[PASSED] Emergency Broadcasting Standards

[Bestelesnia]

IC: The Grand Emperor of Bestelesnia salutes you, and wishes to give you his opinion on your legislation:
It fails to explain exactly why this legislation is necessary, since GAR 570 already established in point 5 the creation of communication systems for emergency situations, and GAR 565 also establishes the formation of this systems for data exchange between countries, although it is true that GAR 565 deals specifically with volvanic activity, the system already exists and could be used for other emergencies should each nation decided to do so.
And so, it does not solve any problem that has not been solved yet, nor does it really improve what other resolutions have done.
With nothing else to say, the Grand Emperor congratulates you on your attempt to make our world a better place.
Best Regards,
International Affairs Office.

GAR 570 does nothing of the sort.
While I could understand the GAR 565 argument a little bit more, I think the narrow scope renders your argument problematic problematic.

"The creation of nationally-based systems in order to gather and disseminate information regarding imminent and ongoing disasters is strongly encouraged"
Directly extracted from GAR 570 point 5, AKA, the establishment of national systems of communication.

[Feyrisshire]

If an emergency event threatens another member state or multiple states, the member state first affected must notify other member states of the event so they can communicate with their citizens regarding the emergency.

OOC: I don't exactly understand what is the purpose of a member state having to notify another member state in an emergency event that so-called "threatens another member state or multiple states".

Not only are meteorological or natural disaster relief programs often done nationally (because international intervention is often unnecessary), but this simply has no RL precedent and would be redundant and bureaucratically unnecessary.

An RL example of this situation is the regular West Pacific typhoons or Atlantic hurricanes in which as everyone knows, typhoons or hurricanes' paths often hit multiple countries.

However, there has been no situation in which Mexico tried to notify Texas or Alabama first or the Cuban Institute of Meteorology warned New Orleans. Or say, the Philippine government trying to notify Japan and South Korea of a coming typhoon.

Not only would that be unnecessary - because it doesn't matter or has any effect on people living in New Orleans whether a hurricane hit Haiti or Cuba first, but nations are expected to have their own emergency systems (as covered in this resolution) or meteorological institutes already (i.e GA#565, GA#87).

[Hulldom]

If an emergency event threatens another member state or multiple states, the member state first affected must notify other member states of the event so they can communicate with their citizens regarding the emergency.

OOC: I don't exactly understand what is the purpose of a member state having to notify another member state in an emergency event that so-called "threatens another member state or multiple states".

Not only are meteorological or natural disaster relief programs often done nationally (because international intervention is often unnecessary), but this simply has no RL precedent and would be redundant and bureaucratically unnecessary.

An RL example of this situation is the regular West Pacific typhoons or Atlantic hurricanes in which as everyone knows, typhoons or hurricanes' paths often hit multiple countries.

However, there has been no situation in which Mexico tried to notify Texas or Alabama first or the Cuban Institute of Meteorology warned New Orleans. Or say, the Philippine government trying to notify Japan and South Korea of a coming typhoon.

Not only would that be unnecessary - because it doesn't matter or has any effect on people living in New Orleans whether a hurricane hit Haiti or Cuba first, but nations are expected to have their own emergency systems (as covered in this resolution) or meteorological institutes already (i.e GA#565, GA#87).

I understand that, but my thinking is more along the lines of, as you mention the NHC, them still issuing warnings for Cuba and Mexico, etc. in the path of a storm.

[Bears Armed]

If an emergency event threatens another member state or multiple states, the member state first affected must notify other member states of the event so they can communicate with their citizens regarding the emergency.

OOC: I don't exactly understand what is the purpose of a member state having to notify another member state in an emergency event that so-called "threatens another member state or multiple states".

OOC: It could be relevant for imminent eruptions of major volcanos, given that the nation where the volcano is situated is likely to have more accurate data from the sites.
Note that there is already such a reporting requirement for for wildfires that might spread -- or send clouds of smoke -- across international borders.

[Hulldom]

OOC: I don't exactly understand what is the purpose of a member state having to notify another member state in an emergency event that so-called "threatens another member state or multiple states".

OOC: It could be relevant for imminent eruptions of major volcanos, given that the nation where the volcano is situated is likely to have more accurate data from the sites.
Note that there is already such a reporting requirement for for wildfires that might spread -- or send clouds of smoke -- across international borders.

Given that, would there be a need to note something to that effect in the legislation or would the current wording be legal as constructed?

[Bears Armed]

OOC: It could be relevant for imminent eruptions of major volcanos, given that the nation where the volcano is situated is likely to have more accurate data from the sites.
Note that there is already such a reporting requirement for for wildfires that might spread -- or send clouds of smoke -- across international borders.

Given that, would there be a need to note something to that effect in the legislation or would the current wording be legal as constructed?

I'd consider it legal as written: The rule has always been that minor duplication is allowed if the new legislation expands on the older measures, which is what would be happening here.

[Hulldom]

Bump, again. Barring anything completely insane, I plan to submit the Monday before Thanksgiving so roughly ~2 weeks from now.

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

First off, love the idea. Some (hopefully) helpful critique, if I may:

1. Defines for the purposes of this resolution:
   
   1. "Emergency event" means any event which necessitates an emergency response to protect life or property and which demonstrably threatens a majority of a population in any administrative area of a member-state.
   2. "Communications" means any method by a government to disseminate information rapidly to the general public.

Are these definitions really necessary. What work are they doing? I'm not the brightest crayon in the box, but even I know what "communications" are. You don't need to tell me; I get it. I have a minimally competent grasp of the English language.

Meanwhile, your definition of "emergency event" is rather circular and unnecessarily complicated. You've defined an emergency event as an event that causes an "emergency response." Ok, that tells me nothing. So what then is an "emergency response"? You then limit that broad and amorphous definition substantially so that it only covers responses necessary to protect "a majority" of a population within an area that is subjectively defined by a member nation. For instance: as long as only 40% of the population in a given area is threatened, it's not an emergency event. To put this in perspective: an event that threatens 560 million people in the administrative area defined as China would not be an emergency event.

Sorry if that was too blunt, but hopefully you see that I am trying to help. Do yourself a favor and get rid of these unhelpful definitions.

[Hulldom]

First off, love the idea. Some (hopefully) helpful critique, if I may:

1. Defines for the purposes of this resolution:
   
   1. "Emergency event" means any event which necessitates an emergency response to protect life or property and which demonstrably threatens a majority of a population in any administrative area of a member-state.
   2. "Communications" means any method by a government to disseminate information rapidly to the general public.

Are these definitions really necessary. What work are they doing? I'm not the brightest crayon in the box, but even I know what "communications" are. You don't need to tell me; I get it. I have a minimally competent grasp of the English language.

Meanwhile, your definition of "emergency event" is rather circular and unnecessarily complicated. You've defined an emergency event as an event that causes an "emergency response." Ok, that tells me nothing. So what then is an "emergency response"? You then limit that broad and amorphous definition substantially so that it only covers responses necessary to protect "a majority" of a population within an area that is subjectively defined by a member nation. For instance: as long as only 40% of the population in a given area is threatened, it's not an emergency event. To put this in perspective: an event that threatens 560 million people in the administrative area defined as China would not be an emergency event.

Sorry if that was too blunt, but hopefully you see that I am trying to help. Do yourself a favor and get rid of these unhelpful definitions.

On the first point, I respectfully vehemently disagree.

In this resolution, it may, in fact, be unclear what "communications" are and defining them is not necessarily harming the case.

The latter, I understand what you're getting at, but a more precise definition was shot down earlier, so I'd surely be open to your suggestion, but in the absence of a better one: I think this is fine.

[Wallenburg]

The bill in its current status is looking quite good. I do, however, believe that "communications" needs no definition, since that word is only used in the context of "emergency communications systems", which doesn't really allow for any further freedom of interpretation than the definition offers.

[Hulldom]

The bill in its current status is looking quite good. I do, however, believe that "communications" needs no definition, since that word is only used in the context of "emergency communications systems", which doesn't really allow for any further freedom of interpretation than the definition offers.

Thank you, Wally. Since you concur with them, I'll remove it.

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

If an emergency event threatens another member state or multiple states, the member state first affected must notify other member states of the event so they can communicate with their citizens regarding the emergency.

Why this half measure? I am a big proponent of member states doing more than simply looking after their own. WA members make up a relatively small percentage of the nations in this world. Nonmembers are our allies, trading partners, and often puppets, and we've never shied away from laws (particularly environmental ones) set up to help the whole lot. I recommend broadening the positive scope of this law: "If an emergency event threatens another member state or multiple states nation, the member state first affected must notify other member states of the event so they can communicate with their citizens that nation regarding the emergency, in a reasonable manner."

Conveniently, adopting this suggestion would avoid the weird grammatical shift in going from talking about "another member state" to talking about "other member states."

Edit: I noticed late the point above about predictable annual disasters (hurricane season, fire season, and the like). It really does not make sense to compel every member nation to send Typhoonia an annual reminder of the upcoming typhoon season. It might make sense to add an escape clause at the end: "If an emergency event threatens another member state or multiple states nation, the member state first affected must notify other member states of the event so they can communicate with their citizens that nation regarding the emergency, in a reasonable manner, if the disaster would otherwise be likely to surprise the other nation."

Member states shall prioritize the broadcasting of localized messaging in emergency events. However, member states may default to broadcasting national messaging if there is no available method for broadcasting at local or regional levels or if communication at those levels is unnecessary.

Nothing wrong with this but I would encourage you to think about what, if anything, the second sentence is doing. All you've said here is that member nations have to "prioritize" communicating locally. That inherently allows resorting to wide broadcast when there's "no available method for broadcasting at local or regional levels" without having to spell it out. If you really felt there was some ambiguity, you could make your point more cleanly (in my opinion) by simply adding "if practicable" or "if practicable under the circumstances" to the end of the first sentence, rather than including the second one. Just a thought.

The bill in its current status is looking quite good. I do, however, believe that "communications" needs no definition, since that word is only used in the context of "emergency communications systems", which doesn't really allow for any further freedom of interpretation than the definition offers.

Thank you for the backup.

I still think defining "Emergency event" to mean "any event which necessitates an emergency response" is pointless. When you find yourself resorting to tautologies, that's usually a good sign that you're trying to define something that doesn't really need definition. If you were going to limit "emergency event" in a substantive way, like defining it as only including hurricanes and stampeding cats, then a definition makes sense. A less frivolous definition might be to define it as "a serious, unexpected, and/or dangerous situation requiring immediate action to avoid property damage, injury, or loss of life." You could throw in the word "widespread" somewhere in there if you felt the need to capture a sense of scale.

Anyway, I still strongly encourage scrapping the useless definitions and starting clean with the "All member states shall create emergency communications systems" clause, if you can stomach it. But it's your work product. Do what makes you proud of it.

I think that rounds out any remaining comments I have about the current draft.

[Hulldom]

Will reflect those edits once I’m not on my phone.

This is the sort of biting, collaborative critique I like!

[Hulldom]

Bumping this again.

[Thousand Branches]

The Nectarine Coalition for the Universal Betterment of Penmanship (or NCUBP) wishes to extend to the author an index of edits for the improvement of the proposed resolution. Here follows:

---

Whereas it is prudent for residents of all states to have access to critical information before, during, and after emergencies,

The use of “whereas” is confusing, as it does not seem to make any sense with the rest of the clause. Actually the same is true of the next clause. The NCUBP would request an explanation as to why the use of “whereas” was chosen if possible.

“of all states” —> “of all member nations”
Editors note: “states” does work here however, nations is only a singular meaning while states can also mean emotional/mental states, something that could make this clause theoretically confusing.

Whereas the creation of international standards regarding the same was urged in [resolution=GA#570]GA #570[/resolution] "Disaster Precautions and Responses", hereby:

“the same” —> “emergency broadcasting” (“the same” refers to nothing in this case, no harm in just writing it out)

Defines "emergency event" for the purposes of this resolution as any serious, unexpected, and/or dangerous situation requiring immediate action to avoid property damage, injury, or loss of life.

“for the purposes of this resolution” should have commas around it.

“and/or” can just be “or”

“avoid property” could perhaps be “avoid significant, widespread property”. Without something like this, falling off a skateboard would be an unexpected situation that leads to injury, therefore an emergency event.

All member states shall create emergency communications systems which shall be utilized to communicate with their residents regarding emergency events.

“states shall” —> “states must”

“which shall be utilized to communicate” —> “for use in communicating”

Member states shall utilize a variety of means to communicate with their citizens during an emergency event. These means shall be commensurate with the technology available in each member state.

The NCUBP has anonymously agreed to provide a rewrite of this clause:

“Member states may use a variety of means —- commensurate with the technology available in each state —- to communicate with their citizens during an emergency event.”

If an emergency event threatens another nation, the member state first affected must notify that nation of the event so they can communicate with their citizens regarding the emergency, in a reasonable manner, if the disaster would otherwise be likely to surprise the other nation.

Once again, a rewrite has been unanimously voted on:

“If an emergency event threatens to spread to another nation, the member state first affected must notify that nation promptly of the event so they can properly communicate that emergency to their residents.”

Member states shall prioritize the broadcasting of localized or regionalized messaging in emergency events if practicable under the circumstances.

“or regionalized” is unnecessary, one can still be “localized” to a region.

Is “practicable” meant to be “practical”?

Member states are encouraged to undertake regular testing of all emergency communications systems and to ensure that the equipment used, if any special equipment is used, is in good repair.

The NCUBP has once again voted on a significant rewrite of this clause:

“Member states are required to practice regular testing of any and all emergency communications systems, including any special equipment used, to ensure it remains in good repair.”

---

This concludes the NCUBP index of edits for this resolution. We wish the author luck with this proposal and any further projects.

Signed,

| Aramantha Calendula, Head Nectarine and Presidential Assistant to Madam Vazz |

[Hulldom]

Not impatience, folks, so much as I'm happy with where this is and think there's not much I can add/subtract from this. Here's one into the breach!

[Greater Cesnica]

---

The Europeian Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote FOR the General Assembly Resolution, "Emergency Broadcasting Standards".
Its reasoning may be found here.

---

[Hulldom]

This is now at vote.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I'll vote in favour, as the following clause can still be read after doing some judicial grammatical correction. But it isn't a great clause:

If an emergency event threatens another nation, the member state first affected must notify that nation of the event so they can promptly communicate with their citizens regarding the emergency if the disaster would otherwise be likely to surprise the other nation.

Perhaps something like

If an emergency event in one member nation D threatens another nation P and P is likely to be surprised by the event, D must notify P of the event.

This gets rid of the "they" and "their" pronouns, insofar as nations are not people. It also removes the extraneous "so they can" portion. The "first affected" portion is also unnecessary; if D1 was first affected and notifies P, D2 has no need to notify P as well because they cannot be taken unawares when D1 has already notified.

[Ther Pang]

Agree because there must be an emergency broadcast.

[Dne Thernsvingistan]

Against. It's pro murder. As a Socialist, I love murder. This is insane.

[Spokesland]

Against. It's pro murder. As a Socialist, I love murder. This is insane.

If you don't like it vote against it, but I believe that this is better for the mass majority of Nations.

--* I do not represent the values of the Region that I am affiliated with *--

[Minskiev]

Against. It's pro murder. As a Socialist, I love murder. This is insane.

If you don't like it vote against it, but I believe that this is better for the mass majority of Nations.

--* I do not represent the values of the Region that I am affiliated with *--

If you're in a situation where you need to say that, maybe that region isn't too good.

I personally think this legislation is pointless because reasonable nations already enforce its measures.

[The Order of Makai]

If you don't like it vote against it, but I believe that this is better for the mass majority of Nations.

--* I do not represent the values of the Region that I am affiliated with *--

If you're in a situation where you need to say that, maybe that region isn't too good.

I personally think this legislation is pointless because reasonable nations already enforce its measures.

^ This a thousand times.

This measure is already rather pointless, but the real annoying linchpin is how this legislation would RESTRICT how a nation would act within an emergency.

Member states shall prioritize the broadcasting of localized or regionalized messaging in emergency events if practical under the circumstances.

You would dare to tell me what my priorities should be? The open ended interpretation of "if practical" also immediately contradicts the rest of the clause. Who determines what's "practical"? What's stopping me from saying that these stipulations are not practical? In that case, then what was the point of this?

You do not tell other people how to do their own jobs if you are not their boss, supporter, or otherwise involved somehow. The Assembly is not the boss of my first responders and crisis management.

The Order of Makai recommends a vote of AGAINST on this resolution.

[Xanthorrhoea]

You do not tell other people how to do their own jobs if you are not their boss, supporter, or otherwise involved somehow. The Assembly is not the boss of my first responders and crisis management.

I believe you have a bit of a misunderstanding of what a law is. Laws tell people what to do and, to a lesser extent, how to do it. For an example, see literally any other resolution or real world law.