Advertisement
by Bears Armed » Sat Sep 23, 2017 4:01 am
by Imperium Anglorum » Wed Sep 27, 2017 7:48 am
by Separatist Peoples » Wed Sep 27, 2017 8:01 am
Imperium Anglorum wrote:When will the relevant decision be available?
by Araraukar » Wed Sep 27, 2017 10:17 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:We're waiting to make sure every active GenSec member gets a chance to look over it and comment.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Imperium Anglorum » Wed Sep 27, 2017 10:29 am
Araraukar wrote:There are non-active GenSec members?
by Separatist Peoples » Wed Sep 27, 2017 10:29 am
by Araraukar » Thu Sep 28, 2017 2:49 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:CD has been somewhat inactive for some time, I hear. He apparently lives in an area affected by recent hurricanes.
Separatist Peoples wrote:There are GenSec members who, by virtue of their personal schedule or the various calamities in the world, have not been as active as they would like to be.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Tinfect » Thu Sep 28, 2017 6:36 pm
Araraukar wrote:"Hurricane" is a good enough reason.
Imperium Central News Network: EMERGENCY ALERT: ALL CITIZENS ARE TO PROCEED TO EVACUATION SITES IMMEDIATELY | EMERGENCY ALERT: ALL FURTHER SUBSPACE SIGNALS AND SYSTEMS ARE TO BE DISABLED IMMEDIATELY | EMERGENCY ALERT: THE FOLLOWING SYSTEMS ARE ACCESS PROHIBITED BY STANDARD/BLACKOUT [Error: Format Unrecognized] | Indomitable Bastard #283
by Araraukar » Mon Oct 09, 2017 8:02 am
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Separatist Peoples » Mon Oct 09, 2017 8:11 am
Araraukar wrote:Any chance of the official ruling, to let Waldensia re-do the proposal in a way that will, with actual certainty, not make the same mistakes that rendered the first one illegal?
by New Waldensia » Mon Oct 09, 2017 8:32 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:Araraukar wrote:Any chance of the official ruling, to let Waldensia re-do the proposal in a way that will, with actual certainty, not make the same mistakes that rendered the first one illegal?
We're actually in the process of getting it out. We were holding off to make sure everybody got the chance to sign off.
Army of Freedom medals received:
• N-Day² Medals -- N-Day³ Medals -- N-Day⁴ Medals
• Z-Day6 Medals
by Bananaistan » Wed Oct 11, 2017 12:55 pm
We are asked to rule on whether the challenged proposal violates the contradiction rule on a number of points.
Regarding the contradiction between section 1 of the challenged proposal and GAR#53 and GAR#389, clause 3d of GAR#53 urges nations to quarantine infected individuals in their homes or in hospitals. Clause 4b of GAR#389 requires nations to move infected individuals into quarantines, preventing the individual from travelling and leaving the nation. Member states are encouraged in one and then required in the other to restrict the right of a group of individuals to travel or leave the nation. As the challenged proposal creates an unequivocal right to leave a nation in certain circumstances (IE when the individual is seeking medical treatment abroad) the proposal contradicts both and is illegal on this count.
Though the clause is unclear, we can reasonably interpret section 1 of the challenged proposal to only apply to citizens and their dependents leaving a member nation by referencing seeking healthcare in other nations. The second "affirms" clause of GAR#76 Standardised Passport Act deals with the rights of individuals entering another nation. The challenged section deals with those leaving a nation while the clause in GAR#76 deals with those entering another. Thus, we do not find that there is contradiction on this count.
Regarding the contradiction between section 3 and GAR#76: we note that GAR#76 defines a visa and then only refers to visas in the "AFFRIMS" clause which details the rights of a holder of a valid visa. GAR#76 does not guide member states as to how to issue visas. As such, it is possible for future WA legislation to give such instructions without risking contradiction of the non-existent regulation of visa issuance procedures in GAR#76. Section 3 of the challenged proposal merely clarifies that in its travel policies; For example, when issuing a visa, a receiving nation cannot discriminate solely based on the traveller’s intent to seek medical treatment. A nation could still require a visa for all travellers to enter but it could not discriminatorily refuse a visa to a medical tourist. Therefore, we find that there is no contradiction on this point.
Regarding the internal contradiction argument, section 3 sets out that member nations may not discriminate against non-citizens travelling to seek medical treatment solely because they seek medical treatment. Section 7 states that no nation must accept foreign medical patients, and turns this around for the subset of non-citizens travelling to seek medical treatment who are already patients. We find this to be contradictory. As the moderator precedent on the issue of internal contradiction is based on the old version of the rules, which included no definition of contradiction, it would be unreasonable to maintain this precedent when the current contradiction rule clearly refers to contradiction with active resolutions, and we do not find the proposal illegal on this count.
by New Waldensia » Wed Oct 11, 2017 2:40 pm
Army of Freedom medals received:
• N-Day² Medals -- N-Day³ Medals -- N-Day⁴ Medals
• Z-Day6 Medals
by Imperium Anglorum » Wed Oct 11, 2017 10:14 pm
by Araraukar » Wed Oct 11, 2017 11:51 pm
Bananaistan wrote:A nation could still require a visa for all travellers to enter but it could not discriminatorily refuse a visa to a medical tourist.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement