NationStates

---

Description: THE WORLD ASSEMBLY,

NOTING the danger posed by communicable diseases, especially those whose etiology, pathology, and prognosis are unknown and cause human fatality;

REALIZING that a nation that intentionally withholds information about an epidemic within its borders places the international community at risk by impeding the ability of others to put into action plans to contain the disease or research a vaccine;

HEREBY

1) CREATES the Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Response Center (EPARC) within the World Health Authority. The EPARC shall serve the following primary functions:
a. Identifying and confirming international outbreaks;
b. Coordinating international outbreak response using resources from scientific institutions in World Assembly member nations, medical initiatives, regional technical networks, and international humanitarian nongovernmental organizations; and
c. Strengthening readiness for outbreaks of dangerous and emerging pathogens.

2) REQUIRES that all member nations report any outbreak to the World Health Authority EPARC if the incidence rate of a disease in any localized area reaches a level of more than twice that of the same calendar month in the previous year;

3) STRONGLY URGES all member nations enact immediate measures to combat a local outbreak while it is still in the incipient stages, including, but not limited to, the following:
a. Providing medical care to infected individuals;
b. Issuing public news updates;
c. Eradicating insects, vermin, or livestock if they carry the disease;
d. Quarantining infected individuals in their homes or in hospitals;

4) REQUIRES that all member nations share viruses, bacteria, and other pathogens samples with the World Health Authority EPARC so that the international community can research a vaccine and is kept abreast of developments if the disease evolves in virulence or other characteristics;

5) FURTHER REQUIRES that all member nations allow health inspectors from the World Health Authority and international aid agencies to travel to the affected area to provide aid to infected individuals, conduct research, distribute medical supplies and vaccines, or report the latest developments to the international community, as appropriate;

6) MANDATES that all member nations act responsibly in the control of the nation's land, sea, and airport and impose travel restrictions, if recommended by the World Health Authority EPARC, to help control the spread of the disease; and

7) ASKS that all member nations cooperate at all times with the World Health Authority EPARC on issues not enumerated.

---

I yield the floor.

All that contributes to depopulating the Earth is good. Opposed.

"The Soyedinyonniyi Schtati approve of the intent and the content of this proposal. I am however concerned about the category-- it does not seem appropriate. As, however, that is a question for the Presiding Officer to determine, not this body, I face no hesitation in voting FOR this proposal."

I cast New Rockport's vote against this resolution and I encourage all of my colleagues to do the same. My government is particularly concerned about Section 6, which states:

6) MANDATES that all member nations act responsibly in the control of the nation's land, sea, and airport and impose travel restrictions, if recommended by the World Health Authority EPARC, to help control the spread of the disease

(emphasis added)

First, the EPARC would not really be "recommending" travel restrictions if member nations are mandated to impose them. Second, this section would give unelected, unaccountable World Assembly bureaucrats the power to coerce private citizens of all World Assembly nations. It is the position of the Republic of New Rockport that such powers should remain in the hands of national governments or of the World Assembly, which is accountable to its member nations. To delegate such powers to bureaucrats who are accountable to no one is potentially very dangerous.

For the most part, this is a very well written piece of legislation and my government would be happy to support it if Section 6 were changed.

Respectfully submitted,
Silvana Rossi
Ambassador to the World Assembly
Republic of New Rockport

With respect to the New Rockport Ambassador; may I point out a few further points in that quoted passage...

6) MANDATES that all member nations act responsibly in the control of the nation's land, sea, and airport and impose travel restrictions, if recommended by the World Health Authority EPARC, to help control the spread of the disease

From our reading it is merely the case that, should this pass, WA nations would be mandated to "act responsibly" and to impose some form of travel restrictions if recommended by EPARC. The resolution does not state what those travel restrictions would have to be and further does not state that EPARC has control over what those restrictions must be. Following this through to conclusion, EPARC can mandate travel restrictions, but it is up to the nation in question exactly what they must be. Thus we are unsure of why you are so opposed to this clause.

If you would please clarify?

Mad Sheep Railgun wrote:All that contributes to depopulating the Earth is good. Opposed.

How does it depopualate the earth it's trying to do the oppasite actually Approve!!!!

Surote wrote:

Mad Sheep Railgun wrote:All that contributes to depopulating the Earth is good. Opposed.

How does it depopualate the earth it's trying to do the oppasite actually Approve!!!!

And that's why I'm opposed.

Zemnaya Svoboda wrote:"The Soyedinyonniyi Schtati approve of the intent and the content of this proposal. I am however concerned about the category-- it does not seem appropriate. As, however, that is a question for the Presiding Officer to determine, not this body, I face no hesitation in voting FOR this proposal."

The Goddess Relief Office will like to address the above concern.
To begin with, there are two choices available that "roughly fit" the proposal:

Social Justice - A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare; and
International Security - A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

We are faced with a choice of either selecting the category that provides the best fit -- "International Security", or selecting the description that provides the best fit -- "A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare". Faced with this dilemma, the decision was to go with the category, rather than the description, since epidemics and pandemics are primarily a security issue, not a "Social Justice" issue.

It is noteworthy that the WA does not have a health related category. But category reform is already under discussion, I believe. here

Dagguerro wrote:From our reading it is merely the case that, should this pass, WA nations would be mandated to "act responsibly" and to impose some form of travel restrictions if recommended by EPARC. The resolution does not state what those travel restrictions would have to be and further does not state that EPARC has control over what those restrictions must be. Following this through to conclusion, EPARC can mandate travel restrictions, but it is up to the nation in question exactly what they must be. Thus we are unsure of why you are so opposed to this clause.

If you would please clarify?

That is correct. The key words there are "act responsibly". We understand not all nations have the ability to control their own borders. But an effort should be made nonetheless to try to prevent epidemics from spreading.

The Principalty agrees with the former statements on Section 6. A nation should be responsible for its own travel restrictions. Only should restrictions be put in place if an epicdemic is an immediate threat.

If Section 6 was revised we would gladly support this act. We oppose this act until Section 6 is revised

Dagguerro wrote:With respect to the New Rockport Ambassador; may I point out a few further points in that quoted passage...

6) MANDATES that all member nations act responsibly in the control of the nation's land, sea, and airport and impose travel restrictions, if recommended by the World Health Authority EPARC, to help control the spread of the disease

From our reading it is merely the case that, should this pass, WA nations would be mandated to "act responsibly" and to impose some form of travel restrictions if recommended by EPARC. The resolution does not state what those travel restrictions would have to be and further does not state that EPARC has control over what those restrictions must be. Following this through to conclusion, EPARC can mandate travel restrictions, but it is up to the nation in question exactly what they must be. Thus we are unsure of why you are so opposed to this clause.

If you would please clarify?

It is my government's concern that this section could be interpreted as requiring national governments to impose the particular travel restrictions that the EPARC recommends. However, I like the interpretation proposed by my esteemed colleague from Dagguerro. It appears to satisfy the letter of the law while minimizing the restriction of our citizens' liberty.

Goddess Relief Office wrote:That is correct. The key words there are "act responsibly". We understand not all nations have the ability to control their own borders. But an effort should be made nonetheless to try to prevent epidemics from spreading.

Would the travel restrictions imposed by the EPARC include restrictions on domestic travel, or would they only apply to international travel? My initial reading of the section was that it was not limited to restrictions on international travel, but the statement by my esteemed colleague from the Goddess Relief Office seems to imply that the section is intended to prevent the spread of diseases across borders, and therefore would apply only to international travel.

Respectfully submitted,
Silvana Rossi
Ambassador to the World Assembly
Republic of New Rockport

In the Right to Emigration a list is provided of the reasons why a person may be denied their right to leave a nation. Being a carrier of an epidemic is not listed. While this may be unfortunate, we're all aware that resolutions can not be amended or contradicted. To give some committee the right to violate the Right to Emigration is illegal. This resolution is illegal.

Of course, it would've been a simple enough fix, since the Right to Immigration has not been drafted, and a nation can certainly be recommended to close its borders to incoming people... which serves the same purpose, I believe, without taking away a person's rights as granted by international law, or limiting national sovereignty beyond which is most obviously self-protecting.

Unfortunately, this proposal makes use of vague language that covers incoming and outgoing citizens. Therefore it is illegal. If the author had taken the time to consult a few more people before submitting this could've been easily avoided.

I implore other delegations not to vote for this resolution in its current form. It is obviously a needed piece of legislation, and will obviously save many lives. However, it is illegal-- and lives will not be saved in the long run if this body begins contradicting the letter of its own law.

Mad Sheep Railgun wrote:

Surote wrote:

Mad Sheep Railgun wrote:All that contributes to depopulating the Earth is good. Opposed.

How does it depopualate the earth it's trying to do the oppasite actually Approve!!!!

And that's why I'm opposed.

I also oppose it. Also though (as far as I know) bioweapons are illegal if a new disease develops in my country and there's no cure I'm keeping it to weaponize it later.

No matter what everyones opinions on Section 6 are, this resolution is being voted upon. So the only way to change it is...
a) make everyone vote against it, and hope the author makes the changes you want and re-submits it, or...
b) let it pass, try to repeal it, and if successful in the repeal hope the author makes the changes you want.

Having looked over the past WA resolutions, it seems to me that aspects of this "Epidemic Response Act" are actually rather like a previously passed resolution, specifically the "World Health Authority" resolution (General Assembly Resolution # 31, Implemented: Tue Jan 6 2009 ).

We feel it would perhaps be better to repeal this former resolution and combine the ideas from both into a brand new all-encompassing resolution.

I have already stated time and time again, the World Assembly is not obliged to follow its own resolutions! Nations cannot restrict the movement of nations, but the WA certainly can! This thread already discussed all this... Therefore, this resolution is in fact legal in that respect...

It's likely illegal in the fact that this doesn't actually deal with international security. What are we supposed to do with all that excess money we're going to throw to the Military? Shoot zombies? I guess that would be a backhanded method of dealing with black magic...

Hey, law firms! I'm a man with lots of Universial Standard Dollars to burn, and a need to fufil! Can you please convince WA Gnomes that necromony can somehow led to pandemics?

Absolvability wrote:In the Right to Emigration a list is provided of the reasons why a person may be denied their right to leave a nation. Being a carrier of an epidemic is not listed. While this may be unfortunate, we're all aware that resolutions can not be amended or contradicted. To give some committee the right to violate the Right to Emigration is illegal. This resolution is illegal.

The resolution is not illegal, as WA associations are not subject to WA law. The EPARC, a WA organization, is the body that reserves the right to impose such restrictions, so therefore, the resolution is legal.

New Rockport wrote:First, the EPARC would not really be "recommending" travel restrictions if member nations are mandated to impose them. Second, this section would give unelected, unaccountable World Assembly bureaucrats the power to coerce private citizens of all World Assembly nations. It is the position of the Republic of New Rockport that such powers should remain in the hands of national governments or of the World Assembly, which is accountable to its member nations. To delegate such powers to bureaucrats who are accountable to no one is potentially very dangerous.

For the most part, this is a very well written piece of legislation and my government would be happy to support it if Section 6 were changed.

Respectfully submitted,
Silvana Rossi
Ambassador to the World Assembly
Republic of New Rockport

If we were to assume that all WA organizations will act irresponsibly, expecting the worst of them, we would have very few resolutions come to pass. If you are going to take an extremely cynical stance towards the "WA bureaucrats," can you really expect the afflicted nations to act any more responsibly? Furthermore, the EPARC only reserves these rights in the event of an epidemic, as stated by the resolution. At this stage, when arguably the survival of your nation is on the line, national sovereignty should not be a high priority.

I am instructed to remind ambassadors that it is not in order to make points of order against a resolution at vote. Except in blatant cases, such as "Max Barry Day", we prefer to constrain the debate on a resolution at vote to the substance of the resolution, not its legality.

Susan Zapfkoro
Legislative Assistant
Goobergunchian UN Embassy

Veilyonia wrote:If we were to assume that all WA organizations will act irresponsibly, expecting the worst of them, we would have very few resolutions come to pass. If you are going to take an extremely cynical stance towards the "WA bureaucrats," can you really expect the afflicted nations to act any more responsibly?

This is not necessarily a matter of who would act more responsibly. Suppose, hypothetically, that the imposition of travel restrictions could reasonably be expected to prevent 200 deaths and another 1,000 non-fatal illnesses. However, doing so would require shutting down a city and holding 100,000 people under virtual house arrest. Two equally responsible people might make different decisions in such a situation, as the decision that one makes in such a situation depends not on whether one acts responsibly, but on the relative value one places on life and health vs. liberty and economic activity.

Veilyonia wrote:Furthermore, the EPARC only reserves these rights in the event of an epidemic, as stated by the resolution. At this stage, when arguably the survival of your nation is on the line, national sovereignty should not be a high priority.

First, not every epidemic threatens the survival of a nation, and there is nothing that restricts EPARC from exercising its Section 6 powers only in those cases in which national survival is threatened. Second, my government is not concerned so much with national sovereignty as it is with accountability. All member states cede authority to the World Assembly, but the ambassadors and delegates to the World Assembly are accountable to the governments that appointed us. As an ambassador, I can be recalled at any time by my nation's government. A delegate can be replaced if his or her nation loses the plurality of endorsements in its region. The bureaucrats of the EPARC, on the other hand, are accountable to no one. My nation is not necessarily averse to ceding authority to a supra-national organization. If it were, it would never have joined the World Assembly. My nation is averse, however, to putting its citizens under the authority of bureaucrats who are completely unaccountable.

Respectfully submitted,
Silvana Rossi
Ambassador to the World Assembly
Republic of New Rockport

New Rockport wrote:First, not every epidemic threatens the survival of a nation, and there is nothing that restricts EPARC from exercising its Section 6 powers only in those cases in which national survival is threatened. Second, my government is not concerned so much with national sovereignty as it is with accountability. All member states cede authority to the World Assembly, but the ambassadors and delegates to the World Assembly are accountable to the governments that appointed us. As an ambassador, I can be recalled at any time by my nation's government. A delegate can be replaced if his or her nation loses the plurality of endorsements in its region. The bureaucrats of the EPARC, on the other hand, are accountable to no one. My nation is not necessarily averse to ceding authority to a supra-national organization. If it were, it would never have joined the World Assembly. My nation is averse, however, to putting its citizens under the authority of bureaucrats who are completely unaccountable.

Respectfully submitted,
Silvana Rossi
Ambassador to the World Assembly
Republic of New Rockport

As I mentioned before in a telegram to you, which you either ignored or didn't understand, the EPARC is accountable the the WA, being a WA organization. The ambassadors and delegates of every nation can control the EPARC, without repealing the resolution. Furthermore, if the EPARC is acting irrisponsibly and the ambassadors/delegates of the WA nations cannot control it, then the member nations of the WA can vote to repeal this act (assuming it passes) thus nuetralizing the EPARC. I see no reason to assume that the EPARC will abuse it's power. There are many WA orgainization that have just as much, or more power, than this proposed orgainization. Are we to assume the worst, and repeal all resolution that create WA orgainizations?

Malikov wrote:As I mentioned before in a telegram to you, which you either ignored or didn't understand, the EPARC is accountable the the WA, being a WA organization. The ambassadors and delegates of every nation can control the EPARC, without repealing the resolution.

Actually, once the WA creates a committee, it has no power to say who serves on that committee. There is no power to hire or fire the committee staff.

Malikov wrote:Furthermore, if the EPARC is acting irrisponsibly and the ambassadors/delegates of the WA nations cannot control it, then the member nations of the WA can vote to repeal this act (assuming it passes) thus nuetralizing the EPARC.

So the only possible check on the employees of EPARC would be to repeal this resolution.

Malikov wrote:I see no reason to assume that the EPARC will abuse it's power.

Nor do I. However, there is a possibility that a difference of opinion may arise between the EPARC and the national government. As I stated on another thread, to weigh the value of lives saved and illnesses prevented against the value of lost liberty and economic activity, one must not only make accurate calculations; one must also make value judgments. I have complete faith in the competence of WA bureaucrats to gather information, to monitor the situation on the ground, to make accurate calculations, and to provide assistance when member states request it. However, I do not have complete faith that these bureaucrats' values will be compatible with the prevailing values of my country's people and its government.

Malikov wrote:There are many WA orgainization that have just as much, or more power, than this proposed orgainization. Are we to assume the worst, and repeal all resolution that create WA orgainizations?

For the most part, WA committees do not have coercive powers over private citizens. Their duties are generally limited to monitoring, research, reporting, assisting national governments, and coordinating efforts of national governments. There are only two committees that have the power to coerce private citizens of member states. The World Health Authority has the power to expropriate patents temporarily per Resolution 41*. The International Transport Safety Committee has the power to make rules for international transportation per Resolution 34.

It was not my intent to ignore my esteemed colleague's telegram. I apologize for not replying sooner.

Respectfully submitted,
Silvana Rossi
Ambassador to the World Assembly
Republic of New Rockport

* (OOC: There is a way around this one, if anyone is interested.)

I oppose this because not only may nations not want to help these people, they may not have the technology to do so.

Goobergunchia wrote:I am instructed to remind ambassadors that it is not in order to make points of order against a resolution at vote. Except in blatant cases, such as "Max Barry Day", we prefer to constrain the debate on a resolution at vote to the substance of the resolution, not its legality.

Well, Ambassador, just when in the hell are we able to discuss its legality? The author of this resolution didn't see fit to make a drafting thread. However, even when propriety fails the show must go on. Some of us would like to decide whether or not it's legal before we vote. Call me old fashioned.

Veilyonia wrote:The resolution is not illegal, as WA associations are not subject to WA law. The EPARC, a WA organization, is the body that reserves the right to impose such restrictions, so therefore, the resolution is legal.

You're seriously going to say that the WA isn't subject to WA law? You act as though there is any substance to the actual name... as though the WA is or ever would be anything more than the sum of its parts. As though a body made up of nations that are indeed bound by international law somehow is not. WHEN YOUR POWERS COMBINE!!! I... AM... CAPTAIN... bulllllllllllshit.

If you'd like to PRETEND that WA associations aren't subject to WA law go ahead. It's a convenient enough assumption because the gnomes don't really get in anybody's way. They don't get in anybody's way because they never mess up and they never do anything illegal. THEY FOLLOW THE LETTER OF THE LAW. Which is why we're all often quite anal about how things are phrased. When they begin "recommending" non-compliance with resolutions we're opening up a can of worms. It doesn't matter who carries it out, the whole damn situation is illegal.

It's funny, really, because normally when somebody writes at the bottom of their proposal, "this proposal will be strictly enforced, too!" we all tell them to stop being redundant because what is written is what is done, and they need not say it twice. Apparently, with the passing of the Epidemic Response Act, we'll have to give way to these needs.

SS4 wrote:I have already stated time and time again, the World Assembly is not obliged to follow its own resolutions! Nations cannot restrict the movement of nations, but the WA certainly can! This thread already discussed all this... Therefore, this resolution is in fact legal in that respect...

Your vague examples from a disbanded body are supposed to serve as adequate examples? The thought that the World Assembly doesn't have to follow its own laws is so infuriatingly ridiculous that I, for the first time, am considering leaving. I'll be damned if I recieve a telegram telling me what the hell I'm going to do from a totally unaccountable body.

I left the World Assembly because I rarely fully agree with a law. My nation is isolated now from foreign politics and happier because of it.
I'm shocked that anybody remains in this terrible WA. I ALWAYS VOTE AGAINST EVERYTHING BECAUSE I AM RARELY HAPPY WITH SOME OF WHAT IS PROPOSED.

Absolvability wrote:You're seriously going to say that the WA isn't subject to WA law? You act as though there is any substance to the actual name... as though the WA is or ever would be anything more than the sum of its parts. As though a body made up of nations that are indeed bound by international law somehow is not. WHEN YOUR POWERS COMBINE!!! I... AM... CAPTAIN... bulllllllllllshit.

If you'd like to PRETEND that WA associations aren't subject to WA law go ahead. It's a convenient enough assumption because the gnomes don't really get in anybody's way. They don't get in anybody's way because they never mess up and they never do anything illegal. THEY FOLLOW THE LETTER OF THE LAW. Which is why we're all often quite anal about how things are phrased. When they begin "recommending" non-compliance with resolutions we're opening up a can of worms. It doesn't matter who carries it out, the whole damn situation is illegal.

Like it or not that is the way that the WA works. WA associations are not subject to WA law, which may seem ridiculous to you because you clearly didn't take a moment to consider such a situation:

-Nation A passes a resolution in which a WA association hold certain powers.
-Nation B then passes another resolution that prevents the WA nations from using such powers.

WA associations need not follow WA law for such reasons; the WA is only meant to govern its member nations. Any competent WA nation will be able to tell you that WA associations are not subject to WA law, whether you like it or not. If the legislation was illegal, do you think it would have even made it to vote? An NS mod would have erased the proposal before it even reached quorum.

SS4 wrote:I have already stated time and time again, the World Assembly is not obliged to follow its own resolutions! Nations cannot restrict the movement of nations, but the WA certainly can! This thread already discussed all this... Therefore, this resolution is in fact legal in that respect...

Your vague examples from a disbanded body are supposed to serve as adequate examples? The thought that the World Assembly doesn't have to follow its own laws is so infuriatingly ridiculous that I, for the first time, am considering leaving. I'll be damned if I recieve a telegram telling me what the hell I'm going to do from a totally unaccountable body.

Where have you been? If you had bothered to read any of New Rockport's posts, you would know that this is precisely the reason why he disagrees with the resolution. I would generally be against a resolution with such sweeping powers, but the fact that the EPARC only possesses such powers in the event of an outbreak of an undocumented disease is why I support this proposal. In such an event that this epidemic could easily claim millions of lives, I am willing to forego such rights.

New Rockport wrote:
First, the EPARC would not really be "recommending" travel restrictions if member nations are mandated to impose them. Second, this section would give unelected, unaccountable World Assembly bureaucrats the power to coerce private citizens of all World Assembly nations. It is the position of the Republic of New Rockport that such powers should remain in the hands of national governments or of the World Assembly, which is accountable to its member nations. To delegate such powers to bureaucrats who are accountable to no one is potentially very dangerous.

Well, geez, New Rockport, if people are dropping like flies, and you say that sick dudes should infect major cities just because you want to go to the Bahamas for a week, let it be. It's kinda obvious that you want to stir up controversy to get attention. I have voted for this resolution, and encourage all to do the same.

Sincerly,
Pyshoria, Senator from Yggdrasil.