Concern about the Epidemic Response Act

[New Rockport]

Earlier today, Goddess Relief Office proposed the Epidemic Response Act. Overall, this is a very well written proposal. However, I have a concern that I hope the delegates will consider before granting their approval.

Section 6 states:

6) MANDATES that all member nations act responsibly in the control of the nation's land, sea, and airport and impose travel restrictions, if recommended by the World Health Authority EPARC, to help control the spread of the disease

(emphasis added)

First, the EPARC would not really be "recommending" travel restrictions if member nations are mandated to impose them. Second, this proposal would give an inordinate amount of power to unaccountable bureaucrats. If travel restrictions are to be imposed on the people of a nation, they should be imposed by officials who are accountable to the people of that nation.

The Republic of New Rockport would support this legislation if the language of Section 6 were precatory, however we cannot support it as written and urge the delegates to reject it as it is currently written.

Respectfully submitted,
Silvana Rossi
Ambassador to the World Assembly
Republic of New Rockport

[Sionis Prioratus]

It may be legal, but it is immoral, indecent and despicable that a resolution well on its way to quorum would not be submitted to criticism and improvement in the forums first.

It is almost as if there was not enough havoc going on over the Security Council about the quality of the text of the resolutions. Now it's spilling over here.

It is an absolute disregard towards WA regulars.

[SilentScope4]

Second, this proposal would give an inordinate amount of power to unaccountable bureaucrats.

Yes, they are unaccountable, but these bureaucrats are also perfect. They can solve any problem and take into account all nations' concerns. You can lobby them, present to them clear evidence why there is no need for a 'recommendation', and the bureaucrats will accept such a need.

[New Rockport]

Perfect or not, they're still unelected, unaccountable, foreign bureaucrats. No WA resolution currently in effect grants any WA agency this kind of power over the citizens of member states. Furthermore, Resolution 46 prohibits member states from preventing their nationals from leaving the country. The only exceptions are as follows:

2. PERMITS member states to waive Section 1 only if any of the following conditions are true:
a) The person is either under penal servitude or undergoing (civil or criminal) legal proceedings;
b) The person holds certain convictions directly linking to sexual offences;
c) The person is below the age of maturity (as defined in their country of residence) and lacks the consent of their legal parents or guardians;
d) The person is either militarily interned during conflict or legally mandated to remain in the current country of residence following a judicial ruling or;
e) The person is suspected of espionage or intention to carry out terrorist acts by emigrating.

An epidemic is not one of the above exceptions. Therefore, the restriction of foreign travel under the proposed Epidemic Response Act would violate Resolution 46. This proposal could potentially put member states in a position of either violating an order by the EPARC to restrict foreign travel, or violating their citizens' right under Resolution 46 to exit the country.

[Goobergunchia]

M.O.S.S. proposal. Please post the full text here so we can discuss it properly.

This has been an OOC post, as I'm too tired to figure out how Susan knows the term "M.O.S.S. proposal".

[New Rockport]

Here it is:

Category: International Security Strength: Strong Proposed by: Goddess Relief Office

Description: THE WORLD ASSEMBLY,

NOTING the danger posed by communicable diseases, especially those whose etiology, pathology, and prognosis are unknown and cause human fatality;

REALIZING that a nation that intentionally withholds information about an epidemic within its borders places the international community at risk by impeding the ability of others to put into action plans to contain the disease or research a vaccine;

HEREBY

1) CREATES the Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Response Center (EPARC) within the World Health Authority. The EPARC shall serve the following primary functions:
a. Identifying and confirming international outbreaks;
b. Coordinating international outbreak response using resources from scientific institutions in World Assembly member nations, medical initiatives, regional technical networks, and international humanitarian nongovernmental organizations; and
c. Strengthening readiness for outbreaks of dangerous and emerging pathogens.

2) REQUIRES that all member nations report any outbreak to the World Health Authority EPARC if the incidence rate of a disease in any localized area reaches a level of more than twice that of the same calendar month in the previous year;

3) STRONGLY URGES all member nations enact immediate measures to combat a local outbreak while it is still in the incipient stages, including, but not limited to, the following:
a. Providing medical care to infected individuals;
b. Issuing public news updates;
c. Eradicating insects, vermin, or livestock if they carry the disease;
d. Quarantining infected individuals in their homes or in hospitals;

4) REQUIRES that all member nations share viruses, bacteria, and other pathogens samples with the World Health Authority EPARC so that the international community can research a vaccine and is kept abreast of developments if the disease evolves in virulence or other characteristics;

5) FURTHER REQUIRES that all member nations allow health inspectors from the World Health Authority and international aid agencies to travel to the affected area to provide aid to infected individuals, conduct research, distribute medical supplies and vaccines, or report the latest developments to the international community, as appropriate;

6) MANDATES that all member nations act responsibly in the control of the nation's land, sea, and airport and impose travel restrictions, if recommended by the World Health Authority EPARC, to help control the spread of the disease; and

7) ASKS that all member nations cooperate at all times with the World Health Authority EPARC on issues not enumerated.

I concur with my esteemed colleague from Sionis Prioratus that posting draft proposals for mark-up before submitting them for approval results in better legislation.

Respectfully submitted,
Silvana Rossi
Ambassador to the World Assembly
Republic of New Rockport

[Glen-Rhodes]

While I'm disappointed that the proposal was never brought before the halls, for a decent debate, the Epidemic Response Act seems to be the exception to the rule. It's very well written, and I doubt any debate would have needed to last long. The national sovereignty issues would never have been settled, and the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes is more leaning to international federalism, anyways.

With that said, I've offered my approval of this proposal. I suspect it will reach quorum before the day's end.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, FAA
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

[Goobergunchia]

The PRESIDING OFFICER: The Chair wishes to advise members that the proposal "Epidemic Response Act", proposed by the Celestial Realm of Goddess Relief Office, has reached quorum and is now in the queue to be voted upon.

[SilentScope4]

Furthermore, Resolution 46 prohibits member states from preventing their nationals from leaving the country.

But there is precedent that the WA is exempt from the very rules that govern WA memberstates. If a WA agency "recommends" another memberstate to impose travel restrictions, then the memberstate is forced to prevent their nationals from leaving the country. The memberstate isn't voluntarily waiving Section 1, it's the WA agency, therefore the nation is not in violation of Resolution 46.

Further:

legally mandated to remain in the current country of residence following a judicial ruling or;

Would a recommendation by the WA Agency in question be considered a "judicial ruling"?

[New Rockport]

The national sovereignty issues would never have been settled, and the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes is more leaning to international federalism, anyways.

This isn't so much a national sovereignty issue as an accountability issue. All member states cede authority to the World Assembly, but the ambassadors and delegates to the World Assembly are accountable to the governments that appointed us. As an ambassador, I can be recalled at any time by my nation's government. My esteemed colleague from Glen-Rhodes can be replaced as a regional delegate if another nation gathers the endorsements of a plurality of the nations in his region. The bureaucrats of the EPARC, on the other hand, are accountable to no one. My nation is not necessarily averse to ceding authority to a supra-national organization. If it were, it would never have joined the World Assembly. My nation is averse, however, to putting its citizens under the authority of bureaucrats who are completely unaccountable.

My esteemed colleague from SilentScope4 asserts that these unelected, unaccountable foreign bureaucrats are perfect. That may well be. I would trust them to calculate the number of lives that could be expected to be saved if travel restrictions are implemented, and to calculate the lost economic activity that would result from travel restrictions. However, to weigh the value of lives saved and illnesses prevented against the value of lost liberty and economic activity, one must not only make accurate calculations; one must also make value judgments. I have complete faith in the competence of WA bureaucrats to gather information, to monitor the situation on the ground, to make accurate calculations, and to provide assistance when member states request it. However, I do not have complete faith that these bureaucrats' values will be compatible with the prevailing values of my country's people and its government.

But there is precedent that the WA is exempt from the very rules that govern WA memberstates. If a WA agency "recommends" another memberstate to impose travel restrictions, then the memberstate is forced to prevent their nationals from leaving the country. The memberstate isn't voluntarily waiving Section 1, it's the WA agency, therefore the nation is not in violation of Resolution 46.

Thanks for the clarification. If my esteemed colleague could show me where to find this precedent I would appreciate it.

Respectfully submitted,
Silvana Rossi
Ambassador to the World Assembly
Republic of New Rockport

[Sionis Prioratus]

M.O.S.S. proposal. Please post the full text here so we can discuss it properly.

This has been an OOC post, as I'm too tired to figure out how Susan knows the term "M.O.S.S. proposal".

(OOC: Hail Google.)

[Goobergunchia]

[OOC: Well yeah, I know what a M.O.S.S. proposal is, otherwise I wouldn't have used that phrasing. However, Legislative Assistant Susan Zapfkoro would normally be the one asking, and as she's a fairly junior member of my delegation and long postdates DLE, I wasn't sure how I could justify her using the phrase. AFAIK, Google doesn't exist in the NS world, although I assume there's some search engine to sift through the volumes that constitute the 2nd Forum of the United Nations and World Assembly.]

[New Rockport]

There is also an apparent inconsistency between Section 3 and Section 6. Please note the precatory language of Section 3...

3) STRONGLY URGES all member nations enact immediate measures to combat a local outbreak while it is still in the incipient stages, including, but not limited to, the following:
a. Providing medical care to infected individuals;
b. Issuing public news updates;
c. Eradicating insects, vermin, or livestock if they carry the disease;
d. Quarantining infected individuals in their homes or in hospitals

(emphasis added)

... and the mandatory language of Section 6:

6) MANDATES that all member nations act responsibly in the control of the nation's land, sea, and airport and impose travel restrictions, if recommended by the World Health Authority EPARC, to help control the spread of the disease

So, a nation could be mandated to restrict the movement of its entire population, but is only strongly urged to restrict the movement of people who are actually infected.

Respectfully submitted,
Silvana Rossi
Ambassador to the World Assembly
Republic of New Rockport

[SilentScope4]

Thanks for the clarification. If my esteemed colleague could show me where to find this precedent I would appreciate it.

Alright, let's just hope I remember the precedent correctly.
1) The previous United Nations had a resolution that bans people getting tried for crimes committed "ex post facto". It further mandated that nations with "ex post facto" laws (that bans people getting tried for crimes committed "post facto") to modify these very laws. Some people complained that the UN was ordering the memberstates to do something that it was trying to stop in the first place. I am not very clear on how that worked though. I believe they argued that they made these laws before the UN made the resolution banning "ex post facto" trials, and now they are forced to comply with the resolution even so they made those laws before the law itself was made. Something like that.

2) One of the first acts of the United Nations mandated that all memberstates must use the Metric System. The UN also had "The Law of the Sea" and possibly other resolutions that used measurement systems other than the Metric System, while the first act was still in force. The UN, of course, wasn't attacked for violating the very rules it has put upon memberstates.

[Glen-Rhodes]

The bureaucrats of the EPARC, on the other hand, are accountable to no one. My nation is not necessarily averse to ceding authority to a supra-national organization. If it were, it would never have joined the World Assembly. My nation is averse, however, to putting its citizens under the authority of bureaucrats who are completely unaccountable.

New Rockport is a relatively new member state, yes? If so, I might as well spill the beans now. Unfortunately, no committee created by the World Assembly is accountable to anybody. They do, however, have a superb track record of performing their duties fairly and correctly.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, FAA
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

[Flibbleites]

[OOC: Well yeah, I know what a M.O.S.S. proposal is, otherwise I wouldn't have used that phrasing. However, Legislative Assistant Susan Zapfkoro would normally be the one asking, and as she's a fairly junior member of my delegation and long postdates DLE, I wasn't sure how I could justify her using the phrase. AFAIK, Google doesn't exist in the NS world, although I assume there's some search engine to sift through the volumes that constitute the 2nd Forum of the United Nations and World Assembly.]

OOC: That's when I just say "searching the archives."

[New Rockport]

Thanks for the clarification. If my esteemed colleague could show me where to find this precedent I would appreciate it.

Alright, let's just hope I remember the precedent correctly.
1) The previous United Nations had a resolution that bans people getting tried for crimes committed "ex post facto". It further mandated that nations with "ex post facto" laws (that bans people getting tried for crimes committed "post facto") to modify these very laws. Some people complained that the UN was ordering the memberstates to do something that it was trying to stop in the first place. I am not very clear on how that worked though. I believe they argued that they made these laws before the UN made the resolution banning "ex post facto" trials, and now they are forced to comply with the resolution even so they made those laws before the law itself was made. Something like that.

2) One of the first acts of the United Nations mandated that all memberstates must use the Metric System. The UN also had "The Law of the Sea" and possibly other resolutions that used measurement systems other than the Metric System, while the first act was still in force. The UN, of course, wasn't attacked for violating the very rules it has put upon memberstates.

Thank you for the history lesson. You are a font of knowledge.

[Travancore-Cochin]

There is also an apparent inconsistency between Section 3 and Section 6. Please note the precatory language of Section 3...

3) STRONGLY URGES all member nations enact immediate measures to combat a local outbreak while it is still in the incipient stages, including, but not limited to, the following:
a. Providing medical care to infected individuals;
b. Issuing public news updates;
c. Eradicating insects, vermin, or livestock if they carry the disease;
d. Quarantining infected individuals in their homes or in hospitals

(emphasis added)

... and the mandatory language of Section 6:

6) MANDATES that all member nations act responsibly in the control of the nation's land, sea, and airport and impose travel restrictions, if recommended by the World Health Authority EPARC, to help control the spread of the disease

So, a nation could be mandated to restrict the movement of its entire population, but is only strongly urged to restrict the movement of people who are actually infected.

Perhaps you got the emphasis wrong in Section 3?

3) STRONGLY URGES all member nations enact immediate measures to combat a local outbreak while it is still in the incipient stages, including, but not limited to, the following:
a. Providing medical care to infected individuals;
b. Issuing public news updates;
c. Eradicating insects, vermin, or livestock if they carry the disease;
d. Quarantining infected individuals in their homes or in hospitals

There, fixed it for you.

A local outbreak in its incipient stages is an internal matter of the Member State. The WA or its EPARC is not involved here, as the outbreak has not yet reached the "epidemic" or "pandemic" stage. Hence, the nation is "strongly urged" to get the outbreak under control. However, when an outbreak has reached the epidemic stage - so much so that if it is not immediately brought under control, the risk of it becoming a global pandemic is large - the WA/EPARC steps in and recommends to the nation that travel restrictions be imposed. Only at this point is the nation mandated "to restrict the movement of its entire population", as you put it, so that the outbreak shall not become a global pandemic.

[New Rockport]

Unfortunately, no committee created by the World Assembly is accountable to anybody.

This is true. However, for the most part, these committees' duties are limited to monitoring, research, advising, and providing assistance to member states when asked. In very few instances are these committees granted coercive powers over the private citizens of member nations.

They do, however, have a superb track record of performing their duties fairly and correctly.

But, in deciding whether to impose travel restrictions, there may be no single correct answer. Suppose, hypothetically, that the imposition of travel restrictions could reasonably be expected to prevent 200 deaths and another 1,000 non-fatal illnesses. However, doing so would require shutting down a city and holding 100,000 people under virtual house arrest. The decision that one makes in such a situation depends not on one's ability to perform one's duties fairly and correctly, but on the relative value one places on life and health vs. liberty and economic activity. Two people, both equally able to perform their duties fairly and correctly, might still make different decisions.

A local outbreak in its incipient stages is an internal matter of the Member State. The WA or its EPARC is not involved here, as the outbreak has not yet reached the "epidemic" or "pandemic" stage. Hence, the nation is "strongly urged" to get the outbreak under control. However, when an outbreak has reached the epidemic stage - so much so that if it is not immediately brought under control, the risk of it becoming a global pandemic is large - the WA/EPARC steps in and recommends to the nation that travel restrictions be imposed. Only at this point is the nation mandated "to restrict the movement of its entire population", as you put it, so that the outbreak shall not become a global pandemic.

But there is nothing in the text of this resolution that restricts EPARC's Section 6 power to those situations where an outbreak has reached the epidemic or pandemic stage. Under this resolution, EPARC has the power to impose travel restrictions at any stage of the outbreak.