[PASSED] Repeal "Medical Blockade Restriction"

[Damanucus]

OOC:

Okay, so what happens during a pacific blockade? Correct me if I'm wrong, but pacific blockades are not, by their nature, an act of war, hence Humanitarian Transport suddenly does not apply in these occasions.

I will not presume to speak for the Kennyite delegation. However, I will presume to quote from Wikipedia, on the subject.

That [a pacific blockade] is an act of violence, and therefore in the nature of war, is undeniable, seeing that it can only be employed as a measure of coercion by maritime powers able to bring into action such vastly superior forces to those the resisting state can dispose of that resistance is out of the question. In this respect it is an act of war, and any attempt to exercise it against a power strong enough to resist would be a commencement of hostilities, and at once bring into play the rights and duties affecting neutrals.

Also, through my reading of Humanitarian Transport, war is not required for the stipulations of the resolution to apply. (Certainly, if you feel I missed a relevant clause or two, please enlighten me.) Also, humanitarian cargoes are non-combat/non-military vessels, which may exist in an absence of war. Are humanitarian cargoes not of use when transporting medical supplies, food, water, etc., to impoverished nations even in an absence of war?

Yours in confusion,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

Allow me to continue that quote you so nicely provided:

On the other hand, the object and justification of a pacific blockade being to avoid war, that is general hostilities and disturbance of international traffic with the state against which the operation is carried on, rights of war cannot consistently be exercised against ships belonging to other states than those concerned. And yet, if neutrals were not to be affected by it, the coercive effect of such a blockade might be completely lost. Recent practice has been to limit interference with them to the extent barely necessary to carry out the purpose of the blockading powers.

So which is it, an act of war, or an act to avoid it? If there is no way from the evidence to justify your view without having to "pick and choose", then it's best to avoid using the evidence altogether.

Okay, so what happens during a pacific blockade? Correct me if I'm wrong, but pacific blockades are not, by their nature, an act of war, hence Humanitarian Transport suddenly does not apply in these occasions.

Your comment please.

I'm confused. Where in either resolution does it even specify that act of war must take place for the law to apply?

And I shall, for the benefit of you both, quote directly from the resolution to which you both refer:

CONCERNED that vessels moving humanitarian supplies or prisoners of war by land, air, sea, or space could also be used to move other cargo used in the conflict at the same time,

Note the presence of the word "conflict" in this statement. The active noun. Now, you may argue that the resolution stands regardless on whether it is a war or not, to which I will ask these very simple questions:

1. Why is a nation not in a conflict requesting humanitarian transport?
2. Wouldn't any offensive act against any vessel be considered an act of war, and therefore under the auspice of this resolution?

"Medical Blockade Restriction" was intended to consider blockades exercised as both an act of war and a protection against it. The entire idea that blockades are solely acts of war is somewhat narrow-minded; if this were indeed the case, then the very existence of "Medical Blockade Restriction" would be illegal, and hence your debate that the repeal is not a good idea because of the coverage by "Humanitarian Transport" would be completely moot.

I welcome your comments.

Now, as for your little faux pas, Mousebumples...

IC:
Mr Eberhart, what is this Wikipedia of which you speak?

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Bears Armed]

Even if 'Humanitarian Transport' does cover the detail of letting blockaders remove non-humanitarian cargo from inspected ships, thus reducing the arguments against 'Medical Blockade Restriction', it clearly applies only to cargo and not to the vessels' fittings as well. Therefore it would apparently still be possible for a nation at war to have new warships delivered from shipyards in a neutral country (manned by neutral civilians for the voyage, and with ownership not actually transferred to the belligerent nation until arrival), right through blockades without having their guns or other armament removed, as long as they have some 'medical cargo' on board. In my government's opinion that detail is enough in itself to justify repeal and replacement.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

*snip*

Still not following. You think just because a preambulatory clause mentions "conflict" that means war is the only situation to which the resolution could possibly apply?

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Repeal "Medical Blockade Restriction"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

For: 7,328. Against: 1,865.

Voting ends in 1 day 8 hours.

That's it, I'm changing my vote to 'against.' While I think this Repeal is in good taste (especially since a replacement draft is already circulating), I'm not going to contribute to another lopsided vote in favor of passage. I don't know what they've been putting in the water around here, but folks are just too damn pass-happy and I'm sick of it!

Melvin put down his pen and slumped back in his chair with a mighty "harrumph." Pouting, he folded his arms across his chest and bellowed for his afternoon wine.

[The Solarian Isles]

Ahh, excellent. I just returned from a meeting with the Common Forum in Illirea and find that this has come up for vote. We have registered our vote in favor of the repeal. Now, if the replacement can just fail, we'll be in good shape.

His Radiance Cleric Joran Kell
Solarian Delegate to the WA

[Parti Ouvrier]

I'm utterly perplexed at what the fuss about this is. Is it boredom?

Against

CJ

[Parti Ouvrier]

Even if 'Humanitarian Transport' does cover the detail of letting blockaders remove non-humanitarian cargo from inspected ships, thus reducing the arguments against 'Medical Blockade Restriction', it clearly applies only to cargo and not to the vessels' fittings as well. Therefore it would apparently still be possible for a nation at war to have new warships delivered from shipyards in a neutral country (manned by neutral civilians for the voyage, and with ownership not actually transferred to the belligerent nation until arrival), right through blockades without having their guns or other armament removed, as long as they have some 'medical cargo' on board. In my government's opinion that detail is enough in itself to justify repeal and replacement.

It is if you're a North Korean leader, paranoid about sinister attacks.

Thanfully, we are not so neurotic and have better things to do.

We oppose the imperialist rationalisations for repealing this.

CJ

[Connopolis]

Even if 'Humanitarian Transport' does cover the detail of letting blockaders remove non-humanitarian cargo from inspected ships, thus reducing the arguments against 'Medical Blockade Restriction', it clearly applies only to cargo and not to the vessels' fittings as well. Therefore it would apparently still be possible for a nation at war to have new warships delivered from shipyards in a neutral country (manned by neutral civilians for the voyage, and with ownership not actually transferred to the belligerent nation until arrival), right through blockades without having their guns or other armament removed, as long as they have some 'medical cargo' on board. In my government's opinion that detail is enough in itself to justify repeal and replacement.

It is if you're a North Korean leader, paranoid about sinister attacks.

Thanfully, we are not so neurotic and have better things to do.

We oppose the imperialist rationalisations for repealing this.

CJ

With all due respect, Your Excellency, but in Connopolis, the proper response to such a daft comment would be: lolwut? I'm genuinely unsure as to how this repeal is at all imperialist? Perhaps imperialism has a different meaning in Connopolis than it does in Parti Ouvrier?

Yours in sincere confusion,

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Yeah, that's great dude. Why don't you try defending your awful proposal rather than waste your time mocking other posters' vocabulary?

[Connopolis]

Yeah, that's great dude. Why don't you try defending your awful proposal rather than waste your time mocking other posters' vocabulary?

I was merely noting that this proposal has absolutely nothing to do with imperialism, so voting against it for such reasons is ludicrous in itself. Converse to your snark, perhaps it would be in your best interest to counter the points made by fellow ambassadors in my absence?

Yours,

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

I already have. But as the proposal is illegal (yet somehow slipped past the mods to vote), all arguments are moot anyway.

It is however, your responsibility either to defend the resolutions you bring to the floor, or disavow them if you cannot. I can only assume that as you are obviously unable to do the former, you will elect the course of the latter?

[Sanctaria]

I already have. But as the proposal is illegal (yet somehow slipped past the mods to vote), all arguments are moot anyway.

You know there is no such thing as an illegal resolution-at-vote. If it gets to vote, then it's deemed legal.

You'll have to debate/argue around it.

[Connopolis]

I already have. But as the proposal is illegal (yet somehow slipped past the mods to vote), all arguments are moot anyway.

It is however, your responsibility either to defend the resolutions you bring to the floor, or disavow them if you cannot. I can only assume that as you are obviously unable to do the former, you will elect the course of the latter?

OOC: Unfortunately, I do not spend every waking hour on NS (not to say that anyone else does), and as such, should the opportunity arise, would assume the opposition would actually acknowledge the arguments of the proponents, as opposed to dismissing them in my absence. It is my duty to defend the resolution, but it is not my duty to post redundant arguments, and assuming that I am the de facto proxy for the translating the arguments of the proponents of my own resolution is absurd.

EDIT: I also find it curious as to how you continue to ignore Bears Armed's argument.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Yeah, that's great dude. Why don't you try defending your awful proposal rather than waste your time mocking other posters' vocabulary?

Melvin Scaredilocks squirmed uneasily in his chair. The scolding tone of the Kennyite Ambassador was causing his cowardice to act up. "Thirty years of bravery counseling, completely wasted," he thought to himself.

I was merely noting that this proposal has absolutely nothing to do with imperialism, so voting against it for such reasons is ludicrous in itself. Converse to your snark, perhaps it would be in your best interest to counter the points made by fellow ambassadors in my absence?

Melvin noticed the sweat starting to bead up on his brow. He wasn't sure what "converse to your snark" meant, but it sure didn't sound good. He glanced about nervously, eying the room for the quickest escape if things were to get violent between the Kennyite Ambassador and Dr. Forshaw.

I already have. But as the proposal is illegal (yet somehow slipped past the mods to vote), all arguments are moot anyway.

It is however, your responsibility either to defend the resolutions you bring to the floor, or disavow them if you cannot. I can only assume that as you are obviously unable to do the former, you will elect the course of the latter?

The tenseness in the room was too much for Melvin to bear. With a crazed scream, he sprang up from his seat and dove for cover behind the nearest potted plant.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

I already have. But as the proposal is illegal (yet somehow slipped past the mods to vote), all arguments are moot anyway.

It is however, your responsibility either to defend the resolutions you bring to the floor, or disavow them if you cannot. I can only assume that as you are obviously unable to do the former, you will elect the course of the latter?

OOC: Unfortunately, I do not spend every waking hour on NS (not to say that anyone else does), and as such, should the opportunity arise, would assume the opposition would actually acknowledge the arguments of the proponents, as opposed to dismissing them in my absence. It is my duty to defend the resolution, but it is not my duty to post redundant arguments, and assuming that I am the de facto proxy for the translating the arguments of the proponents of my own resolution is absurd.

EDIT: I also find it curious as to how you continue to ignore Bears Armed's argument.

Apparently our translators are on the fritz. So I'll posit my question again:

PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THIS PROPOSAL IS NOT ILLEGAL, SEEING HOW ITS ARGUMENTS ARE DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED BY GA#6.

[Connopolis]

OOC: Unfortunately, I do not spend every waking hour on NS (not to say that anyone else does), and as such, should the opportunity arise, would assume the opposition would actually acknowledge the arguments of the proponents, as opposed to dismissing them in my absence. It is my duty to defend the resolution, but it is not my duty to post redundant arguments, and assuming that I am the de facto proxy for the translating the arguments of the proponents of my own resolution is absurd.

EDIT: I also find it curious as to how you continue to ignore Bears Armed's argument.

Apparently our translators are on the fritz. So I'll posit my question again:

PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THIS PROPOSAL IS NOT ILLEGAL, SEEING HOW ITS ARGUMENTS ARE DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED BY GA#6.

GAR#6 references humanitarian vessels, and as such, even if this proposal was illegal (which I disagree with), GAR#6 would not adequately address it, as it only addresses humanitarian vessels.

Yours in repeating his argument,

EDIT: I'll elaborate on my argument using specifics when I have free time.

[Goobergunchia]

The Chair wishes to remind all Members that points of order against a resolution at vote may not be received.

[Delegate Vinage]

I, Lothar Prolark, Senator and World Assembly Delegate of Europeia will be voting AYE on this act after a 5/4 split vote in favour of the repeal.

We look forward to the likely debate on the likely new legislation to replace this

[New Pacifica]

Sorry, but a blockade is a blockade. A medical vessel may pass, but ONLY after a thorough search to ensure it contains no additional cargo or materiel.

[Damanucus]

Apparently our translators are on the fritz. So I'll posit my question again:

PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THIS PROPOSAL IS NOT ILLEGAL, SEEING HOW ITS ARGUMENTS ARE DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED BY GA#6.

GAR#6 references humanitarian vessels, and as such, even if this proposal was illegal (which I disagree with), GAR#6 would not adequately address it, as it only addresses humanitarian vessels.

Yours in repeating his argument,

EDIT: I'll elaborate on my argument using specifics when I have free time.

Thank you Dr Forshaw, I was somehow getting to that.

What the esteemed ambassador says is correct. GAR#6 refers to humanitarian vessels. It has nothing to do with trade vessels, which is what a blockade affects. (And for the record, I am disavowing my earlier debate regarding the presence of conflict in a resolution meaning it is only for times of war; however, a question I posed to you as part of that debate still stand: why would you be requesting humanitarian aid when you aren't in a state of war, which is the case during a pacific blockade?)

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Frenequesta]

To be fair, though, "humanitarian cargoes" as defined in GA #6 are "items and persons not being used to directly support combat operations" which could be construed to include non-military trade cargoes. But GA #6 appears to have the expressed purpose of protecting humanitarian aid, which is 1) not defined in the resolution and therefore otherwise 2) a narrower category based on the commonly accepted meaning of the phrase. (I honestly think therefore that GA #6 needs a repeal for its seemingly overbroad definitions in relation to the intent of the resolution.)

[Mousebumples]

What the esteemed ambassador says is correct. GAR#6 refers to humanitarian vessels. It has nothing to do with trade vessels, which is what a blockade affects. (And for the record, I am disavowing my earlier debate regarding the presence of conflict in a resolution meaning it is only for times of war; however, a question I posed to you as part of that debate still stand: why would you be requesting humanitarian aid when you aren't in a state of war, which is the case during a pacific blockade?)

So, you're saying that poor, third-world countries would have no need of humanitarian aid? No need for things like food, water, medical supplies, etc., even if they are not in a state of war? (Although a pacific blockade is arguably a "state of war" - it's not clearly one nor the other.)

[Damanucus]

What the esteemed ambassador says is correct. GAR#6 refers to humanitarian vessels. It has nothing to do with trade vessels, which is what a blockade affects. (And for the record, I am disavowing my earlier debate regarding the presence of conflict in a resolution meaning it is only for times of war; however, a question I posed to you as part of that debate still stand: why would you be requesting humanitarian aid when you aren't in a state of war, which is the case during a pacific blockade?)

So, you're saying that poor, third-world countries would have no need of humanitarian aid? No need for things like food, water, medical supplies, etc., even if they are not in a state of war? (Although a pacific blockade is arguably a "state of war" - it's not clearly one nor the other.)

Not as defined by GAR#6. I have no doubt there is a resolution somewhere that allows for third-world countries to gain supplies for their own survival, but GAR#6 does not define this situation. (And "arguably" does not mean "is". It may not clearly be one or the other, but we do not assume it is one or the other, and portray it as being clearly so.)

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Clowndyke]

The nation of Clowndyke cannot support this until an adequate replacement has been proposed. The theoretical abuse of this law is not sufficient to remove it as the protections it provides are too important.

[Paper Flowers]

The nation of Clowndyke cannot support this until an adequate replacement has been proposed. The theoretical abuse of this law is not sufficient to remove it as the protections it provides are too important.

Perhaps it would be worth the ambassadors time to note that a replacement has already been proposed.