NationStates

South St Maarten wrote:

Wayneactia wrote:Right here:

Requires that once a specific passenger has passed through the preclearance station for a foreign nation, that passenger is no longer required to go through border control upon arriving at that specific foreign nation;

Seeing as how they don't have to wait in line a customs upon arrival they are free to spend their currency in a foreign nation. Also business people will be able to conduct their "business" faster and thus it it likely that multinational business arrangements can be conducted with further expedience as they do not have to wait in line at customs.

Precisely ^

Yes... But did you know that, or interpret it that way?

Wayneactia wrote:

South St Maarten wrote:Precisely ^

Yes... But did you know that, or interpret it that way?

I was thinking that but couldn't put it out, so thank you. You said exactly what I meant but didn't find the words for.

Could the author explain how this is not an entirely optional proposal? Since it creates no requirements on member nations unless they first create a preclearance agreement with another state, it appears to be in violation of the following rule:

Operative Clause: Every proposal has to have some recognizable effect on member nations, such as requiring them to take action or encouraging them to support a policy change.

In essence this proposal is of the form "if you do something, it must be done in this way" which has problems all its own, but I'd like the ambassador to convince me not to submit a legality challenge first.

Gérard Poullet
Ambassador to the WA

Kelssek wrote:Could the author explain how this is not an entirely optional proposal? Since it creates no requirements on member nations unless they first create a preclearance agreement with another state, it appears to be in violation of the following rule:

Operative Clause: Every proposal has to have some recognizable effect on member nations, such as requiring them to take action or encouraging them to support a policy change.

In essence this proposal is of the form "if you do something, it must be done in this way" which has problems all its own, but I'd like the ambassador to convince me not to submit a legality challenge first.

Gérard Poullet
Ambassador to the WA

“Clause 5 is enough for this to not incur the wrath of the gnomes. Although you are correct in that, in reality, this is an entirely optional proposal, it is still a legal one because the clauses never say that they only apply to one sort of nation. For example, it would be illegal for a proposal to have only the following clause ‘Mandates that all member nations with deserts remove all cacti from them,’ but legal to have the following clause ‘Mandates that all member nations remove all cacti from their territory,’ even though the latter clause could only logically apply in a country that has cacti.”

Clause 5 still imposes no requirement to take action or recognizable effect. Nothing needs to be done to comply with it. In short, we do not agree with that interpretation and our staff have not located any case law on this matter. Your example is one where all states are required to take action if only to first verify that no cacti exist in their territory.

Furthermore, clause 5 appears highly redundant because it is hard to imagine why an existing pre-clearance arrangement wouldn't already do that. At the very least this is a category violation as the text does not have the purported effect.

Kelssek wrote:Clause 5 still imposes no requirement to take action or recognizable effect. Nothing needs to be done to comply with it. In short, we do not agree with that interpretation and our staff have not located any case law on this matter. Your example is one where all states are required to take action if only to first verify that no cacti exist in their territory.

“That’s a fair interpretation. Ultimately, it will come down to the secretariat gnomes to decide.”

Kelssek wrote:Furthermore, clause 5 appears highly redundant because it is hard to imagine why an existing pre-clearance arrangement wouldn't already do that. At the very least this is a category violation as the text does not have the purported effect.

(OOC:

Wayneactia wrote:

Bananaistan wrote:OOC: How does this proposal strike down barriers to trade etc?

Right here:

Requires that once a specific passenger has passed through the preclearance station for a foreign nation, that passenger is no longer required to go through border control upon arriving at that specific foreign nation;

Seeing as how they don't have to wait in line a customs upon arrival they are free to spend their currency in a foreign nation. Also business people will be able to conduct their "business" faster and thus it it likely that multinational business arrangements can be conducted with further expedience as they do not have to wait in line at customs.

)

Our delegation has submitted a legality challenge, but I also table the following excerpt here as it is highly relevant to the question of the proposal's efficacy, even if it were to be ruled legal:



Gérard Poullet
Ambassador to the WA

"Could we get some clarification on this?"

Requires that once a specific passenger has passed through the preclearance station for a foreign nation, that passenger is no longer required to go through border control upon arriving at that specific foreign nation;

"Does this mean that, after passing through a 'preclearance station' once, a given individual is permanently exempt from border control?"

Clause 2b should likely cover ports as well

Kelssek wrote:Could the author explain how this is not an entirely optional proposal? Since it creates no requirements on member nations unless they first create a preclearance agreement with another state, it appears to be in violation of the following rule:

Operative Clause: Every proposal has to have some recognizable effect on member nations, such as requiring them to take action or encouraging them to support a policy change.

In essence this proposal is of the form "if you do something, it must be done in this way" which has problems all its own, but I'd like the ambassador to convince me not to submit a legality challenge first.

Gérard Poullet
Ambassador to the WA

Also, If preclearance stations are a border control policy, would clause nine therefore qualify?

Against. The only nation the Palentine actually allows free and unfettered entrance to are Kennyites, because the little Dickenses are just sooooo darn cute and useful. They're already pre-conditioned to buy whatever geegaw, product, or tacky souvenier my nation produces thanks to their nation's corperations hammering into their skulls that buying stuff is awesome. Most importantly they aren't very bright, so are quite willing to staff temporary positions as Lab Assistants for the Palentine's large population of Mad Scientists...a job that only the most suicidal or adrenaline addicted Palentine citizen will take. We consider the rest of you grotty foreigners who can't really be trusted until you go through customs and get fumigated for cooties.

Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

This does seem to be little more than an attempt to codify the definition of 'preclearance' without any practical effect. Why does the WA need to involve itself in a practice that this resolution itself acknowledges is a negotiation between two countries? What negative behavior is being curtailed here? Are countries out there claiming to to offer preclearance in other countries and then not abiding by it?

We are uncertain why utilization of a preclearance station, in lieu of a border control station, would reduce the traffic associated with, or the time spent on, the latter. Why is one more effective or efficient than the other?

Here's my issue with the proposal, and the reason I voted against:

South St Maarten wrote:7: Acknowledges that many direct international routes between two nations have multiple stops in each of those nations, and thereby rules that:

1. The preclearance station must be located at the endmost stop in a nation before entering the nation that the preclearance station is for;
2. The vehicle of transport, once departed from the airport, airfield, train station, port, or harbor that the preclearance station is located at, must travel directly to the nation that the preclearance station has been designated for without stopping, pardoning an emergency;

Together, these two subclauses mandate that the preclearance station can only be at the last stop before leaving the departure nation, causing an unnecessary delay while all through passengers disembark, get checked, and reembark, which depending on the mode of transport can easily take half an hour, or longer.

If we look at the (fictional) example of the Eurostar trains, connecting the (fictional) nations of France and England, France operates 3 preclearance stations in England, and England operates the same number in France, plus additional ones in the (fictional) nations of Belgium, and Holland.
Since the trains connects the English capital with the capitals of the other nations, preclearance stations are located at each mentioned capital, as well as all intermediate stops.
There is however one line that originates in the South of France, where there are no preclearance stations, and this train is forced to stop at the (fictional) French city of Lille, where all passengers with destinations in England go through the procedure I described above, causing the train to halt at the (fictional) station of Lille-Europe for 30 minutes.

In short, I think it is not wise to mandate only one preclearance station at the end of the line, but allow for other preclearance stations on a line as well.

OOC: This is totally irrelevant, but

2 hours ago: Graintfjall voted for the World Assembly Resolution " International Transportation Preclearance Act".

It seems as though a space has been inserted at the beginning of the title.

It is our duty to our citizens to do our own due diligence on clearing anyone that arrives on our shores. Whilst the notion is well intended, it leaves too much room for corruption and terrorism to take place in foreign countries.

"While the Whovian delegation understands the usefulness of pre-clearance stations between countries that have amicable relationships, we also find them somewhat objectionable due to the encroachment in sovereignty they tend to cause. This, combined with the minimal actual effect the proposal will actually have on member states, compels us to vote AGAINST.

That being said, the delegation applauds the author's clarity of language and looks forward to their future work."

Ambassador Rupert Pink, Whovian Tardisia.

Kelssek wrote:Our delegation has submitted a legality challenge, but I also table the following excerpt here as it is highly relevant to the question of the proposal's efficacy, even if it were to be ruled legal:

In Assembly debate it is claimed that pre-clearance would have the effect of reducing waiting time at border checkpoints. This might be true, but if and only if this increases the number of border control agents and/or putting them in a different place. Or in other words, boosting the police budget (where "police" is read to mean broadly "law enforcement" given that not all states task police forces with border control).

A simple alternative scenario further illustrates this reasoning: the same effect could be achieved without pre-clearance if the number of passport control counters and officers were increased at the destination checkpoint. Barriers to trade and commerce are entirely unaffected.

Note also that a reduction in waiting time is only a possible by-product of the proposal, and not a necessary outcome. It does not follow that applying the resolution would reduce waiting time at border checkpoints. And nothing in the text actually prevents waiting time at checkpoints from increasing as a result, if for instance, countries were encouraged to increase pre-clearance and merely reassigned border control agents to the pre-clearance points, resulting in fewer counters open at normal at-the-border checkpoints.

Gérard Poullet
Ambassador to the WA

IC: “Regarding the effectiveness of the proposed resolution, Peronia fully adheres to the statements made by the aforementioned ambassador, without further ado.

Regarding the need to approve a Resolution of this type, our position is, like other nations have expressed, that agreements of this type can be made voluntarily under current international legislation.

Consequently, Peronia will vote against the proposed Resolution”.

IC: The constitutional monarchy of Grey County votes and urges others to vote against this mockery of a resolution

Cretox State wrote:"Could we get some clarification on this?"

Requires that once a specific passenger has passed through the preclearance station for a foreign nation, that passenger is no longer required to go through border control upon arriving at that specific foreign nation;

"Does this mean that, after passing through a 'preclearance station' once, a given individual is permanently exempt from border control?"

Ambassador Lewitt, having looked around for a while and observing that nobody seemed to have answered, decided to respond to the Cretox State spokesperson. “Although the wording of the clause is technically ambiguous as to whether this is permanent to a specific foreign nation, which leaves member states the freedom to choose, no sane nation would choose the interpretation that gives someone permanent immunity from border checks. Therefore, I think it is safe to say this clause only applies upon that arrival.”

Nah. This one just micromanages something that doesn’t need to be managed. Also, it’s stupid that I can’t check people more than once.

OwO Feds wrote:"Who's paying for these checkpoints, for I refuse to open two hundred different mini-embassies in my airports just to let dirty capitalists in!

“These checkpoints are entirely to be set up on an entirely voluntary basis, so your nation won’t be compelled to open two hundreds of anything. Furthermore, payment for their construction is not a topic that is addressed by this proposal.”