DRAFT: A Convention on Emigration

[Travancore-Cochin]

OOC: Regrettably amendments will be illegal because of the problems it will cause, i.e: if the base of the resolution is repealed, then you've gutted the others.

OOC

I know. *wonders whether resolution amendment is in the Big Collaborative List of Suggested NS Improvements*
Somebody needs to take this up with the mods.

Do you think, honoured ambassador to Sionis Prioratus, that member states should be able to waive rights for any legitimate reason as long as the intents and rules of the resolution as respected [sic]?

While the question is certainly not directed at me, I believe I can make my thoughts known while I'm present in the house, without offence to the Ambassador from Sionis Prioratus.

The problem lies in the phrase "legitimate reason". What criterion will be used to determine whether a reason is legitimate or not?

A. Parameswaran Nair
Ambassador from Travancore-Cochin to the World Assembly

[Absolvability]

Do you think, honoured ambassador to Sionis Prioratus, that member states should be able to waive rights for any legitimate reason as long as the intents and rules of the resolution as respected [sic]?

While the question is certainly not directed at me, I believe I can make my thoughts known while I'm present in the house, without offence to the Ambassador from Sionis Prioratus.

With respect to the Ambassador from Sionis Prioratus, I'd also like to to express myself on that note. It's a very good question, afterall. Personally, I feel that member-states should not be able to waive rights granted to its citizens by international law for any reason not listed by that same law. It is our duty as legislators to have all of our bases covered. When we do not... then we go back and fix the problem, as we are attempting to do at this very moment. It is not for us to decide what the intentions behind a resolution might be. For this reason we write blandly and plainly... that we may be interpretted literally and to the letter.

[Sionis Prioratus]

OOC: Regrettably amendments will be illegal because of the problems it will cause, i.e: if the base of the resolution is repealed, then you've gutted the others.

In the interim subject to further review, up to 90 days is adopted.

Do you think, honoured ambassador to Sionis Prioratus, that member states should be able to waive rights for any legitimate reason as long as the intents and rules of the resolution as respected [sic]?

I think they should, but not alone, that's the catch! Let's summon the gnomes! We all know the gnomes - by definition - are wise, just, impartial, don't require much food or sleep, and (I hear) good-looking.

All thinkable proper waivers should be written in the text.

My idea is to implement an Emigration Agency/Commission/Task Force/etc. which would have the power to grant (or not) unlisted waivers in an ad hoc basis, at the request of member nations. That's just the idea, though. It would require further elaboration.

No powers of amendment (which would be illegal anyways) would be required.

[Flibbleites]

OOC: Regrettably amendments will be illegal because of the problems it will cause, i.e: if the base of the resolution is repealed, then you've gutted the others.

OOC

I know. *wonders whether resolution amendment is in the Big Collaborative List of Suggested NS Improvements*
Somebody needs to take this up with the mods.

OOC: Amendments have been brought up multiple times, to the point where Fris wrote a post explaining exactly why they're illegal. The post can be viewed here.

[Glen-Rhodes]

With respect to the Ambassador from Sionis Prioratus, I'd also like to to express myself on that note. It's a very good question, afterall. Personally, I feel that member-states should not be able to waive rights granted to its citizens by international law for any reason not listed by that same law. It is our duty as legislators to have all of our bases covered. When we do not... then we go back and fix the problem, as we are attempting to do at this very moment. It is not for us to decide what the intentions behind a resolution might be. For this reason we write blandly and plainly... that we may be interpretted literally and to the letter.

Malarkey. Issues like this are decided on a case-by-case basis. In this case, the 'good faith compliance' clauses are paramount in creating a workable emigration resolution.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador pro tempore
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

[Absolvability]

With respect to the Ambassador from Sionis Prioratus, I'd also like to to express myself on that note. It's a very good question, afterall. Personally, I feel that member-states should not be able to waive rights granted to its citizens by international law for any reason not listed by that same law. It is our duty as legislators to have all of our bases covered. When we do not... then we go back and fix the problem, as we are attempting to do at this very moment. It is not for us to decide what the intentions behind a resolution might be. For this reason we write blandly and plainly... that we may be interpretted literally and to the letter.

Malarkey. Issues like this are decided on a case-by-case basis. In this case, the 'good faith compliance' clauses are paramount in creating a workable emigration resolution.

Whenever there are potential circumstances too numerous to name a committee should be created to hear and make decisions on a case-by-case basis, and even then it is only because the World Assembly's talented lawmakers are unfortunately confined to a character limit. The law does what the law says. You know this as well as anyone, Doctor. Drafting would not be the tedious process it is if we were content to abide by a resolution's intentions.

'Good faith,' compliance is only effective for those with good faith. This is pointless. Resolutions are not written for nations already in compliance. Therefore they must be written without loopholes and with as little room for interpretation as possible... because the only ones that will be interpretting it are those looking for ways out. If you leave things to a case-by-case basis you'll be doing far more harm than good.

[Bears Armed]

up to a maximum of 90 days?

It is already a maximum of 90 days, because if the change is made, then the relevant clause will read:

a) For persons suspected of espionage or intention to carry out terrorist acts abroad, for up to 90 days, after which the person must be charged in criminal justice or be released and thereby allowed to emigrate;

Yes, but some nations might prefer to keep their existing lower limits, instead of automatically giving future governments of those nations the power to use as long 90 days without having to pass whatever increases are involved through their own legislative processes...

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Agreed, honoured ambassador to Bears Armed. Modified Section 3a to read:

3a. FURTHER PERMITS member states to waive Section 1 for persons suspected of espionage or intention to carry out terrorist acts abroad, for up to the maximum of 90 days (or lower if specified by national legislation), after which the person must be charged in criminal justice or be allowed to emigrate;

[Charlotte Ryberg]

My idea is to implement an Emigration Agency/Commission/Task Force/etc. which would have the power to grant (or not) unlisted waivers in an ad hoc basis, at the request of member nations. That's just the idea, though. It would require further elaboration.

The criterion for unlisted waivers may be the need for it to be: a legitimate reason, not a catch-all criteria and not in breach on civilian/human rights or similar. A couple of analysis thoughts here.

Alternatively we could switch the structure around to specify the requirements for emigration but that would be controlling in my opinion.

[Aidsboat]

Is the currently-available to vote on resolution mean to pave the way for THIS resolution?

[Travancore-Cochin]

The criterion for unlisted waivers may be the need for it to be: a legitimate reason, not a catch-all criteria and not in breach on civilian/human rights or similar. A couple of analysis thoughts here.

Alternatively we could switch the structure around to specify the requirements for emigration but that would be controlling in my opinion.

Again the issue would be determining the legitimacy of reasons. The problem with "not in breach on civilian/human rights" is that not every nation recognizes "civilian/human rights" in the sense that the Hon. Sarah Harper assumes it to be recognized. This is especially true for oppressive regimes.

We feel that the best solution would be as proposed by the Sionis Ambassador, in that a WA Committee, instituted for the purpose, hears states' reason(s) for waiver and declares it to be valid or invalid. Though we have an apprehension about increasing the size and the extent of the WA bureaucracy, this is the best proposal we have come across, so far, that allows this piece of legislation to stay dynamic.

A. Parameswaran Nair
Ambassador from Travancore-Cochin to the World Assembly

[Charlotte Ryberg]

The repeal allows the reform to be implemented, honoured ambassador, but the drafting is openly available to participate now.

[Tingst]

Charlotte Ryberg, could you post an updated version of the proposal with all new suggestions incorporated? Or is the first post of this thread up to date?

[Charlotte Ryberg]

The first post is always up to date, honoured ambassador: but here it is anyway:

Right to Emigrate
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: Charlotte Ryberg

Description: The World Assembly,

OBSERVING that in the countries of the World Assembly, people choose to emigrate from one country to another for many reasons such as:
- Pursuit of ambition, opportunity or refuge;
- Escape from war, persecution or injustice;

WHEREAS Emigration is DEFINED, for this resolution only, as an act of leaving one country in order to settle in another, and WILLING to promote the right of emigration for such reasons;

Therefore:

1. MANDATES that any civilian of a member state has the right to emigrate from their current country of residence regardless of their status (such as disability, gender, sexuality, ethnicity or belief) unless any of the situations in Section 2 to 3 are true.

2. PERMITS member states to waive Section 1 if any of the following situations are true:
a) The person is under penal servitude, undergoing (civil or criminal) legal proceedings or proven to be convicted of offences involving non-consensual sexual conduct;
b) To prevent the spread of radiation/contagious diseases, to contain an ongoing disease epidemic/pandemic or where the person is mentally incapable of making such a decision;
c) Unless orphaned or safe to do so, 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.

3. FURTHER PERMITS member states to waive Section 1:
a) For persons suspected of espionage or intention to carry out terrorist acts abroad, for up to the maximum of 90 days or (lower if specified by national legislation), after which the person must be charged in criminal justice or be allowed to emigrate;
b) As a result of a legitimate judicial ruling, that is delivered in good faith compliance with the clauses and intents of this resolution.
c) To prevent strong negative population growth, provided that the clauses and intents of this resolution are respected. (under review)

URGES member states to:
a) Help refugees who are fleeing from hostile situations such as: natural disasters, war, persecution or oppressive/unethical governments with respect being given to the provsions of this resolution.
b) Help such refugees under these situations to travel safely and swiftly to countries that are more tolerant to them;
c) Take action or enact appropriate legislation to prevent refugees from becoming stateless.

[Tingst]

Thank you for the info, new within these halls. This looks very exicting. Good work!

[Aidsboat]

Double post, my bad.

[Aidsboat]

What does section 2C mean "unless orphaned or safe to do so" mean? It may just be bad wording or that I am reading it at one in the morning?

Depending on what it means, that may open loopholes for child trafficking, so you should be very careful about that one.

Also, for the section under review about "Strong Negative Population Growth" I am in favor of removing that subsection, as the people leaving would obviously have good reason to leave if so many are leaving so suddenly.
I disagree with this clause on the basis that there is no definition at the moment of "strong Negative Growth", which could lead to abuse of the clause, and also nothing in place to determine who would be detained and refused the right to emigrate if they were to try to prevent this population loss.

I believe this is a valiant and necessary resolution, but those clauses, as they stand now, to me seem dangerous and abusable. Loopholes must be closed before we submit this to the Assembly.

~Honorable Chancellor of Aidsboat
Minister of Defense, Free Society

[Sionis Prioratus]

What does section 2C mean "unless orphaned or safe to do so" mean? It may just be bad wording or that I am reading it at one in the morning?

The Hon. Ambassador please read the Repeal at vote for context.

That said, I suggest the Hon. Ambassador from Charlotte Ryberg that "unless orphaned or safe to do so" be changed to "unless orphaned and safe to do so".

Yours,

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Addressed, honoured ambassador (see OP).

Past discussions have resulted in the consideration to revise section 3c to this in page two:

4. FURTHER PERMITS a member state to waive Section 1, in peacetime only, if the country has experienced negative net population growth of 5% or more of its population in each of the last five calendar years, provided that the clauses and intents of this resolution are respected;

[Aidsboat]

That, to me, seems like a very dangerous way for a brutal tyrant or oppressive theocracy to prevent people from leaving the country.

Also, that doesn't say how the negative population growth is reached. The current wording would allow a country with a deadly epidemic to keep it's people in the country.

[Bears Armed]

That, to me, seems like a very dangerous way for a brutal tyrant or oppressive theocracy to prevent people from leaving the country.

Also, that doesn't say how the negative population growth is reached. The current wording would allow a country with a deadly epidemic to keep it's people in the country.

OOC: If a country near me has a deadly epidemic in progress then I rather hope that it would keep its people within its borders, to reduce the risk of that epidemic spreading into other nations...

[Travancore-Cochin]

That, to me, seems like a very dangerous way for a brutal tyrant or oppressive theocracy to prevent people from leaving the country.

We don't think so. A brutal tyrant or oppressive theocracy wouldn't allow so much people to leave the country, so that the negative net population growth steadily remains equal to or greater than 5% for five calendar years, in the first place.

Also, that doesn't say how the negative population growth is reached.

Negative population growth can be caused by one or more of the following factors:

• Low Birth Rate
• High Death Rate
• High Rate of Emigration
• Low Rate of Immigration
• Low Fertility Rate

But I guess the Aidsboat Ambassador has a point. It can be clearly defined here. Ms. Harper, would you mind looking into it?

The current wording would allow a country with a deadly epidemic to keep it's people in the country.

It already does, but the section that grants these powers is not 3.c or 4. It's 2.b. In fact, the reform of the resolution is being proposed because of the Epidemic Response Act, which was passed by the World Assembly.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

The birth, death, net immigration rates are the factors that should be probably considered, honoured ambassador. Fertility is related similarly to birth rates and emigration is the subject of the resolution itself.

Let's try:

4. FURTHER PERMITS member states to waive Section 1 in peacetime only, if the country has experienced a net population decay of 5% or more of its population in each of the last five calendar years, provided that the clauses and intents of this resolution are respected. For the purpose of this resolution the net population decay is determined by the following traits: a low birth rate, a high death rate and a low net rate of immigration.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

A major revision to section 2c is also seriously considered to allow mentally incapable civilians to get better lives when needed. A person that is mentally incapable of making a decision should be able to emigrate now with a partner. I may want to make the child clause a bit positive too.

Section 3c would be revised to:

2. FURTHER MANDATES that a civilian that is:
a) Mentally incapable of making such a decision may emigrate if accompanied by a mentally sound partner that has the right to emigrate;
b) Below the age of maturity (as defined in their country of residence) may emigrate if either accompanied by at least one parent/guardian, or is orphaned and that it is safe to do so.

[The Emmerian Unions]

A major revision to section 2c is also seriously considered to allow mentally incapable civilians to get better lives when needed. A person that is mentally incapable of making a decision should be able to emigrate now with a partner. I may want to make the child clause a bit positive too.

Section 3c would be revised to:

FURTHER MANDATES that:
a) A civilian that is mentally incapable of making such a decision and is accompanied by a mentally sound partner that has the right to emigrate;
b) A civilian that is below the age of maturity (as defined in their country of residence) has the right to emigrate if:
i. accompanied by at least one parent/guardian;
ii. orphaned and that it is safe to do so.

The underlind and italisized part is a grammatical correction.