NationStates

This is my repeal of Resolution 105. I have a replacement draft readily available here. Please keep any comment regarding the actual replacement of the draft in its designated thread, and keep this thread open for the merits of repeal or the actual critiques of the text of this repeal itself.

General Assembly Resolution #105 “Preparing For Disasters” (Category: International Security; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The General Assembly,

Acknowledging and appreciating the good intentions of Resolution 105, “Preparing For Disasters,” in its aid to international coordination in the leadup to natural and artificial disasters,

Aware that Resolution 105 does a reasonably good job in achieving its goal,

Concerned, however, at several potentially negative implications reaching beyond the scope of the resolution, such as:

1. Clause two mandating that the World Assembly Disaster Bureau provide “all the help that a nation requests in [inspections mandated],” regardless of the nation’s actual need of help, potentially opening the door for malicious states to drain the funds of the World Assembly General Fund by requesting unnecessary assistance that the Bureau is required to provide,
2. Clause seven requiring the World Assembly Disaster Bureau to share research regarding technologies used to assist in responding to disasters with all nations, regardless of the nation’s World Assembly member status or any other potential applications of the technology, meaning that any research found by the Bureau that may prove hazardous or otherwise dangerous if in the wrong hands must be shared with all nations, including malicious actors,
3. Clause eight instructing the World Assembly Disaster Bureau to work with all World Assembly organizations, regardless of relevance or necessity to the overarching goal of the Bureau, which could prove to be burdensome as the network of World Assembly organizations expands,

Believing that, regardless of whatever good Resolution 105 provides, the negative consequences that the language of the resolution allows necessitates repeal,

Hoping that, following the repeal of Resolution 105, a suitable replacement will be promptly passed, ultimately minimizing whatever negative effect will be felt by not having a resolution of this topic on the books,

Hereby repeals Resolution 105, “Preparing For Disasters.”

I'll have a replacement up at some point soon.

Some other talking points I didn't mention because I felt they were either so negligible as to be unimportant, or it is so ambiguous that the issue may run into the Honest Mistake rule:
Similar to my point i in the proposal, 2(a) does not specify that only member-nations can request aid, which may mean (depending on interpretation), that non-member-states can receive unlimited World Assembly aid on this topic.
Clause 2 should probably be more specific than just "regularly inspects"
2(c) prevents the WADB from sharing important information of an impending disaster to nearby nations, because it cannot share the information under confidentiality.
NGO, despite being used in clause 4, is never defined.
Clause 4 is mislabeled as clause 6.
5(a) runs into many of the problems that clause 2 does.
The resolution is generally poorly written, and the format is oddly laid out.

If you feel that any of these are appropriate to add to the actual repeal text, please let me know.

Feedback is welcomed and encouraged.

When you say 'Clause two', I believe you mean clause three. And what disaster-preventing equipment could possibly be used in the wrong way?

Hanovereich wrote:When you say 'Clause two', I believe you mean clause three. And what disaster-preventing equipment could possibly be used in the wrong way?

No, I didn't. And to me, the point is less that any known disaster-preventing technologies could be used maliciously, and more the sense that if the WADB were to discover something, they would still be required to disseminate the research. I don't think this is necessarily out of the realm of possibility, especially given the fact that the resolution covers areas such as nuclear disasters, which I feel like research into could naturally lead to potential discoveries of mass destruction, and I think the WA should actively work to keep these discoveries out of the hands of malicious actors.

“Our delegation would like to see your proposed replacement of this text before confirming our support, but we tentatively support it on principle given the arguments you’ve advanced.”

Hulldom wrote:“Our delegation would like to see your proposed replacement of this text before confirming our support, but we tentatively support it on principle given the arguments you’ve advanced.”

Darin Perise, President of the Morovian Department on the World Assembly, and leading author of this repeal.
"We appreciate your support, and I am not entirely sure if we have had the pleasure of meeting before. I certainly hope that we will be able to work together into the future."

Sebastion Crew, Political Instability Advisor for the Morovian Department on the World Assembly, and secondary author of this repeal.
"I echo the appreciation of my colleague, and would like to inform the Hulldomian delegation that I have just finished work on our proposed replacement of this resolution, which can be found up for debate three doors to the right of this room."

OOC: Following critique by Honeydew on the WA Discord, I've fleshed out point ii to be a bit clearer as to why it's negative.

I'm not attached to this at all, but I'm putting a tentative submission date of June 24 (one week from today) out there. If any significant issues with either this or my replacement come up, I'll push it back, but with regards to the repeal, I think it should be relatively straightforward so I'm not too worried. With that in mind - bring on the feedback!

Morover wrote:Ia tentative submission date of June 24 (one week from today)

Or eleven months? Beware typoes

Tinhampton wrote:

Morover wrote:Ia tentative submission date of June 24 (one week from today)

Or eleven months? Beware typoes

One week, eleven months - what's the difference! But yes, I meant July 24, if it's all the same lol

OOC: I think many of your concerns are either not real concerns (gnomes supposed to be infallible, so they wouldn't make stupid mistakes, clause i.) or already remedied by other resolutions (like the patent one, for some research applications, clause ii.) or just non-issues in general (clause iii.).

Araraukar wrote:OOC: I think many of your concerns are either not real concerns (gnomes supposed to be infallible, so they wouldn't make stupid mistakes, clause i.) or already remedied by other resolutions (like the patent one, for some research applications, clause ii.) or just non-issues in general (clause iii.).

Gnomes are infallible in carrying out the text of the resolution; if the resolution tells them to do stupid things, then they do stupid things infallibly. I also don't really see how the extant resolution on patents covers the issue on research. Clause iii is an incredibly small issue on its own, but it is an issue nonetheless, even if it does not make a case for repeal entirely on its own.

"BPR supports this. The General Pit is not a bottomless fund."

Morover wrote:I also don't really see how the extant resolution on patents covers the issue on research.

OOC: The bit "technology [and/or] potential applications of the technology". Pure research, once published, is generally only a paywall question even in RL, but application of the information (technology) not to mention specific kind of application of technology, can be easily restricted without stepping on the toes of the target resolution.

Like, say, I know - as purely scientific information - how to enrich uranium and plutonium. Based on free Internet resources I even know where to find uranium (geological surveys ftw), but if I actually went out and mined some uranium and started enriching it, I'd get in serious trouble with STUKES to start with. It's because the application of the technology is restricted and requires permits and whatnot. (And I imagine was at least once upon a time, patented.) But that doesn't change the fact that all the necessary knowledge is out there freely available. Yet we're not drowning in terrorists using dirty bombs or nukes.

Bananaistan wrote:"BPR supports this. The General Pit is not a bottomless fund."

OOC: Then you should be hating this instead.

Araraukar wrote:

Morover wrote:I also don't really see how the extant resolution on patents covers the issue on research.

OOC: The bit "technology [and/or] potential applications of the technology". Pure research, once published, is generally only a paywall question even in RL, but application of the information (technology) not to mention specific kind of application of technology, can be easily restricted without stepping on the toes of the target resolution.

Like, say, I know - as purely scientific information - how to enrich uranium and plutonium. Based on free Internet resources I even know where to find uranium (geological surveys ftw), but if I actually went out and mined some uranium and started enriching it, I'd get in serious trouble with STUKES to start with. It's because the application of the technology is restricted and requires permits and whatnot. (And I imagine was at least once upon a time, patented.) But that doesn't change the fact that all the necessary knowledge is out there freely available. Yet we're not drowning in terrorists using dirty bombs or nukes.

So you're saying that instead of repealing, there should be World Assembly law about how nations can use research given to them by the WA? Then the issue remains that the information is instructed to be given even to non-member-states.

Morover wrote:So you're saying that instead of repealing, there should be World Assembly law about how nations can use research given to them by the WA?

OOC: There already is. The patent resolution. And various other regulatory resolutions.

Then the issue remains that the information is instructed to be given even to non-member-states.

That could be a legitimate problem, as it would use WA nations' money (through General Fund) to hand freebies to non-members. If only you'd used that reasoning, instead of the vague "wrong hands"...

Araraukar wrote:

Bananaistan wrote:"BPR supports this. The General Pit is not a bottomless fund."

OOC: Then you should be hating this instead.

OOC: I have more than enough hate to go around so it doesn't have to be hate of one resolution at the exclusion of all others.

Araraukar wrote:

Morover wrote:So you're saying that instead of repealing, there should be World Assembly law about how nations can use research given to them by the WA?

OOC: There already is. The patent resolution. And various other regulatory resolutions.

Then the issue remains that the information is instructed to be given even to non-member-states.

That could be a legitimate problem, as it would use WA nations' money (through General Fund) to hand freebies to non-members. If only you'd used that reasoning, instead of the vague "wrong hands"...

Well, fair enough. I think it's somewhat implied, but I guess it could have been more explicit. I appreciate the critique but I still think my issue regarding clause seven is valid, especially considering that I do not think that the patent resolution does what you claim it does - maybe I'm having another drastic misreading, but I simply don't get that.

The United Regions Alliance recommends that nations vote for this resolution. https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1577967

"Important legislation like this can't be repealed over a few details that can be abused. At least, not without a suitable replacement ready. But after reading through the legislation provided, we believe that the WA can do better. You have our support." -Mistress Amara

While I'm for the idea of fixing old resolutions where needed, I genuinely think this is reaching. I've recommended an against vote.

“Hmm... we have decided to vote against this largely to set a precedent. Not long ago, the delegation from Tinhampton successfully passed a replacement before repealing the original proposal. We at Waldenes would like to see this become a regular practice.”

Waldenes wrote:“Hmm... we have decided to vote against this largely to set a precedent. Not long ago, the delegation from Tinhampton successfully passed a replacement before repealing the original proposal. We at Waldenes would like to see this become a regular practice.”

Darin Perise.

"This practice is not possible in nearly all circumstances, due to the legislative principles set in place by the founders and maintainers of this organization. In nearly all circumstances, save a select few, such as the ones that the Tinhamptonian delegation passed, such a replacement would not be allowed to be placed on the books of such World Assembly law when such relevant extant legislation remains there already."

Morover wrote:

Waldenes wrote:“Hmm... we have decided to vote against this largely to set a precedent. Not long ago, the delegation from Tinhampton successfully passed a replacement before repealing the original proposal. We at Waldenes would like to see this become a regular practice.”

Darin Perise.

"This practice is not possible in nearly all circumstances, due to the legislative principles set in place by the founders and maintainers of this organization. In nearly all circumstances, save a select few, such as the ones that the Tinhamptonian delegation passed, such a replacement would not be allowed to be placed on the books of such World Assembly law when such relevant extant legislation remains there already."

“I’m afraid I don’t understand, Ambassador. What specifically gave the Tinhamptonian delegation the rare legal precedence to do this, and where do issues of legality rise for other proposals to be made in this way?”

Waldenes wrote:

Morover wrote:Darin Perise.

"This practice is not possible in nearly all circumstances, due to the legislative principles set in place by the founders and maintainers of this organization. In nearly all circumstances, save a select few, such as the ones that the Tinhamptonian delegation passed, such a replacement would not be allowed to be placed on the books of such World Assembly law when such relevant extant legislation remains there already."

“I’m afraid I don’t understand, Ambassador. What specifically gave the Tinhamptonian delegation the rare legal precedence to do this, and where do issues of legality rise for other proposals to be made in this way?”

Darin Perise.

"Tinhampton's replacement and subsequent repeal regarding conversion therapy was different from this. There was inevitable overlap between the two resolutions, but Tinhampton's 'End Conversion Therapy' outlawed all forms of conversion therapy, and their repeal of Resolution 437 was not based on any actual flaws in the resolution, but rather that it proved useless when combined with End Conversion Therapy. Because End Conversion Therapy had more wide-ranging effects than 437, it was not deemed a violation of the legislative rules of this chamber. In this case, the target is fundamentally flawed, but the replacement will not go further in its scope, meaning that duplication is inevitable and the replacement would be struck down, since it almost entirely duplicates extant legislation."

OOC: This is an entirely OOC issue, but this is accurate - Tinhampton did good getting the replacement passed before the repeal, but it will not and can not become the norm because of the GA Rules.