NationStates

As noted in my previous comment, I was only able to get online in NS for a few minutes on that day and therefore had to make my decisions in a hurry: Possibly I shouldn't have posted at all, then, but I was unsure about whether RL during the next few days would give me much more opportunity to look at the matter either.
I'll now take a closer look at the situation, with full copies of the relevant texts open before me, at some stage during this weekend.

When will the relevant decision be available?

Imperium Anglorum wrote:When will the relevant decision be available?

We have a draft all but finished. We're waiting to make sure every active GenSec member gets a chance to look over it and comment.

Separatist Peoples wrote:We're waiting to make sure every active GenSec member gets a chance to look over it and comment.

There are non-active GenSec members?

Araraukar wrote:There are non-active GenSec members?

CD has been somewhat inactive for some time, I hear. He apparently lives in an area affected by recent hurricanes.

Araraukar wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:We're waiting to make sure every active GenSec member gets a chance to look over it and comment.

There are non-active GenSec members?

There are GenSec members who, by virtue of their personal schedule or the various calamities in the world, have not been as active as they would like to be.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:CD has been somewhat inactive for some time, I hear. He apparently lives in an area affected by recent hurricanes.

Separatist Peoples wrote:There are GenSec members who, by virtue of their personal schedule or the various calamities in the world, have not been as active as they would like to be.

"Hurricane" is a good enough reason.

Araraukar wrote:"Hurricane" is a good enough reason.

OOC:
Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night... Now, hurricanes on the other hand, let me tell ya'...

Any chance of the official ruling, to let Waldensia re-do the proposal in a way that will, with actual certainty, not make the same mistakes that rendered the first one illegal?

Araraukar wrote:Any chance of the official ruling, to let Waldensia re-do the proposal in a way that will, with actual certainty, not make the same mistakes that rendered the first one illegal?

We're actually in the process of getting it out. We were holding off to make sure everybody got the chance to sign off.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Araraukar wrote:Any chance of the official ruling, to let Waldensia re-do the proposal in a way that will, with actual certainty, not make the same mistakes that rendered the first one illegal?

We're actually in the process of getting it out. We were holding off to make sure everybody got the chance to sign off.

Much appreciated.

*** General Assembly Secretariat Decision ***
Challenged Proposal: "Freedom to Seek Care"
Date of Decision: 11 October 2017
Decision: Proposal is illegal, 4-0
Rules Applied: Contradiction of existing legislation

We find the challenged resolution illegal in respect of contradiction with GAR#53, Epidemic Response Act, and GAR#389, Rights Of The Quarantined. Bananaistan wrote the majority opinion, joined by Separatist Peoples, Sierra Lyricalia & Sciongrad.

We are asked to rule on whether the challenged proposal violates the contradiction rule on a number of points.

Regarding the contradiction between section 1 of the challenged proposal and GAR#53 and GAR#389, clause 3d of GAR#53 urges nations to quarantine infected individuals in their homes or in hospitals. Clause 4b of GAR#389 requires nations to move infected individuals into quarantines, preventing the individual from travelling and leaving the nation. Member states are encouraged in one and then required in the other to restrict the right of a group of individuals to travel or leave the nation. As the challenged proposal creates an unequivocal right to leave a nation in certain circumstances (IE when the individual is seeking medical treatment abroad) the proposal contradicts both and is illegal on this count.

Though the clause is unclear, we can reasonably interpret section 1 of the challenged proposal to only apply to citizens and their dependents leaving a member nation by referencing seeking healthcare in other nations. The second "affirms" clause of GAR#76 Standardised Passport Act deals with the rights of individuals entering another nation. The challenged section deals with those leaving a nation while the clause in GAR#76 deals with those entering another. Thus, we do not find that there is contradiction on this count.

Regarding the contradiction between section 3 and GAR#76: we note that GAR#76 defines a visa and then only refers to visas in the "AFFRIMS" clause which details the rights of a holder of a valid visa. GAR#76 does not guide member states as to how to issue visas. As such, it is possible for future WA legislation to give such instructions without risking contradiction of the non-existent regulation of visa issuance procedures in GAR#76. Section 3 of the challenged proposal merely clarifies that in its travel policies; For example, when issuing a visa, a receiving nation cannot discriminate solely based on the traveller’s intent to seek medical treatment. A nation could still require a visa for all travellers to enter but it could not discriminatorily refuse a visa to a medical tourist. Therefore, we find that there is no contradiction on this point.

Regarding the internal contradiction argument, section 3 sets out that member nations may not discriminate against non-citizens travelling to seek medical treatment solely because they seek medical treatment. Section 7 states that no nation must accept foreign medical patients, and turns this around for the subset of non-citizens travelling to seek medical treatment who are already patients. We find this to be contradictory. As the moderator precedent on the issue of internal contradiction is based on the old version of the rules, which included no definition of contradiction, it would be unreasonable to maintain this precedent when the current contradiction rule clearly refers to contradiction with active resolutions, and we do not find the proposal illegal on this count.

Many thanks for your work on this ruling.

Very happy to see that we can put this 'internal contradiction' claptrap to rest. Also, you will find that this has been added to the catalogue.

Bananaistan wrote:

A nation could still require a visa for all travellers to enter but it could not discriminatorily refuse a visa to a medical tourist.

Thank you for the ruling, but just one question; could a nation still legally put clauses preventing medical tourism in the visas?