Page 1 of 6
[PASSED] Repeal "Medical Blockade Restriction"
Posted:
Sat Jan 14, 2012 11:14 amby Connopolis
The General Assembly,
LAUDING the intent of GAR#74 - that being, to allow medical supplies and personnel to freely pass through blockades in order to ensure that individuals are not harmed as a result of political conflict,
WHOLLY AGREEING with the assertion that "[L]ife is fundamentally more important than political or international affairs,"
YET ASTUTELY AWARE that no amount of meritorious intent can compensate for the flaws of any text,
ACKNOWLEDGING that GAR#74 stated, in relevant part:
"REQUIRES any blocking force or forces to grant vessels carrying medical supplies and personnel passage."
APPALLED that such a provision effectively negates the purpose of a blockade, in the sense that any vessel, regardless of its intended content, can be granted free passage through a blockade, so long as it contains medical supplies and personnel.
PERPLEXED by how a World Assembly Statue can be used to guide the searching of delivery vessels, and further contending that such searches are ineffective given that passage cannot be prevented as long as the vessel contains medical supplies and/or personnel, regardless of its other contents.
DESIROUS of a resolution that effectively ensures the transportation of necessities of sapient life, such as medical supplies, while simultaneously allowing nations to enforce their blockades.
Due to these enumerated reasons,
THE WORLD ASSEMBLY THEREFORE REPEALS GAR#74
Something my delegation has been privately working on for several weeks. Comments, criticism, etc, is much appreciated.
Posted:
Sat Jan 14, 2012 11:29 amby Hiriaurtung Arororugul
Fully supportive of the repeal.
Check your spelling. Personnel only has one "l". Appalled has two "l"s.
Posted:
Sat Jan 14, 2012 11:32 amby Connopolis
Hiriaurtung Arororugul wrote:Fully supportive of the repeal.
Check your spelling. Personnel only has one "l". Appalled has two "l"s.
Thank you, honorable General. Also, I'll make the necessary edits.
Yours in many thanks,
OOC: I'm used to my usual computer automatically spell checking things. My bad.
Posted:
Sat Jan 14, 2012 11:34 amby Moronist Decisions
Flaws observed and agreed. Support.
Dr. Crick
Posted:
Sat Jan 14, 2012 11:35 amby Glen-Rhodes
Glen-Rhodes voiced these concerns during the original drafting phrase of WAR#74. Ensuring adequate medical attention to citizens within an embargoed nation could be done by a more tailored resolution dealing with bonafide humanitarian medical organizations. We support this repeal.
- Dr. B. Castro
Posted:
Sat Jan 14, 2012 11:36 amby Hiriaurtung Arororugul
Personnel should also have two "n"s. Seems my spell check wasn't working properly either.
Posted:
Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:42 pmby Paper Flowers
Given the potential for abuse of the resolution as it stands, we are in full support of a repeal.
Posted:
Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:50 pmby Burton Industries WA Office
This has our support as well.
Posted:
Sat Jan 14, 2012 2:07 pmby Lulzvenia
Supported.
Posted:
Sat Jan 14, 2012 6:34 pmby Glenn
We support this repeal.
Posted:
Sun Jan 15, 2012 11:10 amby Connopolis
I'm shocked by the level of support expressed. I will leave this thread for several more days, and if there are no concerns raised, I'll submit and campaign for the proposal.
Yours in unprecedented gratitude,
Posted:
Sun Jan 15, 2012 11:13 amby Vaugania
I support this repeal.
Posted:
Sun Jan 15, 2012 11:51 amby Nullarnish WA Mission
This has our full support.
Posted:
Sun Jan 15, 2012 12:58 pmby Soviet Canuckistan
This proposal raises some excellent questions and has excellent and has excellent answers so we are in favour of this repeal and hopefully a rewrite of the current proposal an be made.
Simone Callier
Interim Delegate of the Federal Republic of Soviet Canuckistan.
Posted:
Sun Jan 15, 2012 5:26 pmby Snefaldia
My Lord High Chancellor's government is pleased to see this repeal addresses the serious shortcomings of the target resolution, and has the support of the government and people of the States-Federation.
Nëmô Kassäty Taranton
Minister of World Assembly Affairs
Posted:
Sun Jan 15, 2012 10:10 pmby Glenn
We support.
Posted:
Sun Jan 15, 2012 10:48 pmby Black Marne
As usual, Dr. Forshaw, you have my nation's backing. And as I am now the official delegate to my own region, I can hopefully aid you a little more in getting this passed.
SUPPORT.
-The New Argonian Homeland of Black Marne
Posted:
Wed Jan 18, 2012 4:52 pmby Connopolis
Submitted for a test run. I thank those who have expressed their support, both on the thread, and via telegram.
Yours in many thanks,
Posted:
Wed Jan 18, 2012 9:34 pmby Cerberion
I'll support this repeal.
Cermon T. Dawg
Posted:
Thu Jan 19, 2012 5:11 amby Knootoss
Full support. "WA statues" in the original resolution needs a [sic]!
Posted:
Thu Jan 19, 2012 8:31 amby Frenequesta
We give our support as well. The loopholes in the resolution become bigger with more thought and may eventually make the resolution meaningless. We would support a clearer resolution as well.
Posted:
Thu Jan 19, 2012 8:37 amby Salma
Due to the massive loopholes in the previous legislation, Salma stands behind this repeal.
K. Karjalainen,
Salma Elected Ambassador
Posted:
Fri Jan 20, 2012 11:10 pmby Damanucus
I've put my weight behind the repeal, in the hope that the wording in any replacement gets repaired (namely, remove "REQUIRES any blocking force or forces to grant vessels carrying medical supplies and personnel passage" as it clashes with "PROHIBITS the blocking of delivery of medical supplies or personnel to the citizens of blockaded nations" in terms of both slight duplicity and slight contradiction, as has been brought up already in the repeal).
Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus
Posted:
Sat Jan 21, 2012 3:14 amby Falcania
I congratulate and laud you for your progress so far, but I am concerned that no replacement legislation has been drafted as of yet.
Posted:
Sat Jan 21, 2012 6:17 amby Mousebumples
Falcania wrote:I congratulate and laud you for your progress so far, but I am concerned that no replacement legislation has been drafted as of yet.
If you feel a replacement is necessary, I would recommend drafting something yourself. The author of a repeal is not obligated to draft a replacement (and, to be honest, probably does not have the time to focus his attentions on both projects simultaneously).
We have a saying back in Mousebumples: the translation approximates to
If you want something done right, do it yourself.If
YOU want a replacement draft, why aren't
YOU drafting one?