[Legality Challenge] Mandatory Vaccination Act

[Old Hope]

Discussion:https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=426106

Mandatory Vaccination Act

A resolution to modify universal standards of healthcare.

Category: Health

Area of Effect: Healthcare

Proposed by: The United Artherian Federation

The World Assembly:

Seeing that vaccinations are needed as a frontline against disease and sickness,

Knowingthat many people opt out of life saving vaccinations every year,

Believing that this endangers not only themselves, but entire communities, as those unable to get vaccines, for reasons of health or otherwise, are forced to depend on herd immunity,

Frustrated by the fallacious chants of "my child, my choice" which can be heard in certain camps who fail to acknowledge that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link--everyone must be vaccinated in order for everyone to be safe,

Saddened that outbreaks of diseases such as the measles continue, despite being easily preventable,

Declaring that this travesty cannot go on any longer:

1. Tasks the World Health Authority (WHA) with publishing reccomendations as to the appropriate scheduling, techniques, and dosages for vaccinations,

2. Mandates that all member states of the World Assembly require each citizens to receive any vaccinations deemed neccessary by the World Health Authority, subject to its appropriate guidlines, unless a health hazard would be posed by the receiving thereof,

3. Clarifies that said vaccines will be made easily accessible in all member states, and cost shall not be a barrier to obtaining one,

4. Authorizes the usage of the World Assembly General Fund to aid in the distribution of vaccines to nations unable to obtain them.

Co-Authored by United Massachusetts

3. Clarifies that said vaccines will be made easily accessible in all member states, and cost shall not be a barrier to obtaining one,

4. Authorizes the usage of the World Assembly General Fund to aid in the distribution of vaccines to nations unable to obtain them.

These clauses of the proposal
are, in our opinion, in violation of Contradiction, namely General Assembly Resolution 41:

1) An appropriate part of World Health Authority’s budget shall be directed for buying and distributing, when and where necessary, high-cost life-saving medications and vaccines. Negotiations shall take place between the agencies and patent holders so as to achieve a minimum acceptable price, one that does not hamper the industries affected nor further research, nor depletes the WA economic resources or otherwise adversely impacts the multitude of activities dependant on WA funding.

2) Life-saving medications’ and vaccines patents may be temporarily waivered only in the most extraordinary of situations, like in the presence of imminent or unfolding public health catastrophes, such as lethal airborne diseases with a small period of incubation, strictly for as small a period as necessary, as determined by the WHA and only after every other venue of emergency negotiations between the WA and the patent holders have been exhausted.

because the method and the scope of authorization towards spending contradict each other.
GAR 41 restricts the usage of the budget, and the proposal does not abide by these restrictions.

[Araraukar]

To add to the urgency of this, this looks to be the next to go into vote, unless something strange happens and it can't get and maintain quorum (at the moment 2 more approvals needed).

EDIT: However, other than the idiocy of having WAGF aid in distributing vaccines, I don't really see the illegality as claimed. If anything, it looks like duplication.

[Bananaistan]

The concerns raised here are not necessarily invalid but I'd need to chew on them a while longer. There's a more obvious committee rule issue IMO. If you strip out the committee, you're left with nothing. If we use the doomsday asteroid defenses test, I think it's rather clear that there is nothing left for member states to do independent of the committee. Clause 3 is nearly there but absent the committee's workings on the relevant "said vaccines", there is nothing left for member states to do.

1. Tasks the World Health Authority (WHA) with publishing reccomendations as to the appropriate scheduling, techniques, and dosages for interplanetary defense against doomsday asteroids,

2. Mandates that all member states of the World Assembly require each citizens to receive any interplanetary defense against doomsday asteroids deemed neccessary by the World Health Authority, subject to its appropriate guidlines, unless a health hazard would be posed by the receiving thereof,

3. Clarifies that said interplanetary defense against doomsday asteroids will be made easily accessible in all member states, and cost shall not be a barrier to obtaining one,

4. Authorizes the usage of the World Assembly General Fund to aid in the distribution of interplanetary defense against doomsday asteroids to nations unable to obtain them.

The spelling mistakes are also apparent when pasting the text here to post. It's rather a shame that the author rushed to submission and campaigning barely a day after posting the initial draft.

[United Massachusetts]

The concerns raised here are not necessarily invalid but I'd need to chew on them a while longer. There's a more obvious committee rule issue IMO. If you strip out the committee, you're left with nothing. If we use the doomsday asteroid defenses test, I think it's rather clear that there is nothing left for member states to do independent of the committee. Clause 3 is nearly there but absent the committee's workings on the relevant "said vaccines", there is nothing left for member states to do.

1. Tasks the World Health Authority (WHA) with publishing reccomendations as to the appropriate scheduling, techniques, and dosages for interplanetary defense against doomsday asteroids,

2. Mandates that all member states of the World Assembly require each citizens to receive any interplanetary defense against doomsday asteroids deemed neccessary by the World Health Authority, subject to its appropriate guidlines, unless a health hazard would be posed by the receiving thereof,

3. Clarifies that said interplanetary defense against doomsday asteroids will be made easily accessible in all member states, and cost shall not be a barrier to obtaining one,

4. Authorizes the usage of the World Assembly General Fund to aid in the distribution of interplanetary defense against doomsday asteroids to nations unable to obtain them.

The spelling mistakes are also apparent when pasting the text here to post. It's rather a shame that the author rushed to submission and campaigning barely a day after posting the initial draft.

I agree that this may have been rushed to submission, and needs more time.

[United Massachusetts]

The concerns raised here are not necessarily invalid but I'd need to chew on them a while longer. There's a more obvious committee rule issue IMO. If you strip out the committee, you're left with nothing. If we use the doomsday asteroid defenses test, I think it's rather clear that there is nothing left for member states to do independent of the committee. Clause 3 is nearly there but absent the committee's workings on the relevant "said vaccines", there is nothing left for member states to do.

1. Tasks the World Health Authority (WHA) with publishing reccomendations as to the appropriate scheduling, techniques, and dosages for interplanetary defense against doomsday asteroids,

2. Mandates that all member states of the World Assembly require each citizens to receive any interplanetary defense against doomsday asteroids deemed neccessary by the World Health Authority, subject to its appropriate guidlines, unless a health hazard would be posed by the receiving thereof,

3. Clarifies that said interplanetary defense against doomsday asteroids will be made easily accessible in all member states, and cost shall not be a barrier to obtaining one,

4. Authorizes the usage of the World Assembly General Fund to aid in the distribution of interplanetary defense against doomsday asteroids to nations unable to obtain them.

The spelling mistakes are also apparent when pasting the text here to post. It's rather a shame that the author rushed to submission and campaigning barely a day after posting the initial draft.

I, upon further analysis, find this interpretation of the committee rule to be false. Let us examine the text of the rule itself, as that should be our first reference:

Committees: Committees cannot be the sole purpose of the proposal. It is an addition to the proposal and designed to carry out specific duties related to the proposal.

• A proposal cannot define: who can/cannot staff the committee, how members are chosen, and term lengths
• Committees continue to exist after its resolution is repealed if it's used in another resolution
• Single-use committees that died when its resolution was repealed, may be revived for a relevant new proposal

Please note that the text states that "committees cannot be the sole purpose of a resolution", which is ever so slightly different from "needs to do something without the committee." The former, correct, interpretation means that a resolution can't just make a committee and call it a day. Rather, something must be done other than the establishment of a committee. Does this resolution do this? Yes, through the committee. What does it do, other than talk about a committee:

• mandate vaccinations
• distribute vaccinations
• makes them attainble without cost

As such, a literal (and correct) interpretation of the reading leads one to believe that this resolution is legal, as a committee is not the sole purpose of the proposal. The legality challenge arises from faulty precedent.

[Separatist Peoples]

3. Clarifies that said vaccines will be made easily accessible in all member states, and cost shall not be a barrier to obtaining one,

4. Authorizes the usage of the World Assembly General Fund to aid in the distribution of vaccines to nations unable to obtain them.

These clauses of the proposal
are, in our opinion, in violation of Contradiction, namely General Assembly Resolution 41:

1) An appropriate part of World Health Authority’s budget shall be directed for buying and distributing, when and where necessary, high-cost life-saving medications and vaccines. Negotiations shall take place between the agencies and patent holders so as to achieve a minimum acceptable price, one that does not hamper the industries affected nor further research, nor depletes the WA economic resources or otherwise adversely impacts the multitude of activities dependant on WA funding.

2) Life-saving medications’ and vaccines patents may be temporarily waivered only in the most extraordinary of situations, like in the presence of imminent or unfolding public health catastrophes, such as lethal airborne diseases with a small period of incubation, strictly for as small a period as necessary, as determined by the WHA and only after every other venue of emergency negotiations between the WA and the patent holders have been exhausted.

because the method and the scope of authorization towards spending contradict each other.
GAR 41 restricts the usage of the budget, and the proposal does not abide by these restrictions.

GAR#41 is expressly dealing with price control from patent holders. Not from distributors. As such, there is no contradiction or even duplication that I can see.

The concerns raised here are not necessarily invalid but I'd need to chew on them a while longer. There's a more obvious committee rule issue IMO. If you strip out the committee, you're left with nothing. If we use the doomsday asteroid defenses test, I think it's rather clear that there is nothing left for member states to do independent of the committee. Clause 3 is nearly there but absent the committee's workings on the relevant "said vaccines", there is nothing left for member states to do.

1. Tasks the World Health Authority (WHA) with publishing reccomendations as to the appropriate scheduling, techniques, and dosages for interplanetary defense against doomsday asteroids,

2. Mandates that all member states of the World Assembly require each citizens to receive any interplanetary defense against doomsday asteroids deemed neccessary by the World Health Authority, subject to its appropriate guidlines, unless a health hazard would be posed by the receiving thereof,

3. Clarifies that said interplanetary defense against doomsday asteroids will be made easily accessible in all member states, and cost shall not be a barrier to obtaining one,

4. Authorizes the usage of the World Assembly General Fund to aid in the distribution of interplanetary defense against doomsday asteroids to nations unable to obtain them.

The spelling mistakes are also apparent when pasting the text here to post. It's rather a shame that the author rushed to submission and campaigning barely a day after posting the initial draft.

I, upon further analysis, find this interpretation of the committee rule to be false. Let us examine the text of the rule itself, as that should be our first reference:

Committees: Committees cannot be the sole purpose of the proposal. It is an addition to the proposal and designed to carry out specific duties related to the proposal.

• A proposal cannot define: who can/cannot staff the committee, how members are chosen, and term lengths
• Committees continue to exist after its resolution is repealed if it's used in another resolution
• Single-use committees that died when its resolution was repealed, may be revived for a relevant new proposal

Please note that the text states that "committees cannot be the sole purpose of a resolution", which is ever so slightly different from "needs to do something without the committee." The former, correct, interpretation means that a resolution can't just make a committee and call it a day. Rather, something must be done other than the establishment of a committee. Does this resolution do this? Yes, through the committee. What does it do, other than talk about a committee:

• mandate vaccinations
• distribute vaccinations
• makes them attainble without cost

As such, a literal (and correct) interpretation of the reading leads one to believe that this resolution is legal, as a committee is not the sole purpose of the proposal. The legality challenge arises from faulty precedent.

While I agree with the idea that the current rule for Committee Only violations is flawed, I think that the current precedent does actually kill this off as Committee-Only. Bad precedent, but precedent nonetheless. Banana's example shows how this is just a hair over the line of acceptable.

That said, I really hope the rest of GenSec sees that this is silly. Clause 2 and 3 only tangentially mention the actions of the committee. There's still an active mandate beyond mere cooperation with which members are tasked. Can we please have a rational assessment of this rule?

EDIT: I've marked this illegal to hold it while we hash this out. If the rest of GenSec agrees with me, I'll switch my vote.

[United Massachusetts]

These clauses of the proposal
are, in our opinion, in violation of Contradiction, namely General Assembly Resolution 41:

because the method and the scope of authorization towards spending contradict each other.
GAR 41 restricts the usage of the budget, and the proposal does not abide by these restrictions.

GAR#41 is expressly dealing with price control from patent holders. Not from distributors. As such, there is no contradiction or even duplication that I can see.

I, upon further analysis, find this interpretation of the committee rule to be false. Let us examine the text of the rule itself, as that should be our first reference:

Please note that the text states that "committees cannot be the sole purpose of a resolution", which is ever so slightly different from "needs to do something without the committee." The former, correct, interpretation means that a resolution can't just make a committee and call it a day. Rather, something must be done other than the establishment of a committee. Does this resolution do this? Yes, through the committee. What does it do, other than talk about a committee:

• mandate vaccinations
• distribute vaccinations
• makes them attainble without cost

As such, a literal (and correct) interpretation of the reading leads one to believe that this resolution is legal, as a committee is not the sole purpose of the proposal. The legality challenge arises from faulty precedent.

While I agree with the idea that the current rule for Committee Only violations is flawed, I think that the current precedent does actually kill this off as Committee-Only. Bad precedent, but precedent nonetheless. Banana's example shows how this is just a hair over the line of acceptable.

That said, I really hope the rest of GenSec sees that this is silly. Clause 2 and 3 only tangentially mention the actions of the committee. There's still an active mandate beyond mere cooperation with which members are tasked. Can we please have a rational assessment of this rule?

Is there a chance that this changes the precedent

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

I will not dispute the typos, or the rushed timeline, however, I will play Advocatus Diaboli on the committee rule issue (I name myself devil's advocate because I have other issues with the proposal, hope for its failure, and see merit in the committee challenge under the current situation).

Consider the following wording from the decision In Re: Ban on Secret Treaties from the majority opinion of Sierra Lyricalia:

As drafted there are three operative clauses and one definition clause. All three operative clauses refer to the WA Compliance Commission in some way; this isn't a prima facie violation, though, and we need to see if there is any effect on nations other than that provided by the committee. Even a mild effect such as an encouragement or request would suffice. However, we find no such effect.

We draw attention to the bolded text. Any effect is a very broad possibility, which seems contemplated by the ruling. Continuing, "Ban on Secret Treaties" was described with the following language

Per the proposal, any nation wishing to invoke an international treaty must first have given the entire text of that treaty to the committee. Any treaty or treaty provision not so registered is declared null and void, and invocation forbidden.

Nations are therefore required to take exactly one positive action: register the full text of any international agreement with the committee. It is the committee which does the publishing, and therefore the committee which bears all operative effects on member states. Nations are not required or encouraged to publish the text themselves; so absent the committee, there is no effect on national governments and thus, practically, no resolution.

The issue with the prior proposal is that the operative clause required nations to do furnish the committee with information, and the committee was the entity that actually went doing the furthering of democracy, with the states off the hook for any actual work.

Contrast the current draft which requires

Mandates that all member states of the World Assembly require each citizens(sic) to receive...

The text here directly requires every member state to bring domestic law into compliance. Every State, on the terms of this resolution, is required to compel every one of its citizens to receive vaccines. By necessity this implies that the state will need to create some sort of enforcement mechanism, penalties for violation, and other such items within their domestic law. That is more than sufficient to justify a stat change, even if in my opinion it should be to lower civil rights.

Clarifies that said vaccines will be made easily accessible in all member states

This is bad drafting, we agree. Someone has to do something here, and an explicit who would be helpful, but failing that, we should fall back to the principle that the WA acts on states, and therefore we should presume its mandates of action to apply to states. If we do so, this is a call for States to enact domestic policies to make vaccination accessible easily throughout their territory. Exactly how is left to State discretion, but it does at least give some mandate.

From a larger perspective, it is certainly true that this proposal absolutely requires the WHA to function as it is currently drafted. However, to be effective, it is somewhat obvious to me why the author would want to take the choice of what constitutes a necessary vaccination out of the purview of a state, lest shenanigans ensue to undermine the proposal. Consigning technical questions to committees or an agency for an answer, and then directing someone or something to act on that answer is a basic technique of statecraft in the modern setting. The rules ought be interpreted in a way to allow it, within the confines of the game mechanics.

Finally, I'd note that Sierra Lyricalia wrote the prior majority opinion, and, as of the time of my writing, deems this proposal legal. I'd be interested to know how s/he would interpret his/her prior opinion in regards to this, if s/he does not change their vote, and look forward to whatever reasoning there is on the subject.

Regardless, for the foregoing reason, I submit this proposal is legal in regards to the committee only rule, though I sincerely hope that it is illegal on other grounds so that it may be better drafted.

And, out of advocate role: I hope no-one minds me arguing in favor of legality, even though I don't entirely buy my own argument. And apologies to the drafter and United Massachusetts (though reviewing the thread, really, we should just call you the drafter) for not being a more, committed, advocate.

Edit: Damn English quotation marks get me every time.

[United Massachusetts]

Thank you. I'll admit this needs more time, but it's legal in its current form. I wasn't told when it was submitted. Presuming this fails, which it probably will, we'll go back to drafting

[Old Hope]

Oh, I think that it is probably Comittee only, I just missed that illegality.
Remember: The Comittee rule is imposed because the effect of a resolution should not be entirely dependant on a comittee

Committees cannot be the sole purpose of the proposal. It is an addition to the proposal and designed to carry out specific duties related to the proposal.

It is very easy to see that this is the case.

2. Mandates that all member states of the World Assembly require each citizens to receive any vaccinations deemed neccessary by the World Health Authority, subject to its appropriate guidlines, unless a health hazard would be posed by the receiving thereof,

Case 1: The World Health Authority does not deem any vaccinations to be neccessary.
Result: No member state is required to do anything:

3. Clarifies that said vaccines will be made easily accessible in all member states, and cost shall not be a barrier to obtaining one,

Boldness added
There are no vaccines... No effect.-> Dependant on Committee

1. Tasks the World Health Authority (WHA) with publishing reccomendations as to the appropriate scheduling, techniques, and dosages for vaccinations,

Tasks the WHA... Comittee only

4. Authorizes the usage of the World Assembly General Fund to aid in the distribution of vaccines to nations unable to obtain them.

The World Assembly General Fund is a comittee...
None of the clauses has an effect that is not dependant on what the WHA or the WAGF comittees do. Or, to go back to the text of Committee rule:

It is an addition to the proposal and designed to carry out specific duties related to the proposal.

which is clearly not correct here: It is not an addition designed to carry out specific duties, it defines the whole effect of the proposal.

[United Massachusetts]

I've given my very reasons for my argument. No one's arguing that if your interpretation holds, it's illegal. We're arguing about whether that's a proper interpretation of the committees rule

[United Massachusetts]

Aaand...illegal.

[Separatist Peoples]

Aaand...illegal.

Held so a decision can be rendered. That's not a final decision.

[Imperium Anglorum]

While I agree with the idea that the current rule for Committee Only violations is flawed, I think that the current precedent does actually kill this off as Committee-Only. Bad precedent, but precedent nonetheless.

I think this is correct. The distasteful understanding of the committee rule that seems to be the reigning orthodoxy would apply. Naturally, I too would echo calls for reconsideration of this section of the ruleset (even as I have personal reasons for desiring procedural delays to this proposal).

I agree that this may have been rushed to submission, and needs more time.

If that's the case, then why did you address the telegram? It seems that you specifically campaigned for the resolution.

[Bears Armed]

While I agree with the idea that the current rule for Committee Only violations is flawed, I think that the current precedent does actually kill this off as Committee-Only. Bad precedent, but precedent nonetheless. Banana's example shows how this is just a hair over the line of acceptable.

That said, I really hope the rest of GenSec sees that this is silly. Clause 2 and 3 only tangentially mention the actions of the committee. There's still an active mandate beyond mere cooperation with which members are tasked. Can we please have a rational assessment of this rule?

I agree that the precedentary interpretation of that rule is flawed. That’s why we have a discussion thread on the matter. Can we get a consensus there?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Can we get a consensus there?

We don't have consensus to correct an actual typo in the ruleset.

[Wrapper]

Can we get a consensus there?

We don't have consensus to correct an actual typo in the ruleset.

What typo?

[Auralia]

We don't have consensus to correct an actual typo in the ruleset.

What typo?

Last edited by Wrapper on Thu Oct 19, 2017 1:07 pm, edited 43 times in total.

Hey, I saw you do that. That's cheating.

[Wrapper]

What typo?

Hey, I saw you do that. That's cheating.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I will not dispute the typos, or the rushed timeline, however, I will play Advocatus Diaboli on the committee rule issue (I name myself devil's advocate because I have other issues with the proposal, hope for its failure, and see merit in the committee challenge under the current situation).

Consider the following wording from the decision In Re: Ban on Secret Treaties from the majority opinion of Sierra Lyricalia:

As drafted there are three operative clauses and one definition clause. All three operative clauses refer to the WA Compliance Commission in some way; this isn't a prima facie violation, though, and we need to see if there is any effect on nations other than that provided by the committee. Even a mild effect such as an encouragement or request would suffice. However, we find no such effect.

We draw attention to the bolded text. Any effect is a very broad possibility, which seems contemplated by the ruling. Continuing, "Ban on Secret Treaties" was described with the following language

Per the proposal, any nation wishing to invoke an international treaty must first have given the entire text of that treaty to the committee. Any treaty or treaty provision not so registered is declared null and void, and invocation forbidden.

Nations are therefore required to take exactly one positive action: register the full text of any international agreement with the committee. It is the committee which does the publishing, and therefore the committee which bears all operative effects on member states. Nations are not required or encouraged to publish the text themselves; so absent the committee, there is no effect on national governments and thus, practically, no resolution.

The issue with the prior proposal is that the operative clause required nations to do furnish the committee with information, and the committee was the entity that actually went doing the furthering of democracy, with the states off the hook for any actual work.

Contrast the current draft which requires

Mandates that all member states of the World Assembly require each citizens(sic) to receive...

The text here directly requires every member state to bring domestic law into compliance. Every State, on the terms of this resolution, is required to compel every one of its citizens to receive vaccines. By necessity this implies that the state will need to create some sort of enforcement mechanism, penalties for violation, and other such items within their domestic law. That is more than sufficient to justify a stat change, even if in my opinion it should be to lower civil rights.

Clarifies that said vaccines will be made easily accessible in all member states

This is bad drafting, we agree. Someone has to do something here, and an explicit who would be helpful, but failing that, we should fall back to the principle that the WA acts on states, and therefore we should presume its mandates of action to apply to states. If we do so, this is a call for States to enact domestic policies to make vaccination accessible easily throughout their territory. Exactly how is left to State discretion, but it does at least give some mandate.

From a larger perspective, it is certainly true that this proposal absolutely requires the WHA to function as it is currently drafted. However, to be effective, it is somewhat obvious to me why the author would want to take the choice of what constitutes a necessary vaccination out of the purview of a state, lest shenanigans ensue to undermine the proposal. Consigning technical questions to committees or an agency for an answer, and then directing someone or something to act on that answer is a basic technique of statecraft in the modern setting. The rules ought be interpreted in a way to allow it, within the confines of the game mechanics.

Finally, I'd note that Sierra Lyricalia wrote the prior majority opinion, and, as of the time of my writing, deems this proposal legal. I'd be interested to know how s/he would interpret his/her prior opinion in regards to this, if s/he does not change their vote, and look forward to whatever reasoning there is on the subject.

Regardless, for the foregoing reason, I submit this proposal is legal in regards to the committee only rule, though I sincerely hope that it is illegal on other grounds so that it may be better drafted.

And, out of advocate role: I hope no-one minds me arguing in favor of legality, even though I don't entirely buy my own argument. And apologies to the drafter and United Massachusetts (though reviewing the thread, really, we should just call you the drafter) for not being a more, committed, advocate.

Yeah, I'd say this is all correct. The mandate placed on member states to interact with their citizens saves this even under the current interpretation of the committee rule. In the original version of No Secret Treaties, there was not even that much interaction: literally the only thing a state had to do was send an email. I'll note in passing that I wouldn't oppose reforming the current interpretation of the committee rule if the broader community sees fit.

I would agree that there's no originality violation w/r/t GAR #41.

[Wallenburg]

We don't have consensus to correct an actual typo in the ruleset.

What typo?

Well, at least that's fixed.

[Old Hope]

Changing that precedent in that way is not a good idea.
A better idea would be banning comittees that are allowed to make their own decision on what member states may do.
They are an extremely cheap way out of writing quality resolutions.
If the current ruling falls, expect proposals full of comittees micromanaging member nations that give those comittees some general principles they should be based on and then let the comittee work out the rest. Something that could even be partially done right now.

Edit: And what is even worse: These comittees have basically an unknown effect. You cannot effectively roleplay their decisions because you don't make these decisions. They do something and even someone who fully reads and understands the resolution does NOT know what the comittee will, in a roleplay sense, really do to their country. If you have law text, then it is either clear or reasonably interpretable by the recipient.

[Imperium Anglorum]

They are an extremely cheap way out of writing quality resolutions.

The pot, the kettle, the snake, the crab, sawdust, a plank.

[Old Hope]

They are an extremely cheap way out of writing quality resolutions.

The pot, the kettle, the snake, the crab, sawdust, a plank.

Comittee rule gets repealed.

Human Rights Omnibus Bill

Wanting to promote Human Rights
The World Assembly
Establishes the Human Rights Comittee
Directs The Human Rights Comittee to enact laws in each member state to ensure that human rights are being protected
Forces Member states to abide by those laws.

Fun, no?

[Separatist Peoples]

Changing that precedent in that way is not a good idea.
A better idea would be banning comittees that are allowed to make their own decision on what member states may do.
They are an extremely cheap way out of writing quality resolutions.
If the current ruling falls, expect proposals full of comittees micromanaging member nations that give those comittees some general principles they should be based on and then let the comittee work out the rest. Something that could even be partially done right now.

Edit: And what is even worse: These comittees have basically an unknown effect. You cannot effectively roleplay their decisions because you don't make these decisions. They do something and even someone who fully reads and understands the resolution does NOT know what the comittee will, in a roleplay sense, really do to their country. If you have law text, then it is either clear or reasonably interpretable by the recipient.

I don't think you actually understand how committees or agencies work at all.