[PASSED] Humanitarian Aid Expansion Act

[Yodle]

Legality Ruling

This is the Secretariat's response to a legality challenge. Duplication and Game Mechanics were cited as potential problems.

After reviewing resolutions #51: Humanitarian Aid Coordination and #340: Access to Humanitarian Aid - because we want to ensure nothing is missed - it's the opinion of the Secretariat that the proposal, 'Humanitarian Aid Expansion Act' doesn't run afoul the duplication rule. Although there is mild overlap, it's expected when expanding on an existing committee's duties and responsibilities. Another concern relates to game mechanics. However, no such violation was found. Nothing in the text affected the game itself or required action beyond the typical scope of the World Assembly. The Secretariat is satisfied with the uniqueness of the proposal and absence of game mechanics violation.

Thank you.

[Yodle]

This was submitted.

OOC: Naturally.

...we need a facepalm emote.

Aside from the bad grammar, I can see minor infractions - requiring nations to let the workers in without requiring them to have a passport (and visum) á la GAR #76, as well as possibly stepping on the toes of GAR #105 as the funder for disaster response, and duplicate/contradict IHACC's rights/duties to coordinate humanitarian aid to civilians affected by disasters via GAR #51.

Actually, looking at it more closely, the last two subclauses of this proposal seem to directly duplicate GAR #51.

I'm urging Yodle to submit a GHR to have this pulled and fix the infractions and grammar, but I'm personally not going to submit a challenging GHR myself (RL health issues having most of my attention).

In my proposal I state that host nations are able to do extensive security checks, which would include passports unless the host nation chooses to let them in without them. I'm not sure about GAR #105, but for the rest it has been cleared by the Secretariat.

[Christian Democrats]

AGAINST

This proposal doesn't make much sense to me. It appears to dictate to nations how they handle their own natural disasters while mandating that humanitarian workers undergo "security checks," whatever those are. Then, it has an ambiguous clause that requires the rebuilding of "essential infrastructure" without specifying who is supposed to fund such projects (the WA or individual nations).

Requires the maintaining or rebuilding, if necessary, of essential infrastructure in threatened areas, such as hospitals and distribution centers, which is necessary to provide effective disaster relief in times of crisis.

[Normlpeople]

"This was rushed to submission and contains glaring errors" Clover said "While I apologize for not pointing them out due to donestic workload, I cannot support it based on these errors."

"Thankfully this doesn't require us to actually do anything to remain in compliance other than allow inspection of emergency stockpiles."

[The Crystal North]

To whom it may concern
After careful of examination of the draft provided, the government of The Republic of the Crystal North would like to offer its full support. We hope that other nations will see the advantages of voting in favour of this proposition along with us

Placebo
Minister of Healthcare

Hard Hat
Minister of Public Infrastructure

Vox Populi
President of The Equine Republic of the Crystal North

[United Republics of Ireland]

Mandates[/i] that host nations allow any personnel working with humanitarian organizations that are involved with the relief effort to enter afflicted areas, with all personnel being subject to any extensive security checks imposed by the host nation. If the personnel pass the security checks, the host nation must provide transportation so the personnel can reach the afflicted areas, if deemed necessary.

Countries shouldn't be forced to deliver poorly funded humanitarian groups to natrual disasters. Should countries be forced to pay humanitarian groups for their expenses?

Requires the maintaining or rebuilding, if necessary, of essential infrastructure in threatened areas, such as hospitals and distribution centers, which is necessary to provide effective disaster relief in times of crisis.

Countries know their own infrastructure best, and don't need to be mandated to rebuild important infrastructure. If it is unnecessary to rebuild certain things, that is up to the host nation.

[list][*]Be granted authority to send out unbiased inspectors, who are appointed by the powers within the WA, to conduct inspections of the essential infrastructure and supplies stockpiles, without interference from the host nation, within threatened areas inside host nations, especially during times when a natural disaster is believed to be imminent.

This is the worst. We should not have to allow in "unbiased" inspectors because natrual disaster. Governments can already anticipate natrual disasters, and could simply be notified a natrual disaster could happen.

Vote no.

[Hollmannlandia]

We have the right to settle matters like this on our own. We don't need the WA telling us what we can or can't do. The WA is a council, not an authority group.

[South Sacred Sauce]

We from SSS like to keep our commitment with resolutions that seek to make the world better and safer. We voted yes and talked to other Brasilis nations to support this. Good luck.

[Oceanias Michael Moore]

We voted for this.

[The Council of Camurdania]

This is why I voted against the resolution:

1. Nations should not be forced to give humanitarian aid just because the WA tells them to. Nations will have problems of their own that they will need to solve, and that is always a priority before helping other names. Plus, The Council of Camurdania gives lots of foreign aid already, and we feel like it is being wasted and that it is harming our economy. Plus, we have a large government that will supply people with the aid they need in the case of natural disasters, and we do not need untrustworthy foreigners to do what we can do. We also know member nations with crippled economies, and because of their crippled economies, they should not be required to give foreign aid.

2. As other nations have stated, there is a security risk. This proposal gives foreigners way too much power when another nation has had a natural disaster. You might as well put your nation up for colonization. Also, this may give nations an incentive to create a "natural disaster" on a weaker nation, and use that to their advantage by "aiding" the affected peoples, when they are really taking over the nation.

3. Finally, the reason that governments are unable to help their people is that they are corrupt. This corruption leads to high income inequality, and a state where the super rich are more interested in supplementing themselves rather than helping the people. If nations were to give money to these kind of governments, they would be helping way more with getting the "president" a new giant palace for himself or a new luxury car for his wife(s). That would just be a waste of money, that does not help the people of either the helping nation or the nation that needs help.

[Merakio]

The Council of Merakio longs to see this resolution fail in the World Assembly. Our small government is well equipped to deal with many smaller natural disasters, and is capable of turning to its allies when in need of support during those natural disasters where the government finds itself lacking in resources. We especially find issues in the resolution requiring our nation to allow so called 'unbiased' supervisors into our country. We can supervise ourselves thank you.

We also find issue in being required to provide transportation to any humanitarian organization who passes our security checks. If passed, it is possible that some humanitarian organizations will cite this clause as a reason to not invest in their own transportation equipment, instead only feeding off of the infrastructure of the countries they claim to be helping.

Overall, our nation considers this resolution to be a rushed, poorly planned resolution, that seeks to increase the powers of the WA in matters that are better resolved by local governments, and the regions they inhabit.

[The New Dog Nation]

As of writing this, the vote was extremely close, which meant we couldn't just blindly follow the majority, as we tend to do.

So, rather then abstain, as we normally do, we decided to flip a coin, heads is for, tails is against.

We got heads, that is why we are for this.

This has allowed us to maintain our tradition of never actually having to read these, and has given us a method to contribute to the democratic process.

[United Socialist State of Handor]

I say that this is a violation of a nation's sovereignty. Nations should not have to be told how much to spend on certain things. This is exactly why the Washington Consensus failed!

[Unavailable]

I generally like the proposal, but I dislike the part where WA can send some inspection without asking for permission, which renders this entire proposal invalid and unacceptable.

Voted against!

[The Palentine]

Oh goody! Another proposal to allow corrupt bureaucrats from the Festering Snakepit to extort money from member nations. Against!
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

[Potted Plants United]

OOC: Voted against both for OOC reasons (rushed submission, mistakes) and IC reasons (the hivemind isn't big on demands to let people meddle with it, just because there was some natural cataclysm or other). Category is IC-neutral.

[United Republics of Ireland]

We from SSS like to keep our commitment with resolutions that seek to make the world better and safer. We voted yes and talked to other Brasilis nations to support this. Good luck.

This resolution doesn't make the world safer, it just violates sovereignty and makes it harder for nations to decide how to solve their internal problems.

[South Sacred Sauce]

I say that this is a violation of a nation's sovereignty. Nations should not have to be told how much to spend on certain things. This is exactly why the Washington Consensus failed!

Where this resolution tells you how much to spend?

It only says:

The International Humanitarian Aid Coordination Committee shall be expanded to:

Grant funds to international humanitarian organizations based in member nations which are involved in active disaster relief operations in order to ensure that the necessary resources are present.

Your nation CAN help the International Humanitarian Aid Coordination Committee since you are a WA member, or your people can join them, but from our interpretation, there isn't anything forcing you to spend any money... it would depend on the laws of your country to determine if you spend or not with the Committee...

[South Sacred Sauce]

We from SSS like to keep our commitment with resolutions that seek to make the world better and safer. We voted yes and talked to other Brasilis nations to support this. Good luck.

This resolution doesn't make the world safer, it just violates sovereignty and makes it harder for nations to decide how to solve their internal problems.

We still believe in this resolution, since we don't see it violating a nation' sovereignty. We look on the good's faith the resolution is proposing, and that is to help other nations passing through a crisis which exceeds the ability of the affected nation to deal by itself using its own resources and with their people suffering from it.

So it's a scenario wich depends help from others. There is only one part that some people dislike and we had to review on our judiciary:

Mandates that host nations allow any personnel working with humanitarian organizations that are involved with the relief effort to enter afflicted areas, with all personnel being subject to any extensive security checks imposed by the host nation. If the personnel pass the security checks, the host nation must provide transportation so the personnel can reach the afflicted areas, if deemed necessary.

Since it still says they need to pass through a Security Check, and those security checks are defined by the nation itself, so it gives back ALL SOVEREIGNTY you think it's threatened... just define what/who you think should be allowed or not...

This is our interpretation and that's why we believe on this and voted for! Thanks for your attention!

[United Republics of Ireland]

SSS, how does being forced to allow WA inspectors not violate the sovereignty of a nation?

[United Republics of Ireland]

Further, nations are forced to provide transportation to humanitarian groups that don't have any, essentially helping these humanitarian groups suck resources from the country they are trying to help.

[Tinfect]

SSS, how does being forced to allow WA inspectors not violate the sovereignty of a nation?

OOC:
If your only argument is 'muh national sovereignty', don't expect to get anywhere. There's a whole load of legitimate reasons to oppose this, and that isn't one of them.You cede a portion of your National Sovereignty the moment you sign-up for the World Assembly, as Compliance is Mandatory, and there is a significant number of active resolutions that you must be in compliance with.

[United Republics of Ireland]

It's not. For starters(like I said earlier), countries should not have to pay for humanitarian groups' transportation, as it incentivizes them not to invest in transportation themselves and just leach off of the country they are trying to help. Further, just because you cede some national sovereignty to the WA doesn't make it a non-issue when someone wants you to cede more.

[United Republics of Ireland]

I understand that you have to follow WA resolutions that have been passed, but I still try to keep bad ones like this one from passing.

[South Sacred Sauce]

SSS, how does being forced to allow WA inspectors not violate the sovereignty of a nation?

So basically just make your laws to NOT allow them... it's up to your country... If your security check laws does not allow them to entry your nation, how this violate your sovereignty?

Further, nations are forced to provide transportation to humanitarian groups that don't have any, essentially helping these humanitarian groups suck resources from the country they are trying to help.

"The host nation must provide transportation so the personnel can reach the afflicted areas, if deemed necessary."

So, it's not forced to provide any trasportatio. The purpose of this resolution is not to drain your resources, it's to help your nation when YOU are having trouble to help your citizens. But we agree this resolution could have been written in a better way. Since english isn't out mother language, we aren't that affected by for errors and misinterpretation cause at our country we use commonlaw and good faith interpretation os laws, but from other debates, we understand the concern of other countries and respect it,

[...] There's a whole load of legitimate reasons to oppose this, and that isn't one of them.

We agree, and that's why we took some time with our judiciary to vote for, and only because of their signal that they can correct the flaws.