Ideas for General Assembly Proposals

[Kingdom of totalitarianism]

Since everyone else is on a environmental kick I wanted to do something unreasonably reasonable. This would be my first draft so I could use some help on the proposal essentially I want to balance the needs of the eco-friendly with the people who have energy needs for various reasons by collecting the methane from cows and transporting that to power nation in which the methane is collected. Making it mandatory in all WA members. Should only be beneficial as it will please the hippies for environment reasons and everyone else because power is needed for hospitals, mansions, machines of war and orphanages.

[Araraukar]

Since everyone else is on a environmental kick I wanted to do something unreasonably reasonable. This would be my first draft so I could use some help on the proposal essentially I want to balance the needs of the eco-friendly with the people who have energy needs for various reasons by collecting the methane from cows and transporting that to power nation in which the methane is collected. Making it mandatory in all WA members. Should only be beneficial as it will please the hippies for environment reasons and everyone else because power is needed for hospitals, mansions, machines of war and orphanages.

There is a separate thread for joke proposals. In case you're actually serious, write up an actual draft, post it in its own thread, and then I can help you see why I think it's a joke.

FYI, cows burp out most of the methane they produce.

[Unibot III]

Has anyone ever taken a look at Biomedical Donor Rights? (GA#217)

I think it's ripe for a repeal.

1) The resolution never requires consent for donations. It suggests an opt-out system, but for neither the opt-in or opt-out system that the resolution anticipates, the resolution doesn't consider consent as being an overriding principle of the donation process. The resolution just requires patients recieve "medically relevant" information before getting their "uncoerced, informed consent" but it never writes that "uncoerced, informed consent" is necessary -- just that info is necessary for consent.

2) It requires a legally completed advance health care directive to be followed to the letter, but doesn't discuss what happens if a patient wishes to reverse their directive.

3) The requirement for a medical treatment be done in as humane a way possible specific to that medical treatment means little if that medical treatment is extremely invasive. If the donation is a heart, the most humane way to conduct a live donation is going to be horrific for the donor.

4) The resolution recommends an opt-out system for "brain dead" donors but not imminently dead?

Surely a Biomedical Donor Rights bill in the WA should prevent a member-nation from, say, harvesting critical organs from unwilling donors? Maybe there's a shortage of organs or they're intending to traffic the organs internationally, I dunno, but either way it doesn't seem to be in the spirit of the WA and its commitment to human rights.

[The Yellow Monkey]

Has anyone ever taken a look at Biomedical Donor Rights? (GA#217)

I think it's ripe for a repeal.

[Island Girl Herby]

Surely a Biomedical Donor Rights bill in the WA should prevent a member-nation from, say, harvesting critical organs from unwilling donors?

In a nation of anthropomorphic cars it would be no big deal, just like going down to the local junkyard and picking out a catalytic converter, but yeah, sounds like a reasonable repeal.

[Unibot III]

Has anyone ever taken a look at Biomedical Donor Rights? (GA#217)

I think it's ripe for a repeal.

Oh good god no! I'm retired and besides, anyone pursuing such a repeal will face the full fury of WALL. You've got to have all your ducks in a row.

But I do think there should be a Health resolution that contemplates the rights of donors more clearly. If they're cognitive and of sound mind and against the procedure - why should you proceed? On what grounds are you proceeding with the organ donation? And should the WA really be recommending "brain dead" as a threshold (an Americanism) which often results in severe organ damage?

And you can't say, oh, donations must be voluntary by definition. The WA recognizes compulsory 'donations' to fund itself!!

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: I might try pursuing the R&R.

[Sancta Romana Ecclesia]

How do you all feel about repealing and replacing GA#23? When a nation in my region proposed an illegal duplicate resolution to this, I noticed that this has branding in the last paragraph.

I'd like to thank...Yelda!

From my understanding this was not illegal at the time and rules don't apply retroactively.

But as I started noticing other problems with this resolution, I really started to want to try a repeal (even though I'm not a regular here). Those issues were namely that:
-It references "human rights", "human trafficking", etc., while nations can and do have non-humans as citizens
-In para. 4 trafficking is forbidden for the purpose of (among other things) unauthorised medical procedures, but imo it's unclear whether the patient must give this authorisation or can it be authorised by the state; yeah, I'm sure other resolutions prohibit such operations, but a person can also be trafficked to non-WA country (where they don't apply).
-In para. 10 it prevents sending material support to nations that have slaves, which is good in principle, but what if they are in need of medical supplies or food (not sending them also hurts the slaves)?
-It has some other problems with the way its definitions are constructed, imo paras. 2 and 3 taken together are an example of how to not make a legal definition, first an unnecessary long definition is given that is also too broad and then many casuistic exceptions are made to the first definition.

Do you feel like all of this together is enough to argue for a repeal? And, if it is, how should a potential replacement look? (Besides fixing the above).

[Sierra Lyricalia]

It's not the craziest thing I've ever heard, but this is a long-standing Fluffy Titled™️ resolution and you'll have an uphill battle. Some of your criticisms seem a bit puffed up (e.g. the "human" vs. sapient issue is long settled by GAR #355), but there might be enough there to justify what you're thinking of, maybe. Honestly, I'd write the draft and see how it strikes you, and then see how it strikes everyone else.

[Frisbeeteria]

From my understanding this was not illegal at the time and rules don't apply retroactively.

For the record, it WAS illegal at the time. We just didn't catch it.

Back when The Most Glorious Hack and I were the primary UN mods, we added the Branding rules to the first post-Enodia rules revision. This was probably in 2005 or so. It was definitely a UN rule, and then later a WA rule.

[Sancta Romana Ecclesia]

It's not the craziest thing I've ever heard, but this is a long-standing Fluffy Titled™️ resolution and you'll have an uphill battle. Some of your criticisms seem a bit puffed up (e.g. the "human" vs. sapient issue is long settled by GAR #355), but there might be enough there to justify what you're thinking of, maybe. Honestly, I'd write the draft and see how it strikes you, and then see how it strikes everyone else.

I wasn't aware of GA#355, thanks for pointing that out. I will read it and see how it may affect the repeal situation. I'm willing to give it a try.

For the record, it WAS illegal at the time. We just didn't catch it.

Well, happens I guess.

[The New Sicilian State]

I intend to begin drafting again, have found a topic that interests me but I'm questioning its overreach before I invest time in drafting a proposal. Do you all see any worth in legislature that protects overseas agents from being persecuted or executed when their cover is blown by a domestic whistle-blower?

[Tinfect]

I intend to begin drafting again, have found a topic that interests me but I'm questioning its overreach before I invest time in drafting a proposal. Do you all see any worth in legislature that protects overseas agents from being persecuted or executed when their cover is blown by a domestic whistle-blower?

OOC:
What, you mean legislation that prevents illegal spying efforts from being retaliated to by the Member-State being spied upon when it is revealed that they're being spied upon?
Uh, no. Not really.

[The New Sicilian State]

I intend to begin drafting again, have found a topic that interests me but I'm questioning its overreach before I invest time in drafting a proposal. Do you all see any worth in legislature that protects overseas agents from being persecuted or executed when their cover is blown by a domestic whistle-blower?

OOC:
What, you mean legislation that prevents illegal spying efforts from being retaliated to by the Member-State being spied upon when it is revealed that they're being spied upon?
Uh, no. Not really.

OOC: You are right, now that I think about it. What I believe I really had in mind were workers in embassies or journalists that don't work hand in hand and don't have knowledge with overseas espionage. As of now, what's stopping member states from retaliating espionage by rounding up embassy workers and journalists for public beheading?

[Terttia]

As of now, what's stopping member states from retaliating espionage by rounding up embassy workers [...] for public beheading?

OOC: WA Res. 22 “Diplomat Protection Act” does this already.

[The New Sicilian State]

As of now, what's stopping member states from retaliating espionage by rounding up embassy workers [...] for public beheading?

OOC: WA Res. 22 “Diplomat Protection Act” does this already.

OOC: That ties up any issues for diplomats, though independent journalists seem to be left out of the loop.

[Araraukar]

OOC: That ties up any issues for diplomats, though independent journalists seem to be left out of the loop.

This thread is OOC, for the record. Also, there's the Freedom of Press resolution I can't remember the number of, and if that doesn't cover the journalists, then you can always fall back on the whole hulabaloo of resolutions that require you to have broken a law to be charged with breaking a law, and fair trial and in the event of a war breaking out as a result, the various ones protecting non-combatants, since these journalists would presumably not be soldiers. And if they were also soldiers, then the prisoner of war treatment resolution(s).

It's all really inter-connected.

[Leishmania]

The adopted nations of the World Assembly,

NOTING that the World Assembly has both a large historical precedent of, and a vested interest in, valuing the longevity of its institutions;

BELIEVING that resolutions with an inherent moral logic are best conducive to the fruition of this value, as immoral institutions naturally promote their own disintegration by failing to account for human intelligence and competence, as those immutable qualities will eventually be utilized in seeking individual moral respect, and thus the dissolution of the immoral institution;

FURTHER NOTING that the legislative status quo regarding the issue of mitigating child abuse is horribly lacking in moral cohesion and efficacy;

FURTHER BELIEVING that, having established the fundamental value of longevity, any objection to the aforementioned mitigation made from a place of political or logistical concern cannot stand soundly as an argument against action, as such concerns pale in comparison to the moral importance of the issue at hand;

FURTHER BELIEVING that the assumption that procreation is a natural right, even for those with a history of sexual and physical child abuse, is a poorly conceived ideology functioning within a status quo that enables tragic and immoral subjugation on a global scale in the form of intentional child abuse under the guise of protecting individual autonomy;

FURTHER NOTING that this assumption necessarily entails the violation of the rights of children; namely, the right to not be abused, and that this right is inherently more valuable than that of a known abuser’s to procreate;

FURTHER NOTING that, therefore, this assumption ought to be abandoned.

RECOGNIZING that:

a. No legislation proposed in this resolution is an attempt at trivializing issues not mentioned;

b. Even in the scope of the specified topic, the legislation may not address certain important facets of the issue at hand, thus leading to the allowance of further immoral action;

c. In the event of the aforementioned possibility, the proposed legislation should not be viewed as a hindrance to further action, but as a necessary foundation upon which to commence said action;

HEREBY:

1. RENDERS it illegal for individuals convicted of the sexual or physical abuse of and violence against minors to continue or commence procreation.

Co-authored by Sothoth Shub

[Tinhampton]

The adopted nations of the World Assembly...

I assume you meant to put that text into the big rectangular box over here?

[Leishmania]

The adopted nations of the World Assembly...

I assume you meant to put that text into the big rectangular box over here?

Of course, sorry about that. I'm new to this.

[Denask]

Perhaps enable new policy on the matter of Anarchy and Nations who support it.

[Tinhampton]

Perhaps enable new policy on the matter of Anarchy and Nations who support it.

Resolutions must affect ALL WA member states.

[Oceanialia]

Suppose I agreed with a certain resolution already adopted by the WA in general, but there are some parts of it that I believe would need to be repealed. Is a nation allowed to propose repealing specific parts or sections of a resolution?

[Tinhampton]

Suppose I agreed with a certain resolution already adopted by the WA in general, but there are some parts of it that I believe would need to be repealed. Is a nation allowed to propose repealing specific parts or sections of a resolution?

Nope, you have to repeal the entire resolution in one go. Many repeals - Repeal "Sexual Privacy Act" comes to mind first - only attack some parts of the target resolution, but argue that those parts are so detrimental to the proper functioning of that legislation that it must be repealed as a whole and then (hopefully!) replaced at a later date.

[Caribbean Democracies]

Has anyone ever thought of making a proposal that would create a Parliament in the vain of The EU Parliament? I'm not exactly sure how it could work gameplay wise but I think it'd be something cool to ponder.