[PASSED] - Repeal: GA 76 'Standardised Passport Act'

[Refuge Isle]

Motivation

The targeted repeal:
https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=1

This should be self explanatory, but anyway my repeal is focused on:

1. The rights of citizens and nationals have been expanded since the passing of this resolution, such as the rights for anyone below the age of majority (GAR 299), non-binary marriages (GAR 457), as well as the issuance of IDs (GAR 686), dual citizenship (GAR 695) and consular protection (GAR 703) - the last two replacing much of the consular functions contained in this resolution;

2. The target resolution explicitly states (in paragraph 3) that "foreign nationals, excluding diplomatic and consular officers, should abide by the laws of the nation in which they are present", creating the impression that diplomatic and consular officers do not need to abide by any laws and can go on criminal rampages at will;

3. The target resolution permits (in paragraph 6) "issuing nations to allow children under the age of majority, or a specific age that is lower than that of the age of majority, to travel on the passport of one or both of their parents", which creates the ambiguity of allowing children to either travel on or be included on a parent's passport, a practice that makes children more susceptible to abduction and trafficking if they are treated as merely an extension of an adult for purposes of passports;

4. In addition, I believe the name "Global Emigration, Security, Travel And Passport Organisation" (GESTAPO) initialism in GA76 should not be in the annals of the GA given the Nazi Germany connotations (this is not mentioned on the repeal because of the fourth wall issue).


Replacements:

The replacement is here: (Standardized passports arrangements)
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=536755



Submitted draft

The World Assembly (WA),

Noting that GAR 76, Standardised Passport Act, provided a basis for reasonably convenient travel between WA states;

Noting that, since the passing of this resolution, the WA has considerably expanded the rights for anyone below the age of majority (GAR 299), non-binary marriages (GAR 457), as well as the issuance of identity documents (GAR 686), dual citizenship (GAR 695) and consular protection (GAR 703);

Dismayed, however, that the target resolution explicitly states (in paragraph 3) that "foreign nationals, excluding diplomatic and consular officers, should abide by the laws of the nation in which they are present", creating the impression that diplomatic and consular officers do not need to abide by any laws and can go on criminal rampages at will;

Alarmed that the target resolution permits (in paragraph 6) "issuing nations to allow children under the age of majority, or a specific age that is lower than that of the age of majority, to travel on the passport of one or both of their parents", which creates the ambiguity of allowing children to either travel on or be included on a parent's passport, a practice that makes children more susceptible to abduction and trafficking if they are treated as merely an extension of an adult for purposes of passports;

Noting that the rights for diplomats to visit nationals overseas (in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the target resolution) when detained and other related rights have been expanded considerably by subsequent resolutions, including GA703 "Consular Protection Arrangements", making this resolution redundant in this aspect;

Looking forward to the WA approving an appropriate replacement for this resolution with regards to the standardization of passports;

Hereby repeals Standardised Passport Act.

Char count: 1,734.

[Juansonia]

"Support." - Maria-Fernanda Novo, WA Ambassador for the Armed Republic of Juansonia

[States of Glory WA Office]

Dismayed, however, that it explicitly states that "foreign nationals, excluding diplomatic and consular officers, should abide by the laws of the nation in which they are present", creating the impression that diplomatic and consular officers do not need to abide by certain laws;

Neville: I believe this clause in the target resolution was a reference to diplomatic immunity, Ambassador, which is an important principle in international relations. Perhaps it's clumsily worded, but the underlying sentiment is sound.

Frustrated that the organization in charge of such important functions is known as the Global Emigration, Security, Travel And Passport Organisation (GESTAPO), a term which carries negative connotations with a significant number of member states;

Neville: What negative connotations, Ambassador? I see no issue with the name of this committee.

OOC: Obviously, I sympathise with the desire to get rid of this committee due to its name, but I don't think this should be mentioned in the actual text of the repeal as it doesn't really make sense IC.

[Simone Republic]

Frustrated that the organization in charge of such important functions is known as the Global Emigration, Security, Travel And Passport Organisation (GESTAPO), a term which carries negative connotations with a significant number of member states;

Neville: What negative connotations, Ambassador? I see no issue with the name of this committee.

OOC: Obviously, I sympathise with the desire to get rid of this committee due to its name, but I don't think this should be mentioned in the actual text of the repeal as it doesn't really make sense IC.

This has been removed. Bump.

[Simone Republic]

*Bump* as this draft is also affected by the likely passing of Consular Protection Arrangements as GA703.

[Simone Republic]

Second bump with some wording changes to acknowledge GARs 299, 686, 695 etc.

[Kenmoria]

Ambassador Fortier stands to speak. “On behalf of the Delegation of the People’s Republic of Kenmoria to the General Assembly, I support this repeal. I note that there is some inconsistent formatting of reference to resolutions of the General Assembly in this repeal, ‘GAR 76’ contrasted with ‘GA76’. This should be standardised, ideally in the former format. In the ‘noting’ clause, ‘since’ should be inserted prior to ‘the passing of this resolution’.”

[Simone Republic]

Ambassador Fortier stands to speak. “On behalf of the Delegation of the People’s Republic of Kenmoria to the General Assembly, I support this repeal. I note that there is some inconsistent formatting of reference to resolutions of the General Assembly in this repeal, ‘GAR 76’ contrasted with ‘GA76’. This should be standardised, ideally in the former format. In the ‘noting’ clause, ‘since’ should be inserted prior to ‘the passing of this resolution’.”

Both changes have been made.

I am still doing repeals in the UN format (rather than the statue format that I have adopted.

[Kenmoria]

Ambassador Fortier stands to speak. “On behalf of the Delegation of the People’s Republic of Kenmoria to the General Assembly, I support this repeal. I note that there is some inconsistent formatting of reference to resolutions of the General Assembly in this repeal, ‘GAR 76’ contrasted with ‘GA76’. This should be standardised, ideally in the former format. In the ‘noting’ clause, ‘since’ should be inserted prior to ‘the passing of this resolution’.”

Both changes have been made.

I am still doing repeals in the UN format (rather than the statue format that I have adopted.

(OOC: I tend to find that UN Format works well for repeals. It presents more like an argument.)

[Verdant Haven]

"I am not convinced that the targeted resolution's paragraph 6 has the effect you declare it to have. Simply permitting a nation to choose to allow minors to travel on a parent's passport does not mandate that they must do so, nor does it mandate that other nations accept such an arrangement. If anything, it would seem to open up broader opportunities for minors and families to travel, as there is now the potential that they might do so either with their own passport, or on the passport of a parent should they not be able to easily afford or obtain said passport otherwise."

"It is also worth noting that minors do not inherently have "freedom of travel" internationally – the nature of being a minor is that certain rights and permissions are not yet vested in the individual, but rather in the legally recognized guardian. Far from impinging a freedom that cannot be assumed to exist, the targeted resolution seems to expand opportunities for that oft-unprotected class."

"This is not to say that other points made may not be valid, or that certain initialisms are extremely distasteful and to be avoided – an argument which by itself would be sufficient for me to support a repeal in this particular case – but I cannot unequivocally support this draft presently, as it is structured around an argument that seems to be the opposite of my understanding of reality. I welcome correction, or explanation of how providing additional options serves to restrict freedoms in this instance."

[Simone Republic]

[i]"I am not convinced that the targeted resolution's paragraph 6 has the effect you declare it to have. Simply permitting a nation to choose to allow minors to travel on a parent's passport does not mandate that they must do so, nor does it mandate that other nations accept such an arrangement. If anything, it would seem to open up broader opportunities for minors and families to travel, as there is now the potential that they might do so either with their own passport, or on the passport of a parent should they not be able to easily afford or obtain said passport otherwise."

The main problem is "on whose passport is the minor travelling on"? If it's on one parent's passport, what happens if the other parent (or multiple parents, since GA allows polygamy) wants to take them out of the country? What happens if the minor needs to travel between countries due to joint custody? Do the minors need to re-attach themselves to another passport? What about travelling by unaccompanied minors (as is quite common now on aircraft), dropped off by one parent on one end (to airlife staff) and picked up by another parent on the other end? What about guardians?

I can clarify this in the draft.

[Verdant Haven]

The main problem is "on whose passport is the minor travelling on"? If it's on one parent's passport, what happens if the other parent (or multiple parents, since GA allows polygamy) wants to take them out of the country? What happens if the minor needs to travel between countries due to joint custody? Do the minors need to re-attach themselves to another passport? What about travelling by unaccompanied minors (as is quite common now on aircraft), dropped off by one parent on one end (to airlife staff) and picked up by another parent on the other end? What about guardians?

I can clarify this in the draft.

"I believe there may be a textual misunderstanding here. The expression "travel on a... passport" is a standard usage that simply means travelling under the auspices of a given document. It does not mean the child must have their name inscribed on that passport, or that that they must "attach" themselves to that passport. It is utilizing standard and widely-used language to indicate that if the child is accompanied by a parent who has a passport, then the child does not need to have a passport themself. The child may easily travel one direction accompanied by one parent, and then another direction accompanied by another parent, and then a third direction accompanied by a third parent if that is indeed their situation. This places no limits whatsoever on the child – it simply means that the child does not need their own documents when accompanied by a document-bearing parent."

"In the case of a child traveling on their own, then they remain free to have their own passport. There is no contradiction between having their own passport, and being permitted to travel on their parent's passport when together. This clause is a matter of allowing nations to optionally provide significant additional convenience to families with minor children. It does not add any barrier to travel for any party."

[Quintessence of Dust]

Haven't read it but for.

[Simone Republic]

Draft 3

The World Assembly (WA),

Noting that GAR 76, Standardised Passport Act, provided a basis for reasonably convenient travel between WA states;

Noting that, since the passing of this resolution, the WA has considerably expanded the rights for anyone below the age of majority (GAR 299), non-binary marriages (GAR 457), as well as the issuance of identity documents (GAR 686), dual citizenship (GAR 695) and consular protection (GAR 703);

Dismayed, however, that it explicitly states (in paragraph 3) that "foreign nationals, excluding diplomatic and consular officers, should abide by the laws of the nation in which they are present", creating the impression that diplomatic and consular officers do not need to abide by any laws and can go on criminal rampages at will;

Alarmed that the resolution permits (in paragraph 6) "issuing nations to allow children under the age of majority, or a specific age that is lower than that of the age of majority, to travel on the passport of one or both of their parents", which restricts the freedom of travel for those below the age of majority, and creates unnecessary issues regarding parenting, custody and visitation rights, especially if someone under the age of majority is under joint custody of parents residing in different member states;

Noting that the rights for diplomats to visit nationals overseas (in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the target resolution) when detained and other related rights have been expanded considerably by subsequent resolutions, including GA703 "Consular Protection Arrangements", making this resolution redundant in this aspect;

Looking forward to the WA approving an appropriate replacement for this resolution;

Hereby repeals GAR 76, Standardised Passport Act.

I can clarify this in the draft.
[i]"I believe there may be a textual misunderstanding here. The expression "travel on a... passport" is a standard usage that simply means travelling under the auspices of a given document. It does not mean the child must have their name inscribed on that passport, or that that they must "attach" themselves to that passport.

That's what the text says:

"PERMITS issuing nations to allow children under the age of majority, or a specific age that is lower than that of the age of majority, in the issuing country to travel on the passport of one or both of their parents, as necessary under national law"

What I have in mind is the old Citizen of the United Kingdom passport, like this picture:



A British family passport (in this case, from British Jamaica) has the entry "children" on the bottom left, and of course the children can ONLY travel with their father in this case since their name is on this passport. (It is ambiguous as to whether children's names can be on multiple passports from that era.) This is the exact scenario that I wish to prevent.

In some countries in real life, of course, women cannot travel (or drive) without being accompanied by a man, but I am ignoring the case here since that is already prohibited by existing WA law.

The picture is courtesy of here:
https://www.passport-collector.com/tom- ... rt-expert/

If I have read the licensing conditions there correctly, using this picture should be OK.

[The Ice States]

Dismayed, however, that it explicitly states (in paragraph 3) that "foreign nationals, excluding diplomatic and consular officers, should abide by the laws of the nation in which they are present", creating the impression that diplomatic and consular officers do not need to abide by any laws and can go on criminal rampages at will;

This is a preamble clause, it may not be worded very well but it is of no legislative effect. I don't see how this sort of poor wording is heinous enough to require a repeal.

Alarmed that the resolution permits (in paragraph 6) "issuing nations to allow children under the age of majority, or a specific age that is lower than that of the age of majority, to travel on the passport of one or both of their parents", which restricts the freedom of travel for those below the age of majority,

How does this do this? Permitting X group to do something is not mutually exclusive with permitting them to do something else.

creates unnecessary issues regarding parenting, custody and visitation rights, especially if someone under the age of majority is under joint custody of parents residing in different member states;

What issues?

[Verdant Haven]

OOC: While "family passports" were the norm a century ago, that is not what is described in GAR 76. There is a small, but very critical, difference in wording between what those things would be. What you're talking about and linking above is described as being "Included on" a parent's passport. What GAR 76 optionally permits is "Traveling on" a parent's passport, which is a completely different thing. All it does is make it so an accompanied minor does not need documents at all, so long as they are accompanied by a parent.

Incidentally, this has largely (if not totally) been eliminated in recent years for the exact opposite of the reasoning you put in your repeal - not because it is too much of a restriction, but because it isn't restrictive enough. Allowing children to either travel on or be included on a parent's passport is considered dangerous to the child, because it makes it way too easy for the child to travel. They are more susceptible to abduction, trafficking, and abuse if they are treated as merely an extension of an adult for purposes of documentation.

[Simone Republic]

OOC: While "family passports" were the norm a century ago, that is not what is described in GAR 76. There is a small, but very critical, difference in wording between what those things would be. What you're talking about and linking above is described as being "Included on" a parent's passport. What GAR 76 optionally permits is "Traveling on" a parent's passport, which is a completely different thing. All it does is make it so an accompanied minor does not need documents at all, so long as they are accompanied by a parent.

I think yes and no. The wording in GA76 is "[permits] issuing nations to allow children under the age of majority, or a specific age that is lower than that of the age of majority, in the issuing country to travel on the passport of one or both of their parents, as necessary under national law"[.]

It actually isn't clear whether "travel on... as necessary under national law" implies that children can travel on an adult's passport without being included on a parent's passport, or must be included in that passport, because of that "necessary under national law" qualifier. But I've worded around the whole thing to make it clearer.

The relevant text is now

"which creates the ambiguity of allowing children to either travel on or be included on a parent's passport"

[Simone Republic]

Bump

[Simone Republic]

Submitted.

[Eswatini Federation]

These resolution should not be allowed to exist allowing children to travel on either parents passport is absurd look I understand it makes travelling much easier and for sum the good parents its good but listen as stated by simon in case of joint custody it will be a disaster these will open up for child trafficking and a lot more issues what if the other parent want to run away with the child these is foolish these should be revoked and a lot more resolution should be revoked

[Wallenburg]

Dismayed, however, that it explicitly states (in paragraph 3) that "foreign nationals, excluding diplomatic and consular officers, should abide by the laws of the nation in which they are present", creating the impression that diplomatic and consular officers do not need to abide by any laws and can go on criminal rampages at will;

This is a preamble clause, it may not be worded very well but it is of no legislative effect. I don't see how this sort of poor wording is heinous enough to require a repeal.

I second this and take it further. In what way is this not an HM violation? Not only is it not addressing any actual effect of the target, but such an interpretation of a preambulatory clause saying 'it is good to obey the law' as 'the law currently means nothing and there are no repercussions for breaking it' cannot be formulated by any reasonable mind.

[The Ice States]

This is a preamble clause, it may not be worded very well but it is of no legislative effect. I don't see how this sort of poor wording is heinous enough to require a repeal.

I second this and take it further. In what way is this not an HM violation? Not only is it not addressing any actual effect of the target, but such an interpretation of a preambulatory clause saying 'it is good to obey the law' as 'the law currently means nothing and there are no repercussions for breaking it' cannot be formulated by any reasonable mind.

I guess it creates that impression in the mind of someone who hasn't read the active clauses; I'd consider it a statement of opinion although I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

Edit: On further thoughts, I think this can be reasonably read as saying that the impression created is that the law should not, rather than does not, apply to diplomatic officers, which is certainly a statement of opinion.

[Simone Republic]

This is a preamble clause, it may not be worded very well but it is of no legislative effect. I don't see how this sort of poor wording is heinous enough to require a repeal.

I second this and take it further. In what way is this not an HM violation? Not only is it not addressing any actual effect of the target, but such an interpretation of a preambulatory clause saying 'it is good to obey the law' as 'the law currently means nothing and there are no repercussions for breaking it' cannot be formulated by any reasonable mind.

The preamble "creates the impression" that diplomats do not need to abide by laws. I am merely saying that "a preamble shouldn't say this" since I disagree with the preamble.

[Wallenburg]

I second this and take it further. In what way is this not an HM violation? Not only is it not addressing any actual effect of the target, but such an interpretation of a preambulatory clause saying 'it is good to obey the law' as 'the law currently means nothing and there are no repercussions for breaking it' cannot be formulated by any reasonable mind.

The preamble "creates the impression" that diplomats do not need to abide by laws. I am merely saying that "a preamble shouldn't say this" since I disagree with the preamble.

There's a pretty significant difference between saying that a resolution's preamble is disagreeable and saying that it leaves people with the impression that consular staff are all currently wading knee-deep in the blood of their enemies. I don't expect this will be picked up, but this certainly cements my personal opposition to the bill.

[Simone Republic]

I second this and take it further. In what way is this not an HM violation? Not only is it not addressing any actual effect of the target, but such an interpretation of a preambulatory clause saying 'it is good to obey the law' as 'the law currently means nothing and there are no repercussions for breaking it' cannot be formulated by any reasonable mind.

I guess it creates that impression in the mind of someone who hasn't read the active clauses; I'd consider it a statement of opinion although I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

Edit: On further thoughts, I think this can be reasonably read as saying that the impression created is that the law should not, rather than does not, apply to diplomatic officers, which is certainly a statement of opinion.

It is meant to be an opinion. My opinion to be exact. I am somewhat taking Cretox's stance in the Force Majeure server and in his GA22 repeal that diplomats shouldn't get away with doing all kinds of crap. I am also somewhat biased by my opinion over Donald Trump's handling of the Death of Harry Dunn.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Harry_Dunn