[DRAFT] Repeal GA #279: "Freedom of Emigration"

[Hulldom]

I blame my boss in TNP for this one.

Yes, I'm aware I come at this from a "lib" perspective, as long as it gets the proposal off the books I see no problem with how I approach the issue.

Repeal: Right of Emigration

Category: Repeal | Target: GA #279

Target: GA #279

The World Assembly,

Believing that a right to emigration, and further moves toward a freedom of movement among World Assembly member states, is a positive step and lauding GA #279 as a positive first step towards guaranteeing a right to freedom of movement, however;

Appreciating the mandate contained in (a) as necessary from a public health perspective, but decrying that a state could manipulate “medical necessity” since the term is not defined at all in the target resolution, thus in order to stop individuals with some disorders or diseases from travelling in or out of their border, nations could abuse a “quarantine”, thus weakening the overall effect of the resolution.;

Noting that the mandates contained in (b) and (c) are easily abusable as a state could invent or otherwise press false or trumped up charges on a citizen of their nation in order to detain them indefinitely, and similarly a nation could seek a warrant for the arrest of their citizen on the basis of these spurious or otherwise false charges, thus stripping them of the right to emigrate even though they had either not committed the offense in question or not to the degree of severity pronounced;

Ascertaining that the lack of a description of what constitutes a “crime” in (d) allows a reasonable nation to believe that any action which requires the involvement of its justice system is a reasonable justification to stop one from emigrating, thus allowing a nation to stop civil defendants from being allowed to leave a country, a gross violation of a right to emigration;

Noticing that in the "clarifying" clause, the mention that nations may “set[ting] requirements for entry and residency within their borders” results in a nullification of the right to emigration, as a nation could choose to set an arbitrarily high bar for residency and entry such that individuals could not make the choice to freely emigrate;

Recognizing, then, that GAR #279 does not achieve the goal of freedom of movement in a manner consistent with the idea espoused;

Hereby repeals GA #279, “Freedom of Emigration”.

[Tinhampton]

...a state could manipulate “medical necessity” since the term is not defined at all in the target resolution, thus in order to stop individuals with some disorders or diseases from travelling in or out of their border, nations could abuse a “quarantine”, thus weakening the overall effect of the resolution...

Rights of the Quarantined exists

[Bananaistan]

OOC: It's good form to link to the target in the OP.

Where are these numbers (1a etc) coming from? As far as I can see there are no numbered sections in the target.

Until I see a replacement which can somehow manage to address these issues without also forcing member states to allow criminals and scumbags flee from justice, I'm opposed.

[Hulldom]

OOC: It's good form to link to the target in the OP.

Where are these numbers (1a etc) coming from? As far as I can see there are no numbered sections in the target.

Until I see a replacement which can somehow manage to address these issues without also forcing member states to allow criminals and scumbags flee from justice, I'm opposed.

Wrangling with that. When I ran this by Cretox, he had nothing to say re: the numbering. Only other way to do would be to refer to them as simply (a), (b), by the name of the clause for the last point, etc. [which has been done]

As for the replacement: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=489910. I believe Cretox's intention is to submit first? But you'd have to ask him to know for sure.

[Daarwyrth]

OOC: It's good form to link to the target in the OP.

Where are these numbers (1a etc) coming from? As far as I can see there are no numbered sections in the target.

Until I see a replacement which can somehow manage to address these issues without also forcing member states to allow criminals and scumbags flee from justice, I'm opposed.

Wrangling with that. When I ran this by Cretox, he had nothing to say re: the numbering. Only other way to do would be to refer to them as simply (a), (b), by the name of the clause for the last point, etc. [which has been done]

As for the replacement: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=489910. I believe Cretox's intention is to submit first? But you'd have to ask him to know for sure.

Dame Maria vyn Nysen: "It is customary to repeal first, and then replace, albeit I note that the authoring delegation of "Declaration of Mobility Rights" intends to supplement the resolution in question, not replace it. In that even, I question the course of action to see this resolution repealed."

[Hulldom]

Wrangling with that. When I ran this by Cretox, he had nothing to say re: the numbering. Only other way to do would be to refer to them as simply (a), (b), by the name of the clause for the last point, etc. [which has been done]

As for the replacement: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=489910. I believe Cretox's intention is to submit first? But you'd have to ask him to know for sure.

Dame Maria vyn Nysen: "If the authoring delegation of the draft "Mobility Rights" intends to submit that first, I believe it may be ruled illegal due to duplication. It is customary to repeal first, and then replace."

As I said, you'd have to ask him. I'm not privy to his line of thinking as to when he'd submit.

[Honeydewistania]

Ascertaining that the lack of a description of what constitutes a “crime” in (d) allows a reasonable nation to believe that any action which requires the involvement of its justice system is a reasonable justification to stop one from emigrating, thus allowing a nation to stop civil defendants from being allowed to leave a country, a gross violation of a right to emigration;

What? It says crime, which means that it will be in the criminal court, not the civil court. Such an interpretation is certainly bad faith