[PASSED] Medical Provisions in Blockades

[Damanucus]

Okay, ladies and gentlemen, I am planning to submit this in a couple of days time. (OOC: My apologies to the mods; I know I'm still awaiting the legality ruling on the last draft, but I would like to push this through at some point.) Is there anything in the current draft that concerns anyone still? If so, we can address it proper (and delay the resolution a bit more while we correct it).

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Dukopolious]

The same concerns as before. Although I would like to see a clause mandating that no nation may abuse this system for personal trade.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

The legalist in me wants to say that all the provisions dealing with "nations" are meta-gaming violations. If the Secretariat has already ruled that this is legal than please disregard; but I would go through and change all of the "nations" to "member nations" just to be on the safe side. Especially since you use "member nations" earlier in the draft - you need to make sure the terminology is consistent or folks will think you mean to distinguish between members and non-members.

Everything north of the last three provisions looks fine to me, but the last three look illegal:

MANDATES that nations, on the occasion where medical supplies and/or professional medical personnel are transported alongside other items during a blockade, to arrange the collection and transport into national borders of said medical supplies and/or professional medical personnel, at an agreed point outside of the nation's borders.

You can't mandate this for non-member nations without violating the Rules. I really don't like this provision because I'm not sure which nation we're referring to. Are we requiring the blockading nation to transport medical supplies into the other nations borders? That seems like a problem for both sides. Are we requiring the blockaded nation to venture outside of their borders to pick this stuff up? Also problematic. Are you sure this pick-up arrangement is really necessary? I don't see why you can't just let the transport keep chugging along and allow blockading nations to confiscate any non-medical supplies. That will encourage compliance with the provision encouraging that medical supplies be transported separately from other things, and will go a long way - I think - to ensure that medical transports bound for blockaded nations will not "accidentally" try to smuggle non-medical goods through the blockade.

CHARGES the World Health Authority and national health organizations with the following duties:

1. Assuring the safe transportation of medical supplies and professional medical personnel to and in blockaded nations; and
2. Dispensing medical supplies and professional medical personnel among the populace on a per-needs basis, ensuring that medical supplies are used for non-military, medical purposes, and personnel shipped under these terms are not assigned to military positions.

I don't know if the WHA can venture into a non-member blockaded nation; that seems illegal. Otherwise this provision is fine if we're talking exclusively about conflicts between member nations.

MANDATES that governments of blockaded nations do not interfere with transportation and dispensation of medical supplies and professional medical personnel within their borders, unless assisting in the transportation and dispensation under the supervision and direction of the World Health Authority and national health authorities.

Again, blockaded non-members can't be told not to interfere. This is one of the reasons I wanted to include an "assurances" provision for carriers. It's much easier to require a promise as a condition of entry than to tell blockaded nations what to do once the supplies arrive.Under my system, a member nation blockading a non-member nation could demand an assurance that the supplies were going for civilian use and forbid the carrier from passing though the blockade if the assurance was not made or if the carrier had supplied the war effort in the past.

With the current draft, blockades involving member nations on both sides are easy enough. But if a member nation is blockading a non-member, the member nation must allow medical supplies through even if they can see that the non-member is promptly confiscating every bandage, needle, and stethoscope that reaches the harbor (and non-members could do that, because they have no obligation to obey the final mandate of the current draft). My system would have prevented this, by allowing member nations to prohibit future transports by carriers that are directly or indirectly supplying the war effort.

Best Regards.

[Dukopolious]

The legalist in me wants to say that all the provisions dealing with "nations" are meta-gaming violations.

-Wording Snip-

I have a solution, make this apply for member-member blockades. This way all illegal clauses are legal, and there is no bias in the transition.

[United Celts]

Dr. Mac Carthaigh rises from her seat. "I strongly suggest that Ambassador Orman wait for a legality ruling from the Secretariat before submitting this proposal, especially in light of the legal issues raised by Ambassador Scaredilocks. I also believe that the ambassador from Dukopolious has provided an adequate solution to the problem if indeed it proves to be a problem."

Dr. Mac Carthaigh pauses before continuing: "I should add that, legal issues aside, my government continues to oppose this proposal for the reasons we stated before."

[Dukopolious]

Dr. Mac Carthaigh pauses before continuing: "I should add that, legal issues aside, my government continues to oppose this proposal for the reasons we stated before."

A simple word was spoken by the Dukopion delegation: "Seconded."

[Ardchoille]

... You can't mandate this for non-member nations without violating the Rules ...

I'd be unlikely to kill a proposal solely on the grounds that it didn't specify "member" nations; some of our "rights" proposals are clearly intended to be aspirational for non-member nations. But when a proposal involves national borders, "member nations" avoids inadvertent loopholes -- the sort of thing in which a member nation could violate the spirit, but obey the letter, by colluding with a rogue nation.

GA#27 avoided the problem by having, as opening text, "Nations of the World Assembly, BELIEVING ....(etc)", and it could be argued that by opening with "The World Assembly ..." you're automatically restricting it to member nations.

tl:dr: the rules aren't that inflexible, but err on the side of caution.

EDIT: Also, sorry, I didn't realise Mark VI was up.

[Damanucus]

... You can't mandate this for non-member nations without violating the Rules ...

I'd be unlikely to kill a proposal solely on the grounds that it didn't specify "member" nations; some of our "rights" proposals are clearly intended to be aspirational for non-member nations. But when a proposal involves national borders, "member nations" avoids inadvertent loopholes -- the sort of thing in which a member nation could violate the spirit, but obey the letter, by colluding with a rogue nation.

GA#27 avoided the problem by having, as opening text, "Nations of the World Assembly, BELIEVING ....(etc)", and it could be argued that by opening with "The World Assembly ..." you're automatically restricting it to member nations.

tl:dr: the rules aren't that inflexible, but err on the side of caution.

EDIT: Also, sorry, I didn't realise Mark VI was up.

Fair enough. It did get missed. I'll just give a tiny edit to the Mark VI draft and make sure that that is changed.

I'm going to guess, Ard, that that was not a mod posting, and hence not a legality ruling, right?

The same concerns as before. Although I would like to see a clause mandating that no nation may abuse this system for personal trade.

Personal trade of medical items? As in, one person requesting medical provisions from overseas? I may have to check and see if it hasn't already been covered, and whether it can fall in the scope of this resolution.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Moronist Decisions]

Hrm. Given that distribution must be through the gnomes, how would personal trade occur, given that shipments of those goods are forbidden? That said, we can add

CLARIFIES that all medical supplies not approved and distributed under the WHA's auspices are not allowed for entry under this resolution.

Of course, we say in Canberra that "Gnomus Deus Est"

[Damanucus]

Hrm. Given that distribution must be through the gnomes, how would personal trade occur, given that shipments of those goods are forbidden?

It's not just personal shipments (of medical provisions) that would get pulled up. As you quite rightly said, distribution would also go through the gnomes, as given by the following clause:

CHARGES the World Health Authority and national health organizations with the following duties:

1. Assuring the safe transportation of medical supplies and professional medical personnel to and in blockaded member-nations; and
2. Dispensing medical supplies and professional medical personnel among the populace of the blockaded member-nation on a per-needs basis, ensuring that medical supplies are used for non-military, medical purposes, and personnel shipped under these terms are not assigned to military positions.

As any medications that come in would have to be distributed by the gnomes in the WHA (and national health authorities), it would be extremely difficult for personal shipments to come in.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Dukopolious]

By personal trade, I also meant outside nations may not trade medical supplies for money or any other exchange for supplies being sent inwards. All medical supplies should be considered donations, and if they must be paid back, that should be done after the blockade.

[Damanucus]

By personal trade, I also meant outside nations may not trade medical supplies for money or any other exchange for supplies being sent inwards. All medical supplies should be considered donations, and if they must be paid back, that should be done after the blockade.

Thankfully, this clause prevents any result coming from it:

PROHIBITS the blocking of any transport that is conveying medical supplies and/or professional medical personnel; furthermore, any transport that is attempting to convey any product besides the aforementioned is not covered under the provisions of this resolution.

(Active clause in bold.)

Any attempt to get non-medical supplies in or out of the country would be stopped at the border.

However, the money side of things would cause this resolution to duplicate GAR#6 "Humanitarian Transport", as any donated goods would automatically become humanitarian aid, and thus out of the scope of this resolution.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Dukopolious]

By personal trade, I also meant outside nations may not trade medical supplies for money or any other exchange for supplies being sent inwards. All medical supplies should be considered donations, and if they must be paid back, that should be done after the blockade.

Thankfully, this clause prevents any result coming from it:

PROHIBITS the blocking of any transport that is conveying medical supplies and/or professional medical personnel; furthermore, any transport that is attempting to convey any product besides the aforementioned is not covered under the provisions of this resolution.

(Active clause in bold.)

Any attempt to get non-medical supplies in or out of the country would be stopped at the border.

However, the money side of things would cause this resolution to duplicate GAR#6 "Humanitarian Transport", as any donated goods would automatically become humanitarian aid, and thus out of the scope of this resolution.

Why exactly are you allowing medical supplies to leave the country?

[Damanucus]

Why exactly are you allowing medical supplies to leave the country?

Blockades usually go both directions; they prevent items leaving a country, as well as any from coming in.

Which also means I need to adjust one of my clauses to reflect this, as anything trying to leave the country would have already left their borders by the time they are checked.

Will make a small adjustment to Mark VI is respect to this.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Cowardly Pacifists]

I hate to be a buzz kill again, but I was looking over the Rights and Duties in order to draft my most recent proposal, and I think I came up with a problem in the whole WHA thing. I don't know if this has already been debated, but check this out:

Article 10 § Whilst WA Member States may engage in wars, the World Assembly as a body maintains neutrality in matters of civil and international strife. As such, the WA will not engage in commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner.

Now I might just be out of the loop, but it seems like having the WHA organize and monitor the dispensation of medical supplies in a blockaded nation would be "organizing... or otherwise participating in armed conflict, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner." Is this what the Secretariat is currently looking into?

[Dukopolious]

I hate to be a buzz kill again, but I was looking over the Rights and Duties in order to draft my most recent proposal, and I think I came up with a problem in the whole WHA thing. I don't know if this has already been debated, but check this out:

Article 10 § Whilst WA Member States may engage in wars, the World Assembly as a body maintains neutrality in matters of civil and international strife. As such, the WA will not engage in commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner.

Now I might just be out of the loop, but it seems like having the WHA organize and monitor the dispensation of medical supplies in a blockaded nation would be "organizing... or otherwise participating in armed conflict, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner." Is this what the Secretariat is currently looking into?

I personally see this as treading on the line, but still being legal. It's been amended multiple times to show no bias to either the blockaded or blockading nation, the supplies go directly to the civilians, no way around it. They aren't coming armed, and aren't allowed to assist either side, therefore it doesn't constitute "armed conflict, police action[s], or military activit[ies]. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Ardchoille]

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:

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:

2. DISCOURAGES the practice of transporting humanitarian cargoes in the same vessel(s) or convoy as materials directly supporting combat operations,

and this:

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.

[Parti Ouvrier]

I just don't understand why paranoia is being fueled with this.

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.

You must also understand that blockades are by their very nature, a declaration of war.

OOC: The sanctions on Iran actually affect ordinary people and not the regime itself. In fact, sanctions have strengthened the theocratic dictatorship, and weakend people's resistance to it.

IC: Abstain

CJ

[Damanucus]

Note: This post is entirely out of character.

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.

Fair point, Ard. I retract that previous statement.

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:

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:

2. DISCOURAGES the practice of transporting humanitarian cargoes in the same vessel(s) or convoy as materials directly supporting combat operations,

and this:

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.

Okay, so the clause regarding how provisions get here, because they are covered (in some manner) by GAR#6, would need to be rewritten/removed. I suppose I was a little sketchy about not including it as, since GAR#6 dealt with humanitarian cargoes (which, to me, were given out of the kindness of a nation's collective "heart"), and this dealt with trade that has been affect by blockade, that there was a little disconnect there. I'm glad I asked for a ruling (and wish I had consulted a dictionary beforehand).

[Damanucus]

Okay, Mark VII is up. If this remains unedited, it will also be the submitting draft. (OOC: I just hope I read Ard's ruling correctly.)

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Bears Armed]

*(returns to thread after having been busy elsewhere for quite a while)*

"Hr'rmm..."

CHARGES the World Health Authority and national health organizations with the following duties:
Assuring the safe transportation of medical supplies and professional medical personnel to and in blockaded member-nations; and
Dispensing medical supplies and professional medical personnel among the populace of the blockaded member-nation on a per-needs basis, ensuring that medical supplies are used for non-military, medical purposes, and personnel shipped under these terms are not assigned to military positions.

"As currently written it would seem to require that the WHA and national health organisations prevent the issuing of any medical supplies to a belligerent nation's armed forces, instead of applying only to whatever supplies might be brought through blockades in this way..."

"Also, I suggest that 'however' would be a more appropriate term than 'furthermore' in this clause:"

PROHIBITS the blocking of any transport that is conveying medical supplies and/or professional medical personnel; furthermore, any transport that is attempting to convey any product besides the aforementioned is not covered under the provisions of this resolution.

[Damanucus]

*(returns to thread after having been busy elsewhere for quite a while)*

"Hr'rmm..."

CHARGES the World Health Authority and national health organizations with the following duties:
Assuring the safe transportation of medical supplies and professional medical personnel to and in blockaded member-nations; and
Dispensing medical supplies and professional medical personnel among the populace of the blockaded member-nation on a per-needs basis, ensuring that medical supplies are used for non-military, medical purposes, and personnel shipped under these terms are not assigned to military positions.

"As currently written it would seem to require that the WHA and national health organisations prevent the issuing of any medical supplies to a belligerent nation's armed forces, instead of applying only to whatever supplies might be brought through blockades in this way..."

"Also, I suggest that 'however' would be a more appropriate term than 'furthermore' in this clause:"

PROHIBITS the blocking of any transport that is conveying medical supplies and/or professional medical personnel; furthermore, any transport that is attempting to convey any product besides the aforementioned is not covered under the provisions of this resolution.

Thanks for the pickup there. Almost made a mistake I would come to soon forget. Will adjust that for this edit.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Damanucus]

Last call. Any last suggestions to the draft, before I submit it tomorrow (save for the seemingly usual suggestion of "don't")?

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Moronist Decisions]

Nitpick:

According to the draft, the WHA will now [b]dispense{/b] medical personnel. This is somewhat weird in wording. If there isn't a problem with the word limit, I'd replace the phrase:

Dispensing medical supplies and professional medical personnel transported

with

Dispensing medical supplies and deploying professional medical personnel transported

Otherwise looks good.

Joe Smyslow
Deputy Chief Representative

[Damanucus]

Nitpick:

According to the draft, the WHA will now [b]dispense{/b] medical personnel. This is somewhat weird in wording. If there isn't a problem with the word limit, I'd replace the phrase:

Dispensing medical supplies and professional medical personnel transported

with

Dispensing medical supplies and deploying professional medical personnel transported

Otherwise looks good.

Joe Smyslow
Deputy Chief Representative

No probs, will rework that oversight. Actually, scratch that, just checked up on the def of "dispense; from the gnome-issued resolution dictionary:

dispense verb
1. to deal out; distribute

That will be the definition we'll use in this resolution. It may seem awkward, but it is still accurate.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

Thank you, Dictionary.com