant is a bit counterproductive."

"Oh, our law enforcement has all sorts of facets to it that...that I actually shouldn't talk about. Lord, the Proletarians have really fucked up our public policy. Needless to say, some possible cases go uninvestigated for a whole myriad of reasons."

In addition, if a member nation decides to refuse to transport the body, they could argue that the deceased has not entered the nation temporarily, noting that the deceased will be spending a good long time underground."

"The deceased has ceased to be an individual upon death. As such, the deceased is no longer subject to visas and entry requirements. This would be a reading that would have seriously dangerous impact on other facets of law, such as estate management, if it was accepted."

"Yet your proposal defines 'the deceased' as the body of an individual. Once dead, an individual does not own his body. Therefore, if the deceased cannot be defined as an individual--in a sense--there are no deceased, since 'the body of an individual' suggests ownership."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Oh, our law enforcement has all sorts of facets to it that...that I actually shouldn't talk about. Lord, the Proletarians have really fucked up our public policy. Needless to say, some possible cases go uninvestigated for a whole myriad of reasons."

"Potential corruption issues is so far outside the scope of this proposal, I don't have an adjective for it."

"Yet your proposal defines 'the deceased' as the body of an individual. Once dead, an individual does not own his body. Therefore, if the deceased cannot be defined as an individual--in a sense--there are no deceased, since 'the body of an individual' suggests ownership."

"Because the requirements for how the remains are treated are dependent on the status of the individual prior to deceasing. A dictionary war about what is and is not a corpse is going to be a terrible waste of time."

[Araraukar]

OOC: I see I failed to convey the idea. I'll get back to you with a fully functioning brain later. Tomorrow, hopefully.

OOC: Totally cool. I thought I was missing something, but I couldn't figure out what.

OOC: Writing this OOCly and on this acc, because I don't think I currently could put in IC.

I think my idea was that when the body (or the remains of an individual, for pedantic reasons ) is identified and the next of kin notified, if after that the death is noticed to be suspicious (some MIB guy notifies the authorities that it was found next to the fence of Area 51 with a camera with telescopic lense, or their hotel room turns out to have been the scene of a bloodbath, or, say, the next of kin contacts the nation and they realize he's on the international terrorist list, which makes his brother having died of a mysterious disease in your country more than slightly suspicious), is there some sort of grace period for the nation to start a criminal investigation? Or is it that the moment you notify next of kin, you can't say "oh wait a sec, we should look at this closer"?

I'm still not sure that came out right, but it seems a tad more sane and awake than the previous attempt...

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Totally cool. I thought I was missing something, but I couldn't figure out what.

OOC: Writing this OOCly and on this acc, because I don't think I currently could put in IC.

I think my idea was that when the body (or the remains of an individual, for pedantic reasons ) is identified and the next of kin notified, if after that the death is noticed to be suspicious (some MIB guy notifies the authorities that it was found next to the fence of Area 51 with a camera with telescopic lense, or their hotel room turns out to have been the scene of a bloodbath, or, say, the next of kin contacts the nation and they realize he's on the international terrorist list, which makes his brother having died of a mysterious disease in your country more than slightly suspicious), is there some sort of grace period for the nation to start a criminal investigation? Or is it that the moment you notify next of kin, you can't say "oh wait a sec, we should look at this closer"?

I'm still not sure that came out right, but it seems a tad more sane and awake than the previous attempt...

OOC: I'm sorry, but I can't imagine a scenario where potential suspicions aren't noticed by the time the body is identified or next of kin notified. At any rate, there isn't a hard and fast restriction, so there's no reason a nation couldn't throw on the brakes at any point they need to.

[Araraukar]

At any rate, there isn't a hard and fast restriction, so there's no reason a nation couldn't throw on the brakes at any point they need to.

OOC: Ah, yes, thank you. That was what I was trying to find out.

Would changing the proposal text from "The remains are evidence in a criminal investigation that requires a full autopsy." to "The remains are or become evidence in a criminal investigation, which may require a full autopsy, in which case member states will [etc.]" be out of the question? Because as the text now reads, if it's evidence in a criminal investigation that doesn't require full autopsy, you're obligated to hand the body over? Despite it being evidence.

[We Couldnt Agree On A Name]

Three concerns.

• the phrase "possible attempt"; The term possible is extremely strict It allow no concessions for situations could make compliance prohibitively difficult. We would prefer if were replaced by something such as "best effort" or "reasonable effort" which would allow for concessions while still requiring nations to act in good faith to comply.
• The phrase "lawfully and temporarily"; How is lawfully defined? Would an enemy soldier be covered? Would a victim of human trafficking not be? What about remains that are not subject to law, such as a body that washes ashore? Does temporarily mean that nations have no obligations to the next of kin of permanent residents? This is a question of intent so we really can't make any recommendations of then it need to be clearer.
• The phrase "including as many death certificates as the deceased's next of kin requires" is problematic, given that the host nation may not be able to offer the certifications needed in the family's country(the country may require this be done by their own officials for example). Given that the proposal already requires provision of "Necessary certification from a certified coroner or medical examiner" the addition does little more then allow for bureaucratic abuse so we feel this can be struck.

We further recommend that the proposal contain language forbidding the nation receiving the body from needlessly obstructing compliance. Better yet language that defines their responsibilities as well.
Other then that this is a very good proposal and we would be willing to forward this to our delegate with a request for approval.

OOC: I'm sorry to hear about your uncle,

and frankly would be embarrassed if we couldn't do better then the Italian government.

[Araraukar]

• The phrase "lawfully and temporarily"; How is lawfully defined? Would an enemy soldier be covered? Would a victim of human trafficking not be?

An enemy soldier is not a tourist, and is already covered by The Prisoners of War Accord. And the Ban on Slavery and Trafficking covers human trafficking victims.

What about remains that are not subject to law, such as a body that washes ashore?

Now this is an interesting question, because if the individual didn't die in the nation or in the area of sea under its possession/control, then what? Also, what about plane crashes, where the plane has, say, exploded in the air so that the victims are already dead when they fall to the ground?

Does temporarily mean that nations have no obligations to the next of kin of permanent residents?

One would think that a nation knows how to handle its own inhabitants. This proposal, as far as I understand it, is trying to deal with the people who aren't covered by the nation's own laws, and where the handling of the body may differ from the customs and traditions of the country where the person died (OOC: though I find that, in RL and NS to be a bit too much jumping through the hoops, sorry to say, SP, even with your uncle).

We further recommend that the proposal contain language forbidding the nation receiving the body from needlessly obstructing compliance.

Again, since the body would be sent to the nation where the dead person was an inhabitant... Actually, would it? I just checked it and you're right, it doesn't say that, it says the remains are to be sent to the next of kin, not the nation where the deceased was a permanent resident. That does raise an interesting issue.

Better yet language that defines their responsibilities as well.

Except if you do that, you have to specify it only affects member nations. Because as it now reads, a non-WA nation may be the host of the next of kin, and you can't legislate for non-WA nations.

[We Couldnt Agree On A Name]

An enemy soldier is not a tourist, and is already covered by The Prisoners of War Accord. And the Ban on Slavery and Trafficking covers human trafficking victims.

As far as I can see those apply to living persons.

Now this is an interesting question, because if the individual didn't die in the nation or in the area of sea under its possession/control, then what? Also, what about plane crashes, where the plane has, say, exploded in the air so that the victims are already dead when they fall to the ground?

I hope that if identification is possible it would be covered same as anything else.

One would think that a nation knows how to handle its own inhabitants.

But what about a situation where an immigrant's family wants their body repatriated. Would they not be covered? Come to think of it. What happens if there is a conflict between the wishes of the deceased and those of the next of kin?

you have to specify it only affects member nations. Because as it now reads, a non-WA nation may be the host of the next of kin, and you can't legislate for non-WA nations.

That is a problem. Is it possible to have requirements for WA members and waive the nation with the remains of any responsibilities if the nation of the next of kin is not in compliance with those requirements? That way it would not require nonmembers to do anything, only set conditions that would need to be met in order to require action on the part of the WA member.

[Arach-Naga Combine]

What if we've already finished... ah... eating them?

[Separatist Peoples]

As far as I can see those apply to living persons.

"There's a resolution on wartime deceased that deals with repatriation of remains of soldiers."

I hope that if identification is possible it would be covered same as anything else.

"I don't see why not."

But what about a situation where an immigrant's family wants their body repatriated. Would they not be covered? Come to think of it. What happens if there is a conflict between the wishes of the deceased and those of the next of kin?

"I can work in some wording indicating this to be in those cases where the deceased's wishes are unknown. The last will and testament for a foreigner are not always available to a government so easily, so its fair to assume that it's generally unavailable. Nonetheless, its an easy fix."

That is a problem. Is it possible to have requirements for WA members and waive the nation with the remains of any responsibilities if the nation of the next of kin is not in compliance with those requirements? That way it would not require nonmembers to do anything, only set conditions that would need to be met in order to require action on the part of the WA member.

"I'd really rather not deal with all that. Dealing with a dead body is an inherently time-sensitive issue for nations, and if there exist obstructions, then an overriding safety and health concern will arise sooner than later that will necessitate an alternate solution. This proposal takes such issues into account."

What if we've already finished... ah... eating them?

"Well, there really aren't remains any longer, then."

[Araraukar]

"I'd really rather not deal with all that. Dealing with a dead body is an inherently time-sensitive issue for nations, and if there exist obstructions, then an overriding safety and health concern will arise sooner than later that will necessitate an alternate solution."

Two words: popsicle corpses. Will keep good for a long time, won't be a good growing substrate for bacteria or viruses, and if you're required to, you can thaw them out before sending them to foreign countries.

OOC: Is there a reason you skipped this?

[Separatist Peoples]

Two words: popsicle corpses. Will keep good for a long time, won't be a good growing substrate for bacteria or viruses, and if you're required to, you can thaw them out before sending them to foreign countries.

OOC: Freezing corpses long-term has serious impacts on whether they can be embalmed or prepared for viewing later. Chilling them has a lot shorter keep date. It works, but not for terribly long.

OOC: Is there a reason you skipped this?

OOC: I didn't comment, but I had every intention of making that change. Its a sensible addition.

As to the issue regarding full autopsies, generally anything that can be gleaned from a limited autopsy can be gleaned along with the embalming process. A full autopsy, which is essentially laying the body wide open and disassembling the innards, makes it impossible to properly embalm a body. As such, if a full autopsy isn't necessary, the body doesn't really need to be handed over.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Freezing corpses long-term has serious impacts on whether they can be embalmed or prepared for viewing later. Chilling them has a lot shorter keep date. It works, but not for terribly long.

OOC: I know. It was an in-character comment. Janis usually goes for the most practical approach. Also, if eating the deceased excempts a nation from this resolution entirely, PPU won't object against it.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: Freezing corpses long-term has serious impacts on whether they can be embalmed or prepared for viewing later. Chilling them has a lot shorter keep date. It works, but not for terribly long.

OOC: I know. It was an in-character comment. Janis usually goes for the most practical approach. Also, if eating the deceased excempts a nation from this resolution entirely, PPU won't object against it.

Parsons: You could always try stasis. One of the high-tech empires will probably sell you one of those units on the cheap.

[We Couldnt Agree On A Name]

snip

That seems reasonable. What about

• the phrase "possible attempt"; The term possible is extremely strict. It allows no concessions for situations that could make compliance prohibitively difficult. We would prefer if it were replaced by something such as "best effort" or "reasonable effort" which would allow for concessions while still requiring nations to act in good faith to comply.
• The phrase "including as many death certificates as the deceased's next of kin requires" is problematic, given that the host nation may not be able to offer the certifications needed in the family's country(the country may require this be done by their own officials for example). Given that the proposal already requires provision of "Necessary certification from a certified coroner or medical examiner" the addition does little more then allow for bureaucratic abuse so we feel this can be struck.