[PASSED] Medical Blockade Restriction

[Philimbesi]

I'm floating this out there for critique and such.

I'd like a mods ruling at to if it is far enough away from
this to be considered legal. Also a confirmation on category and strength.

Medical Blockade Restriction
Category: Free Trade
Strength: Strong


UNDERSTANDING that in the course of international affairs, nations may from time to time place trade blockades on other nations.

REGRETTING that at times said blockades might restrict life saving drugs and personnel from attending the sick and wounded in the blocked nations.

ASSERTING that life is fundamentally more important than political or international affairs.

The World Assembly,

DEFINES Medical Supplies as any item used directly in life saving actions, or those used to sustain life after injury or disease.

DEFINES Medical Personnel as civilian doctors, nurses, or paramedical personnel

REQUIRES any blocking force or forces to grant vessels carrying medical supplies and personnel passage.

PERMITS the searching of delivery vessels in accordance with WA statues.

PROHIBITS the blocking of delivery of medical supplies or personnel to the citizens of blockaded nations.

[Grays Harbor]

Honestly, I think that this is covered all or in part by several previous resolutions:

#6 Humanitarian Transport
#31 World Health Authority
#41 Access to Life-saving Drugs
#51 Humanitarian Aid Coordination
#53 Epidemic Response Act

[Philimbesi]

I've looked through the resolutions and I'm not seeing the duplication. I agree that some of them have to do with medical transport and cargo but none of them ban blocking medical supplies and should any of them be repealed this could still stand. I don't create a committee or any of that other superfluous fodder that the others do so could you be more specific?

[Serrland]

I would suggest there be some sort of exemption for narcotic medications. If some nation, for example, still uses cocaine for medical purposes, it should not be protected by this Act. Other than that, upon first read through, Serrland would support it, although our Honorable Ambassador will have to examine it more closely before making an official judgement.

[Grays Harbor]

I would suggest there be some sort of exemption for narcotic medications. If some nation, for example, still uses cocaine for medical purposes, it should not be protected by this Act. Other than that, upon first read through, Serrland would support it, although our Honorable Ambassador will have to examine it more closely before making an official judgement.

We are not quite certain about that idea, as most any prescription medicine can be considered a "controlled substance" or "narcotic". That would effectively ban most everything beyond band-aids and aspirin.

[Philimbesi]

I would suggest there be some sort of exemption for narcotic medications.

We thank the ambassador for their suggestion however, we feel that if the nations doing the trade do not have cocaine or any narcotic listed as a controlled substance and feel as though its a medicine we see no reason to stop that trade from happening. As far as we are aware the WA hasn't passed a controlled substance list, so we won't let this act be a back door to creating one.

Nigel S Youlkin
WA Ambassador - USP

[Serrland]

Fair enough. The delegate from Serrland understands the opposed position, and accepts that he will probably be in the minority, and will drop its argument accordingly.

*Delegate shrugs, fixes his tie, and pours another cup of coffee.

[Nordicus]

Nordicus concurs with the honorable ambassador of Serrland on the issue of narcotics, although we feel that it should not grant such broad protection to any drug controlled by the receiving nation. We would hardly want street drugs to be able to imported into our nation with impunity simply because they are noted to have a medicinal usage in another nation. After all, most abused drugs could be argued to have a medicinal use in treating withdrawal symptoms, which can be fatal in cases.

Perhaps if the bill limited such protection to medications being carried by medical personnel en route to an emergency situation?

[Philimbesi]

Except it wouldn't let street drugs through. This is only to keep other nations from blocking medical supplies YOU have ordered or requested. In other words if a nation has placed an embargo on you and my nation is shipping medical supplies to you the nation levying the embargo can't stop those medical supplies from getting through.

If the contents shipment is illegal in your nation, you should handle that as you would normally. Nothing in this act states you have to receive the shipment. It simply states that an outside nation can't stop you from getting shipments you need.

~Nigel S Youlkin

[A mean old man]

MEDICAL EMBARGO RESTRICTION ACT
Category: Free Trade
Strength: Strong or Significant


UNDERSTANDING that in the course of international affairs, nations may from time to time place trade embargoes on other nations.

REGRETTING that at times said embargoes might restrict life saving drugs and personnel from attending the sick and wounded in the embargoed nations.

ASSERTING that life is fundamentally more important than political or international affairs.

The World Assembly,

DEFINES Medical Supplies as any item used directly in life saving actions, or those used to sustain life after injury or disease.

May want to be more specific, perhaps link them to the pharmaceutical businesses

DEFINES Medical Personnel as civilian doctors, nurses, or paramedical personnel

I somehow feel that the movement of personnel could get into dangerous political business. May want to stick to supplies.

PROHIBITS the embargoing of medical supplies.

PROHBITS the blocking of delivery of medical supplies or personnel to the citizens of embargoed nations.

PROHIBITS the willful restriction of medical personal to access, treat and evacuate sick and wounded citizens.

I went over that rather quickly. I agree with the idea of this proposal. It may require some tweaking, however.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Glen-Rhodes places trade embargoes on nations for a reason. In all likelihood, medical supplies would not reach their intended, humanitarian targets, if given to an embargoed nation, especially for those nations which Glen-Rhodes has active trade embargoes against.

Needless to mention, the stipulations mandated by the last clause fall upon deaf, non-member ears. Glen-Rhodes companies would be funneling perhaps millions of dollars worth of medical supplies to nations that will not use the medical supplies for civilians. They may resell them, all in the name of profit. Enhanced economic strength is antithetical to the entire purpose of the embargo.

In all, the idea of sending medical supplies to those in need is noble. However, the employment here is extremely naive.

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

[Burninati0n]

Man, this would seriously put a dent in my ability to wage war and obliterate the opposing army. I mean, I'd have to give them all my health technologies and practically say, "here, heal up your armies so I can shoot their legs off again."

[A mean old man]

Man, this would seriously put a dent in my ability to wage war and obliterate the opposing army. I mean, I'd have to give them all my health technologies and practically say, "here, heal up your armies so I can shoot their legs off again."

Pretty sure you can't grow new legs after your original ones are blown off. That is, unless you're a starfish. I don't think I'd use starfish in my military.

Obliterating the opposing army usually means killing them - I don't really know what medical technology can heal that. I also figure that anyone disabled in the battlefield by you shooting their legs off would not be returning to shoot at you again, if your enemies' governments have any sort of brains in their heads.

EDIT: Unless they're starfish, in which case, they don't have heads.

[Enn]

Obliterating the opposing army usually means killing them - I don't really know what medical technology can heal that.

And if they do have that sort of technology, I'd advise against going to war against them.

EDIT: Unless they're starfish, in which case, they don't have heads.

... or brains, when it comes down to it.

[Burninati0n]

Pretty sure you can't grow new legs after your original ones are blown off. That is, unless you're a starfish. I don't think I'd use starfish in my military.

Obliterating the opposing army usually means killing them - I don't really know what medical technology can heal that. I also figure that anyone disabled in the battlefield by you shooting their legs off would not be returning to shoot at you again, if your enemies' governments have any sort of brains in their heads.

EDIT: Unless they're starfish, in which case, they don't have heads.

All right, so I exaggerated for effect. But the point still stands; this would seriously impede a war effort. To fix this, the author would simply say that you CAN embargo your medical supplies to a nation you are at war with.

[Nordicus]

Except it wouldn't let street drugs through. This is only to keep other nations from blocking medical supplies YOU have ordered or requested. In other words if a nation has placed an embargo on you and my nation is shipping medical supplies to you the nation levying the embargo can't stop those medical supplies from getting through.

If the contents shipment is illegal in your nation, you should handle that as you would normally. Nothing in this act states you have to receive the shipment. It simply states that an outside nation can't stop you from getting shipments you need.

While that certainly sounds more palatable than my interpretation, that is not the way I see the current wording.

In particular, the following line bothers me:

PROHIBITS the embargoing of medical supplies

Embargoes work both ways. This is apparently intending to say that nations cannot prohibit the movement of medicines INTO other nations. However, the wording chosen would also mean that nations could not place an embargo on the receiving of medicines from other nations.

Perhaps I am merely paranoid, but I do support the legislation as it is currently worded.

[Philimbesi]

All right, so I exaggerated for effect. But the point still stands; this would seriously impede a war effort. To fix this, the author would simply say that you CAN embargo your medical supplies to a nation you are at war with.

Well far be it for a peaceful body like the WA to try and impede your war effort but, there is no language in the resolution that forces you to send medical supplies anywhere, just language the stops you from blocking those other nations send in. I suppose a case can be made that an embargoed nation can order the supplies from the nation they are at war with but I fail to see why a nation at war would want supplies from a nation they are fighting, nor why they would trust those sent to them.

We understand the issues raised by Dr Castro and will discuss them with our legislative liaison. More to come.

Embargoes work both ways. This is apparently intending to say that nations cannot prohibit the movement of medicines INTO other nations. However, the wording chosen would also mean that nations could not place an embargo on the receiving of medicines from other nations.

So the ambassador is envisioning rouge ships full of bedpans steeling into his ports and unloading their cargo in the middle of the night... the ships.. not the bedpans?

[Grays Harbor]

All right, so I exaggerated for effect. But the point still stands; this would seriously impede a war effort. To fix this, the author would simply say that you CAN embargo your medical supplies to a nation you are at war with.

Well far be it for a peaceful body like the WA to try and impede your war effort but, there is no language in the resolution that forces you to send medical supplies anywhere, just language the stops you from blocking those other nations send in. I suppose a case can be made that an embargoed nation can order the supplies from the nation they are at war with but I fail to see why a nation at war would want supplies from a nation they are fighting, nor why they would trust those sent to them.

Actually, I can see the benefit in that. Get a thrid party nation, one which is "neutral but leaning towards", to order all the medical supplies they can get their hands on, funded by you of course and shipped to the third party nation which could then reship to you. This would have the effect of increasing your medical stocks while depriving your enemy of those same supplies. Maybe not a good plan, but a plan.

[Philimbesi]

Come now ambassador, that's a harebrained scheme more than a plan. A better plan would be to bomb the medical supply companies since you are currently at war with the nation. Much more effective than dragging a third party into the fray and trying to win the war by stockpiling aspirin.

Further what's to stop the Embargoed nation from saying to the third party nation "no you can't buy that aspirin because we're in the middle of a war and we need it here"?

[Grays Harbor]

Come now ambassador, that's a harebrained scheme more than a plan. A better plan would be to bomb the medical supply companies since you are currently at war with the nation. Much more effective than dragging a third party into the fray and trying to win the war by stockpiling aspirin.

Further what's to stop the Embargoed nation from saying to the third party nation "no you can't buy that aspirin because we're in the middle of a war and we need it here"?

Like I said, it may not be a good plan. Bombing would my first choice, naturally. I was just tossing out a potential means of abuse of the proposal.

And besides, our invasion of Prussia 3 centuries ago was considered a "harebrained scheme", and we got a colony and many resources out of there in the bargain for many many years after.

[Philimbesi]

I understand your intent and indeed appreciate it, however I'm not the kind of ambassador that spends months and months developing as resolution in the vain attempt to make it loophole proof. In fact, I find that the more "what ifs" you try and prepare for the more openings you leave on the other side.

[Grays Harbor]

Nothing shall ever be loophole proof, and men have been driven mad by trying in our own parliament. The efforts gone into this are appreciated.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I wish to also join the call that in the case that this draft is feasible, appropriate protections should be in place that will allow member states to control recreational drugs, and to distinguish live saving drugs from recreational drugs. Now, I understand that the legality of drugs depending on use are complex, but if administered properly then it would be okay.

The honoured ambassador to Charlotte Ryberg is undecided on this draft but will try to keep an eye out for further changes.

[Grays Harbor]

No recreational drugs. This is about medicine, and should stay that way. Should somebody care to try and legalize/criminalize recreational drugs, that belongs in a seperate proposal.

[Philimbesi]

appropriate protections should be in place that will allow member states to control recreational drugs, and to distinguish live saving drugs from recreational drugs.

First off, the act does define medical supplies as any item used directly in life saving actions, or those used to sustain life after injury or disease. So I hardly see where recreational drugs enter into the conversation. That said.

There is nothing stopping them from controlling the drugs in the text now honored ambassador. Say just in the instance of marijuana if a nation doesn't allow it to be bought or sold either for recreational use or medicinal use, please show me where you feel this act forces them to accept it or for that matter where it bans it in nations that do allow it. The text stops other people keeping it from you and yes it does stop you from including it in embargoes you levy on other people.