NationStates

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I was under the impression from bills in years past that resolutions without mandating language and the sole purpose of creating a committee were not allowed?

What defines an Independent Review Board, and what's to stop fabricated, packed boards in nations that have no intent to remedy their policy on sterilization? What does this bill realistically change?

That isn't good faith compliance.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:That isn't good faith compliance.

OOC: Nothing in the proposal mandates that IRBs be incorruptible and unbiased.

I fail to see how weaselly language is good faith compliance. But even so, the actions of such a board can be reviewed or regulated by the Compliance Commission.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:I fail to see how weaselly language is good faith compliance. But even so, the actions of such a board can be reviewed or regulated by the Compliance Commission.

OOC: The law does what the law says, if the law doesnt mention the procedures taken by IRBs, then it doesnt affect them.

And twisting words to mean the opposite of what they mean isn't good faith compliance. I can believe that under some circumstances that an IRB would make the wrong call. That isn't a drawback in as much it is a reflection of human fallibility. On the other hand, when the proposal says independent, it doesn't mean 'subject to the discretion of a national policy maker'. If you want to pretend words aren't there, that too is your prerogative.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:That isn't good faith compliance.

"It is impossible to tell what is good faith compliance until the Compliance Commission puts out its own legislation on this matter."

OOC: Voted against for the unrestricted and undefined committee use - others have put the additional justifications in more words, so I won't bother.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:On the other hand, when the proposal says independent, it doesn't mean 'subject to the discretion of a national policy maker'.

It does when you have only national healthcare and the person appointing such a committee is either a policy maker (government official) or part of the healthcare system. You cannot have a completely unaffiliated committee (that still knows what they're talking about when making decisions) in such a system.

Mobile.

Re IndEPendENT boDiES cANNot eXIsT. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indepen ... government

Re secondary legislation. I would imagine a similar thing when it comes to the greenhouse gas resolution, as I know not what particular level is desired by the committee and therefore, the particular cost of abatement. Secondary legislation is a common legislative practice, and the scope of the secondary legislator's discretion is well limited to enforcement and clarification.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Mobile.

Re IndEPendENT boDiES cANNot eXIsT. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indepen ... government

Re secondary legislation. I would imagine a similar thing when it comes to the greenhouse gas resolution, as I know not what particular level is desired by the committee and therefore, the particular cost of abatement. Secondary legislation is a common legislative practice, and the scope of the secondary legislator's discretion is well limited to enforcement and clarification.

OOC: So lets just assign all legislative matters to the gnomes, and lets remove the committee only rule because committees are better at writing up legislation than us.

Ratateague wrote:Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I was under the impression from bills in years past that resolutions without mandating language and the sole purpose of creating a committee were not allowed?

(OOC: Although the mandate in the proposal does have a link with the committee, it is still a burden on member states, so is legal.)

Mobile. Re MG: Not sure why that's a disad. But that was a conclusion I reached perhaps three years ago. It isn't a particularly novel idea, in fact, it's a logical inevitability of the GA assumption of perfect Committee operation.

The only real argument against it is that doing that wouldn't be fun, but given the allergy the modern assembly seems to have to policy work, I'm not sure how that is a particularly solvent advocacy.

Marxist Germany wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Mobile.

Re IndEPendENT boDiES cANNot eXIsT. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indepen ... government

Re secondary legislation. I would imagine a similar thing when it comes to the greenhouse gas resolution, as I know not what particular level is desired by the committee and therefore, the particular cost of abatement. Secondary legislation is a common legislative practice, and the scope of the secondary legislator's discretion is well limited to enforcement and clarification.

OOC: So lets just assign all legislative matters to the gnomes, and lets remove the committee only rule because committees are better at writing up legislation than us.

That's roughly my primary concern - that the whole of it is left up to some ambiguous, undefined body which is purportedly uncorruptable despite Real World^TM counterexamples.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Mobile. Re MG: Not sure why that's a disad. But that was a conclusion I reached perhaps three years ago. It isn't a particularly novel idea, in fact, it's a logical inevitability of the GA assumption of perfect Committee operation.

The only real argument against it is that doing that wouldn't be fun, but given the allergy the modern assembly seems to have to policy work, I'm not sure how that is a particularly solvent advocacy.

OOC: The problem is that this defeats the whole purpose of the WA, why waste everyones time when the gnomes can do it for them?

Marxist Germany wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Mobile. Re MG: Not sure why that's a disad. But that was a conclusion I reached perhaps three years ago. It isn't a particularly novel idea, in fact, it's a logical inevitability of the GA assumption of perfect Committee operation.

The only real argument against it is that doing that wouldn't be fun, but given the allergy the modern assembly seems to have to policy work, I'm not sure how that is a particularly solvent advocacy.

OOC: The problem is that this defeats the whole purpose of the WA, why waste everyones time when the gnomes can do it for them?

OOC: Why does anybody write satire? To direct people's attention to a problem or absurdity.

Marxist Germany wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Mobile. Re MG: Not sure why that's a disad. But that was a conclusion I reached perhaps three years ago. It isn't a particularly novel idea, in fact, it's a logical inevitability of the GA assumption of perfect Committee operation.

The only real argument against it is that doing that wouldn't be fun, but given the allergy the modern assembly seems to have to policy work, I'm not sure how that is a particularly solvent advocacy.

OOC: The problem is that this defeats the whole purpose of the WA, why waste everyones time when the gnomes can do it for them?

(OOC: It’s a quirk of the General Assembly, and one that authors are allowed to readily take advantage of, precisely so that member nations have to do less.)

I fully support the resolution.

We have decided to vote against this resolution to protect our national interests, however we have a question about the nature of this proposal.

We apologize if you've answered a similar question before, but how does this:

1. It is unlawful in all member nations to sterilise, in any way, a person below the age of majority or any incompetent person, without the approval of an independent Institutional Review Board, which has certified after review, the necessity of sterilisation for the long-term health of that person.

equal

Ban on Sterilisation of Minors etc

For example, if the aforementioned Institutional Review Board approves every sterilization request (or a majority), how will sterilizations be "banned"?

Cantonese Union wrote:We have decided to vote against this resolution to protect our national interests, however we have a question about the nature of this proposal.

We apologize if you've answered a similar question before, but how does this:

1. It is unlawful in all member nations to sterilise, in any way, a person below the age of majority or any incompetent person, without the approval of an independent Institutional Review Board, which has certified after review, the necessity of sterilisation for the long-term health of that person.

equal

Ban on Sterilisation of Minors etc

For example, if the aforementioned Institutional Review Board approves every sterilization request (or a majority), how will sterilizations be "banned"?

OOC:

Not OP, but I feel it should be said that titles are not binding clauses. For all that it matters, the title could be "Don't vote for this." I mean, it wouldn't be a very good campaigning technique, but it would be legal (as far as my knowledge goes.

I assume that "ban" was just the most effective word IA had at his disposal. Is it perfect? No. Is it a deal-breaker (in my opinion)? No, I wouldn't say so.

What was even the point of this resolution? It has nothing but air.

Didnt realise it was legal to give a GA resolution a misleading title. However I hope y'all will vote for my new "Ban Killing Kids Act" which has a clause meaning you can only kill kids with permission from the Ministry of Killing Kids.

Kenmoria wrote:

Marxist Germany wrote:OOC: The problem is that this defeats the whole purpose of the WA, why waste everyones time when the gnomes can do it for them?

(OOC: It’s a quirk of the General Assembly, and one that authors are allowed to readily take advantage of, precisely so that member nations have to do less.)

(OOC: It's necessary so that the author of every new proposal using a committee doesn't have to use a substantial proportion of the limited number of characters available explaining how that committee's honesty & efficiency will be determined... and do so in a way that doesn't look like plagiarism of an earlier proposal's explanation of this, too...)

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Marxist Germany wrote:OOC: The problem is that this defeats the whole purpose of the WA, why waste everyones time when the gnomes can do it for them?

OOC: Why does anybody write satire? To direct people's attention to a problem or absurdity.

OOC: Satire belongs in the Joke Proposals Thread.

Radicalania wrote:Didnt realise it was legal to give a GA resolution a misleading title. However I hope y'all will vote for my new "Ban Killing Kids Act" which has a clause meaning you can only kill kids with permission from the Ministry of Killing Kids.

(OOC: Just have a look at ‘PROLIFE’ or ‘Promoting Research On Life In Foetuses and Embryos’. Making misleading titles illegal was proposed, but never implemented. Also, this isn’t particularly misleading, as sterilising minors is now prohibited with only a quite narrow exception.)

This proposal does not go far enough.
Disability rights are an area that is frequently ignored, because far too many people believe it is necessary to 'protect' disabled people. This is not so.
Disabled people do not want to be protected, they want to be trusted and respected. Allowing for a review board to medicalise the sexuality of disabled people, a thing which occurs around the world on a very regular basis, says that this 'board' knows best for the disabled person in question. Despite the name, I urge all members and delegates to vote against this proposal.