General Assembly Q&A

[Ithania]

Okey dokey. I'd like to offer a teensy apology in advance if this is clueless and a little nervous to the point of annoyance. I hope I'm not asking the kind of thing that's seen as lazy and wearying. *crosses fingers*

Being away from NS for over a decade means that I'm a tad cautious and keen to avoid mistakes due to ignorance. I'm chomping my way through the oodles of stuff I missed but can only digest so much at once. And even then will have a deficient understanding of things, in my view.

So, now the shy and embarassed pre-excuses are done, could I ask if experienced people see any obvious preclusion to a resolution addressing persistent inorganic and organic pollutants - with a focus on bioaccumulation, biomagnification, and toxicity issues?

I'd like to be clear I mean whether I'm a complete birdbrain by somehow missing a mega obvious resolution on the matter. I imagine a draft text would be needed to judge any other problems, wouldn't it?

As far as I've been able to read, the closest resolution seems like it might be GAR#371, which I'd guess is inspired by the Minamata Convention given the focus on mercury (and I'll keep duplication, or contradiction, and potential need to repeal in mind for any drafting)?

Similarly, I feel there are ideas that overlap in spirit or restrict consideration to areas like ground water, such as GAR#376 or GAR#453.But I didn't see anything on PBT substances, vPvB substances, or persistent in/organic pollutants more generally? Have I just been super oblivious? Thanks for any answer.

Similarly, if anyone feels like reading more, could I ask if there's a generally accepted and obvious block to a potential proposal on long-range air pollution effects, excepting those caused by GHGs and ODSs (which have been dealt with in a way that sets an intimidatingly high standard to aim for, and miss, gulp )? Specifically, I mean SO₂, VOCs, Ammonia, etc.

As silly as it is, I kinda like the idea of addressing the same topic in the WA and UN (in accordance with rules on stuff like originality, of course).

And now I'm at home recovering from surgery for a wee while so I need to keep my brain from frazzling with boredom. I thought I'd consider these... What better way to relax than resolution drafting?

Ugh. Long. Sorry if that was tedious to get through or caused an understandable insta-skip.

TLDR - Am I a very silly goose for thinking there might be space to regulate some persistent pollutants? Separately, for thinking there might be room to address consequences of long-range air pollution?

Thank you so much again x

[Kenmoria]

TLDR - Am I a very silly goose for thinking there might be space to regulate some persistent pollutants? Separately, for thinking there might be room to address consequences of long-range air pollution?

Thank you so much again x

I believe you have captured all of the relevant legislation, and although there are a few that touch on similar topics, they are sufficiently separate from long-term and air pollutants that you should be able to avoid them with a good draft. Duplication is allowable to focus in on specific issues, and I can’t see any reason why you would need to contradict anything, so you should be fine.

[Ithania]

TLDR - Am I a very silly goose for thinking there might be space to regulate some persistent pollutants? Separately, for thinking there might be room to address consequences of long-range air pollution?

Thank you so much again x

I believe you have captured all of the relevant legislation, and although there are a few that touch on similar topics, they are sufficiently separate from long-term and air pollutants that you should be able to avoid them with a good draft. Duplication is allowable to focus in on specific issues, and I can’t see any reason why you would need to contradict anything, so you should be fine.

Thank you very much for the quick and concise response, it's deeply appreciated. I just hope that I'm competent enough at drafting to ensure no contradictions occur. At the moment, I'm very happy to say that I can't imagine how I'd manage it but, to be a teeny bit Rumsfeld, there are almost always unknown unknowns, aren't there? I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.

Thank you again.

[Araraukar]

I just hope that I'm competent enough at drafting to ensure no contradictions occur.

Write a draft and put it up on the forum - and prepare to have it there for weeks as it slowly gets made better. Much on draft legality (and quality) depends on the exact wording and how a problem is tackled. I have a nagging feeling there was one resolution missing from your list, but I'm currently too tired to go hunting for the nagging feeling's source.

[Ithania]

I just hope that I'm competent enough at drafting to ensure no contradictions occur.

Write a draft and put it up on the forum - and prepare to have it there for weeks as it slowly gets made better. Much on draft legality (and quality) depends on the exact wording and how a problem is tackled. I have a nagging feeling there was one resolution missing from your list, but I'm currently too tired to go hunting for the nagging feeling's source.

Just in case it might avoid any annoying little mental itches, I feel I should say that the list wasn't exhaustive. I just gave examples. Hopefully, I've managed to find them all.

As for drafting, thank you very much for clarifying what it's likely to involve. It's good to know what to prepare for. I'm a tiny bit dusty and out of practice but, unless the fundamentals have been shaken around a lot, I hope I mostly know what to expect.

[Sylvai]

Would it be within the purview of the GA to propose a bioethics resolution mandating the use of clean syringes in disease prevention and healthcare? Any relevant legislation I should read up on? Thanks in advance.

[Araraukar]

Would it be within the purview of the GA to propose a bioethics resolution mandating the use of clean syringes in disease prevention and healthcare? Any relevant legislation I should read up on? Thanks in advance.

I don't think that's something worth international law. It's basically just basic hygiene in healthcare, not something that should need to be made into law any more than washing your hands after having used the toilet.

There are at least two, possibly three resolutions on epidemics and quarantines, that would likely make for good reading on the subject. All passed resolutions are easily searchable in a thread on this forum. Just remember that the search function thinks "cat" and "cats" are two entirely unconnected words.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I see no problem with the proposed syringe resolution. Providing legal causes of action or claims could improve outcomes and reduce impunity. Similarly would be assistance to poor nations to provide such syringes. Ones could also mandate syringe exchanges, but that would be far more politically controversial.

[Araraukar]

I see no problem with the proposed syringe resolution.

As a bioethics one? What you seem to talk about would not be bioethics.

To prospective author: remember that you need at least significant strength equivalent effect out of the mandates for a category with areas of effect (like Healthcare). Just mandating clean syringes is not anywhere near enough, especially as since that's pretty basic stuff, the assumption would be that clean syringes would already be a requirement and thus demanding them by law would not have any effect for the majority of nations.

But if you really want to give it a go, write a proposal draft and post it in its own thread on this forum. Name the thread "DRAFT: Proposal Name", obviously with the actual proposal name.

[Imperium Anglorum]

> You say it's setting ethical international standards for healthcare and research. I say it's the free individual's ... freedoms being chipped away by the nanny state!

Don't see a problem, it's setting international standards for healthcare. And it would reduce freedoms and increase the other statistics. Of course, lacking more information, I will happily defer to thoughts from Sanctaria if the proposal is raised in earnest.

[Sylvai]

I see no problem with the proposed syringe resolution.

As a bioethics one? What you seem to talk about would not be bioethics.

To prospective author: remember that you need at least significant strength equivalent effect out of the mandates for a category with areas of effect (like Healthcare). Just mandating clean syringes is not anywhere near enough, especially as since that's pretty basic stuff, the assumption would be that clean syringes would already be a requirement and thus demanding them by law would not have any effect for the majority of nations.

But if you really want to give it a go, write a proposal draft and post it in its own thread on this forum. Name the thread "DRAFT: Proposal Name", obviously with the actual proposal name.

I’m working on it at the moment and will try to make it more complex than simply “clean syringes”; maybe giving financial assistance to poorer countries to supply clean syringes, etc. What would you suggest as the category besides bioethics? I’m not sure where it would fall within healthcare

[Sierra Lyricalia]

As a bioethics one? What you seem to talk about would not be bioethics.

To prospective author: remember that you need at least significant strength equivalent effect out of the mandates for a category with areas of effect (like Healthcare). Just mandating clean syringes is not anywhere near enough, especially as since that's pretty basic stuff, the assumption would be that clean syringes would already be a requirement and thus demanding them by law would not have any effect for the majority of nations.

But if you really want to give it a go, write a proposal draft and post it in its own thread on this forum. Name the thread "DRAFT: Proposal Name", obviously with the actual proposal name.

I’m working on it at the moment and will try to make it more complex than simply “clean syringes”; maybe giving financial assistance to poorer countries to supply clean syringes, etc. What would you suggest as the category besides bioethics? I’m not sure where it would fall within healthcare

If the financial assistance to poorer countries is the main bit, then it's easily Health/International Aid. Otherwise it's either Health/Healthcare (as you are increasing spending on medical supplies and improving people's health outcomes) or Social Justice/Mild (as you are aiding drug-addicted people who are otherwise incapable of helping themselves), depending on what you emphasize. Hope that's helpful.

[Sylvai]

If the financial assistance to poorer countries is the main bit, then it's easily Health/International Aid. Otherwise it's either Health/Healthcare (as you are increasing spending on medical supplies and improving people's health outcomes) or Social Justice/Mild (as you are aiding drug-addicted people who are otherwise incapable of helping themselves), depending on what you emphasize. Hope that's helpful.

Super helpful, thank you! Guess I have some thinking to do about what the main element will be.

[YOGANANDA]

ITS EXCLUDING MILITARY GRADE WEAPONS AND FELINE ANIMALS..

[Araraukar]

ITS EXCLUDING MILITARY GRADE WEAPONS AND FELINE ANIMALS..

I think you wanted this thread: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=474983

[Dome Artan]

Apologies in advance if this is a common question in this thread but I unfortunately do not have the patience for 121 pages of scrolling before asking.

The line "subject to the immunities recognized by international law" is included twice in GAR #002 Rights And Duties Of WA States, once each in Section 1 Article 2 and Section 1 Article 3. Now I have an idea of what I think it means, but I would like the opinion of other players on their understanding of that line and the context its placed in.

[Separatist Peoples]

Apologies in advance if this is a common question in this thread but I unfortunately do not have the patience for 121 pages of scrolling before asking.

Ah, nobody expects you to read all the Q&A.

The line "subject to the immunities recognized by international law" is included twice in GAR #002 Rights And Duties Of WA States, once each in Section 1 Article 2 and Section 1 Article 3. Now I have an idea of what I think it means, but I would like the opinion of other players on their understanding of that line and the context its placed in.

Where the GA restricts its own power, the WA is so bound, basically.

[Dome Artan]

The line "subject to the immunities recognized by international law" is included twice in GAR #002 Rights And Duties Of WA States, once each in Section 1 Article 2 and Section 1 Article 3. Now I have an idea of what I think it means, but I would like the opinion of other players on their understanding of that line and the context its placed in.

Where the GA restricts its own power, the WA is so bound, basically.

So would "Article 2 § Every WA Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law." mean that member states have jurisdiction over everything not addressed by the GA but everything the GA does address supersedes member state law on the same subject?

[Lord Dominator]

Where the GA restricts its own power, the WA is so bound, basically.

So would "Article 2 § Every WA Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law." mean that member states have jurisdiction over everything not addressed by the GA but everything the GA does address supersedes member state law on the same subject?

Yes (presumably unless member state law agrees but goes further on the subject without contradiction)

[Dome Artan]

So would "Article 2 § Every WA Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law." mean that member states have jurisdiction over everything not addressed by the GA but everything the GA does address supersedes member state law on the same subject?

Yes (presumably unless member state law agrees but goes further on the subject without contradiction)

Ok thank you for clearing it up, also thank you Separatist Peoples

[Morover]

On the GenSec page of the main site, the following text can be seen:

As a new body, its mission and rules are not yet fully formed. Discussion is welcomed in the General Assembly forum.

Considering GenSec has been in existence for almost three and a half years now, will this be changed anytime soon?

[Araraukar]

On the GenSec page of the main site, the following text can be seen:

As a new body, its mission and rules are not yet fully formed. Discussion is welcomed in the General Assembly forum.

Considering GenSec has been in existence for almost three and a half years now, will this be changed anytime soon?

Should probably ask that in Moderation, not here.

[Apabeossie]

Cultural Site Preservation
A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts.

Category: Education and Creativity
Area of Effect: Cultural Heritage
Proposed by: Temple of the Maat

Description: The World Assembly,

Recognizing the abundance of sites with cultural significance within member nations and the need to preserve them for future generations,

Acknowledging the World Assembly as the perfect medium to assist with such preservation,

1. Hereby creates the World Assembly Trust for Cultural Heritage(WATCH),

2. Empowers the WATCH to perform the following actions:
a. Designate sites, in consultation with the nation housing said site, as culturally relevant,
b. Create an archive including, but not limited to, visual, verbal, and literary works that pertain to culturally relevant sites,
c. Recommend specific preservation practices to nations for their culturally relevant sites,
d. Fulfill requests by nations to assist in the preservation of sites when the nation in question is unable to do so,

3. Urges nations to follow the preservation recommendations of the WATCH,

4. Encourages all nations to make a good faith effort to preserve their culturally relevant sites, and to assist other nations in the preservation of their culturally relevant sites,

5. Mandates that nations shall take all reasonable precautions to avoid unnecessary damage to sites the WATCH has deemed culturally relevant,

6. Further mandates that nations shall not willingly use culturally relevant sites to house military or intelligence assets,

7. Requires the WATCH to grant exemptions in good faith to the protections and requirements of sections 5 and 6 for a site currently used as an intelligence or military asset in order to preserve its use as such.

Hi, I'm thinking about writing an issue about this but I'm a bit confused, can nations submit sited to WATCH or does the WATCH choose the sites and the nations have to obey?

[Morover]

Cultural Site Preservation
A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts.

Category: Education and Creativity
Area of Effect: Cultural Heritage
Proposed by: Temple of the Maat

Description: The World Assembly,

Recognizing the abundance of sites with cultural significance within member nations and the need to preserve them for future generations,

Acknowledging the World Assembly as the perfect medium to assist with such preservation,

1. Hereby creates the World Assembly Trust for Cultural Heritage(WATCH),

2. Empowers the WATCH to perform the following actions:
a. Designate sites, in consultation with the nation housing said site, as culturally relevant,
b. Create an archive including, but not limited to, visual, verbal, and literary works that pertain to culturally relevant sites,
c. Recommend specific preservation practices to nations for their culturally relevant sites,
d. Fulfill requests by nations to assist in the preservation of sites when the nation in question is unable to do so,

3. Urges nations to follow the preservation recommendations of the WATCH,

4. Encourages all nations to make a good faith effort to preserve their culturally relevant sites, and to assist other nations in the preservation of their culturally relevant sites,

5. Mandates that nations shall take all reasonable precautions to avoid unnecessary damage to sites the WATCH has deemed culturally relevant,

6. Further mandates that nations shall not willingly use culturally relevant sites to house military or intelligence assets,

7. Requires the WATCH to grant exemptions in good faith to the protections and requirements of sections 5 and 6 for a site currently used as an intelligence or military asset in order to preserve its use as such.

Hi, I'm thinking about writing an issue about this but I'm a bit confused, can nations submit sited to WATCH or does the WATCH choose the sites and the nations have to obey?

So, this may be better suited for the issues subforum.

That being said, if I recall accurately, GA stat effects are an independent entity to issues stat effects. Thus, in the realm of issue-answering itself, WATCH (and all other committees) don't actually exist.

More knowledgeable people may be behind me to correct my misinformation.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Cultural Site Preservation
A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts.

Category: Education and Creativity
Area of Effect: Cultural Heritage
Proposed by: Temple of the Maat

Description: The World Assembly,

Recognizing the abundance of sites with cultural significance within member nations and the need to preserve them for future generations,

Acknowledging the World Assembly as the perfect medium to assist with such preservation,

1. Hereby creates the World Assembly Trust for Cultural Heritage(WATCH),

2. Empowers the WATCH to perform the following actions:
a. Designate sites, in consultation with the nation housing said site, as culturally relevant,
b. Create an archive including, but not limited to, visual, verbal, and literary works that pertain to culturally relevant sites,
c. Recommend specific preservation practices to nations for their culturally relevant sites,
d. Fulfill requests by nations to assist in the preservation of sites when the nation in question is unable to do so,

3. Urges nations to follow the preservation recommendations of the WATCH,

4. Encourages all nations to make a good faith effort to preserve their culturally relevant sites, and to assist other nations in the preservation of their culturally relevant sites,

5. Mandates that nations shall take all reasonable precautions to avoid unnecessary damage to sites the WATCH has deemed culturally relevant,

6. Further mandates that nations shall not willingly use culturally relevant sites to house military or intelligence assets,

7. Requires the WATCH to grant exemptions in good faith to the protections and requirements of sections 5 and 6 for a site currently used as an intelligence or military asset in order to preserve its use as such.

Hi, I'm thinking about writing an issue about this but I'm a bit confused, can nations submit sited to WATCH or does the WATCH choose the sites and the nations have to obey?

So, this may be better suited for the issues subforum.

That being said, if I recall accurately, GA stat effects are an independent entity to issues stat effects. Thus, in the realm of issue-answering itself, WATCH (and all other committees) don't actually exist.

More knowledgeable people may be behind me to correct my misinformation.

So, issues and GA resolutions each affect member nations statistically. But they are unrelated in the sense that you can (for example) ban abortion via issues, even though the GA mandates that it be legal. Since member states are under the jurisdiction of WA committees in relevant areas of law and action.

The resolution text (see Clauses 2 & 5) seems to indicate that WATCH is the final designator of whether a site is culturally relevant, though input from member states is requested in making the determination.

So for your issue, you might have the country recommending a site and WATCH rejecting it; WATCH mandating a site over the objections of your advisors; or WATCH and the country's own experts being in accord.

Hope that helps. Further queries might be better directed to the issues subforum.