[SUBMITTED] Repeal GA 23 "Ban on Slavery and Trafficking"

[Cretox State]

Repeal "Ban on Slavery and Trafficking"

---

---

Target: GA 23 "Ban on Slavery and Trafficking" (forum)
Replacement: None. The target's antiquated compliance provisions elevate it from merely being flawed and ineffective to actively dangerous. A replacement would be a worthwhile endeavor, if difficult to get right.

---

This has been submitted! Please approve along with its partner repeal of GA 213.

---

The General Assembly finds as follows:

1. The target rightly considers "forced labour and human trafficking to be violations of basic human rights." Unfortunately, the target does not actually ban forced labor or trafficking.
   
   1. The target fails to ban forced labor, outright excluding things as broad as "normal civic duties," "required national emergency service," and "conscription or alternative required national service" from its definition of forced labor, letting nations easily concoct all manner of ways to get around its flimsy sham of a "ban."
   2. The target fails to ban trafficking, as that provision not only relies on the easily abusable definition of forced labor, but also vague terms such as "situations approximating to such" and "unauthorised medical procedures," undercutting a clause that could have served to somewhat patch up the crippling issues of the forced labor clause.
2. The target's ostensible slavery ban is likewise weak, as its definition of "[holding] under the law any person to be the possession, property, or chattel of any other person or any legal entity, or binding any person to an employer by a contract to which they have not consented" leaves room for what is effectively slave labor under the guise of a "custody" system. However, this flaw is at least somewhat understandable due to the pragmatic issues with a stronger ban potentially restricting good-faith custody and similar systems unnecessarily.
3. The target's multiple provisions regarding "servitude" are kneecapped by the aforementioned poor definitions, leaving its voiding of contracts, granting of refugee status, protection against reprisals, and ban on discrimination hollow.
4. The target was passed in this body's infancy, and later resolutions have competently supplanted some of its key functions.
   
   1. The target's trafficking "ban" of questionable provenance was later covered in a superior way by GA 57 "Refugee Protection" cracking down on the forced transportation of people "whether or not they meet the definitions of a refugee."
   2. The ability of nations to traffick people or enforce a system of servitude is severely restricted by the movement protections of GA 601 "Freedom of Travel."
5. Nowhere is the target's age more evident than in its attempt at a bespoke compliance system that is not only horrendously dangerous, but has also been rendered obsolete by this body's modern compliance scheme as implemented in resolutions such as GA 440 "Administrative Compliance Act" and GA 466 "World Assembly Justice Accord."
   
   1. Due to the interconnected nature of trade and the potential complexity of supply chains, the target - or any resolution for the matter - requiring immediate and permanent embargos of all goods "produced, in whole or in part, through servitude" is catastrophically dangerous to national economies even with the carveout for "transition assistance."
   2. Due to the aforementioned embargo provision being so heavy-handed, the sheer number of nations whose infrastructure may contribute to the production of a good, and the trafficking ban being marred by a combination of vague language, reliance on other poor definitions, and a scope that includes "assisting or financing such actions" (emphasis added), nations are incentivized to take advantage of the target's abundant holes and avoid taking action against genuine exploitation within their jurisdiction in order to avoid potential economic ruin.
6. Saying that "[nations] shall take part in a concerted diplomatic effort to end servitude" is vague to the point of meaninglessness, as is saying that "[nations] shall apply due scrutiny to such institutions as industries employing significant proportions of migrant workers" and "work, where necessary in concert with others."

Convinced that while well-intentioned, the target representing an irredeemably flawed placebo at best and a dangerously counterproductive incentive structure at worst makes its repeal aligned with the aims of the Final Ride initiative,

Believing that a purported "Ban on Slavery and Trafficking" should actually ban slavery and trafficking instead of being riddled with holes big enough to build a plantation in, and

Considering it unconscionable for a resolution that offers exploited people false hope to remain on the books,

The General Assembly repeals GA 23.

Co-authors: Badger, Domais, and Walkabout

---

OOC notes:

• First-generation hybrid format.
• Should the two list items about other resolutions and the two items about compliance be grouped together? The formatting feels suboptimal but maybe that's just me.
• Does 6 read fine?
• The antiquated compliance provisions elevate the target from merely being flawed and ineffective to being actively dangerous. Does the draft articulate that well?

Sir Thomas S. Gryfte enters the chamber clad in ballistic armor, fresh from "repealing" the entire State WA delegation. "Well, this is bound to be a bit contentious, though long overdue. Please table any comments with the large dark-suited gentlemen over there while I finish up some other business."

[New Halo]

Now this? Work of art! Full support.

[Cretox State]

BBCode for regional forums:

Code: Select all

The General Assembly finds as follows:
[list=1][*]The target rightly considers "forced labour and human trafficking to be violations of basic human rights." Unfortunately, the target does not actually ban forced labor or trafficking.
[list=a][*]The target fails to ban forced labor, outright excluding things as broad as "normal civic duties," "required national emergency service," and "conscription or alternative required national service" from its definition of forced labor, letting nations easily concoct all manner of ways to get around its flimsy sham of a "ban."
[*]The target fails to ban trafficking, as that provision not only relies on the easily abusable definition of forced labor, but also vague terms such as "situations approximating to such" and "unauthorised medical procedures," undercutting a clause that could have served to somewhat patch up the crippling issues of the forced labor clause.[/list]
[*]The target's ostensible slavery ban is likewise weak, as its definition of "[holding] under the law any person to be the possession, property, or chattel of any other person or any legal entity, or binding any person to an employer by a contract to which they have not consented" leaves room for what is effectively slave labor under the guise of a "custody" system. However, this flaw is at least somewhat understandable due to the pragmatic issues with a stronger ban potentially restricting good-faith custody and similar systems unnecessarily.
[*]The target's multiple provisions regarding "servitude" are kneecapped by the aforementioned poor definitions, leaving its voiding of contracts, granting of refugee status, protection against reprisals, and ban on discrimination hollow.
[*]The target was passed in this body's infancy, and later resolutions have competently supplanted some of its key functions.
[list=a][*]The target's trafficking "ban" of questionable provenance was later covered in a superior way by [url=https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=57/council=1]GA 57 "Refugee Protection"[/url] cracking down on the forced transportation of people "whether or not they meet the definitions of a refugee."
[*]The ability of nations to traffick people or enforce a system of servitude is severely restricted by the movement protections of [url=https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=601/council=1]GA 601 "Freedom of Travel."[/url][/list]
[*]Nowhere is the target's age more evident than in its attempt at a bespoke compliance system that is not only horrendously dangerous, but has also been rendered obsolete by this body's modern compliance scheme as implemented in resolutions such as [url=https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=440/council=1]GA 440 "Administrative Compliance Act"[/url] and [url=https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=466/council=1]GA 466 "World Assembly Justice Accord."[/url]
[list=a][*]Due to the interconnected nature of trade and the potential complexity of supply chains, the target - or any resolution for the matter - requiring immediate and permanent embargos of all goods "produced, in whole or in part, through servitude" is catastrophically dangerous to national economies even with the carveout for "transition assistance."
[*]Due to the aforementioned embargo provision being so heavy-handed, the sheer number of nations whose infrastructure may contribute to the production of a good, and the trafficking ban being marred by a combination of vague language, reliance on other poor definitions, and a scope that includes "[b]assisting[/b] or financing such actions" (emphasis added), nations are incentivized to take advantage of the target's abundant holes and avoid taking action against genuine exploitation within their jurisdiction in order to avoid potential economic ruin.[/list]
[*]Saying that "[nations] shall take part in a concerted diplomatic effort to end servitude" is vague to the point of meaninglessness, as is saying that "[nations] shall apply due scrutiny to such institutions as industries employing significant proportions of migrant workers" and "work, where necessary in concert with others."[/list]
Convinced that while well-intentioned, the target representing an irredeemably flawed placebo at best and a dangerously counterproductive incentive structure at worst makes its repeal aligned with the aims of the Final Ride initiative,

Believing that a purported "Ban on Slavery and Trafficking" should actually ban slavery and trafficking instead of being riddled with holes big enough to build a plantation in, and

Considering it unconscionable for a resolution that offers exploited people false hope to remain on the books,

The General Assembly repeals GA 23.

Co-authors: [nation]Badger[/nation], [nation]Domais[/nation], and [nation]Walkabout[/nation]

[The Orwell Society]

I think that the argument that the original proposal doesn't actually ban slavery is there, but fairly weak. In GA 23, it states that slavery is "...immediately prohibited in all nations," with a broad, but fairly clear definition. Yes, a "custody system" could potentially be a harmful loophole, but the law still clearly prohibits legal ownership or involuntary employment. The forced labor exemptions, however, are a much stronger aspect of this repeal in my opinion, as it would be much easier to exploit a loophole with the text as-is. The strongest part of your repeal is definitely the criticism on the embargo clause, as enforcing that could cripple trade and punish nations indirectly involved in any sort of forced labour. The rest of your repeal is valid, but still arguable, and overall I'm inclined to support this as long as replacement legislation is already drafted and ready to go to vote shortly after the repeal.

[Flameport 15]

Full support, provided a replacement is made for the next 3 months.

[Orcuo]

Full support, no replacement though.

[Foderales Konigreich Schlesien]

Silesia will not support this repeal.

[Andso Mangis]

I’m fine but I would like to see you draft a better version of the current resolution

[Unibot III]

Linking custody to the definition of slavery would prohibit the arrest and incarceration of criminal offenders.

The definition in the target resolution reasonably approaches the subject.

[Valemora]

The Valemoran delegation finds the reasoning here compelling and is inclined to support the repeal.

One small structural suggestion: the references to GA 57 Refugee Protection and GA 601 Freedom of Travel could be placed together, since both argue that later legislation already addresses the trafficking concerns more effectively. Likewise, the paragraphs discussing the embargo provision and the modern compliance framework could be grouped, as they both support the point that the target’s compliance structure creates dangerous incentives.

Otherwise, Valemora expects to support the repeal when it comes to vote.

[Trumpist Island]

I am for. One less barrier to slavery

[Cretox State]

Gryfte: Due to the length of the General Assembly queue and the radio silence from our benevolent overlords on the exact nature of the planned July 1st reset of General Assembly legislation, we must assume that time is running out to submit proposals until some clarification is provided. As such, we have taken the unusual (for us) step of advancing this proposal's submission timetable in order to ensure that something concerning such a historically significant target resolution gets to vote. We made structural changes in accordance with the feedback provided by The Orwell Society and Valemora. We also made minor edits to the arguments themselves, primarily to better emphasize certain points. You can approve this proposal here; we'd certainly appreciate it.