[PASSED] Emergency Broadcasting Standards

[Hulldom]

Given D & B's comment regarding the possibility of a uniform set of emergency broadcasting standards, which does feel like something we could do with current international competences, I'm going to try my hand at this and see where it goes. I am not a trained emergency management professional and as such, I welcome your feedback to ensure this is up to those standards.

Emergency Broadcasting Standards

Category: Regulation | Area of Effect: Safety

Believing that it is prudent for residents of all states to have access to critical information before, during, and after emergencies,

Noting the creation of international standards regarding emergency broadcasting was urged in [resolution=GA#570]GA #570[/resolution] "Disaster Precautions and Responses", hereby:

1. Defines "emergency event", for the purposes of this resolution, as any serious, unexpected, or dangerous situation requiring immediate action to avoid widespread property damage, injury, or loss of life.
   
2. All member states must create emergency communications systems which shall be utilized to communicate with their residents regarding emergency events.
   
3. Member states shall utilize a variety of means to communicate with their citizens during an emergency event. These means shall be commensurate with the technology available in each member state.
   
4. If an emergency event threatens another nation, the member state first affected must notify that nation of the event so they can promptly communicate with their citizens regarding the emergency if the disaster would otherwise be likely to surprise the other nation.
   
5. Member states shall prioritize the broadcasting of localized or regionalized messaging in emergency events if practical under the circumstances.
   
6. Member states are required to undertake regular testing of all emergency communications systems and to ensure that the equipment used, if any special equipment is used, is in good repair.

Co-authored by Thousand Branches.

[Tsaivao]

"Member state" means all nations which are members of the World Assembly.

Is there any reason to include this definition? "Member state" is pretty well-defined as is, including this definition is totally unnecessary.

Rest looks alright, though I'm wondering how you could make this internationally-applicable beyond just encoding some basic standards. Maybe incorporate some mechanism such that member nations alert other nations in proximity of an ongoing emergency (e.g. an earthquake alert is relayed to neighbors and to prepare for shaking/tsunami events)

[Hulldom]

Love that I screwed up the thread name

[Hulldom]

"Member state" means all nations which are members of the World Assembly.

Is there any reason to include this definition? "Member state" is pretty well-defined as is, including this definition is totally unnecessary.

Rest looks alright, though I'm wondering how you could make this internationally-applicable beyond just encoding some basic standards. Maybe incorporate some mechanism such that member nations alert other nations in proximity of an ongoing emergency (e.g. an earthquake alert is relayed to neighbors and to prepare for shaking/tsunami events)

That's a good idea actually. And I suppose, but there are other authors (notably IA) who include that, so I just want to cover all my bases.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I define 'members', not member nations or member states. The latter two are clearly established.

[Hulldom]

I define 'members', not member nations or member states. The latter two are clearly established.

Ah. Sorry for the misunderstanding there.

[Idong]

Member states shall prioritize the broadcasting of localized messaging in emergency events. However, member states may default to broadcasting national messaging if there is no available method for broadcasting at local or regional levels.

I don't think the WA should be telling its members how exactly to inform citizens about emergency events beyond making sure that the affected citizens are informed in the first place. Limiting emergency communications only to the affected area while trying to prevent disruptions in unaffected areas should be in the government's best intentions no matter what, so I believe this clause is redundant.

I am not very convinced about using the word "broadcasting" either, as that assumes that member nations use this particular means to communicate the emergency.

[Hulldom]

Member states shall prioritize the broadcasting of localized messaging in emergency events. However, member states may default to broadcasting national messaging if there is no available method for broadcasting at local or regional levels.

I don't think the WA should be telling its members how exactly to inform citizens about emergency events beyond making sure that the affected citizens are informed in the first place. Limiting emergency communications only to the affected area while trying to prevent disruptions in unaffected areas should be in the government's best intentions no matter what, so I believe this clause is redundant.

I am not very convinced about using the word "broadcasting" either, as that assumes that member nations use this particular means to communicate the emergency.

I'm not suggesting they only limit it to localized areas. Perhaps it could be better worded, but I'm going off the American model here, which means that with the sheer distances and areas involved, it makes sense to focus on what people need to do locally as opposed to nationally. So no, it's not redundant. Is it necessarily applicable to everyone? No.

And I mean re: broadcasting, meh? Like I'd be interested in hearing your suggestion, but I find it hard to think of better wording.

[South St Maarten]

I don't think the WA should be telling its members how exactly to inform citizens about emergency events beyond making sure that the affected citizens are informed in the first place. Limiting emergency communications only to the affected area while trying to prevent disruptions in unaffected areas should be in the government's best intentions no matter what, so I believe this clause is redundant.

I am not very convinced about using the word "broadcasting" either, as that assumes that member nations use this particular means to communicate the emergency.

I'm not suggesting they only limit it to localized areas. Perhaps it could be better worded, but I'm going off the American model here, which means that with the sheer distances and areas involved, it makes sense to focus on what people need to do locally as opposed to nationally. So no, it's not redundant. Is it necessarily applicable to everyone? No.

And I mean re: broadcasting, meh? Like I'd be interested in hearing your suggestion, but I find it hard to think of better wording.

"Member states shall prioritize the broadcasting of localized messaging in emergency events. However, member states may default to broadcasting national messaging if there is no available method for broadcasting at local or regional levels or if communication at those levels is unnecessary."

Perhaps it would be better if it were worded along these lines:

Member states shall prioritize the mode of broadcasting that is appropriate for the situation at hand, whether that be national/regional/local

[Hulldom]

I think the language there is fine as is. Bump.

[Hulldom]

Still haven't received a lot of feedback on this, but I'd like to, lest I be, erm, tricked into a false sense of security regarding this work's readiness for submission soon.

[Grand Pato]

I like the spirit of this proposal and it has my approval, but I would like to address a few flaws I've noticed in the phrasing:

"Emergency events" means any event which necessitates a response to protect life and property including, but not limited to, extreme weather events, military attacks, and industrial accidents.

1. "Emergency events" shouldn't be plural. Minor grammar error.
2. Life and property? What if just only life or only property is at risk? Should probably change that to and/or.
3. Further, does that mean any potentially deadly violent crime constitutes an emergency event and thus requires an alert?

All member states shall create systems which shall be utilized to communicate with their residents regarding emergency events.

Member states shall utilize a variety of means to communicate with their citizens during an emergency event. These means shall be commensurate with the technology available in each member state.

Do these even have to be broadcasting systems? There isn't much room for implication here.

Member states are encouraged to undertake regular testing of all systems they use for communication during emergency events and to ensure that the equipment used, if any special equipment is used, is in good repair.

I'm not sure that "if any special equipment is used" is necessary. Besides, all equipment should be in good repair regardless.

[Imperium Anglorum]

2. Life and property? What if just only life or only property is at risk? Should probably change that to and/or.

Use "or". Avoid "and/or" and "and or".

[Wallenburg]

"Emergency events" currently includes everything ranging from house fires to traffic collisions to grocery store robberies, none of which require public emergency broadcasts.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Corrections in red. OOC and IC as marked.

Emergency Broadcasting Standards

IC: "For what the effect of the wording really has, this is likely a bad name for the proposal, given most people think of earmarking specific radio frequencies for specific activities and unifying radio equipment and such, with the words "broadcasting standards". Some people might even think those words refer to the content of the broadcasts rather than the method. Perhaps "Emergency Communication Standards" instead? Or rethinking just the word "standards"."

Area of Effect Category: Regulation
Area of Effect: Safety

OOC: Regulation is the category, one of its areas of effect is Safety.

Whereas it is prudent for residents of all states to have access to critical information before, during, and after emergencies,

Whereas the creation of international standards regarding the same was urged in GA #570

OOC: ...so? What is the problem you're trying to fix with this proposal? And if you refer directly to another resolution, write out its name.

Therefore:

OOC: Your sentence structure is missing something. You're basically going "because cats are mammals and owls are birds, we must cut down all forests". There's a bit missing from the middle of the reasoning for the actions. The preamble is meant to provide not just what is the problem but also why your proposal is needed to fix it.

The following definitions are used in this resolution: Defines for the purposes of this resolution,

OOC: Maybe just wording preference, but the replacement suggestion looks more professional (and is used in many resolutions), instead of something one might find in a scientific paper or a school essay.

"Emergency events" means as any event which necessitates a response an emergency response from the local or nation-wide authorities to protect life and property, including, but not limited to, extreme weather events, military attacks, and industrial accidents,

IC: "Is this defintion even needed? It is basically the dictionary definition of the term, and doesn't have, in the context, any weird definitions that one might err on to use."

OOC: Correction suggestions in red again, to make it more professional and to specify who needs to be reacting.

"Broadcasting" means as transmissions over radio waves and over telecommunications systems,

IC: "Again, an unnecessary dictionary definition. Though in the case of a breakdown of broadcasting systems, such as might happen during one of the events mentioned in your examples, would, for example, using portable loudspeakers count?"

All member states shall create emergency communication systems if such do not already exist, which shall be utilized to communicate with inform their residents regarding of all necessary information about ongoing emergency events.

IC: "How is this exactly doing more than the resolution you mentioned? And given that any developed nation would by necessity already have something like this in place, are you trying to mandate another one be created or can nations use an already working system?"

OOC: The red corrections are attempts to fix what she says in IC. I'm working on serious sleep deprivation right now so ask someone with firmer grasp of English to look it over.

As an example of using what already exists: last year in RL, the state authorities in Finland sent important info about the COVID stuff as text messages to all sim-cards in use in the nation. I even got it on my tablet device. Didn't even know it could receive text messages. I guess that uses radiowaves, but isn't normally thought of as "broadcasting", except in the less literal sense.

Member states shall utilize a variety of means to communicate with their citizens during an emergency event. These means shall be commensurate with the technology available in each member state.

IC: "Shouldn't the tech level availability be mentioned back wtih the creation of the broadcasting system? And why must nations use "a variety of means", when you mandate the creation of a single system? Maybe "any available means" would cover both the variety and the technological availability issues. In an emergency radio towers can go silent, such as if toppled by a powerful earthquake, or intentional sabotage by terrorists, so the broadcasting system might not work in any case."

If an emergency event threatens another member state or multiple states, the member state first affected must notify other member states of the event so they can communicate with their citizens regarding the emergency.

IC: "Aside from something obvious like a major volcanic eruption, where do you draw the line? Is smoke haze in the upper atmosphere from seriously out of control forest fires a "threat"? It might cool the temperatures by one or two degrees, but normal high altitude clouds have the same effect and they are not considered a hazard either. And if a tropical cyclone is approaching from the ocean, and there are several small member nations on the same oceanic shoreline, which of them must warn the others? Or should it be expected that they are not idiots and are in fact monitoring the weather themselves, especially when the weather services such as satellite data may be a third party service and possibly owned and maintained by a non-member nation. Perhaps you should instead make member nations responsible for acquiring the information necessary to keep their citizens safe, and check what, if anything, the various existing resolutions say about sharing such data already. Fairly sure there is something on meteorology out there already."

Member states shall prioritize the broadcasting of localized messaging in emergency events. However, member states may default to broadcasting national messaging if there is no available method for broadcasting at local or regional levels or if communication at those levels is unnecessary.

OOC: This says "decide yourself" in too many words. Basically nothing of value is added to the proposal by including this. The decision about prioritazion is left to the member states automatically unless you try to regulate it.

Member states are encouraged to undertake regular testing of all systems they use for communication during emergency events and to ensure that the equipment used, if any special equipment is used, is in good repair.

OOC: Requiring this rather than just encouraging would likely be more helpful. And the wording is wonky, but I'm tired enough that English is very close to not making sense anymore, so I need to go take a nap. Sorry.

Now, what does your proposal actually do? Say that emergency broadcast system must be made? Nothing about the citizenry having a way to receive said broadcasts. Like, if not counting cellphones, how many people have portable battery-operated radios anymore? TV broadcasts and text messages are the modern world ways to reach people.

But does it do enough? If an existing resolution encourages something and this then mandates it, is that enough for an area of effect? They have a Strong effect on national stats, so their wording should at the very least reach Significant strength effect. Given most reasonably developed RL nations already have such systems in place, and the rest would not be able to have them because of issues with technological availability and vast distances/difficult terrain. So does this do enough?

[Hulldom]

Thanks for the feedback. My apologies for not getting to it. That's on my to-do list, probably tomorrow night.

[Hulldom]

OOC: Re: Ara's "does it do enough" comment, I think any effort we can undertakee to ensure that our citizens are safer is a win. I think this is common-sense.

In other news, I've made the necessary edits, I think.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: Re: Ara's "does it do enough" comment, I think any effort we can undertakee to ensure that our citizens are safer is a win.

OOC: So when can we expect to see a proposal from you on 'Free Bubble-wrap Suits for Everybody' ?

[Hulldom]

OOC: Re: Ara's "does it do enough" comment, I think any effort we can undertakee to ensure that our citizens are safer is a win.

OOC: So when can we expect to see a proposal from you on 'Free Bubble-wrap Suits for Everybody' ?

That would be an Issue, dear Bears!

[Cappedore]

I'm still questioning wether or not this really counts as legislation, or if it would perhaps be more suited to a Declaration in the Security Council.

[Hulldom]

I'm still questioning wether or not this really counts as legislation, or if it would perhaps be more suited to a Declaration in the Security Council.

It’s GA legislation. It would not be suited at all for an SC Declaration and I would not consider submitting as such.

[Cappedore]

I'm still questioning wether or not this really counts as legislation, or if it would perhaps be more suited to a Declaration in the Security Council.

It’s GA legislation. It would not be suited at all for an SC Declaration and I would not consider submitting as such.

I mean...it seems to be quite a small matter...

[Hulldom]

OOC: Bump

[Bestelesnia]

IC: The Grand Emperor of Bestelesnia salutes you, and wishes to give you his opinion on your legislation:
It fails to explain exactly why this legislation is necessary, since GAR 570 already established in point 5 the creation of communication systems for emergency situations, and GAR 565 also establishes the formation of this systems for data exchange between countries, although it is true that GAR 565 deals specifically with volvanic activity, the system already exists and could be used for other emergencies should each nation decided to do so.
And so, it does not solve any problem that has not been solved yet, nor does it really improve what other resolutions have done.
With nothing else to say, the Grand Emperor congratulates you on your attempt to make our world a better place.
Best Regards,
International Affairs Office.

[Hulldom]

IC: The Grand Emperor of Bestelesnia salutes you, and wishes to give you his opinion on your legislation:
It fails to explain exactly why this legislation is necessary, since GAR 570 already established in point 5 the creation of communication systems for emergency situations, and GAR 565 also establishes the formation of this systems for data exchange between countries, although it is true that GAR 565 deals specifically with volvanic activity, the system already exists and could be used for other emergencies should each nation decided to do so.
And so, it does not solve any problem that has not been solved yet, nor does it really improve what other resolutions have done.
With nothing else to say, the Grand Emperor congratulates you on your attempt to make our world a better place.
Best Regards,
International Affairs Office.

GAR 570 does nothing of the sort.

The creation of nationally-based systems in order to gather and disseminate information regarding imminent and ongoing disasters is strongly encouraged.

While I could understand the GAR 565 argument a little bit more, I think the narrow scope renders your argument problematic problematic.