PASSED: Refugee Protection

[Kelssek]

Let us draft this sucker.

Current revision, original follows after.

---
Revision as of 24 June 2009.

CONCERNED for the welfare and safety of people who have been displaced from their country of residence; and,

SEEKING to provide for the protection of persons against undue persecution and harm, and to encourage protection for persons fleeing violence and persecution,

The World Assembly hereby enacts the following.

A refugee shall be defined, for the purposes of this resolution, as any person who is for any reason outside the country of their nationality and cannot avail themselves of the protection of their country of nationality, or who refuses to do so because of a well-founded fear of unjust persecution. This shall not exclude persons also defined as refugees under different criteria by provisions of national or other international law.

1. No person, whether or not they meet the definitions of a refugee, shall be transported against their will, in any manner or for any reason, to a territory in which that person may be put at risk of persecution, unjustifiably discriminatory treatment, unjust incarceration or execution, torture, or other serious violations of their rights, whether by state or non-state entities.

2. Where a member nation has denied asylum to or expelled a refugee, the nation shall, as far as possible, seek to facilitate that person's transport to another nation which is willing to grant asylum, and must not obstruct that person's efforts to seek asylum in another nation.

3. Refugees shall not be discriminated against by reason only of their status as refugees, are entitled to full protection under national law, and shall not be arbitrarily expelled once granted asylum.

4. In recognition of the potential that the circumstances causing a person to become a refugee may exist in the long term, member nations shall as far as possible seek to facilitate the naturalisation and favourable integration of refugees, should the refugee request such assistance.

5. Nothing in this resolution shall place any restrictions on the right of member nations to grant asylum to any person they so wish; member nations are encouraged to apply greater and more liberal protections for refugees than mandated in this resolution, and neither shall this resolution be interpreted to compel any nation to grant asylum to any person.

6. With the exception of section 1, nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted to affect extradition or immigration policies of member nations in matters unrelated to refugee protection.

---

Version 1.01, 10 June 2009.

SEEKING to provide for the protection of persons against undue persecution and harm by member states, and to encourage protection for persons fleeing violence and persecution,

The World Assembly hereby enacts the following.

A refugee shall be defined, for the purposes of this resolution, as any person who is for any reason outside the country of their nationality and cannot avail themselves of the protection of their country of nationality, or who refuses to do so because of a well-founded fear of unjust persecution.

1. (1) No person shall be expelled or deported, in any manner, to a territory in which that person may be put at risk of persecution by reason of their membership in an ethnic, cultural, religious, political, social, or other identifiable group, or, against their will, to a place in which they may be put at danger of their life or be unjustly incarcerated.

(2) No refugee may be expelled by a nation except on grounds of public order or national security.

2. Where a member nation has denied asylum to a refugee, the nation shall, as far as possible, seek to facilitate that person's transport to another nation which is willing to grant asylum, and must not obstruct that person's efforts to seek asylum in another nation.

3. Lawfully admitted refugees shall be accorded treatment at least as favourable as the nation grants to resident aliens generally, in particular with respect to housing, legal protection, education, healthcare, employment, taxation, and social assistance, and must be treated equally under the law as any other person would be.

4. Member nations shall as far as possible seek to facilitate the naturalisation and favourable integration of refugees.

Nothing in this resolution places any restrictions on the right of member nations to grant asylum to any person they so wish, and member nations are encouraged to apply greater and more liberal protections for refugees than mandated in this resolution.

Nothing in this resolution shall affect extradition or immigration policies of member nations, or compel any nation to grant asylum to any person.

[The Emmerian Unions]

What's the category and strength?

[Kelssek]

Human rights, probably significant, depending on how it turns out after the discussion.

[Quintessence of Dust]

Good idea for a proposal, I thought it was a shame the NSUN never returned to this subject after Resolution #65, the rather modest Refugee Protection Act. (Modest in that it accomplished shit all: its author was, so far as I can recall, customarily immodest.)

This is probably going to prove something of a non-denominational winter celebration tree of a proposal, with people adding on all different things, but I wanted to raise three initial concerns:

1. The "Ban on Slavery and Trafficking" designates escaped slaves as refugees. If more recent articles of international law have attempted similar, I'm not aware of them, but it's not out of the question future proposals will do so. My point is servitude, arguably, does not fall into the categories you've listed as justifying refugee status.
2. In clause 3, it might be better to reword the latter half (which seems very awkwardly written, unless I'm missing its intent) to say that 'refugee status may not be grounds for discrimination in...'. This mitigates cases where a refugee might lawfully be treated differently on grounds unrelated to their refugee status (for example, a sex offender being denied a job involving contact with young children). At the very least, you need to change the wording of "any other person".
3. Clause 4 seems to assume the refugee wants to be naturalised. Many refugees wish to return home once they are able to do so. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, though.

I would also suggest you recommend (at least) that nations develop a process for training immigration officials in assessing claims of refugee status, as rejection at the first stages of immigration, especially for those not conversant in the national language, can severely jeopardise chances (and may lead to attempts at illegal entry).

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Aide
Quintessential Office of WA Affairs

[Charlotte Ryberg]

SEEKING to provide for the protection of persons against undue persecution and harm by member states, and to encourage protection for persons fleeing violence and persecution,

The World Assembly is long overdue for a resolution on the refugees. The draft has a good potential, but it is missing a vital preamble clause. The WA should state how concerned they are about the safety of the refugees: this would give the draft a good reason why it should be passed.

May I suggest:

CONCERNED for the welfare and safety of people who have been displaced from their country of residence, because of the fear of unjust persecution and/or harm;

SEEKING to:
- Provide for the protection of persons against unjust persecution and/or harm by member states;
- Encourage protection for persons fleeing violence and persecution;

I have mentioned this because good resolutions tend to voice their concern and why there should be a resolution on the safety and welfare of refugees.

Yours,

[Bears Armed]

OOC: would a nation that's taking in more than its "fair share" of refugees be able to call on WA funds for help with clause #3?

[Absolvability]

Nothing in this resolution shall affect extradition or immigration policies of member nations, or compel any nation to grant asylum to any person.

This doesn't really seem to be true.

(2) No refugee may be expelled by a nation except on grounds of public order or national security.

That seems to be mandating immigration in so far as... basically... they aren't criminals. Honestly, in the Rogue Nation we've never once turned down the option of allowing a refugee into our country (speaking per crisis, not necessarily per individual I'm sure.) However, if national sovereignty were ever an issue, it seems to be here. I'm not so sure nations should be forced to accept them. And if they should... perhaps the refugees themselves need some rules. Ensuring that, with government assistance, they get jobs... and pay taxes, regardless of citizenship.

Otherwise it just seems a strain on the economy that nations shouldn't be forced to have.

[Kelssek]

Revision 1, incorporating some concerns:

CONCERNED for the welfare and safety of people who have been displaced from their country of residence; and,

SEEKING to provide for the protection of persons against undue persecution and harm by member states, and to encourage protection for persons fleeing violence and persecution,

The World Assembly hereby enacts the following.

A refugee shall be defined, for the purposes of this resolution, as any person who is for any reason outside the country of their nationality and cannot avail themselves of the protection of their country of nationality, or who refuses to do so because of a well-founded fear of unjust persecution. This shall not exclude persons also defined as refugees under different criteria by provisions of national or other international law.

1. No person, whether or not they meet the definitions of a refugee, shall be expelled or deported, in any manner, to a territory in which that person may be put at risk of persecution by reason of their membership in an ethnic, cultural, religious, political, social, or other identifiable group, or, against their will, to a place in which they may be put at danger of their life or be unjustly incarcerated.

2. Where a member nation has denied asylum to a refugee, the nation shall, as far as possible, seek to facilitate that person's transport to another nation which is willing to grant asylum, and must not obstruct that person's efforts to seek asylum in another nation.

3. (1) Refugees shall not be discriminated against by reason only of their status as refugees, and are entitled to full protection under national law.

(2) No refugee, once granted asylum, may be expelled by a nation except on grounds of public order or national security.

4. Member nations shall as far as possible seek to facilitate the naturalisation and favourable integration of refugees, should the refugee request such assistance.

5. Nothing in this resolution shall place any restrictions on the right of member nations to grant asylum to any person they so wish, and member nations are encouraged to apply greater and more liberal protections for refugees than mandated in this resolution.

6. Nothing in this resolution shall affect extradition or immigration policies of member nations, or compel any nation to grant asylum to any person.

----

I would also suggest you recommend (at least) that nations develop a process for training immigration officials in assessing claims of refugee status, as rejection at the first stages of immigration, especially for those not conversant in the national language, can severely jeopardise chances (and may lead to attempts at illegal entry).

This is a good idea generally, but I'm mindful of overreach, and it is the objective here to protect refugees, not to force countries to accept them. I'll see how to put this in.

OOC: would a nation that's taking in more than its "fair share" of refugees be able to call on WA funds for help with clause #3?

If the government feels it is unable to provide for the needs of a refugee in a way they would for other legally resident foreign nationals or immigrants, or even their own citizens, they could always not grant asylum.

This doesn't really seem to be true.

The "nothings" are not arguments or assertions, they are effective clauses, added for clarity and to aid member nations in their interpretation of the resolution as a whole. I have now given them numbers to ensure clarity.

That seems to be mandating immigration in so far as... basically... they aren't criminals.

No. They would have to be a refugee, granted asylum, first. This provision is intended to ensure that a nation does not suddenly decide it doesn't want the refugees any more and starts kicking them out, which not only causes undue upheaval and stress on a person (and maybe a family) already exiled from their homeland, it impacts on other nations to whom that person(s) will now be looking to for help and asylum.

I'm not so sure nations should be forced to accept them. And if they should... perhaps the refugees themselves need some rules. Ensuring that, with government assistance, they get jobs... and pay taxes, regardless of citizenship.

Nowhere does it say they shouldn't be allowed to work and participate in the society they have relocated to. In fact, that is part of what clause 3, in the original form, was meant to accomplish, as we feel outcomes both for refugees and the nations which accept them are better if they are treated at least as well as any other immigrant in terms of basic needs, employment, etc.

Clause 4 seems to assume the refugee wants to be naturalised. Many refugees wish to return home once they are able to do so. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, though.

True, but often the circumstances that cause a person to seek refuge continue to exist in the long term, over decades, even. The government they fled may still be in power, for instance, the civil war ongoing, the foreign occupation continuing, the persecutory laws still in effect, for instance.

[IRL, there are many Tibetans, Somalis, Tamils, etc. who aren't conceivably going to be returning to their homeland anytime soon.]

[Absolvability]

I'd support such a proposal, but it seems to seriously mirror large portions of the Right to Emigration (which I also supported.) I see the differences, believe me, but half of them are virtually identical. I'm thinking this Refugee Protection thing, as hasn't yet been handled, could be done better as a Right to Immigration. As it stands, the Right to Emigration damn near singles out refugees for reference as is.

[New Illuve]

The Holy Empire of New Illuve finds this an interesting Draft, and would like to see it further developed. She does, however, have the following concerns:

A refugee shall be defined, for the purposes of this resolution, as any person who is for any reason outside the country of their nationality and cannot avail themselves of the protection of their country of nationality...

What, exactly, does this mean? Specifically the phrase "avail themselves of the protection of their country of nationality"? Unless the honorable Ambassador from Kelssek assumes that one's nation of nationality will cross national boundaries and sovereignties, one cannot avail themselves of said protection. This definition runs a real risk to making everyone, from tourists to business travelers, to true refugees, into refugees.

There is also a technical difference between 'nationality' and 'citizenship'. Not all nations (=nationality) have the political power to give citizenship.

1. (1) No person shall be expelled or deported, in any manner, to a territory in which that person may be put at risk of persecution by reason of their membership in an ethnic, cultural, religious, political, social, or other identifiable group, or, against their will, to a place in which they may be put at danger of their life or be unjustly incarcerated.

Is the word "person" intentional? As is, this Article jumps out of dealing with only refugees and would apply to everyone. Also, the phrase "other identifiable group" is overly broad. A realistic "identifiable group" would be one of "being a suspect of having committed a crime".

What is to be understood under "danger". Even in the best of legal systems, there is always the risk of a miscarriage of justice. Thus, there is always some level of danger in being unjustly incarcerated. And by who's standard is "unjustly incarcerated" to be determined?

As it is written, this Article will essentially not allow the deportation of anyone wanted for a crime in another nation.

1. (2) No refugee may be expelled by a nation except on grounds of public order or national security.

The Holy Empire finds this Article to be too narrow. What if it is later determined that the person lied when achieving refugee status, and it was that lie that gave the person such status? Furthermore, what falls under "public order"? In many nations, crimes against public order are things such as public nudity, drunkenness, or sexual activities. For other nations, that may be participating in illegal strikes or rioting. Would becoming a member of a criminal organization be sufficient - especially in a nation where public nudity is considered a crime against the public order?

2. Where a member nation has denied asylum to a refugee, the nation shall, as far as possible, seek to facilitate that person's transport to another nation which is willing to grant asylum, and must not obstruct that person's efforts to seek asylum in another nation.

This Article makes clear that being a refugee and gaining asylum are two distinct things. Unfortunately, being denied asylum is not grounds, according to Article 1(2) for being expelled. Thus, unless the refugee is willing to work with the asylum-denying nation in seeking asylum elsewhere, the refugee would be allowed to stay in said nation irregardless of the asylum status.

3. Lawfully admitted refugees shall be accorded treatment at least as favourable as the nation grants to resident aliens generally, in particular with respect to housing, legal protection, education, healthcare, employment, taxation, and social assistance, and must be treated equally under the law as any other person would be.

The first word here leads to the Holy Empire's next point: the omission of any way to determine (and grant or deny) a person's refugee status. As such, all a nation would need to do would be to not have a system and, by effect, no refugee would be lawfully admitted.
This Article also assumes that a nation has a "resident alien" status to grant; if there are various levels of "resident alien" which would be granted to the refugee?

4. Member nations shall as far as possible seek to facilitate the naturalisation and favourable integration of refugees.

As mentioned elsewhere, this Article assumes that a refugee seeks a permanent solution. However, temporary refugee status may be a legitimate option. Consider the case of those escaping natural disasters. Suddenly, a nation taking in these people would be forced to work towards permanently accepting them as citizens. The Holy Empire is worried that nations will choose not to accept these people, rather than risk a sudden influx.

Nothing in this resolution shall affect extradition or immigration policies of member nations, or compel any nation to grant asylum to any person.

Unfortunately, this last statement is in internal contradiction with other statements within the draft. Articles 1 and 2 expressly affect a nation's extradition policies. Article 4 expressly affects a nations immigration policies.
Humbly submitted for your consideration,

[Kelssek]

What, exactly, does this mean? Specifically the phrase "avail themselves of the protection of their country of nationality"? Unless the honorable Ambassador from Kelssek assumes that one's nation of nationality will cross national boundaries and sovereignties, one cannot avail themselves of said protection.

Generally, states are assumed to have a duty of care towards their nationals/citizens. You can "avail yourself" of your nation's protection by voluntarily going into an area of its jurisdiction, i.e., its sovereign territory or an embassy/consulate. This would not be possible, however, if that state had ceased to exist, did not have the power to render protection (say, it had been overthrown in a coup d'état) or if the person would instead of receiving protection be persecuted by their state. Those would be the circumstances in which you would be unable to avail yourself of the protection of your nation and could therefore be considered a refugee.

This definition runs a real risk to making everyone, from tourists to business travelers... into refugees.

Assuming normal circumstances, they can avail themselves of the protection of their home nation at any time by returning to it. They therefore are not refugees.

There is also a technical difference between 'nationality' and 'citizenship'. Not all nations (=nationality) have the political power to give citizenship.

I know that. That is why the term is used, because not everyone may have a citizenship, which in some nations is not necessarily granted to everyone. The meaning of "national" is broader and hence preferable. In the next revision I will also try to ensure stateless persons can be protected by this resolution as well.

Is the word "person" intentional? As is, this Article jumps out of dealing with only refugees and would apply to everyone.

Yes. That is the intent, because regardless of whether a person is a refugee or not, sending them to a jurisdiction where they will face persecution should not be permissable.

Also, the phrase "other identifiable group" is overly broad. A realistic "identifiable group" would be one of "being a suspect of having committed a crime".

As it is written, this Article will essentially not allow the deportation of anyone wanted for a crime in another nation.

Prosecution, by a fair legal process, is not persecution. Therefore this is a moot point.

What is to be understood under "danger". Even in the best of legal systems, there is always the risk of a miscarriage of justice. Thus, there is always some level of danger in being unjustly incarcerated. And by who's standard is "unjustly incarcerated" to be determined?

Preferably, such considerations will be decided by the judiciary of the state in which the person seeks asylum.

1. (2) No refugee may be expelled by a nation except on grounds of public order or national security.

The Holy Empire finds this Article to be too narrow. What if it is later determined that the person lied when achieving refugee status, and it was that lie that gave the person such status?

We acknowledge this oversight and will include it in the next revision.

Furthermore, what falls under "public order"? In many nations, crimes against public order are things such as public nudity, drunkenness, or sexual activities. For other nations, that may be participating in illegal strikes or rioting. Would becoming a member of a criminal organization be sufficient - especially in a nation where public nudity is considered a crime against the public order?

I am sure you would agree that one should respect the laws of the jurisdiction they are in. Such cases would be unfortunate but unavoidable without unduly trespassing national sovereignty.

This Article makes clear that being a refugee and gaining asylum are two distinct things. Unfortunately, being denied asylum is not grounds, according to Article 1(2) for being expelled. Thus, unless the refugee is willing to work with the asylum-denying nation in seeking asylum elsewhere, the refugee would be allowed to stay in said nation irregardless of the asylum status.

Not necessarily, as the person could simply be denied entry. You also cannot remove someone from your country if they aren't in it yet.

The first word here leads to the Holy Empire's next point: the omission of any way to determine (and grant or deny) a person's refugee status. As such, all a nation would need to do would be to not have a system and, by effect, no refugee would be lawfully admitted.

Yes. Again, short of forcing nations to take in refugees, which I am not about to do, this is unavoidable.

Unfortunately, this last statement is in internal contradiction with other statements within the draft. Articles 1 and 2 expressly affect a nation's extradition policies. Article 4 expressly affects a nations immigration policies.

The purpose of the clauses in question has been explained, as have the reasons why they do not do what you think. I hope you find that satisfactory.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: would a nation that's taking in more than its "fair share" of refugees be able to call on WA funds for help with clause #3?

If the government feels it is unable to provide for the needs of a refugee in a way they would for other legally resident foreign nationals or immigrants, or even their own citizens, they could always not grant asylum.

OOC: Well, yes, but that wouldn't exactly help those refugees would it?
There might well be cases where refugees wish to take refuge within a specific nation for some good reason (such as proximity to a homeland to which they hope to return, cultural and/or historical ties, the presence of a community of their own people already established there...), and those nations' governments would be perfectly willing to take those refugees in if they could be sure of some help from the wider international community if the costs involved became "excessive". Wouldn't providing that help be a better idea than forcing the refugees to travel further afield, to a nation that they'd find less comfortable?

And then there might well be some nations whose constitutions actually say that they can't turn away genuine refugees, at least not if those fall into certain categories: for one example (from RL), I'm fairly sure Israel constitutionally has to accept any Jewish refugees who apply for shelter there...

[Kelssek]

those nations' governments would be perfectly willing to take those refugees in if they could be sure of some help from the wider international community if the costs involved became "excessive". Wouldn't providing that help be a better idea than forcing the refugees to travel further afield, to a nation that they'd find less comfortable?

Yes, but I don't think it's the place of the WA to enforce that kind of provision, which would require mandatory payments by other nations, and I'm not about to magic funds out of thin air with the assumption that the WA itself can provide that assistance. However, that has been changed, so please have a look at that.

[Glen-Rhodes]

(OOC: To bring this funding issue to the IC stage, where it kind of belongs...)

I don't see any pressing reason why we're pussy-footing around mandatory acceptance of refugees. In the case of wars that cause great numbers of refugees, it is the moral responsibility of neighboring nations to accept those refugees and provide for them. Logistical reasons, such as overpopulation or being an already poor nation, would exempt nations from this moral responsibility, but I see no reason why nation like Glen-Rhodes shouldn't be required to take in refugees that have left their country through no fault of their own. In the case that nations can't supply the refugees with the basic necessities, the General Fund is able to provide cash assistance.

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

[Kelssek]

I would suggest that mandatory acceptance of refugees would cause a great deal of problems which no resolution could properly address, and seriously compromise the chances of this proposal's passage. The issues are not simply monetary and it would simply be unfair to obligate nations to take in refugees.

Moreover, we have long held that subject to its own laws which usually grant citizens right of entry and such, a sovereign nation has the right to refuse entry to whomever it wishes. We could face the unsavoury prospect of having to grant asylum to people whose views we find reprehensible, simply because they are being persecuted for them by another country.

The intent here was never to make it easier for people to obtain asylum, but to protect them from being sent back to the place they have fled or from being sent to another dangerous place, and to ensure they can search for a country to take them in without having to constantly worry about being sent back due to legal or other regulations which may exist in certain jurisdictions.

[Bears Armed]

Hr'rmm, what if a refugeee's country of origin submits a convincing extradition request for them on the basis of a non-"political" offence? Shouldn't the host nation have the ability to send the refugee to face that charge?
(Or would you consider the potential "public order" exemption as already covering this possibility?)

[New Illuve]

Is the Holy Empire correct in Her thinking that nothing in this Draft would force a nation into accepting refugees?

Would a nation be allowed, by this Draft, to create different types of refugee status (such as temporary refugee status that automatically ends after certain conditions are met, such as providing refuge to those affected by natural disasters until they can return to their homes)?

[Kelssek]

I would think public order could cover it, yes. However, any extradition must nonetheless meet the requirements of sections 1 and 2. If the person still qualifies as a refugee, it would be doubtful that extradition could be done because they would still be considered to be in danger of persecution by their country of origin. Prosecution is not necessarily persecution, but it can be depending on the circumstances. Politically-motivated charges or ones based on discriminatory laws will most likely be persecution, other factors like the prospects of a fair trial, etc., may also need to be considered.

But as you say, it is problematic. Changes have been made now, so let's see how you like it.

Section 1 has had some wording changes which hopefully make it better. I have made the no-explusion clause a bit more lenient (and condensed it) since it seems to be causing problems and sections 1-2 seem to me to be protection enough, as well. Sections 5 and 6 have been rejigged a bit too.

---

CONCERNED for the welfare and safety of people who have been displaced from their country of residence; and,

SEEKING to provide for the protection of persons against undue persecution and harm by member states, and to encourage protection for persons fleeing violence and persecution,

The World Assembly hereby enacts the following.

A refugee shall be defined, for the purposes of this resolution, as any person who is for any reason outside the country of their nationality and cannot avail themselves of the protection of their country of nationality, or who refuses to do so because of a well-founded fear of unjust persecution. This shall not exclude persons also defined as refugees under different criteria by provisions of national or other international law.

1. No person, whether or not they meet the definitions of a refugee, shall be transported, in any manner or for any reason, to a territory in which that person may be put at risk of persecution by reason of their membership in an ethnic, cultural, religious, political, social, or other such identifiable group, or, against their will, to a place in which they may be put at danger of their life or be unjustly incarcerated.

2. Where a member nation has denied asylum to or expelled a refugee, the nation shall, as far as possible, seek to facilitate that person's transport to another nation which is willing to grant asylum, and must not obstruct that person's efforts to seek asylum in another nation.

3. Refugees shall not be discriminated against by reason only of their status as refugees, are entitled to full protection under national law, and shall not be arbitrarily expelled once granted asylum.

4. In recognition of the potential that the circumstances causing a person to become a refugee may exist in the long term, member nations shall as far as possible seek to facilitate the naturalisation and favourable integration of refugees, should the refugee request such assistance.

5. Nothing in this resolution shall place any restrictions on the right of member nations to grant asylum to any person they so wish, and member nations are encouraged to apply greater and more liberal protections for refugees than mandated in this resolution, and neither shall this resolution be interpreted to compel any nation to grant asylum to any person..

6. With the exception of section 1, nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted to affect extradition or immigration policies of member nations.

[The Palentine]

You're trying to make me softer than a sneaker full of grits, again.

Its looking good, old bean. However I've aquired a certian reputation, so of course the Palentine will be voting against the resolution should it come up for vote. However we shall do so without malice, and might possibly be open to changing the vote should it be close, and the price is right. Best of luck.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

[Kelssek]

5. Nothing in this resolution shall place any restrictions on the right of member nations to grant asylum to any person they so wish; member nations are encouraged to apply greater and more liberal protections for refugees than mandated in this resolution, and neither shall this resolution be interpreted to compel any nation to grant asylum to any person..

6. With the exception of section 1, nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted to affect extradition or immigration policies of member nations in matters unrelated to refugee protection.

Just a couple of minor revisions into the latest one. If there are no further concerns and no one is enraged by my use of a semi-colon, I will submit this shortly.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Quality performance, honoured ambassador. This reminds me of the need for a resolution concerning stateless persons: together, with the humanitarian aid draft: it would function very well.

Yours,

[New Illuve]

The honoured Ambassador may wish to revisit Article One, and in particular the phrase "to a place in which they may be put at danger of their life."

No only would this phrase forbid extradition to a nation that has chosen to include capital punishment as a potential penalty for crimes committed, but the word "may" actively invites potential abuse. In the strongest sense of the word "may" any possibility of death would trigger this Article, regardless of the origin of the threat. A nation notorious for lax traffic laws, and thus famous for traffic fatalities, would fall under this clause for example.

Another consequence of this Article would be that any World Assembly member nation that has the death penalty for serious crimes would no longer be able to request extradition so the perpetrator can stand trial. Would the honoured Ambassador like to explain to the survivors of a murdered father just why a Resolution dealing with refugee protection forbids bringing a murder to justice?

Strangely enough, while extradition to a nation that practices the death penalty would be forbidden, extradition to a nation that practices torture would not be....

[Grand Europic States]

The honoured Ambassador may wish to revisit Article One, and in particular the phrase "to a place in which they may be put at danger of their life."

No only would this phrase forbid extradition to a nation that has chosen to include capital punishment as a potential penalty for crimes committed, but the word "may" actively invites potential abuse. In the strongest sense of the word "may" any possibility of death would trigger this Article, regardless of the origin of the threat. A nation notorious for lax traffic laws, and thus famous for traffic fatalities, would fall under this clause for example.

Another consequence of this Article would be that any World Assembly member nation that has the death penalty for serious crimes would no longer be able to request extradition so the perpetrator can stand trial. Would the honoured Ambassador like to explain to the survivors of a murdered father just why a Resolution dealing with refugee protection forbids bringing a murder to justice?

Strangely enough, while extradition to a nation that practices the death penalty would be forbidden, extradition to a nation that practices torture would not be....

While the Grand Europic States supports this bill we believe that the point about torture is a valid one. Perhaps the author would consider re-wording the clause to prevent transportation of refugees to nations that may torture them. Another way of doing this, would be to prevent the transportation of refugees to any nation that can guarantee them the protections afforded under WA law.

This would still allow transportation to nations outside the WA provided they either had the same protections as the WA in national law, or if they were willing to agree to guarantee those protections on a case-by-case basis.

For example, the Grand Europic States will only extradite accused persons to countries that use the death penalties if those countries can provide a guarantee that they will not impose the death penalty on those persons who are to be extradited.

Yours,

[United Justice Nation]

Why should we protect Refugees? They think they can come into our country and make them our problem, with an application already put forward to the WA im not sure I would like to be a member following this proposal. Refugees will not be allowed into my nation, its not what we need, being a new nation.

[Grand Europic States]

Why should we protect Refugees? They think they can come into our country and make them our problem, with an application already put forward to the WA im not sure I would like to be a member following this proposal. Refugees will not be allowed into my nation, its not what we need, being a new nation.

No they don't think they can come into your country, they don't have a choice being refugees and all. For someone to get refugee status they have to have been displaced due to violence, natural disasters, war, genocide etc. They don't just decide that they fancy coming to your country to have you take care of them because they can't be bothered to do it themselves.

Why should we protect refugees? Because they're desperate people in desperate need and anyone with a conscience would recognise that and help them. Not to mention the fact that if something happened in your country forcing some of your population to leave I imagine (although I could be wrong) that you want want another nation to give them help.

As for being a young nation, the proposal will not force any nation to accept refugees. The Grand Europic States is a small nation and if one of our biggest neighbours had a crisis we would not be able to offer refuge to all its population, however much we may like to. This proposal ensures that we would not have to take anymore refugees than we could reasonably handle. However, if you are unwilling to help those in need, don't be surprised if your neighbouring nations refuse to help you should you ever need it.

Yours,