[Draft] Repeal Freedom to Seek Medical Care II

[Concrete Slab]

Noting the good intentions of GAR#456

Commending its author for their repeated attempts to provide accessible medical care to the citizens of the world.

Believing, however, the target resolution is riddled with faults that would allow either further injury to persons seeking medical tourism or backlash to the nations who receive them.

Observing that Clause One prohibits citizens to enter countries at war with the member nation, but still enter nations that are economically unsound or war-torn, as long as the war is not with the citizen’s home nation.

Aghast that Clause Four severely hampers individual jurisdiction by prohibiting member nations to take legal action against their medical tourists.

Noting that while Clause Six intends to relieve member nations of further payments, it drastically affects medical tourists who become sick or injured after their initial treatment

Further notes that the targeted resolution does not place quarantine measures on incoming medical tourists, which could result in devastation and epidemic spread to member nations who only wish good.

Worried that the resolution does not place any background or security checks on entering persons, seeing how this might lead to terrorist attacks or even a coup d’etat.

Disappointed that the author would allow a coding error to appear twice within the resolution, undermining the high standards placed on General Assembly Resolutions.

Believing this resolution does more to harm member nations than help medical tourists,

Hereby repeals GAR#456

[Concrete Slab]

What do you guys think?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Can't put a name in there.

Noting the good intentions of GAR#456

Commending its author, New Waldensia for their repeated attempts to provide accessible medical care to the citizens of the world.

Believing, however, the target resolution is riddled with faults that would allow either further injury to persons seeking medical tourism or backlash to the nations who receive them.

Observing that Clause One prohibits citizens to enter countries at war with the member nation, but still enter nations that are economically unsound or war-torn, as long as the war is not with the citizen’s home nation.

Aghast that Clause Four severely hampers individual jurisdiction by prohibiting member nations to take legal action against their medical tourists.

Noting that while Clause Six intends to relieve member nations of further payments, it drastically affects medical tourists who become sick or injured after their initial treatment

Further notes that the targeted resolution does not place quarantine measures on incoming medical tourists, which could result in devastation and epidemic spread to member nations who only wish good.

Worried that the resolution does not place any background or security checks on entering persons, seeing how this might lead to terrorist attacks or even a coup d’etat.

Disappointed that the author would allow a coding error to appear twice within the resolution, undermining the high standards placed on General Assembly Resolutions.

Believing this resolution does more to harm member nations than help medical tourists,

Hereby repeals GAR#456

[Concrete Slab]

Edited

[Maowi]

Observing that Clause One prohibits citizens to enter countries at war with the member nation, but still enter nations that are economically unsound or war-torn, as long as the war is not with the citizen’s home nation.

First of all, you should change this to make it clearer that clause 1 doesn't actually prohibit citizens entering countries at war with their nation, it allows member nations to prohibit this. Also, you should make it really explicit what you think the problem is with this. Stating what a resolution does isn't the same as convincing everybody why it needs to be repealed.

Aghast that Clause Four severely hampers individual jurisdiction by prohibiting member nations to take legal action against their medical tourists.

Same with this. Maybe try think of a situation in which this would be justifiably problematic for member nations.

Worried that the resolution does not place any background or security checks on entering persons, seeing how this might lead to terrorist attacks or even a coup d’etat.

I might be wrong, but the way I read it member nations can regulate the people entering their nation, subject to WA resolutions ...

[Araraukar]

Worried that the resolution does not place any background or security checks on entering persons, seeing how this might lead to terrorist attacks or even a coup d’etat.

OOC: There are other resolutions that do that, though.