[PASSED] Humanitarian Aid Expansion Act

[Arioba]

Further Defines "security check" as any measure(s) a host nation chooses to take to verify the identity, authenticity, and/or lack of a security threat of personnel and aid that are requested to enter the borders of the host nation in order to fulfill their duties as mandated by the International Humanitarian Aid Coordination Committee.

I understand and agree that the nation should have the right to check any personnel that is given as aid, I am just a bit turned off by the words any measures. That just gives me a bad vibe. I feel like the host country could impose some pretty exclusive rules with this much freedom.

[Yodle]

Further Defines "security check" as any measure(s) a host nation chooses to take to verify the identity, authenticity, and/or lack of a security threat of personnel and aid that are requested to enter the borders of the host nation in order to fulfill their duties as mandated by the International Humanitarian Aid Coordination Committee.

I understand and agree that the nation should have the right to check any personnel that is given as aid, I am just a bit turned off by the words any measures. That just gives me a bad vibe. I feel like the host country could impose some pretty exclusive rules with this much freedom.

True, but have you seen what people have been saying on this?

[Separatist Peoples]

I understand and agree that the nation should have the right to check any personnel that is given as aid, I am just a bit turned off by the words any measures. That just gives me a bad vibe. I feel like the host country could impose some pretty exclusive rules with this much freedom.

True, but have you seen what people have been saying on this?

"That really should have indicated a problem in drafting."

[Yodle]

True, but have you seen what people have been saying on this?

"That really should have indicated a problem in drafting."

If the resolution were to be repealed I will most certainly go through and fix whatever is necessary in order for it to be suitable.. However the majority of arguments I'm seeing on this thread so far are things along the lines of "my national sovereignty is threatened by letting people into my borders to help my citizens," I honestly can't fathom how inspectors and humanitarian aid workers that have been screened by the host nation pose a national threat, or how letting them use available transportation is a waste of resources... Aside from those arguments I agree this resolution could've been polished up a lot better.

[Araraukar]

I honestly can't fathom how inspectors and humanitarian aid workers that have been screened by the host nation pose a national threat, or how letting them use available transportation is a waste of resources... Aside from those arguments I agree this resolution could've been polished up a lot better.

OOC: Just because people coming into your country don't pose a national threat, it doesn't mean they and their intrusion was welcome. Just look at real life.

[Separatist Peoples]

"That really should have indicated a problem in drafting."

If the resolution were to be repealed I will most certainly go through and fix whatever is necessary in order for it to be suitable.. However the majority of arguments I'm seeing on this thread so far are things along the lines of "my national sovereignty is threatened by letting people into my borders to help my citizens," I honestly can't fathom how inspectors and humanitarian aid workers that have been screened by the host nation pose a national threat, or how letting them use available transportation is a waste of resources... Aside from those arguments I agree this resolution could've been polished up a lot better.

I honestly can't fathom how inspectors and humanitarian aid workers that have been screened by the host nation pose a national threat, or how letting them use available transportation is a waste of resources... Aside from those arguments I agree this resolution could've been polished up a lot better.

OOC: Just because people coming into your country don't pose a national threat, it doesn't mean they and their intrusion was welcome. Just look at real life.

OOC: This.

IC: "Ambassador, as the author of Access to Humanitarian Aid, I do not disagree with you that humanitarian aid workers need access to an afflicted area if humanitarian aid is to be at all beneficial. I do not agree that unrestricted access is reasonable or fair. There is no requirement for aid workers to remain neutral and impartial in the execution of their duties, or a number of other assurances for equitable behavior as other resolutions require. There is no vetting process. There is not even an opportunity for IHACC to take sole control of an international humanitarian response to assure that the actors of foreign organizations do not have a free hand in another jurisdiction. This goes well beyond mere polish, ambassador."

[Yodle]

OOC: This.

IC: "Ambassador, as the author of Access to Humanitarian Aid, I do not disagree with you that humanitarian aid workers need access to an afflicted area if humanitarian aid is to be at all beneficial. I do not agree that unrestricted access is reasonable or fair. There is no requirement for aid workers to remain neutral and impartial in the execution of their duties, or a number of other assurances for equitable behavior as other resolutions require. There is no vetting process. There is not even an opportunity for IHACC to take sole control of an international humanitarian response to assure that the actors of foreign organizations do not have a free hand in another jurisdiction. This goes well beyond mere polish, ambassador."

It doesn't have to be unrestricted, that's up to the host nation to decide with how they choose to implement their security checks. I would categorize a security check as a vetting process that is specifically designed by the host nation, as the definition I provided for security checks encompasses what a vetting process entails. I would have added the option for the IHACC to take direct control, but as someone explained to me in this thread, the IHACC is only meant to organize member nations to act and not be the actor themselves with international situations. I do agree with you on that I should have added in a clause to ensure equal treatment from the personnel when it comes to victims of the natural disaster. I will be sure to take that into account if/when the resolution is repealed.

[Separatist Peoples]

It doesn't have to be unrestricted, that's up to the host nation to decide with how they choose to implement their security checks. I would categorize a security check as a vetting process that is specifically designed by the host nation, as the definition I provided for security checks encompasses what a vetting process entails. I would have added the option for the IHACC to take direct control, but as someone explained to me in this thread, the IHACC is only meant to organize member nations to act and not be the actor themselves with international situations. I do agree with you on that I should have added in a clause to ensure equal treatment from the personnel when it comes to victims of the natural disaster. I will be sure to take that into account if/when the resolution is repealed.

"When it is repealed. I've taken particular interest in that, and possibly a palatable replacement as well. A security check is just that: a check. You follow that definition with a requirement that nations open their borders to these workers, regardless of whether they pass that security check. There exists no specific course of action to address a failure to pass the check. There is no allowance written into this proposal. You can categorize it all you want, you wrote nothing to that effect into the proposal. All the current wording allows is for states to refuse transportation to those that fail security checks.

"For the record, had you done any amount of research ahead of time, you would have found that one of my resolutions, Access to Humanitarian Aid, allows IHACC to take direct control of an multinational humanitarian aid effort."

[The Second Moon Rising]

However the majority of arguments I'm seeing on this thread so far are things along the lines of "my national sovereignty is threatened by letting people into my borders to help my citizens," I honestly can't fathom how inspectors and humanitarian aid workers that have been screened by the host nation pose a national threat, or how letting them use available transportation is a waste of resources...

The Second Moon Rising is highly religious, and bow and accept the will and whim of our gods. Acts of the gods are holy events, be they blessings or punishments... and punishments have the potential to come in the form of earthquakes and floods.

Defines “natural disaster” as a serious disruption of the functioning of a community or a society, caused by naturally occurring phenomenon and involving widespread population, material, economic or environmental losses and impacts, which exceeds the ability of the affected community or society to cope using its own resources.

An earthquake, which falls under this definition, is a divine event to The Second Moon Rising. Sacred. If aid was requested, The Second Moon Rising could wish to not allow certain life-forms (inorganic beings, for example) into the affected area to keep the land from being profaned and tainted.

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.

Under this and in the event that there is an oversight with the IHACC and inappropriate relief personnel are dispatched, it seems that The Second Moon Rising would be put in a position to either a) come up with spurious additions to security checks that unwanted life-forms could not pass or b) allow these holy sites to be desecrated. The latter would be unacceptable to The Second Moon Rising. The former would be just as unacceptable, as it would require The Second Moon Rising to use racism/speciesism as an official point in a security check. It is far more polite, and reasonable, in the opinion of The Second Moon Rising to say "We are sorry, but for religious reasons we cannot allow you into the affected area" than it is to say "We have inexplicably deemed your race/species a security risk" when these particular life-forms could be welcome in other parts of our lands that have not been deemed sacred.

And, again, The Second Moon Rising finds the mandate that we use our own resources to transport relief personnel when our own resources may be strained to be unreasonable. If the relief personnel are so poorly funded that they cannot bring their own appropriate transportation, and then force The Second Moon Rising to divert, for example, limited fuel supplies from essential emergency services (ambulances, fire trucks) so that the relief personnel can conduct inspections, then the relief personnel may potentially be causing more harm than good.

These are the concerns of The Second Moon Rising. Other nations may have the same or related concerns.

[Persepo]

It doesn't have to be unrestricted, that's up to the host nation to decide with how they choose to implement their security checks. I would categorize a security check as a vetting process that is specifically designed by the host nation, as the definition I provided for security checks encompasses what a vetting process entails.

Persepo will not accept such drafting without its concerns being met! The World Assembly must learn that it cannot make sovereignty promises on the front end, muddy legislation in the middle, then declare promised sovereignty security checks void for interference!

What this really is is legislation for the World Assembly to assert dominance over newer countries. This is the first step to destroying regions for an overarching supreme council.

[Pranzianna]

It doesn't have to be unrestricted, that's up to the host nation to decide with how they choose to implement their security checks. I would categorize a security check as a vetting process that is specifically designed by the host nation, as the definition I provided for security checks encompasses what a vetting process entails. I would have added the option for the IHACC to take direct control, but as someone explained to me in this thread, the IHACC is only meant to organize member nations to act and not be the actor themselves with international situations. I do agree with you on that I should have added in a clause to ensure equal treatment from the personnel when it comes to victims of the natural disaster. I will be sure to take that into account if/when the resolution is repealed.

"When it is repealed. I've taken particular interest in that, and possibly a palatable replacement as well. A security check is just that: a check. You follow that definition with a requirement that nations open their borders to these workers, regardless of whether they pass that security check. There exists no specific course of action to address a failure to pass the check. There is no allowance written into this proposal. You can categorize it all you want, you wrote nothing to that effect into the proposal. All the current wording allows is for states to refuse transportation to those that fail security checks.

"For the record, had you done any amount of research ahead of time, you would have found that one of my resolutions, Access to Humanitarian Aid, allows IHACC to take direct control of an multinational humanitarian aid effort."

On behalf of the people of Pranzianna, I am deeply concerned by the glaring and potentially disasterous issues with this legislation. Setting aside the inherent violation of national sovereignty which comes from this degree of vague language and overarching demands, I see absolutely no reason to expand the responsibilities for nations in disaster, with no evidence whatsoever suggesting a radical increase in global crises. While a repealed version of this legislation may be significantly more beneficial, I strongly plead with member nations to refuse to accept such an unfinished and dangerous document as complete.

[Toqual]

The Bill serves as an attempt to unify universal economic interests, which is incredibly unrealistic given the diverse economic situations currently occurring internationally. Natural disaster responses must remain as a matter for the State to address independently, and should not not decided upon in the World Assembly. Toqual opposes the Bill, and condemns the agenda it seeks to raise - less independence, and more global control. We strongly implore all nations to vote against the legislation.

[Feztobania]

The delegation of Feztobania strongly opposes the bill due to, just as the delegate for Toqual stated, strips multiple liberties from affected nations. The Incorporated States of Feztobania is aware of globalisation, and thus, of the resolutions to come to suit the "new world", but stands by the restriction of allowing a nation to control its internal policies, something that this bill would erradicate in times of disaster as it clearly states that no interference from the host nation would be allowed.

The delegation is highly dissapointed that this proposal made it to the voting stage, and is strongly surprised and thus, condemns the majority, in favor vote. Feztobania strongly urges all other national delegates to review your nations' position regarding this resolution before our nations are stripped of our guarantees of liberty!

[The Atlae Isles]

Whether or not the resolution is to pass (which it is projected to) it may take away some liberties, (i.e. sovereignty over the nation's ability to rebuild) but seeks to rebuild disaster-stricken areas. Liberties, when in a situation of crisis, are normally traded for measures to sustain order; such actions are usually temporary and liberty is soon reinstated. However, such fear mongering has been going around to fear the influence of a global or supranational organization because such an organization would strip individuals and nations of their liberties. However, that is the function of the World Assembly: "The WA is the world's governing body." If a nation fears influence of the World Assembly, then a possibly better option would be to leave the World Assembly, as non-members do not have to follow such laws that would strip away liberty.

However, the delegation of the Atlae Isles is disappointed on the bill for it does not anticipate nor mitigate any effect for long-term natural phenomena that would spill over into more drastic disasters, such as climate change, but focus on the short-term effects of natural disasters. The delegates have recognized for the need for possibly another bill to focus on long-term issues on the environment.

Nevertheless, the Atlae Isles is on the position FOR the Humanitarian Aid Expansion Act and urges others to understand their decision-making power and use it, to vote for or against the bill.

[Goldenson]

Ok, there are alot of "security checks" but no "security check". I'd vote "for" if "security check" under the definition for "security check" was "security check(s)".

I'm voting against. Too risky and open.

[Yodle]

Ok, there are alot of "security checks" but no "security check". I'd vote "for" if "security check" under the definition for "security check" was "security check(s)".

I'm voting against. Too risky and open.

When defining something you always use the singular

[Wallenburg]

Humanitarian Aid Expansion Act was passed 10,684 votes to 6,221.

[Imperium Anglorum]

MADSONS: So, all you need to do is file Form 528491 to the World Assembly and you'll immediately get paid millions for doing 'aid' work! It's all free money! Next up, how to escape prison by claiming status as freeman-on-the-land!

PARSONS: Heavens. Get him out of here. Ridiculous stuff though. I'll have to lobby one of the members of the GAO to assess a huge bill for whatever people passed this thing.

[Toqual]

The Republic of Toqual wishes to restate our opposition to this Act, for the agenda it seeks to elevate - less independence, and greater intervention by the World Assembly on matters which are conventionally addressed by each individual state. We condemn the states that introduced and contributed to the success of the Humanitarian Aid Expansion Act, and urge that it be repealed immediately.