[DRAFT] Interdicting the Global Slave Trade

[Barfleur]

OOC: I don't know if I'm going to submit this, or even if it does not count as a duplication of GA#23. The goal of this proposal is to close loopholes in that resolution, but I'll have to see if I can do that legally. So right now I have no plans to submit it, at least not before my convict labor proposal makes it to the floor.

Interdicting The Global Slave Trade
Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Strong | Proposed by: Barfleur

---

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging prior legislation on the national and international level to abolish slavery, forced labor, and the trafficking of sapient beings;

Dismayed to see that these deplorable practices still persist in many dark corners of the world;

Noting that such dark corners are not members of this august body, and as such not subject to its legislation, and have shown no interest in abolishing slavery, forced labor, and the trafficking of sapient beings of their own volition;

Believing that it can use its regulatory powers to kill the economic viability of slavery, forced labor, and the trafficking of sapient beings, with the aim of encouraging nations to transition to an economy based on free labor;

Hereby:

1. Defines, for the purpose of this resolution, a "person" as any sapient being;

2. Prohibits member nations and all persons and corporations doing business therein from transporting any person, by means of kidnapping, enticement, or other means to a foreign nation so that such person may be—

a. held or disposed of as a slave;
b. forced to perform labor that they have not freely agreed to;
c. conscripted or enlisted into the armed forces of any nation of which they are not a citizen;
d. forced to perform sexual favors that they have not freely consented to;
e. subjected to medical experimentation which would be illegal, under international law, if performed in a member nation;
f. involuntarily deprived of any organ or limb; or
g. carried away to another nation to be subjected to any of the foregoing acts;

3. Tasks the International Humanitarian Aid Coordination Committee with monitoring the global enslavement and trafficking of persons, de jure as well as de facto, and reporting to the international community on methods to combat the same; and

4. Requires member nations to enforce this resolution by criminalizing the transportation of a person for any of the purposes specified in clause 2, and by freezing all assets and bank accounts held therein by persons who have engaged in any of the acts proscribed by this resolution.

EDIT LOG:
7/14/20: Began proposal, added a medical experimentation subclause and a trafficking subclause in clause 2, switched clauses 1 and 2, assigned additional duties to the IHACC rather than creating a new committee.
7/15/20: Added a subclause about organ theft.
7/16/20: Amended the enforcement clause to involve freezing bank accounts held by slavers and slave traders.

[Kenmoria]

“Definitions should come before the rest of the active clauses, though you don’t actually need to define ‘person’ at all. Also, see if you could reuse an existing committee rather than creating a new one, in clause 3.

[Flying Eagles]

OOC: There's a list of committees at viewtopic.php?f=9&t=437605. Perhaps expand the Global Emigration, Security, Travel And Passport Organisation committee (viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30&p=1639327#p1639327) which currently establishes passport standards and seems to be the closest thing to an international border force that we have.

[Hannasea]

OOC: I think it is only fair to say that as written I intend to argue this is illegal for duplication. I will also offer any assistance I can if you would be willing to rewrite it.

[Grays Harbor]

1. Resolutions cannot do diddly to non-WA nations.
2. How is this not Duplication?
3. Slavery is illegal in WA nations. If they come to a WA nation from a non-WA nation it is still illegal in WA nations. Point of origin is immaterial.
4. Defining “person” has been done many times. Including it here is redundant.

[Barfleur]

“Definitions should come before the rest of the active clauses, though you don’t actually need to define ‘person’ at all. Also, see if you could reuse an existing committee rather than creating a new one, in clause 3.

"We have taken your advice, Ambassador."

1. Resolutions cannot do diddly to non-WA nations.
2. How is this not Duplication?
3. Slavery is illegal in WA nations. If they come to a WA nation from a non-WA nation it is still illegal in WA nations. Point of origin is immaterial.
4. Defining “person” has been done many times. Including it here is redundant.

1. They can prevent member nations from trading with certain member nations. This proposal doesn't directly legislate in any non-member nation.
2. I don't think this is duplication, as GA#23 prohibits refouling any person specifically fleeing servitude, and deliberately providing material support to slavers. It doesn't prohibit sending people who had never been enslaved or at risk of being enslaved in the first place, nor does it prohibit sending a person if there is a chance they may be enslaved.
3. This proposal doesn't affect slavery in WA nations (which is illegal), rather, it prevents member nations from sending people to other nations if there is a risk the person will be subjected to anything listed in clause 2.
4. Fair.

OOC: I think it is only fair to say that as written I intend to argue this is illegal for duplication. I will also offer any assistance I can if you would be willing to rewrite it.

If you'd be willing to help, that would be much appreciated.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Policies that affect non-member nations but are imposed only in member nations are not metagaming. Ethics in International Trade, (2010) 1 IAM 8. That the policy itself may affect non-member nations does not matter, as the imposition takes effect only in member nations.

[Hannasea]

If you'd be willing to help, that would be much appreciated.

OOC: Not if you're going to insist on namechecking a committee named for a Nazi organ of terror. I have never found "GESTAPO" remotely funny nor know what Cob was thinking when he did it, nor why we're all supposed to giggle like privileged public schoolboys about it.

You don't need any of the sapient crap either, a person's a person.

Really really rather you just repealed #23 though, now I found it's been retroactively edited anyway.

[Barfleur]

If you'd be willing to help, that would be much appreciated.

OOC: Not if you're going to insist on namechecking a committee named for a Nazi organ of terror. I have never found "GESTAPO" remotely funny nor know what Cob was thinking when he did it, nor why we're all supposed to giggle like privileged public schoolboys about it.

I’m not quite sure what the acronym is for (aside from helping people remember the full name), so I’ve changed it to the International Humanitarian Aid Coordination Committee, which seems more appropriate anyway as preventing human trafficking and the like is certainly something a humanitarian organization would do.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Not if you're going to insist on namechecking a committee named for a Nazi organ of terror. I have never found "GESTAPO" remotely funny nor know what Cob was thinking when he did it, nor why we're all supposed to giggle like privileged public schoolboys about it.

I’m not quite sure what the acronym is for (aside from helping people remember the full name), so I’ve changed it to the International Humanitarian Aid Coordination Committee, which seems more appropriate anyway as preventing human trafficking and the like is certainly something a humanitarian organization would do.

"You can use any committee you want, ambassador, but IHACC is mostly focused on giving actual aid to those suffering from conflict and war. It really isn't equipped to handle this kind of monitoring. You may be best served either using GESTAPO or making a dedicated committee for it."

[Wallenburg]

This is just plain duplication of clause 4 of GAR#23. And I must add, the order of the subclauses makes me suspicious of plagiarism.

[Hannasea]

OOC: Why does this proposal even need a committee at all? It's not doing anything useful that won't be covered by national governments plus the Compliance Commission.

[Barfleur]

This is just plain duplication of clause 4 of GAR#23. And I must add, the order of the subclauses makes me suspicious of plagiarism.

1. The purpose of this proposal is to close loopholes in GA#23 without repealing the resolution in its entirety. If I don't manage to do so, well, I won't submit, because I only want to submit legal, thought-out proposals. Besides, this is on the back-burner as I have another proposal dealing with regulating prison labor, which is my main priority now.
2. No plagiarism. I just used wording which I consider to be formal while also easy to understand.

[Wallenburg]

This is just plain duplication of clause 4 of GAR#23. And I must add, the order of the subclauses makes me suspicious of plagiarism.

1. The purpose of this proposal is to close loopholes in GA#23 without repealing the resolution in its entirety. If I don't manage to do so, well, I won't submit, because I only want to submit legal, thought-out proposals. Besides, this is on the back-burner as I have another proposal dealing with regulating prison labor, which is my main priority now.
2. No plagiarism. I just used wording which I consider to be formal while also easy to understand.

No loopholes are closed.

[Barfleur]

1. The purpose of this proposal is to close loopholes in GA#23 without repealing the resolution in its entirety. If I don't manage to do so, well, I won't submit, because I only want to submit legal, thought-out proposals. Besides, this is on the back-burner as I have another proposal dealing with regulating prison labor, which is my main priority now.
2. No plagiarism. I just used wording which I consider to be formal while also easy to understand.

No loopholes are closed.

GA#23 prohibits human trafficking in all member nations, while my proposal would ban member nations and people and corporations therein from engaging in human trafficking anywhere in the world. Currently, you are not allowed to traffic a person in a member nation, but there are no international laws stopping you from taking a person to another nation where they may be enslaved or trafficked.

[Wallenburg]

No loopholes are closed.

GA#23 prohibits human trafficking in all member nations, while my proposal would ban member nations and people and corporations therein from engaging in human trafficking anywhere in the world. Currently, you are not allowed to traffic a person in a member nation, but there are no international laws stopping you from taking a person to another nation where they may be enslaved or trafficked.

There are, GAR#23 does that as well. You're just choosing to misread clause 4. Unless your argument is that we should ban all travel to those nations which have any sort of slave trafficking problem, in which case, I don't support that.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Forcing or inducing the transfer of any person against their freely given will, or assisting or financing such actions, through similar forms of coercion, for the purposes of exploitation, such as slavery or forced labour, or situations approximating to such, sexual exploitation, or unauthorised medical procedures, shall be considered 'human trafficking' and immediately prohibited in all nations;

Wally, how?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

"Interdicting"...great word.

[Wallenburg]

Forcing or inducing the transfer of any person against their freely given will, or assisting or financing such actions, through similar forms of coercion, for the purposes of exploitation, such as slavery or forced labour, or situations approximating to such, sexual exploitation, or unauthorised medical procedures, shall be considered 'human trafficking' and immediately prohibited in all nations;

Wally, how?

Underlined the relevant language. This clause does not merely prohibit the forced transfer of people currently used as slaves, but also the forced transfer of those intended to be used as slaves.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Forcing or inducing the transfer of any person against their freely given will, or assisting or financing such actions, through similar forms of coercion, for the purposes of exploitation, such as slavery or forced labour, or situations approximating to such, sexual exploitation, or unauthorised medical procedures, shall be considered 'human trafficking' and immediately prohibited in all nations;

Underlined the relevant language. This clause does not merely prohibit the forced transfer of people currently used as slaves, but also the forced transfer of those intended to be used as slaves.

Why is the scope not relevant, which I underlined at the end?

[Wallenburg]

Underlined the relevant language. This clause does not merely prohibit the forced transfer of people currently used as slaves, but also the forced transfer of those intended to be used as slaves.

Why is the scope not relevant, which I underlined at the end?

It's not relevant because World Assembly law cannot be enforced outside of member nations anyway. Nonmember jurisdictions and international waters cannot be treated as territory under the jurisdiction of WA law.

[Imperium Anglorum]

It is eminently possible to enforce WA laws on persons residing in member nations for offences committed by such persons outside of member nation jurisdiction.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

If you'd be willing to help, that would be much appreciated.

OOC: Not if you're going to insist on namechecking a committee named for a Nazi organ of terror. I have never found "GESTAPO" remotely funny nor know what Cob was thinking when he did it, nor why we're all supposed to giggle like privileged public schoolboys about it.

It was only an allusion to the "papers, please" trope from old Hollywood films; I seriously doubt anyone intended to use it to make light of actual Gestapo oppression.

[Barfleur]

I have amended the fourth clause by requiring member nations to freeze assets and bank account held by persons who have engaged in acts prohibited by the proposal. This will further kill the economic viability of slavery by barring slavers and slave traders from accessing the banking systems of member nations.

Why is the scope not relevant, which I underlined at the end?

It's not relevant because World Assembly law cannot be enforced outside of member nations anyway. Nonmember jurisdictions and international waters cannot be treated as territory under the jurisdiction of WA law.

The WA can require member nations to prohibit their citizens and registered corporation from engaging in certain conduct, such as engaging in the slave trade.

[Flying Eagles]

I have amended the fourth clause by requiring member nations to freeze assets and bank account held by persons who have engaged in acts prohibited by the proposal. This will further kill the economic viability of slavery by barring slavers and slave traders from accessing the banking systems of member nations.

It's not relevant because World Assembly law cannot be enforced outside of member nations anyway. Nonmember jurisdictions and international waters cannot be treated as territory under the jurisdiction of WA law.

The WA can require member nations to prohibit their citizens and registered corporation from engaging in certain conduct, such as engaging in the slave trade.

I think you’re good to go. Can another delegation confirm there is no duplication?