[Abandoned] Repeal GA #121 "Medical Facilities Protection"

[Maowi]

Repeal “Medical Facilities Protection”

Category: Repeal | Resolution: GA #121

The World Assembly,

Recognising GA #121’s intent of protecting medical facilities during times of war;

Acknowledging that the desirability of this objective is irrelevant to the necessity for a repeal, given that said objective is not met and that GA #121 therefore impedes a sincere General Assembly vote on more effective legislation regarding this topic;

Anxious that clause 1’s prohibition only of ‘deliberate targeting of medical facilities’ does not mandate that member nations carrying out a bombing attempt to minimise the chances of striking a medical facility despite the medical facility not being the intended target of the bombing;

Worried that the definition of a medical facility means that unmarked facilities, or those marked with the symbols of a national humanitarian movement only, are not protected and may still be attacked, for no apparent or explained reason;

Confused at the moral inconsistencies displayed in the target resolution, which forbids attacks on emergency wards while failing to protect those treating patients in the long term, and concerned that the target provides no objective distinction between 'immediate effects of injury or disease' and non-immediate effects of injury and disease;

Afraid that clause 3 part a) removes the target resolution’s protections from all medical facilities whose structure has ever housed a purpose ‘other than medical assistance’, whether or not the facility is being put to that use at the time of the conflict and whether or not that purpose is at all related to the member nation’s war efforts;

Concerned that, as well as being unclear due to grammatical inaccuracy, clause 3 part c) is incongruous with the rest of the target resolution, given that non-compliant member nations do not have their protections removed;

Concluding that the target resolution advances its intended purpose to a limited extent; and

Hoping for the proposal of legislation which effectively protects medical staff and patients in areas of conflict;

Hereby repeals GA #121.

General Assembly Resolution # 121

Medical Facilities Protection

A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.

Category: Global Disarmament | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: Warzone codger

ACKNOWLEDGING that war extends beyond those engaged in combat
ACCEPTING there are always dangers presiding in conflict zones
BELIEVING however that it is immoral to target those providing humanitarian aid
NOTING the costs of recovery would be lessened if vital infrastructure and supplies are undamaged
PROPOSES the following:
1. PROHIBITS the deliberate targeting of medical facilities clearly displaying the emblems of an recognised international humanitarian movement during a conflict.
a) Defines a medical facility as a structure whose primary function is to repair damage or preserve life after the immediate effects of injury or disease.
b) Defines deliberate targeting as any intentional attack, raid or sabotage at the above while they in the performance of their duties
2. CHARGES the International Humanitarian Aid Coordination Committee to identify recognised international humanitarian movements and that knowledge of them is provided to World Assembly members.
3. WAIVES the protections of this resolution where it is shown that:
a) The facility has been used in a role other than medical assistance, such as the production or stockpiling of non-medical supplies.
b) There is evidence of camouflage or attempt to abuse these protections for strategic advantage
c) In dealings with non World Assembly nations this resolution has not been followed.
4. URGES nations to conduct war in a manner that causes the least loss of life.
Co-authored by The new aryan state

Here is the target resolution’s debate thread.

[Maowi]

Repeal “Medical Facilities Protection”

Category: Repeal | Resolution: GA #121

The World Assembly,

Recognising GA #121’s intent of protecting medical facilities during times of war,

Acknowledging that the desirability of this objective is irrelevant to the necessity for a repeal, given that said objective is not met and that GA #121 therefore impedes a sincere General Assembly vote on more effective legislation regarding this topic,

Anxious that clause 1’s prohibition specifically of ‘deliberate targeting of medical facilities’ does not prevent member nations from bombing medical facilities out of negligence or wilful abstention from checking for the presence of medical facilities,

Worried that the definition of a medical facility as a ‘structure’ allows an attack on the medical staff and patients within a medical facility, as long as the building itself is not intentionally damaged,

Confused at the moral inconsistencies of forbidding attacks on medical facilities delivering first aid while failing to protect those treating patients needing long term care, and concerned that no means of objectively distinguishing between the two is provided,

Afraid that clause 3 part a) removes the target resolution’s protections from all medical facilities whose structure has ever housed a purpose ‘other than medical assistance’, whether or not the facility is being put to that use at the time of the conflict and whether or not that purpose is at all related to the member nation’s war efforts,

Concerned that, as well as being unclear due to grammatical inaccuracy, clause 3 part c) is incongruous with the rest of the target resolution, given that non-compliant member nations do not have their protections removed,

Concluding that the target resolution advances its intended purpose to a negligible extent, and

Hoping for the proposal of legislation which effectively protects medical staff and patients in areas of conflict,

Hereby repeals GA #121.

[Marxist Germany]

"Support"

[Kenmoria]

“I think your ‘worried’ clause is a bit of a stretch. Though a medical facility is defined as a structure, attacking anything within would most likely be considered targeting by a good-faith reading of the resolution. You also could mention something about clause 1a meaning that an unmarked hospital, or one displaying only a national symbol of health, is not protected.”

[Araraukar]

"If you are treating long-term patients in a facility, then that facility is a medical facility, regardless of what term your nation would use of it."

[Maowi]

“I think your ‘worried’ clause is a bit of a stretch. Though a medical facility is defined as a structure, attacking anything within would most likely be considered targeting by a good-faith reading of the resolution. You also could mention something about clause 1a meaning that an unmarked hospital, or one displaying only a national symbol of health, is not protected.”

'Thanks for the feedback, ambassador. I'll include your suggestions in the next draft.'

"If you are treating long-term patients in a facility, then that facility is a medical facility, regardless of what term your nation would use of it."

'The target resolution 'defines a medical facility as a structure whose primary function is to repair damage or preserve life after the immediate effects of injury or disease', a definition which, as I interpret it, does not extend to facilities treating patients who require long-term care.'

[Araraukar]

'The target resolution 'defines a medical facility as a structure whose primary function is to repair damage or preserve life after the immediate effects of injury or disease', a definition which, as I interpret it, does not extend to facilities treating patients who require long-term care.'

"Ah, so your argument is actually that the traget only protects emergency wards? Perhaps you should actually say that in the text."

[Maowi]

"Ah, so your argument is actually that the traget only protects emergency wards? Perhaps you should actually say that in the text."

'Good call, ambassador...'

OOC: to me - eh, I'm tired?

[Araraukar]

OOC: eh, I'm tired?

OOC: Makes two of us. Speaking of which, sleepytime for me...

[Bears Armed]

OOC: I’m unsure whether some of these objections are a little tenuous/already fixed by nations having to act in good faith. Feedback would be greatly appreciated

OOC
I'd say that good faith and wilful negligence are mutually incompatible, yes.

[Maowi]

OOC: I’m unsure whether some of these objections are a little tenuous/already fixed by nations having to act in good faith. Feedback would be greatly appreciated

OOC
I'd say that good faith and wilful negligence are mutually incompatible, yes.

OOC: You're right, but my point still stands that the resolution doesn't make it a necessity to check for the presence of medical facilities if bombing an area. I'll edit it to make that the main focus of that clause.

[Kenmoria]

“Your ‘concluding’ clause is a little harsh; to me ‘negligible’ implies that almost no protections for medical facilities are provided. In reality, quite a few are and, though there are some obvious gaps, medical facilities are still protected by a large extent by GA #121.”

[Maowi]

“Your ‘concluding’ clause is a little harsh; to me ‘negligible’ implies that almost no protections for medical facilities are provided. In reality, quite a few are and, though there are some obvious gaps, medical facilities are still protected by a large extent by GA #121.”

'I admit a certain ... over-enthusiasm in attempting to drive the point home, yes. Your suggested change has been made and can be seen in the new draft I've provided.'

[Maowi]

OOC: Bump!

I was thinking of attempting to write a potential replacement for this if this repeal looks like it could get anywhere...

[Araraukar]

OOC: Bump!

I was thinking of attempting to write a potential replacement for this if this repeal looks like it could get anywhere...

OOC: Actually, do you even need to do a repeal and replace if the target clearly doesn't deal what you want it to deal with? Couldn't you just write up a complementary resolution to plug the loopholes the target leaves open?

[Maowi]

OOC: Bump!

I was thinking of attempting to write a potential replacement for this if this repeal looks like it could get anywhere...

OOC: Actually, do you even need to do a repeal and replace if the target clearly doesn't deal what you want it to deal with? Couldn't you just write up a complementary resolution to plug the loopholes the target leaves open?

OOC: You're right - I guess this resolution sort of stuck out to me as poor because of the irritating grammar errors, but it would be pretty simple to fix the complaints I've made in this draft without needing to repeal it. I'll come up with a draft for that.
(Once I've done that, should I let this thread sink and make a new one for the new draft or replace the OP here?)

[Araraukar]

(Once I've done that, should I let this thread sink and make a new one for the new draft or replace the OP here?)

OOC: Just let this draft sink and make a new one. Change this thread's title to read something like "Abandoned" instad of "Draft", but don't delete the repeal draft.