[PASSED] Access to Humanitarian Aid

[Blanquia]

I fundamentally support this resolution, but what of the punishments for non-compliant signatories?

[Ainocra]

"Ambassadors, this has even up and available for comment since January. If you had concerns, they should have been raised when I made an announcement of my intention to submit this. None were made. None."

I never saw the announcement or I would have

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Well then it certainly isn't my problem that you've had this up since January.
I'm perplexed by your poor temper, since you just recently invited comments on this proposal.

OOC: Because this is one in a long series of drafts I have literally begged for criticism before submitting, and have, routinely, failed to get comments from more then two or three entities. It is incredibly frustrating that this pattern continues to such a degree that I have nearly given up on drafting on the forum entirely, and am very close to just submitting directly to the WA.

I never saw the announcement or I would have

"Speak in the next three days or hold your peace for a minimum of three as a half more."

"I'm sorry to hear that, because it was assuredly present. I don't mean to take it out on you (IC or OOC, and I mean that for you too, Wallenburg), but is a very frustrating phenomenon."

Nevertheless, this resolution is a disaster, and destroys the possibility of nations to remain neutral during a war. Clause 3 and 7 assert that, should a nation remain neutral in an armed conflict, its shall be branded as war criminals.

"I'd love to see where."

Determining the deliberate refusal of international charity and aid to civilians to be as much a violation of human rights as deliberately inflicting conditions contrary to life on a population;

"This is not an action clause, but a preambulatory clause that emphasizes a belief. It's rhetoric, nothing more."

Consider it a war crime, and therefore illegal, to intentionally deprive individuals of humanitarian aid supplies, or prohibit their use or distribution, except in cases where reasonable alternatives can be substituted, such as in instances of controlled substances or dietary restrictions.

"I fail to see how this infringes on neutrality, especially when I've made provisions for nations to exclude humanitarian aid operations entirely, albeit for non-arbitrary reasons."

Not only does this not take into account the realities and policies of unarmed, primitive or developing, peaceful, and isolated nations, but it essentially drags every nation across the multiverse into any international conflict.

"...where on earth did you get that?"

his is completely unacceptable. Some nations do not have the resources to deliver aid. Some do not have the time to transfer aid across the galaxies to war zones. Some have religious objections to involvement in war. All of these nations, however, would be accused of war crimes--not because they did anything wrong to anyone, but because they simply distanced themselves from violence.

"Ambassador, you realize that this doesn't require nations provide aid, merely requires that they cannot deprive individuals of them. It makes no provision whatsoever for not providing foreign aid in the first place. None whatosever."

Futhermore, this resolution brands nations as war criminals even when no war has taken place. Humanitarian aid may be necessary in the event of natural disasters, terrorist attacks, epidemics, famines, and countless other slews of national emergencies. While aid to nations in need is commendable, this resolution achieves nothing by forcing every nation to involve itself in aiding every nation with so much as one bombing threat.

"This resolution specifically relegates itself, based on the definition of humanitarian aid operations, to instances of armed conflict. That excludes natural disasters, epidemics and famines and countless others of your countless slews of emergencies, and is only barely applicable to terrorist attacks, based on the fact that terrorist acts are not always followed up by an armed conflict."

This resolution only encourages violence and a swarm of international involvement in even the least significant skirmish. We will vote against this proposal, and we hope that other members of the World Assembly will see the disastrous consequences of this bill entering into law.

Helen Trevanyika
REPRESENTATIVE OF WALLENBURG

"Only in the worst possible understanding of the proposal. Have you actually read it in detail, ambassador?"

I fundamentally support this resolution, but what of the punishments for non-compliant signatories?

"Likely, the same punishments for violators of any other of the myriad of active WA law. Your support is much appreciated, ambassador."

[Wallenburg]

OOC: Because this is one in a long series of drafts I have literally begged for criticism before submitting, and have, routinely, failed to get comments from more then two or three entities. It is incredibly frustrating that this pattern continues to such a degree that I have nearly given up on drafting on the forum entirely, and am very close to just submitting directly to the WA.

OOC: I'm sorry to hear that, but I only noticed this yesterday and I had no time to voice my opinion on it. This is the earliest I could post on it.

"I'm sorry to hear that, because it was assuredly present. I don't mean to take it out on you (IC or OOC, and I mean that for you too, Wallenburg), but is a very frustrating phenomenon."

OOC: I can understand that. Retrospectively, I recognize the angst of receiving criticism for something 6 months in the making and now suddenly considered unacceptable.

"This is not an action clause, but a preambulatory clause that emphasizes a belief. It's rhetoric, nothing more."

"That clause is displeasing but acceptable in that case."

"I fail to see how this infringes on neutrality, especially when I've made provisions for nations to exclude humanitarian aid operations entirely, albeit for non-arbitrary reasons."

"Many nations view any outsiders offering aid to the enemy as auxiliary enemies themselves. Wallenburg, depending on the situation, falls into such a category."

Not only does this not take into account the realities and policies of unarmed, primitive or developing, peaceful, and isolated nations, but it essentially drags every nation across the multiverse into any international conflict.

"...where on earth did you get that?"

Because this resolution makes it illegal "to intentionally deprive individuals of humanitarian aid supplies". It's quite simple. In fact, this resolution technically demands that EVERYONE, whether in a crisis or not, receives humanitarian aid supplies from every nation aware of their existence.

"Ambassador, you realize that this doesn't require nations provide aid, merely requires that they cannot deprive individuals of them. It makes no provision whatsoever for not providing foreign aid in the first place. None whatosever."

"As I have demonstrated earlier, this is incorrect."

"This resolution specifically relegates itself, based on the definition of humanitarian aid operations, to instances of armed conflict. That excludes natural disasters, epidemics and famines and countless others of your countless slews of emergencies, and is only barely applicable to terrorist attacks, based on the fact that terrorist acts are not always followed up by an armed conflict."

"Upon another reading of the resolution, we have noticed that we are, indeed, mistaken in this regard. We apologize for that."

This resolution only encourages violence and a swarm of international involvement in even the least significant skirmish. We will vote against this proposal, and we hope that other members of the World Assembly will see the disastrous consequences of this bill entering into law.

Helen Trevanyika
REPRESENTATIVE OF WALLENBURG

"Only in the worst possible understanding of the proposal. Have you actually read it in detail, ambassador?"

"Yes, sir, I have read it in detail. I have conceded my failure to notice the narrowed definition of humanitarian aid, but my point still stands. As a Wallenburgian and as a politician, I must recognize that active legislation serves as a contract, and that loopholes must be closed at all costs. I have re-read the clauses I have protested to and find my interpretation consistent. Should World Assembly leaders share my interpretation, I fear that this proposal would do more harm than good."

[Happy Hour]

"Consider it a war crime, and therefore illegal, to intentionally deprive individuals of humanitarian aid supplies, or prohibit their use or distribution, except in cases where reasonable alternatives can be substituted, such as in instances of controlled substances or dietary restrictions."

In regards to this, I'm not sure if the problem will end up being Humanitarian Workers giving aid directly to belligerent parties (as previously mentioned). Diversion of aid by military or insurgent forces will ensure that at least some international aid ends up with combatants. If another military force attacks or captures these food stores, and they end up finding packages marked as humanitarian aid, a legitimate military operation would become a war crime. Please consider adding some limiting subclauses to this section, as you did with the section which follows it.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Many nations view any outsiders offering aid to the enemy as auxiliary enemies themselves. Wallenburg, depending on the situation, falls into such a category."

"How on earth does helping civilians equate to aiding the enemy? Humanitarian aid is restricted to civilians, as supplying an enemy military force is a breach of neutrality on the part of the aid workers. I really expected the Wallenburg delegation to be more enlightened about the issue, but aiding noncombatants in a humanitarian fashion doesn't aid the enemy. It aids innocent victims."

Because this resolution makes it illegal "to intentionally deprive individuals of humanitarian aid supplies". It's quite simple. In fact, this resolution technically demands that EVERYONE, whether in a crisis or not, receives humanitarian aid supplies from every nation aware of their existence.

"That's, frankly, an insane interpretation of the term "deprive", especially with the term "intentionally" in there. Refraining from action in general does not constitute intentional deprivation of a group. Willful nonparticipation of a charitable effort is not intentional deprivation, not only through the completely different context of the term "deprive", but because international humanitarian aid is, by definition, a voluntary charitable donation, not participating is no more interior ak deprivation to the recipient than not going to a food drive is intentionally starving the intended recipients. Making such an inference is illogical and would assume that charity is compulsory, which it certainly isn't in a colloquial sense. I expected more from an esteemed member of this assembly than dictionary squabbling over common terms."

"Yes, sir, I have read it in detail. I have conceded my failure to notice the narrowed definition of humanitarian aid, but my point still stands. As a Wallenburgian and as a politician, I must recognize that active legislation serves as a contract, and that loopholes must be closed at all costs. I have re-read the clauses I have protested to and find my interpretation consistent. Should World Assembly leaders share my interpretation, I fear that this proposal would do more harm than good."

"If you chose to interpret this as bearing an onus that doesn't exist, I cannot stop you. Willful ignorance is the bane of rational debate."

"Consider it a war crime, and therefore illegal, to intentionally deprive individuals of humanitarian aid supplies, or prohibit their use or distribution, except in cases where reasonable alternatives can be substituted, such as in instances of controlled substances or dietary restrictions."

In regards to this, I'm not sure if the problem will end up being Humanitarian Workers giving aid directly to belligerent parties (as previously mentioned). Diversion of aid by military or insurgent forces will ensure that at least some international aid ends up with combatants. If another military force attacks or captures these food stores, and they end up finding packages marked as humanitarian aid, a legitimate military operation would become a war crime. Please consider adding some limiting subclauses to this section, as you did with the section which follows it.

"There is a simple solution to this: leave the marked humanitarian supplies behind."

[Gonzo789]

Ambassador Bell How can there be a war crime if there is in fact not a war going on? Humanitarian relief only should be sent to natural disaster areas. and for that would any member nation of the world assembly defiantly not accept the aid?

[Separatist Peoples]

Ambassador Bell How can there be a war crime if there is in fact not a war going on? Humanitarian relief only should be sent to natural disaster areas. and for that would any member nation of the world assembly defiantly not accept the aid?

"To oppress their people. It is a common practice. Humanitarian relief is very often sent to war-torn countries, why should it be restricted to natural disasters? What makes manmade disasters any better?"

[Wallenburg]

"How on earth does helping civilians equate to aiding the enemy? Humanitarian aid is restricted to civilians, as supplying an enemy military force is a breach of neutrality on the part of the aid workers. I really expected the Wallenburg delegation to be more enlightened about the issue, but aiding noncombatants in a humanitarian fashion doesn't aid the enemy. It aids innocent victims."

"I never said helping civilians equates to aiding the enemy. But can one not offer humanitarian aid to feed, shelter, and doctor soldiers? I see no phrasing in this resolution limiting such aid to civilians."

Because this resolution makes it illegal "to intentionally deprive individuals of humanitarian aid supplies". It's quite simple. In fact, this resolution technically demands that EVERYONE, whether in a crisis or not, receives humanitarian aid supplies from every nation aware of their existence.

"That's, frankly, an insane interpretation of the term "deprive", especially with the term "intentionally" in there.

"I don't appreciate your ad hominem attacks, ambassador."

Refraining from action in general does not constitute intentional deprivation of a group. Willful nonparticipation of a charitable effort is not intentional deprivation, not only through the completely different context of the term "deprive", but because international humanitarian aid is, by definition, a voluntary charitable donation, not participating is no more interior ak deprivation to the recipient than not going to a food drive is intentionally starving the intended recipients.

"That statement is illogical. To not offer humanitarian aid is by definition deprivation of aid. If a man is hit by a car and everyone just stands by twiddling their thumbs, are they not depriving the man of the need to call an ambulance?"

Making such an inference is illogical and would assume that charity is compulsory, which it certainly isn't in a colloquial sense. I expected more from an esteemed member of this assembly than dictionary squabbling over common terms."

"Again, I don't appreciate your innuendos against my mental capacity."

"If you chose to interpret this as bearing an onus that doesn't exist, I cannot stop you. Willful ignorance is the bane of rational debate."

The Wallenburgian delegation chatters amongst itself angrily, one of the members insisting on a duel with the ambassador. Helen stands up, saying, "Sir, if you cannot argue without insulting us, I ask you to leave the chamber. We are not willfully ignorant--far from it! We are aware of the dangers of loose legislation and demand that these colossal loopholes be addressed."

[Separatist Peoples]

"I never said helping civilians equates to aiding the enemy. But can one not offer humanitarian aid to feed, shelter, and doctor soldiers? I see no phrasing in this resolution limiting such aid to civilians."

"That would be a textbook example of a non-neutral behavior, generally speaking, and wouldn't be protected. Just because it's not explicitly banned doesn't mean there isn't an implicit restriction formed by a logical exclusion, which is a pretty basic consideration to make in law."

"I don't appreciate your ad hominem attacks, ambassador."

"And I don't appreciate your malicious and willful ignorance. So I suppose we're square."

"That statement is illogical. To not offer humanitarian aid is by definition deprivation of aid. If a man is hit by a car and everyone just stands by twiddling their thumbs, are they not depriving the man of the need to call an ambulance?"

"Nobody is preventing that man from receiving aid, which would be a necessary part of depriving him of that aid. Thats a highly specious argument."

"Again, I don't appreciate your innuendos against my mental capacity."

"And, again, I don't appreicate your malicious and willful ignorance, or, worse, deliberate misconstruing of what this says. There is no base in logic in your counterarguments beyond a poor attempt at dictionary wanking. I know you're better then this, I've seen you debate."

The Wallenburgian delegation chatters amongst itself angrily, one of the members insisting on a duel with the ambassador. Helen stands up, saying, "Sir, if you cannot argue without insulting us, I ask you to leave the chamber. We are not willfully ignorant--far from it! We are aware of the dangers of loose legislation and demand that these colossal loopholes be addressed."

"Last I checked, this debate room is slotted for discussing my at-vote resolution. Perhaps if you would stop making specious arguments, you'd stop being so offended. Challenge me all you want to a duel, as your representatives are clearly interested in having. Your need to resort to violence just proves the incredibly extreme interpretation your delegation has, for some bizarre reason, taken. Stop pretending words mean something other than what they actually mean, and we may yet get somewhere."

[Wallenburg]

"That would be a textbook example of a non-neutral behavior, generally speaking, and wouldn't be protected. Just because it's not explicitly banned doesn't mean there isn't an implicit restriction formed by a logical exclusion, which is a pretty basic consideration to make in law."

"I would hope so. I simply do not make assumptions about World Assembly policy, and have not had the time to review every individual resolution currently active."

""And I don't appreciate your malicious and willful ignorance. So I suppose we're square.""

"How am I malicious? How am I ignorant? Stop insulting us and give us some facts for once!"

"Nobody is preventing that man from receiving aid, which would be a necessary part of depriving him of that aid. That's a highly specious argument."

"I believe I am beginning to understand your interpretation of the active clauses. If that is how they are meant, they are very poorly constructed."

"And, again, I don't appreciate your malicious and willful ignorance, or, worse, deliberate misconstruing of what this says. There is no base in logic in your counterarguments beyond a poor attempt at dictionary wanking. I know you're better then this, I've seen you debate."

"Stop making blind and foolish accusations and debate as my equal, by Notch's sword! There is no deliberate misinterpretation! Your writing is open to multiple plausible interpretations and I happened to land on one different than yours. I can understand protectiveness over your work, but you are becoming unreasonable. Get down off of your high horse and address the concerns of my delegation!"

"Last I checked, this debate room is slotted for discussing my at-vote resolution. Perhaps if you would stop making specious arguments, you'd stop being so offended. Challenge me all you want to a duel, as your representatives are clearly interested in having. Your need to resort to violence just proves the incredibly extreme interpretation your delegation has, for some bizarre reason, taken. Stop pretending words mean something other than what they actually mean, and we may yet get somewhere."

"And last I checked, debate wasn't insulting any opposition without addressing its arguments. Perhaps if you would stop making specious arguments and brutal insults, I would have no reason to be offended. And as to that bit about a duel, I have no interest in fighting. In case you hadn't noticed, that was an assistant, not myself. He's a staunch Proletarian, and if you knew anything about our nation's history you would understand his belligerence. His interest for a duel proves nothing but how dependent your argument is on ad hominem attack and avoiding the central issue: your writing is flawed. Nobody is perfect, and I can understand that there are certainly other matters diverting your attention from the impurities of this resolution, but you have proven that you are willing to resort to little more than name-calling whenever you find your own campaigns under attack.
"I pretend nothing. I am simply addressing the imperfections of this resolution and demonstrating the worst-case scenario, one for which all nations should always be aware of. I am not claiming anything but what is right in front of me, written with your ink by your hand."

[Celsuis]

"The delegation of Celsuis finds that Clause 3, equating the refusal of aid to deliberately inflicting conditions contrary to life, is repulsive and a significant insult to citizens who must live in conditions contrary to life inflicted by their governments. Additionally, the mandate that humanitarian operations be allowed in territory affected by crises is a direct violation of property rights. We stand AGAINST."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"I believe I am beginning to understand your interpretation of the active clauses. If that is how they are meant, they are very poorly constructed."

"Mmmmm... I could be wrong, of course, but I believe yours is in a small minority of delegations that have interpreted the active clauses in any way other than Mr. Bell has described. Take the guy that's been hit by the car: under any reasonable definition of 'deprive,' the bystanders aren't depriving him of aid unless and until they link arms to prevent the ambulance from driving up, and maybe throw rocks at the paramedics. Not acting is a far cry from acting destructively. Anyway, in both cases, the experts are presumably better equipped to do the helping - whether we're talking about paramedics for a crash victim, or aid agencies for civilians caught near a war zone. While nations might contribute vastly more than nothing to such a relief effort (whether in financial, material, or manpower terms), that is and should be at their discretion. Under the terms herein, they are absolutely required not to hinder that effort; a mandate beyond that would need a separate resolution to receive adequate treatment, and I refrain from comment as to its likelihood of passage. This one, on the other hand, is quite reasonable."

[Wallenburg]

"After acquainting myself with the most recent version of the Oxford definition of 'deprive', I drop my concerns. Voting FOR this resolution."

OOC: Embarrassing, huh?

[Southern Rebel States]

The Rogue Nation of Southern Rebel States is for, and has voted to approve this resolution

[Kilimantonian]

Will be voting against due to poor definition of humanitarian activities: it is limited to international aid groups, which is a limit on the activities of sovereign nations within their own borders.

[Separatist Peoples]

"After acquainting myself with the most recent version of the Oxford definition of 'deprive', I drop my concerns. Voting FOR this resolution."

OOC: Embarrassing, huh?

OOC: think nothing of it. I've done exactly that more times then I care to admit.

[Caracasus]

We are glad, ambassador that this has been put forward. We can see no concerns at all here.

For those calling into question a conflict with the "right of neutral states", we remind you that to be in the position to allow aid, supplied by trained professionals under the protection of the rights and duties given to them by the WA through your borders, and to deny it is also a choice. One that rather removes any air of neutrality.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: I can't help but be amused that Vancouvia, author of the failed Rights of Indigenous Peoples resolution, historically votes against everything I write out of what I can only assume is pique. And nary with a word of explanation for that 100 vote hit.

[Wrapper]

OOC: I can't help but be amused that Vancouvia, author of the failed Rights of Indigenous Peoples resolution, historically votes against everything I write out of what I can only assume is pique. And nary with a word of explanation for that 100 vote hit.

Vancouvia is on record to cast votes for the losing side to try to offset the lemming effect.

[Statevia WA]

This is a blatant violation of the sovereignty of WA nations. This is the reason why I created a WA puppet,(This accout) so that my main nation don't have to follow these crap rules. My country is a chrisitan nation and people who are libertarians or not believers will be executed even if they're refugees.

[Separatist Peoples]

This is a blatant violation of the sovereignty of WA nations. This is the reason why I created a WA puppet,(This accout) so that my main nation don't have to follow these crap rules. My country is a chrisitan nation and people who are libertarians or not believers will be executed even if they're refugees.

OOC: if that's your opinion, why participate in the first place? Your disregarding about a dozen laws in that action, so why bother playing?

[Anglo-French Republic]

OOC: I can't help but be amused that Vancouvia, author of the failed Rights of Indigenous Peoples resolution, historically votes against everything I write out of what I can only assume is pique. And nary with a word of explanation for that 100 vote hit.

You butthurt he doesn't vote for all your Resolutions?Too bad,this is Democracy,not Dictatorship,if your Resolution it's OKAY with him doesn't mean he is being a prick,all it means is he is Exercising The Democratic process,whether he Votes for or against something is up to him and him only.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: I can't help but be amused that Vancouvia, author of the failed Rights of Indigenous Peoples resolution, historically votes against everything I write out of what I can only assume is pique. And nary with a word of explanation for that 100 vote hit.

You butthurt he doesn't vote for all your Resolutions?Too bad,this is Democracy,not Dictatorship,if your Resolution it's OKAY with him doesn't mean he is being a prick,all it means is he is Exercising The Democratic process,whether he Votes for or against something is up to him and him only.

OOC: that it is his right is a fact that I was in no way disputing. Just his motivation, which has, historically, been suspect. Nonetheless, I've been supplied with an answer in this thread. Your attempt to right an imaginary misunderstanding is unnecessary.

[Wallenburg]

This is a blatant violation of the sovereignty of WA nations. This is the reason why I created a WA puppet,(This accout) so that my main nation don't have to follow these crap rules. My country is a chrisitan nation and people who are libertarians or not believers will be executed even if they're refugees.

The entire purpose of the World Assembly is to violate national sovereignty in favor of international interests. If you don't like that, you shouldn't be in the WA.