[PASSED] Right of Emigration

[Abacathea]

Le bump. Revisions made to draft a few days ago. Just bumping for further feedback. Depending on the queue have a few to running this early in the new year.

[The Dark Star Republic]

"You're mixing 'citizen', 'person' and 'individual'. I'm not sure to what end, and it may not particularly matter, but I would - if only for stylistic reasons - prefer to see consistency throughout. Same goes for 'sapient rights' and 'Human Rights'.

"I wonder whether 'with the intent to' would be better than 'for the purpose of' in (d). I'm also wondering whether 'committing' is too narrow, and 'facilitating' should be included - but I know you were against this clause altogether, so I don't want to push my luck.

"Finally, I'm concerned (f) may be too broad. I understand the intent, and I myself supported including something regarding mental incompetence, but it seems to be worded such that a nation could arbitrarily declare anyone 'unable to make the decision'. Perhaps it could be limited to something like 'persons recognised in law as mentally incompetent and requiring the consent of legal guardians to make decisions'.

"I also thought of an additional condition - though it may be covered by (f). What about a 'psychiatric hold' patient? Surely there's a compelling interest in detaining such a person, even though they may not be a public health risk to others under (a)."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

[New Molsona]

I recommend you submit this as a proposal.

[Abacathea]

"You're mixing 'citizen', 'person' and 'individual'. I'm not sure to what end, and it may not particularly matter, but I would - if only for stylistic reasons - prefer to see consistency throughout. Same goes for 'sapient rights' and 'Human Rights'.

"I wonder whether 'with the intent to' would be better than 'for the purpose of' in (d). I'm also wondering whether 'committing' is too narrow, and 'facilitating' should be included - but I know you were against this clause altogether, so I don't want to push my luck.

"Finally, I'm concerned (f) may be too broad. I understand the intent, and I myself supported including something regarding mental incompetence, but it seems to be worded such that a nation could arbitrarily declare anyone 'unable to make the decision'. Perhaps it could be limited to something like 'persons recognised in law as mentally incompetent and requiring the consent of legal guardians to make decisions'.

"I also thought of an additional condition - though it may be covered by (f). What about a 'psychiatric hold' patient? Surely there's a compelling interest in detaining such a person, even though they may not be a public health risk to others under (a)."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

For consistency I've amended everything to "individuals" and "sapient rights". I've also changed F to a more suitable coverage of the area I feel.

Also, in relation to psychiatric patients, it's likely (f) would cover that IMO. As for (d) I feel to change the wording to your suggested would ultimately be opening it up to abuse. A mens rea is hard enough to prove as it is currently, coupled with facilitating, which is an even wider scope and harder again to refute.... I'd be happier to leave it as is.

I'll give this a run in the new year, there's not much practical point in attempting to queue it now considering the time frame involved.

[Alqania]

Lord Raekevik nodded approvingly. "Given the assumption that since establishing a person's identity is necessary to determine whether there is an outstanding warrant, their age, etc, a member state may demand that a person present some kind of document, like a passport - see Resolution #76 - when desiring to leave the country and that a member state may detain or otherwise deny exit to a person that is unwilling or unable to provide proof of identity, the Queendom supports this measure."

[Retired WerePenguins]

Not bad. I really like this.

[Abacathea]

Bump due to the addition of (g)

[Alqania]

Bump due to the addition of (g)

"That is not an exception I imagine the Queendom would ever use", Lord Raekevik speculated. "It seems quite odd. Also, the grammar of (e) needs revising - number agreement, I would suggest using singular number throughout - and the proposal's punctuation seems inconsistent with no less than three kinds - commas, semicolons and full stops - being used to mark the end of clauses."

[The Dark Star Republic]

"Can you give an example of when (g) might be invoked, outside of quarantine scenarios that would be covered by other provisions? It doesn't necessarily seem an objectionable exception, but nor is it obviously a useful one."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

[Abacathea]

"Can you give an example of when (g) might be invoked, outside of quarantine scenarios that would be covered by other provisions? It doesn't necessarily seem an objectionable exception, but nor is it obviously a useful one."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

Bump due to the addition of (g)

"That is not an exception I imagine the Queendom would ever use", Lord Raekevik speculated. "It seems quite odd. Also, the grammar of (e) needs revising - number agreement, I would suggest using singular number throughout - and the proposal's punctuation seems inconsistent with no less than three kinds - commas, semicolons and full stops - being used to mark the end of clauses."

The grammar has hopefully been tidied up somewhat, if I missed something please do let me know.

In respect to G, it was brought to my attention that there is an onus on governments to at least attempt during international incidents to curtail the travel of it's citizens. The example provided was recent events in Serbia whereby the neighboring nations simply couldn't contain the amounts attempting to cross the borders. In this instance, Nation Y would be able to say to nation X "at this moment we simply cannot accept any further movements from your nation to ours". This does not mean Nation X can block travel to nation Z however, and only lasts in so long as nation Y keeps the request in place for.

Does this make sense or am I explaining it poorly?

[The Dark Star Republic]

"Hmm. I'm not familiar with which particular nation is being used as an example, but I understand the general principle.

"That said, I'm concerned it's not really relevant to your proposal. This is about the general prohibition of emigration, of leaving the nation. There are any number of specific reasons another nation might not permit people to enter their nation: those you're talking about, or generally restricting travel because of national economic crises, or a person not meeting visa requirements, or having fully closed borders as part of some autarkical economic strategy. Your own proposal states that 'that nothing in this resolution prevents member nations from setting requirements for entry and residency within their borders'. I'm not sure it's fair that the obligation should be on the origin nation to enforce that.

"Besides, if the destination nation doesn't issue a visa or permit to the emigrant, then aren't they committing a crime - illegal immigration - and hence covered under (c) or (d) anyway?"

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

[Abacathea]

"Hmm. I'm not familiar with which particular nation is being used as an example, but I understand the general principle.

"That said, I'm concerned it's not really relevant to your proposal. This is about the general prohibition of emigration, of leaving the nation. There are any number of specific reasons another nation might not permit people to enter their nation: those you're talking about, or generally restricting travel because of national economic crises, or a person not meeting visa requirements, or having fully closed borders as part of some autarkical economic strategy. Your own proposal states that 'that nothing in this resolution prevents member nations from setting requirements for entry and residency within their borders'. I'm not sure it's fair that the obligation should be on the origin nation to enforce that.

"Besides, if the destination nation doesn't issue a visa or permit to the emigrant, then aren't they committing a crime - illegal immigration - and hence covered under (c) or (d) anyway?"

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

That seems reasonable to me. I'll give further consideration to it, it may be struck out by the final product. We're still considering this a way off from submission at this time.

[Alqania]

The grammar has hopefully been tidied up somewhat, if I missed something please do let me know.

In respect to G, it was brought to my attention that there is an onus on governments to at least attempt during international incidents to curtail the travel of it's citizens. The example provided was recent events in Serbia whereby the neighboring nations simply couldn't contain the amounts attempting to cross the borders. In this instance, Nation Y would be able to say to nation X "at this moment we simply cannot accept any further movements from your nation to ours". This does not mean Nation X can block travel to nation Z however, and only lasts in so long as nation Y keeps the request in place for.

Does this make sense or am I explaining it poorly?

"Her Majesty's Chancery maintains a travel advisory for Alqanian nationals and others resident or present within the Queendom", Lord Raekevik pointed out. "A recommendation made therein to refrain from travel to a certain region, nation or other area has consequences such as a right to have travel costs paid prior to the recommendation reimbursed. Her Majesty's Government may also aid Alqanians and others in repatriation or other evacuation when there are compelling reasons for such government action. If a foreign power tells us that they cannot accept travellers from Alqania into their country, we will advise travellers accordingly and take other measures we deem appropriate for their safety and well-being."

"However, Her Majesty's Government is quite adamant about upholding the right of persons to travel against Chancery advise, against the expressed wishes of a foreign power and at the risk of compromising their own personal safety and well-being. If a foreign power wants to keep people out, then we will ultimately place the onus on them to stop people from crossing into their territory. The Queendom does and will continue to refuse depriving people of liberty for no other reason than because a foreign power asks us to."

Movement of Persons Act
Change the title. This proposal is limited to emigration and therefore more limited in scope than the above title suggests.
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant

The General Assembly;
Like I said: punctuation. In my humble opinion, the proposal and the rest of the OP suggests that you may not be using the semicolon entirely appropriately. I would recommend not using it at all. Right here, I recommend either a comma (to make the proposal's punctuation flow like a very extended run-on sentence) or a colon (to signify that an enumeration of clauses is to follow).

Committed to improving the world, one resolution at a time,

Cognizant of the fact that some nations have determined their citizens as property of that nation and therefore have denied them the right to leave said nation.
Change this period to a comma, so your clauses end in the same way.

Determining this to be a gross abuse of sapient rights and seeking to resolve this situation,

Hereby,

Determines that no government may prevent the emigration or temporary travel of individuals from their nation unless in the instances of;
Change this semicolon to a colon, since what follows is an enumeration.
(a) Legitimate medically necessitated quarantine. Comma.
(b) The individual being subject to an ongoing civil/criminal trial and restricted from traveling per court/bond conditions or is currently a prisoner of the state. Comma.
(c) A warrant existing for the arrest/detention of the individual. Comma.
(d) The host nation or the nation of origin having probable cause to believe that the individual is traveling for the purpose of committing a crime. Comma.
(e) The individuals concerned being a non-emancipated minor traveling without the consent of a legal guardian. Comma.
(f) The individual being recognized under law to be mentally unable to make the decision to travel of their own accord. Comma.
(g) The destination nation having stated their desire or need to curtail travel from the origin nation.
You could leave the last punctuation mark here a period (to signify the end of an enumeration) or change it into a comma (to keep the "one sentence" structure of the proposal going).

Further determining that to contravene the above would be deemed an illegal detention of a person within a nation and resultant gross breach of Sapient Rights by that nation. Comma.

Clarifying that nothing in this resolution prevents member nations from setting requirements for entry and residency within their borders.
Leave the very last punctuation mark a period.

[People Who Say Ni]

I like this. Perhaps (f) could be changed as nations could change law to change who is deemed mentally competent. Mistakes like this can lead to resolutions being repealed.

[Abacathea]

I like this. Perhaps (f) could be changed as nations could change law to change who is deemed mentally competent. Mistakes like this can lead to resolutions being repealed.

This we don't consider to be a mistake personally. And while the draft still requires some work and revision, it's unlikely F will be changing. Laws affecting mental competence would have far more sweeping implications in the WA than simply the allowance to contravene this act. So essentially any nation changing a law to affect this resolution should it become one, would ultimately domino effect into a variety of others. And respectfully, mental competence is kind of black and white.

But i'll await other feedback pertaining to it before I make a final decision on it.

[Bears Armed]

I like this. Perhaps (f) could be changed as nations could change law to change who is deemed mentally competent.

I'm working on a draft with that subject: look down the page[s], or use the search function, for 'Legal Competence'.

[Abacathea]

New title up, g struck out.

If no further feedback in the next day or two will move to submit for the new year.

Aba.

[The Dark Star Republic]

"I am so categorically opposed to the new title that despite having little objection to the proposal's substance at this stage, I would seriously consider campaigning against it purely on that basis.

"That said, I do wonder why you're legislating on both emigration and 'temporary travel'? The case for permitting nations to restrict temporary travel in a broader set of circumstances is surely much stronger.

"Also, what's the hurry on submission? A new proposal just hit quorum, meaning we have a good couple of weeks before anything new could go to vote anyway."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

[Abacathea]

"I am so categorically opposed to the new title that despite having little objection to the proposal's substance at this stage, I would seriously consider campaigning against it purely on that basis.

"That said, I do wonder why you're legislating on both emigration and 'temporary travel'? The case for permitting nations to restrict temporary travel in a broader set of circumstances is surely much stronger.

"Also, what's the hurry on submission? A new proposal just hit quorum, meaning we have a good couple of weeks before anything new could go to vote anyway."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

The clauses were always designed to encompass both primarily because any nation who is refusing to allow emigration is likely to refuse temporary travel under the same umbrella and vice versa.

I'm open to suggestions for a title.

As for the submission rush, it's no rush. It's simply me reaching the point where I am happy that it has reached the point I envisioned it being at.

[The Dark Star Republic]

The clauses were always designed to encompass both primarily because any nation who is refusing to allow emigration is likely to refuse temporary travel under the same umbrella and vice versa.

"Given you haven't defined either concept, this may be a matter of interpretation. The problem for me is that I think of 'travel' as being something with a destination in mind, whereas 'emigration' is simply the act of leaving the nation with no judgement to the destination. We might want to prevent our citizens from travelling to a country that's a disaster zone or in civil war, but we're not stopping our citizens from emigrating altogether.

I'm open to suggestions for a title.

"What was wrong with 'Right to/of Emigration'?"

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

[Sciongrad]

"What was wrong with 'Right to/of Emigration'?"

I have similar concerns over the title - it currently fails to reflect the content of the proposal, and I perceive it as being mildly deceitful or misleading.

Furthermore, I'm not a fan of the operative verbs you've used - there are more apt verbs to use in this case than "determines" - I would suggest some stronger actions verb like "mandates," perhaps. Also, your punctuation seems random in some cases. The semi-colon isn't quite used properly, and I would suggest replacing all instances of its use with a comma - conversely, some sentences end in punctuation marks other than semi-colons when semi-colons would make more sense. For example, the semi-colon behind "[t]he General Assembly; [sic] is awkward, and a comma would make more sense. Meanwhile, the "[c]ognizant" clause ends in a period, which is inconsistent when most other clauses end in commas. Furthermore, the semi-colon after the "determines" clause should be a colon, because it precedes a list.

I support the content, however! Although I fail to understand the purpose or the meaning of the "further determining" clause, and would suggest you either revise it for clarity or scrap it altogether. Best of luck with your endeavor, and I hope to see your changes shortly.

Yours,

[Abacathea]

The clauses were always designed to encompass both primarily because any nation who is refusing to allow emigration is likely to refuse temporary travel under the same umbrella and vice versa.

"Given you haven't defined either concept, this may be a matter of interpretation. The problem for me is that I think of 'travel' as being something with a destination in mind, whereas 'emigration' is simply the act of leaving the nation with no judgement to the destination. We might want to prevent our citizens from travelling to a country that's a disaster zone or in civil war, but we're not stopping our citizens from emigrating altogether.

I'm open to suggestions for a title.

"What was wrong with 'Right to/of Emigration'?"

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

Given your point I have changed the title. The old just felt off to me but hey, give the people what they want.

Have to make the grammatical fixes suggested above and then I'm happy with this as a finished product.

[Elke and Elba]

I've wanted to tackle a human rights issue for a while, and I've looked through the previously passed resolutions and unless I've missed something (I hope I haven't) this seems to have escaped the purview of the WA so here goes;

As per usual all feedback desired;

Freedom of Travel
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant

The General Assembly,

Committed to improving the world, one resolution at a time,

Cognizant of the fact that some nations have determined their citizens as property of that nation and therefore have denied them the right to leave said nation,

Determining this to be a gross abuse of sapient rights and seeking to resolve this situation,

Hereby,

Determines that no government may prevent the emigration or temporary travel of individuals from their nation unless in the instances of;
(a) Legitimate medically necessitated quarantine.
(b) The individual being subject to an ongoing civil/criminal trial and restricted from traveling per court/bond conditions or is currently a prisoner of the state.
(c) A warrant existing for the arrest/detention of the individual.
(d) The host nation or the nation of origin having probable cause to believe that the individual is traveling for the purpose of committing a crime.
(e) The individuals concerned being a non-emancipated minor traveling without the consent of a legal guardian.
(f) The individual being recognized under law to be mentally unable to make the decision to travel of their own accord.

Further determining that to contravene the above would be deemed an illegal detention of a person within a nation and resultant gross breach of Sapient Rights by that nation.

Clarifying that nothing in this resolution prevents member nations from setting requirements for entry and residency within their borders.

To me, it's short, sweet and sufficient. Feedback always welcomed.

I really like this. I lost my previous reply in a back-button, so I'm going to make this simple as to what I have problems with
1) "instances of where"
2) a) the medical condition of the said individual denies the said person from travel required as per by any of the laws of any nation that hosts or receive said person; including the host nation, the receiving nation and the transiting nations of the said person's travel; (since well, quarantine could be one, but also maybe due to -I don't know- allergy to Faeries?
3) c) An arrest warrant existing for the said individual (not sure, since "detention" can mean anything to many countries );
4) d) The host nation, nation of travel origin or any nation that said individual is transiting through has sufficient suspicion that said individual's travel is for the purpose of committing a crime as per the nation's laws;

It seems a bit... simple, the resolution. But it's nice to know at least my citizens won't get held in some godforsaken nation because they've drank water (which apparently, is sufficient for arbitrary detention in those areas)

[Bears Armed]

"Given you haven't defined either concept, this may be a matter of interpretation. The problem for me is that I think of 'travel' as being something with a destination in mind, whereas 'emigration' is simply the act of leaving the nation with no judgement to the destination."

"But don't emigrants, unless maybeso they're refugees fleeing from some sudden disaster, normally have a destination lined up before they start their journey as well?"

[The Dark Star Republic]

"Given you haven't defined either concept, this may be a matter of interpretation. The problem for me is that I think of 'travel' as being something with a destination in mind, whereas 'emigration' is simply the act of leaving the nation with no judgement to the destination."

:blink:
"But don't emigrants, unless maybeso they're refugees fleeing from some sudden disaster, normally have a destination lined up before they start their journey as well?"

"Maybe so, but there's still a - subtly - different valence. Prohibiting travel to a specific nation doesn't restrict a general right of emigration, as an emigrant could travel to a different nation instead. Even if the plan is to emigrate to a specific nation, that could be achieved through a stopover."