[DRAFT, 5.75TH] Ban on Extrajudicial Transfer

[Glen-Rhodes]

Extrajudicial transfer could conceivably be used for the subversion of any of a number of national or international laws. A major example that I have provided is internment camps.

Yes, I understand that you've given this example numerous times. But, how is interning somebody not a punishment?

As an example, we will use the Medical Research Ethics Act (our own legislation). By that law, national IRBs must approve all research. However, a nation could technically allow illegal and unsafe research practices by sending inhabitants to a non-WA nation and performing research on them that would be illegal within their nation.

I suppose we simply disagree on how sovereignty and international law works. Doing that action may be unethical, but I cannot see how it is or why it should be illegal. If those nations are forcing people into medical experiments, then that likely violates Habeas Corpus, if not other resolutions, in the first place.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Quadrimmina]

As an example, we will use the Medical Research Ethics Act (our own legislation). By that law, national IRBs must approve all research. However, a nation could technically allow illegal and unsafe research practices by sending inhabitants to a non-WA nation and performing research on them that would be illegal within their nation.

I suppose we simply disagree on how sovereignty and international law works. Doing that action may be unethical, but I cannot see how it is or why it should be illegal. If those nations are forcing people into medical experiments, then that likely violates Habeas Corpus, if not other resolutions, in the first place.

- Dr. B. Castro

That seems to be our point of disagreement. However, this is worded very carefully for that precise reason. If something is illegal to do to someone within a member nation, then it should be illegal to do outside. WA resolutions should carry an ultimate force, human rights violations regarding WA law should not be tolerated. This is no more a breach of sovereignty than each individual resolution already is. As far as national law, the nations set them. Therefore, it's not a breach of sovereignty either.

Our delegation passed MREA because although it was already illegal to force people into experiments, people could be led into experiments that were misleading or dangerous for them and consent without knowing all of the facts. MREA made this illegal, requiring all studies to be reviewed annually within member nations. It, however, has no effect outside of member nation borders. This would be a blanket statement of protection, not just under MREA, but under every other human rights resolution and the accepted law in every member nation.

[Glen-Rhodes]

WA resolutions should carry an ultimate force, human rights violations regarding WA law should not be tolerated. This is no more a breach of sovereignty than each individual resolution already is.

But there are no human rights violations in the example you provided. The MREA only applies to entities who conduct research within a WA state. I would wager that any other examples you provide would be tenuous at best.

This would be a blanket statement of protection, not just under MREA, but under every other human rights resolution and the accepted law in every member nation.

That you view a 'blanket statement' as a good thing is the very reason for our delegations' complete incompatibility.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Quadrimmina]

WA resolutions should carry an ultimate force, human rights violations regarding WA law should not be tolerated. This is no more a breach of sovereignty than each individual resolution already is.

But there are no human rights violations in the example you provided. The MREA only applies to entities who conduct research within a WA state. I would wager that any other examples you provide would be tenuous at best.

This would be a blanket statement of protection, not just under MREA, but under every other human rights resolution and the accepted law in every member nation.

That you view a 'blanket statement' as a good thing is the very reason for our delegations' complete incompatibility.

- Dr. B. Castro

MREA protects individuals from being misled into consenting, protecting the right to consent. The right to informed consent would not be protected in a non-WA jurisdiction under MREA.

Concerning blanket statements, maybe that is where we differ. We want a more comprehensive approach while you want a more targeted approach. The thing that our delegation stresses, however, is that the targeted approach is covered under our comprehensive approach, which protects not just the rights your approach would protect, but all rights enshrined under existing laws. And as argued before, it does so by grandfathering in existing WA and national law and simply ensuring that nations stay true to their own laws and limitations.

[Glen-Rhodes]

MREA protects individuals from being misled into consenting, protecting the right to consent. The right to informed consent would not be protected in a non-WA jurisdiction under MREA.

Actually, the MREA does not really do what you say. It forces nations to establish IRBs and requires researchers to submit their research plans to the IRBs. It also provides guidelines for when an IRB should stop research from going forward. It does not actually protect people, but rather places restrictions on how researches get people to consent.

That may be nuanced, but what isn't is this: those restrictions only apply to people who haven't had their 'legal rights' removed. So, even under MREA, it would incredibly easy to remove the 'legal rights' of people and then transfer them to some other country for strange scientific tests. The only requirement being that the transfer take place within 24 hours, so as to avoid Habeas Corpus violation. This proposal wouldn't stop a government from conducting unethical research if they really wanted to do it.

However, if researchers go to a different, non-member state with lax research laws and do research that does not follow IRB guidelines in their home state or violates World Assembly law, I do not believe -- in fact, it simply would not be against the law. You can make a tenuous connection if that research was in any way supported or sponsored by the member state. But even then, you are getting dangerously close to the line between respecting sovereignty and becoming a self-proclaimed world police.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Quadrimmina]

MREA protects individuals from being misled into consenting, protecting the right to consent. The right to informed consent would not be protected in a non-WA jurisdiction under MREA.

Actually, the MREA does not really do what you say. It forces nations to establish IRBs and requires researchers to submit their research plans to the IRBs. It also provides guidelines for when an IRB should stop research from going forward. It does not actually protect people, but rather places restrictions on how researches get people to consent.

That may be nuanced, but what isn't is this: those restrictions only apply to people who haven't had their 'legal rights' removed. So, even under MREA, it would incredibly easy to remove the 'legal rights' of people and then transfer them to some other country for strange scientific tests. The only requirement being that the transfer take place within 24 hours, so as to avoid Habeas Corpus violation. This proposal wouldn't stop a government from conducting unethical research if they really wanted to do it.

However, if researchers go to a different, non-member state with lax research laws and do research that does not follow IRB guidelines in their home state or violates World Assembly law, I do not believe -- in fact, it simply would not be against the law. You can make a tenuous connection if that research was in any way supported or sponsored by the member state. But even then, you are getting dangerously close to the line between respecting sovereignty and becoming a self-proclaimed world police.

- Dr. B. Castro

It says that research cannot be performed without being approved by an IRB. Therefore, even out-of-nation research would need IRB approval, were this to become law.

If researchers want to go to a different non-member state and experiment on the citizens or inhabitants of that member state, there is nothing in WA law that stops that. This resolution wouldn't stop it. It simply would stop the transfer of nationals from that WA member state to the lax non-member state with the intent of performing research on them. That's the difference. As for becoming a world police, that's a bit bombastic for rhetoric. We are simply preventing the violation of the rights of people as guaranteed by the WA and member states.

[Glen-Rhodes]

It says that research cannot be performed without being approved by an IRB. Therefore, even out-of-nation research would need IRB approval, were this to become law.

MREA only applies to research conducted within a member state. If research is being conducted outside of a member state and people go there, or if the government sends willing people there, then the World Assembly has no business regulating that research. You may believe the research to be unethical, but what it is demonstrably unethical is your proposed overreach into actions the World Assembly has no business and no legal power to regulate.

If you are trying to prevent member states from transferring unwilling people into other nations for unethical research experiments, that is already prevented in Habeas Corpus and this proposal would be illegal.

As for becoming a world police, that's a bit bombastic for rhetoric. We are simply preventing the violation of the rights of people as guaranteed by the WA and member states.

What you want to do is one small step away from saying that World Assembly resolutions apply to all nations, regardless of their membership status.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Quadrimmina]

It says that research cannot be performed without being approved by an IRB. Therefore, even out-of-nation research would need IRB approval, were this to become law.

MREA only applies to research conducted within a member state. If research is being conducted outside of a member state and people go there, or if the government sends willing people there, then the World Assembly has no business regulating that research. You may believe the research to be unethical, but what it is demonstrably unethical is your proposed overreach into actions the World Assembly has no business and no legal power to regulate.

If you are trying to prevent member states from transferring unwilling people into other nations for unethical research experiments, that is already prevented in Habeas Corpus and this proposal would be illegal.

As for becoming a world police, that's a bit bombastic for rhetoric. We are simply preventing the violation of the rights of people as guaranteed by the WA and member states.

What you want to do is one small step away from saying that World Assembly resolutions apply to all nations, regardless of their membership status.

- Dr. B. Castro

The point our delegation is trying to make is that each human rights resolution was written for a reason. MREA was written to protect informed consent. Others were written for other reasons. To subvert them, the human rights abuse can be applied outside of WA jurisdiction. This is our delegation's suggestion of how to prevent that.

And WA resolutions don't apply to non-member states. But they should apply to the actions of member states within non-member states.

[Quadrimmina]

Submission has been made as stands. We will reassess if this submission fails. Thank you to all nations for your input.

[Quelesh]

You have my approval.

[Embolalia]

You have my approval.

Mine as well.

[DaWoad]

you have our approval