[MISSED] Repeal GA Resolution № 53 “Epidemic Response Act”

[Texkentuck]

deleted

[The North Polish Union]

"The Imperium is opposed." Said Feren, eliciting a gasp from a nondescript Imperial aide, "On this matter the clear benefits of established means of international cooperation and authority clearly outweigh concerns of absolute border impermeability; none of the concerns raised within this draft, those being that it is a potentially unwieldy piece of legislation, are so much as founded, much less so concerning as to justify its repeal.

To clarify, the Target requires Member-States to provide samples to World Assembly authorities such that research and control efforts may be adequately established throughout Member-States; clause four, if you've not read it. Such is not reflected in the later legislation cited, and the repeal would thus risk Member-States finding information relevant to certain epidemics inaccessible at critical juncture, delaying effective response, and potentially causing dramatic loss of life. Civil Oversight is of the opinion that the current Legislation is, if anything, insufficient in this objective, not overbroad. There is therefore, no reason to repeal it on grounds both utterly unfounded, and counter to the objectives of epidemic control."

"As we stated previously, we would not be opposed to a replacement for the ERA that avoided the clauses which grant EPARC excessive power and create, at the very least, an appearance of corruption. While GA Resolution № 320 does not explicitly require member states to provide samples to World Assembly authorities such that research and control efforts may be adequately established, it does require that nations faced with a public health crisis 'Seek expert medical counsel to determine necessary medical precautions', which can easily be read as requiring member states to provide samples to the extent that 'expert medical counsel' becomes possible. We would ask the Representative from Tinfect to reconsider opposition in light of these facts."

[Tinfect]

"As we stated previously, we would not be opposed to a replacement for the ERA that avoided the clauses which grant EPARC excessive power and create, at the very least, an appearance of corruption. While GA Resolution № 320 does not explicitly require member states to provide samples to World Assembly authorities such that research and control efforts may be adequately established, it does require that nations faced with a public health crisis 'Seek expert medical counsel to determine necessary medical precautions', which can easily be read as requiring member states to provide samples to the extent that 'expert medical counsel' becomes possible. We would ask the Representative from Tinfect to reconsider opposition in light of these facts."

"The appearance of corruption, Ambassador? I can only assume that this is meant to refer to the 'further noting' clause within the draft, - unless, of course, you intend to make an argument unstated in the draft, - in which case, I would ask you to read the target legislation; Clause Six applies exclusively to recommendations of travel restrictions. Clause Three holds absolutely no binding power. Perhaps I should have stated it more clearly the first time; your repeal fundamentally misreads the target. Its argumentation is entirely unfounded.

As for your, 'interpretation', of Resolution Three-Hundred-Twenty; yes it may be read as requiring such, but such would be a reading in violation of Resolution Nine. In other words, a reach; quite far from any mandate which can adequately account for the mandates of Resolution Fifty-Three. The Imperium, for example, would interpret the clause as requiring no more than that the Imperium ensure that the appropriate Imperial authorities are involved in containment and treatment efforts. Such is all but certain to be the case among the vast majority of Member-States.

There is nothing to reconsider. Your argumentation is entirely unfounded, and subsequent legislation does not adequately overtake the role of the target. We see no reason for repeal."

[The North Polish Union]

"As we stated previously, we would not be opposed to a replacement for the ERA that avoided the clauses which grant EPARC excessive power and create, at the very least, an appearance of corruption. While GA Resolution № 320 does not explicitly require member states to provide samples to World Assembly authorities such that research and control efforts may be adequately established, it does require that nations faced with a public health crisis 'Seek expert medical counsel to determine necessary medical precautions', which can easily be read as requiring member states to provide samples to the extent that 'expert medical counsel' becomes possible. We would ask the Representative from Tinfect to reconsider opposition in light of these facts."

"The appearance of corruption, Ambassador? I can only assume that this is meant to refer to the 'further noting' clause within the draft, - unless, of course, you intend to make an argument unstated in the draft, - in which case, I would ask you to read the target legislation; Clause Six applies exclusively to recommendations of travel restrictions. Clause Three holds absolutely no binding power. Perhaps I should have stated it more clearly the first time; your repeal fundamentally misreads the target. Its argumentation is entirely unfounded.

"Perhaps we should've been more clear as well then. The North Polish Union makes no objection to Section 3 of the ERA and would not oppose a replacement for the ERA that reinstated the requirements of Section 3. Our objections center around Section 6, which we agree applies to travel restrictions. It gives no limit on EPARC's ability to impose such travel restrictions, even in cases where they may not necessarily benefit the common good. As WA resolutions cannot be amended, the only option is to repeal the ERA so that it might later be replaced by a resolution that limits EPARC's power; whether that resolution is written by us or some other nation remains to be seen."

As for your, 'interpretation', of Resolution Three-Hundred-Twenty; yes it may be read as requiring such, but such would be a reading in violation of Resolution Nine. In other words, a reach; quite far from any mandate which can adequately account for the mandates of Resolution Fifty-Three. The Imperium, for example, would interpret the clause as requiring no more than that the Imperium ensure that the appropriate Imperial authorities are involved in containment and treatment efforts. Such is all but certain to be the case among the vast majority of Member-States.

There is nothing to reconsider. Your argumentation is entirely unfounded, and subsequent legislation does not adequately overtake the role of the target. We see no reason for repeal."

"As for this argument, it seems to rely on a faulty interpretation of GA Resolution № 9, which prohibits torture. In fact, GA Resolution № 320 can be read to require member states to provide samples to World Assembly authorities in light of GA Resolution № 9. Given that GA Resolution № 9 defines 'Denial of necessary medical care' as a possible form of torture, GA Resolution № 320's mandate that nations 'Seek expert medical counsel to determine necessary medical precautions' appears to require WA members to provide samples to EPARC just to be in compliance with GA Resolution № 9.

"If the position of the government of Tinfect is that the requirement for states to provide samples to EPARC, a requirement found in the ERA, is in violation of GA Resolution № 9's prohibition of torture, then by all means our reading of GA Resolution № 320 would be improper. However, were this the case it would be the ERA itself, and not its repeal that would create conflicts with GA Resolution № 9. On the other hand, if providing samples to EPARC is not torture, then GA Resolution № 320 would cover such sample collection and there is no reason that the delegation from Tinfect should oppose the ERA's repeal."

[Tinfect]

"Perhaps we should've been more clear as well then. The North Polish Union makes no objection to Section 3 of the ERA and would not oppose a replacement for the ERA that reinstated the requirements of Section 3. Our objections center around Section 6, which we agree applies to travel restrictions. It gives no limit on EPARC's ability to impose such travel restrictions, even in cases where they may not necessarily benefit the common good. As WA resolutions cannot be amended, the only option is to repeal the ERA so that it might later be replaced by a resolution that limits EPARC's power; whether that resolution is written by us or some other nation remains to be seen."

"This of course, relies on the assumption that World Assembly organizations are incapable of assessing the viability of travel restrictions prior to recommending them. There is no reason to believe that."

"As for this argument, it seems to rely on a faulty interpretation of GA Resolution № 9, which prohibits torture. [snip]"

"It was a tortured interpretation. A turn of phrase, Ambassador, one should hope you're able to discern such."

[Texkentuck]

delete

[The North Polish Union]

"Perhaps we should've been more clear as well then. The North Polish Union makes no objection to Section 3 of the ERA and would not oppose a replacement for the ERA that reinstated the requirements of Section 3. Our objections center around Section 6, which we agree applies to travel restrictions. It gives no limit on EPARC's ability to impose such travel restrictions, even in cases where they may not necessarily benefit the common good. As WA resolutions cannot be amended, the only option is to repeal the ERA so that it might later be replaced by a resolution that limits EPARC's power; whether that resolution is written by us or some other nation remains to be seen."

"This of course, relies on the assumption that World Assembly organizations are incapable of assessing the viability of travel restrictions prior to recommending them. There is no reason to believe that."

"This line of reasoning was already addressed previously:

Even if EPARC is 'perfect' and never engages in [inappropriate] behavior, the mere existence of an agency with such a sweeping mandate not only creates exceptionally bad optics for the WA, it also may give individuals living in WA member-states concern that their ability to move about and travel may be restricted arbitrarily by an unelected supernational body. It is well known that not just corruption, but also the appearance of corruption is enough to damage or destroy trust in a governing body; and we believe that the ERA creates precisely such an appearance with the powers it grants EPRAC.

[Araraukar]

"This line of reasoning was already addressed previously:

Even if EPARC is 'perfect' and never engages in [inappropriate] behavior, the mere existence of an agency with such a sweeping mandate not only creates exceptionally bad optics for the WA

"If that is your concern, you should worry far more about the committees with ill-defined mandates and far more reaching powers. They are found in various resolutions. The committee in the target of this repeal has practically no power at all, compared to that of many others."

[The North Polish Union]

"This line of reasoning was already addressed previously:

"If that is your concern, you should worry far more about the committees with ill-defined mandates and far more reaching powers. They are found in various resolutions. The committee in the target of this repeal has practically no power at all, compared to that of many others."

"Then perhaps those committees can be the target of future repeal efforts. One has to start somewhere."

---

OOC: I'm planning to submit this tomorrow, barring any unforeseen circumstances.

[Tinfect]

"This line of reasoning was already addressed previously:

Even if EPARC is 'perfect' and never engages in [inappropriate] behavior, the mere existence of an agency with such a sweeping mandate not only creates exceptionally bad optics for the WA, it also may give individuals living in WA member-states concern that their ability to move about and travel may be restricted arbitrarily by an unelected supernational body. It is well known that not just corruption, but also the appearance of corruption is enough to damage or destroy trust in a governing body; and we believe that the ERA creates precisely such an appearance with the powers it grants EPRAC.

"In other words, you have fabricated a absurd perspective wherein the mere existence of World Assembly Law proves such law to be corrupt and unreasonable. There is no grounds to believe this; there is neither corruption, nor the appearance of corruption. There is no benefit changing hands, there is no secret conspiracy of the World Assembly to force the borders of certain Member-States closed. If that is argument, Ambassador, then it is clear that reason has long fled the debate. The Imperium cares little to discuss raving fantasies. We are opposed, and we suggest that your Government replace its World Assembly Delegation with personnel less prone to groundless paranoia."

[The North Polish Union]

"This line of reasoning was already addressed previously:

"In other words, you have fabricated a absurd perspective wherein the mere existence of World Assembly Law proves such law to be corrupt and unreasonable. There is no grounds to believe this; there is neither corruption, nor the appearance of corruption. There is no benefit changing hands, there is no secret conspiracy of the World Assembly to force the borders of certain Member-States closed. If that is argument, Ambassador, then it is clear that reason has long fled the debate. The Imperium cares little to discuss raving fantasies. We are opposed, and we suggest that your Government replace its World Assembly Delegation with personnel less prone to groundless paranoia."

"We have few issues with much of WA law as it stands, our concern is that the ERA grants EPARC a mandate well beyond what WA law ought to permit, which is definitely unreasonable and creates the potential for and appearance of corruption. We do not allege that EPARC is or has been involved in a quid pro quo, nor do we believe in a WA conspiracy to close nations' borders; what we do believe is that the overbroad mandate given to EPARC creates a potential super-agency whose existence within EPARC's framework has a deleterious effect on the WA's reputation and integrity. We are not opposed to the continued existence of EPARC within the framework of other resolutions, nor would we be opposed to a future restoration of some of the powers that the ERA grants EPARC, but the ERA as written is deeply flawed. If the delegation from Tinfect is unwilling to engage with this line of reasoning, preferring to dismiss it and those who support it out of hand, that behavior in no way discourages our delegation from pursuing its intent of repealing GA № 53. We have laid out our position and we stand by it."

[Greater Cesnica]

"In other words, you have fabricated a absurd perspective wherein the mere existence of World Assembly Law proves such law to be corrupt and unreasonable. There is no grounds to believe this; there is neither corruption, nor the appearance of corruption. There is no benefit changing hands, there is no secret conspiracy of the World Assembly to force the borders of certain Member-States closed. If that is argument, Ambassador, then it is clear that reason has long fled the debate. The Imperium cares little to discuss raving fantasies. We are opposed, and we suggest that your Government replace its World Assembly Delegation with personnel less prone to groundless paranoia."

"We have few issues with much of WA law as it stands, our concern is that the ERA grants EPARC a mandate well beyond what WA law ought to permit, which is definitely unreasonable and creates the potential for and appearance of corruption. We do not allege that EPARC is or has been involved in a quid pro quo, nor do we believe in a WA conspiracy to close nations' borders; what we do believe is that the overbroad mandate given to EPARC creates a potential super-agency whose existence within EPARC's framework has a deleterious effect on the WA's reputation and integrity. We are not opposed to the continued existence of EPARC within the framework of other resolutions, nor would we be opposed to a future restoration of some of the powers that the ERA grants EPARC, but the ERA as written is deeply flawed. If the delegation from Tinfect is unwilling to engage with this line of reasoning, preferring to dismiss it and those who support it out of hand, that behavior in no way discourages our delegation from pursuing its intent of repealing GA № 53. We have laid out our position and we stand by it."

Ambassador McCooley yawns as he patiently waits for Ambassador Wyrzykowski to finish his tangent.

Upon hearing that his counterpart had stopped speaking to Representative Feren, he spoke up: "Ambassador, please. Let us cut out this nonsense; this deceitful way of tiptoeing around the truth of the matter here. You have not brought up a single substantive flaw within this resolution, especially not with EPARC. You are unable to produce any convincing evidence that would suggest this resolution poses an active detriment to the populace and governments of member states. Why is this? Because such elements are not present here. Instead, your rhetoric runs antithetical to the very nature of the General Assembly. By virtue of your nation's membership in this esteemed Assembly, your nation has acknowledged that it subjects itself to the authority and mandates of legislation passed by this body. Your arguments directly attack the legitimacy of the General Assembly's purview. To be quite frank, it is insulting.

McCooley pauses to a sip of ginger ale. "Ah. Where was I? Oh yeah, I concur with the TInfectian Delegation; your nation's World Assembly Mission certainly needs replacing if these baseless attacks against this Assembly's legitimacy continue."

[The North Polish Union]

This missed quorum by 3 approvals