PASSED: Epidemic Response Act

[Absolvability]

I think we both understand this and agree on this.

Well, I think an international court would fit better into the Security Council than the General Assembly... but, other than that minor discrepency (which I feel I should point out considering that we've touched this subject before ~_^) we're definately on the same page so far, Doctor.

But, the intent does not prohibit us from making an interpretation of the law.

Definately. However, I do not think the definition of a judicial body is open to interpretation. A judicial body dispenses justice. In order to do so you must correct injustices. In order to know what an injustice is we have laws. I do not see how there could be a (legal) judicial ruling on such a matter since the Right of Emigration itself seems to preclude it. Otherwise... while your proposed interpretation would be extremely beneficial here, the Right of Emigration turns into a national sovereignty loophole lovefest.

Everything is open to interpretation, but only where it is strictly necessary. We must take into consideration intentions to make the most logical interpretation. And, more importantly, we mustn't alter our interpretations to fit the next problem, because we've unsolved whatever problem there was before.

Let me remind my fellow Ambassadors that according to the proposal at vote, the EPARC may recommend imposing travel restrictions, but do not specify what these restrictions may be. Hence, it does not require member nations to waive their citizens' Right of Emigration per se.

Again my arguement will be one of the most logical interpretation. I can agree that your interpretation fits the words (though mine does too,) but the Epidemic Response Act shouldn't MEAN that, because frankly it just wouldn't work. Basically we're talking about a quarantine scenario. Sure... it's true that people aren't allowed to enter a quarantined area (immigration.) But isn't the MOST IMPORTANT truth that those inside aren't allowed out?

Otherwise infected people are free to get on a plane in their country... go overseas, and get deported by a nation not allowing the immigration of infectious persons. But the damage has already been done. Either the Right of Emigration needs to be altered or the Epidemic Response Act needs to be altered... I dare not say which-- but, until such time, this remains illegal in my eyes. It is either ineffective, or it renders the Right of Emigration ineffective.

Mind you, I do not morally disagree that a person should be denied emigration rights because they may carry a contagion, but this is a matter of legality not preference.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Definately. However, I do not think the definition of a judicial body is open to interpretation. A judicial body dispenses justice. In order to do so you must correct injustices. In order to know what an injustice is we have laws. I do not see how there could be a (legal) judicial ruling on such a matter since the Right of Emigration itself seems to preclude it. Otherwise... while your proposed interpretation would be extremely beneficial here, the Right of Emigration turns into a national sovereignty loophole lovefest.

Right of Emigration supplies for the use of judicial ruling to impose travel restrictions. It has made it legal, so I do not understand why are you still suggesting that a court is in violation of international law, if it chooses to exercise its legal authority to issue travel restrictions. If it is a loophole, then it is a loophole; pretending one doesn't exist, doesn't actually make it nonexistent.

As it stand, unless Right of Emigration is repealed, the only legal way a government can impose travel restrictions is through some judicial process. Whether this is through a court system, or a special tribunal, does not matter. I don't see the problem with this. It does not create any kind of disparity, nor does it mean either resolution is ineffective. Member nations are still expected to act reasonably and in good faith, even with the existence of a loophole.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, FAA
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

[Wencee]

simply stating we have cast our vote against - and fully understanding the futility of doing so. *looks at the vote as it stands*

[Baranthar]

simply stating we have cast our vote against - and fully understanding the futility of doing so. *looks at the vote as it stands*

Is a vote ever futile?

As for the current proposal, I'm not entirely happy with all the measures to be taken, but I do recognize the necessity of a WA-coordinated effort to control epidemics. The reason I've decided not to support the measure is the requirement that our nation is to "share viruses, bacteria, and other pathogens sample" with a yet-to-be-created health agency.

Let's face it, not every WA member state can be described as a paragon of goodliness. Some member states are outright dictatorships, paying only lip service to the ideals of this assembly. I am, at the moment, hesitant to share my biotechnological research with an agency that may also include scientists from such states.

[Doctor Cyclops]

Doctor Cyclops will not vote in favor of any resolution that adds yet another bureaucratic agency to the already sprawling and bloated World Assembly.

Of additional concern: "A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets." There is nothing in the text of the resolution that suggests this description is at all accurate. That a resolution featuring such a lazy mistake could make its way to the floor for a vote is truly distressing.

[James Bluntus]

I am sure many people have brought this up before but I'll do it anyway. Your sharing of information!!! That is not what James Bluntus wants. What protocols will be in place to protect the inspectors distriputing medical care? No, James Bluntus does NOT support this proposal.

[James Bluntus]

It is very disappointing that this is going to be passed. I am working on the Repeal now

[TheBigCheese]

I am pleased to see this act is very likely to pass. The protection of the majority of nations should always be our top priority. Epidemics are a danger and a threat to civilization. Now I must agree, some liberties will be sacrificed with this act. But I believe these minor sacrifices should not cross our minds when the risk of spreading an epidemic is so great. The Holy Empire of TheBigCheese supports this act and will stand by it. We should not feel threatened by acts that empower the World Assembly. The World Assembly is here for our protection and the common good for the common people.

[Wencee]

The vote itself is not indeed futile. Merely what is futile is any attempt to defeat this resolution. You know this. @Big Cheese .. indeed when has power ever been abused

[The Nation of Elysium]

Although I believe that world epidemics could be stopped by increasing funding to other areas rather than police and military budgets (something that is not a top priority to Elysium), the Nation of Elysium supports this bill still, in hopes that the combined nations of the WA can keep our planet safe from plague and disease. EPARC is a fine idea that despite possible drawbacks deserves to be given a chance to succeed.

[Scotchpinestan]

This resolution is a nice idea, but Section 2 provides a fatal flaw. What if there's an outbreak two years in a row, but the second outbreak isn't even as bad as the first? Then it wouldn't have to be reported, and a government could willingly deny its people the help they need.

Scotchpinestan votes AGAINST.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

The General Assembly resolution Epidemic Response Act was passed 3,735 votes to 1,301, and implemented in all WA member nations.

[Anime Daisuki]

This resolution is a nice idea, but Section 2 provides a fatal flaw. What if there's an outbreak two years in a row, but the second outbreak isn't even as bad as the first? Then it wouldn't have to be reported, and a government could willingly deny its people the help they need.

Scotchpinestan votes AGAINST.

You're not thinking it through correctly.

There can't be an outbreak twice in a row, because by the first outbreak, it would have been detected and reported per Section 2, and medical teams dispatched to attend to it.