[DRAFT] Repeal "World Assembly Border Policy"

[Merni]

Target: https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=564/council=1

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging that the objective of the resolution "World Assembly Border Policy" is to create more open borders among both member and non-member states, which is considered a laudable aim by many,

Aware that states intending to enable free movement across their borders are able to negotiate measures allowing this with like-minded neighbours, taking into consideration their circumstances,

Noting that the wording of the resolution does not allow non-member states to be members of the WABC zone,

Believing that a single multiverse-wide arrangement such as is envisaged by the resolution in question is neither necessary nor ideal, since travel from many states is confined to their surrounding areas,

Astonished that the resolution in clause 6 gives the WABC the authority to unilaterally change the laws of consenting states, severely violating the sovereignty of any state which may choose to join

Concerned that the same clause necessitates that the "single unified policy" of the WABC is set in stone and cannot be modified at any point after a member state joins the zone,

Amazed that the resolution does not give consenting states any say or consultation on the aforementioned policy,

Confused by the clause compelling "all member states, including those which do not join the WABC Zone, to conduct an annual review of their border policies", which forces member states to ignore their judgement use their resources on an activity that may or may not be necessary,

Bewildered by the mandate "that each member state shall appoint at least one liaison to the WABC", which could in many cases be an unnecessary waste of staff,

Concluding that the WABC mechanism is not the best way for member states to create open borders,

Hereby repeals General Assembly resolution 564 "World Assembly Border Policy".

Any feedback is welcome.

[Sincluda]

Sincludan Prime Ambassador Harrison Raiken: "We support this repeal as we stood against the resolution in question. Below are our delegation's primary edits:"

Noting that the wording of the resolution does not allow non-member states to be members of the WABC, part of free movement zones, (potential extra:) as it is outside the Assembly's jurisdiction and thus, as a subject, better left to individual nations and not the Assembly.
Astonished that the resolution in clause 6 gives the WABC the authority to unilaterally change the laws of consenting states, severely violating the sovereignty of any state which may choose to join As most member states dislike sovereignty arguments, this feels detrimental to the repeal.

"We hope this repeal is successful."
OOC: Also, please include a link to the target

[Tsaivao]

Delegate Manhu Sentai Laogai strokes his beak in contemplation over the proposal, tapping his talon on the floor. "Unfortunately this proposal cannot be supported, as there are a number of problems with it that we could not agree to."

Aware that states intending to enable free movement across their borders are able to negotiate measures allowing this with like-minded neighbours, taking into consideration their circumstances,

"Indeed, but the purpose of the legislation would be to codify border relations with others who may only be acquaintances internationally at best. Personally I can understand that the original resolution may seem at least a little superfluous..."

Noting that the wording of the resolution does not allow non-member states to be members of the WABC,

"I do not believe you read the legislation correctly, Ambassador. To quote clause 5 the resolution-at-vote:"

Authorizes WABC to negotiate on behalf of consenting states with member states and non-member states in order to loosen border restrictions without necessarily having the member state or non-member state consent to join the WABC Zone,

"In other words, the WABC would act as a sort of outreach to these non-member nations, who would then negotiate an appropriate border policy without explicitly being part of the WABC Zone nor the WA in general. It's more covering the tracks of what to do with member/non-member interactions and interfacing, and does not prevent the joining of any nation into the zone (as the wording as described is that discussions can be made for more loose border policy does not "necessarily" exclude them out of the zone)."

Believing that a single multiverse-wide arrangement such as is envisaged by the resolution in question is neither necessary nor ideal, since travel from many states is confined to their surrounding areas,

"I mean... to be honest I have no idea how the hell I got here..." Manhu said, looking at the multitude of creatures he could barely imagine in his nightmares. "But the point is that the entirety of the World Assembly already has such wide-reaching extradimensional branches, that such a resolution like this is a drop in the ocean. Countries don't necessarily have to be neighbors to necessitate open borders, nor do we need to pretend that bridging the gap between sentient bird people and gross mammalian abominations called 'humans' is an impossible feat. In this context, it'd probably be fairly reasonable for members of our nation to go and visit yours, even if it involves bending space-time to make it happen (since, well, we've already done that to get to this point!)"

Astonished that the resolution in clause 6 gives the WABC the authority to unilaterally change the laws of consenting states, severely violating the sovereignty of any state which may choose to join

"This one is very interesting, as it's simultaneously strong and weak of an argument at once. Technically, all member nations are required to abide by the law of the World Assembly upon joining it, but the original wording of the proposal..."

6. Further authorizes WABC to change a consenting state's border laws to create a single unified policy [...]

"... is definitely problematic. On one hand, you're essentially doing a National Sovereignty argument, which on its own cannot make a legal repeal. On the other hand, this could maybe be a legitimate violation of past legislature which has said before that the World Assembly is not to manage this closely on domestic policy (as the wording of the to-be-repealed legislation would insinuate that nations would quite literally have their border policy controlled by the WABC, rather than the WABC releasing a set of guidelines and nations choosing whether to comply or not. Granted, compliance into the WABC Zone is already covered separately, but this still seems somewhat fishy to me, and I am a Vao who enjoys a good fish). Lean into this a lot more in your next draft, as I think this is definitely one of the more interesting points."

Concerned that the same clause necessitates that the "single unified policy" of the WABC is set in stone and cannot be modified at any point after a member state joins the zone,

"This is not explicitly stated in the proposal; nothing is mentioned about this policy being immutable. "Singly unified" would imply that everyone would have the same generalized policy, not that this policy is incapable of changing. Such a task would fall to the WABC to determine what policy others would have to adopt, which is not unchangeable."

Amazed that the resolution does not give consenting states any say or consultation on the aforementioned policy,

"NatSov argument, they don't necessarily need a say on this policy (assuming that the issue I talked about 2 points ago is legal). It's a committee, and committees are appointed by the World Assembly itself. Your form of protesting is non-compliance with the resolution, or abandoning the World Assembly (or, thankfully, this resolution comes pre-packaged with a third "I don't want to be a part of this open border zone" option). Furthermore, they actually do give you a say, as you will be required to appoint at least one liaison to the WABC."

Confused by the clause compelling "all member states, including those which do not join the WABC Zone, to conduct an annual review of their border policies", which forces member states to ignore their judgement use their resources on an activity that may or may not be necessary,

"I mean, I would hope that this is already something that many nations do; analyzing one's own national policies is a good task for bookkeeping and statistics, after all. I have no idea what you mean by 'ignore their judgement use their resources on an activity,' I think you're missing a comma or something. Furthermore, again, there is nothing necessarily wrong by asking nations to do this; only the truly failed states will lack the capacity to crunch some numbers and provide a basic analysis of border policy. The problem isn't that it could be unnecessary, but that if you forgo the analysis, you will never know if you should."

Bewildered by the mandate "that each member state shall appoint at least one liaison to the WABC", which could in many cases be an unnecessary waste of staff,

"Good Winds, don't be so bewildered on hiring ONE person to do something!" Manhu chuckled, beating his wing on his desk as he tried to hold back a much more disruptive laughing holler in his throat. "If your government can't even provide for a single person to represent you, then I think you have much bigger problems. Governments can employ hundreds to thousands to tens of thousands of people in roles like this; this is your weakest argument by far and does not do anything other than show how far you'll try to dig to get another line on your repeal. Trash this bit entirely before I have a stroke, heheh..."

"Overall not the worst attempt ever, but far from something I'd support. You need to take this away from a perspective of pure national sovereignty, and hit the heart of the argument to get a legal and successful repeal."

[Merni]

Sincludan Prime Ambassador Harrison Raiken: "We support this repeal as we stood against the resolution in question. Below are our delegation's primary edits:"

Noting that the wording of the resolution does not allow non-member states to be members of the WABC, part of free movement zones, (potential extra:) as it is outside the Assembly's jurisdiction and thus, as a subject, better left to individual nations and not the Assembly.

I'll change it to "WABC zone". The resolution does not prevent non-members from being part of "free movement zones" other than the WABC one.

Astonished that the resolution in clause 6 gives the WABC the authority to unilaterally change the laws of consenting states, severely violating the sovereignty of any state which may choose to join As most member states dislike sovereignty arguments, this feels detrimental to the repeal.

I don't know where you got that from, I haven't seen any evidence that "most member states dislike sovereignty arguments". Sure, a repeal of only NatSov arguments is illegal under the rules, but including one sovereignty argument -- and a committee unilaterally changing domestic laws is a pretty significant one -- is common enough.

OOC: Also, please include a link to the target

It hasn't been passed yet. Once it is, I'll add a link in the OP.

[Merni]

(OOC: I don't usually do IC RPing in the WA, but here goes anyway...)

Aware that states intending to enable free movement across their borders are able to negotiate measures allowing this with like-minded neighbours, taking into consideration their circumstances,

"Indeed, but the purpose of the legislation would be to codify border relations with others who may only be acquaintances internationally at best. Personally I can understand that the original resolution may seem at least a little superfluous..."

"I doubt any nation would want open borders with a state with which they don't have reasonably close relations."

Noting that the wording of the resolution does not allow non-member states to be members of the WABC,

"I do not believe you read the legislation correctly, Ambassador. To quote clause 5 the resolution-at-vote:"

Authorizes WABC to negotiate on behalf of consenting states with member states and non-member states in order to loosen border restrictions without necessarily having the member state or non-member state consent to join the WABC Zone,

"In other words, the WABC would act as a sort of outreach to these non-member nations, who would then negotiate an appropriate border policy without explicitly being part of the WABC Zone nor the WA in general. It's more covering the tracks of what to do with member/non-member interactions and interfacing, and does not prevent the joining of any nation into the zone (as the wording as described is that discussions can be made for more loose border policy does not "necessarily" exclude them out of the zone)."

"I don't disagree that the WABC can negotiate agreements with non-WA members; my point (which could be made clearer) is that they cannot be part of the zone itself. Clause 2 makes clear that applications can be only from member states."

Believing that a single multiverse-wide arrangement such as is envisaged by the resolution in question is neither necessary nor ideal, since travel from many states is confined to their surrounding areas,

"I mean... to be honest I have no idea how the hell I got here..." Manhu said, looking at the multitude of creatures he could barely imagine in his nightmares. "But the point is that the entirety of the World Assembly already has such wide-reaching extradimensional branches, that such a resolution like this is a drop in the ocean. Countries don't necessarily have to be neighbors to necessitate open borders, nor do we need to pretend that bridging the gap between sentient bird people and gross mammalian abominations called 'humans' is an impossible feat. In this context, it'd probably be fairly reasonable for members of our nation to go and visit yours, even if it involves bending space-time to make it happen (since, well, we've already done that to get to this point!)"

"Nothing in extant WA law (to my knowledge) requires that member states send ambassadors to the WA. Some of them do, but many probably don't."

Concerned that the same clause necessitates that the "single unified policy" of the WABC is set in stone and cannot be modified at any point after a member state joins the zone,

"This is not explicitly stated in the proposal; nothing is mentioned about this policy being immutable. "Singly unified" would imply that everyone would have the same generalized policy, not that this policy is incapable of changing. Such a task would fall to the WABC to determine what policy others would have to adopt, which is not unchangeable."

"To quote:

Further authorizes WABC to change a consenting state's border laws to create a single unified policy across consenting states that is to be publicized before any member state joins,

Once member states have joined, it is impossible to change a policy that is to be publicised before any member states join."

Amazed that the resolution does not give consenting states any say or consultation on the aforementioned policy,

"NatSov argument, they don't necessarily need a say on this policy (assuming that the issue I talked about 2 points ago is legal). It's a committee, and committees are appointed by the World Assembly itself. Your form of protesting is non-compliance with the resolution, or abandoning the World Assembly (or, thankfully, this resolution comes pre-packaged with a third "I don't want to be a part of this open border zone" option). Furthermore, they actually do give you a say, as you will be required to appoint at least one liaison to the WABC."

"The liaison is presumably to liaison with the WABC on either joining the zone or negotiating a bilateral agreement with it. I don't see anything to say the liaison would be consulted on the WABC's policy."

Confused by the clause compelling "all member states, including those which do not join the WABC Zone, to conduct an annual review of their border policies", which forces member states to ignore their judgement use their resources on an activity that may or may not be necessary,

"I mean, I would hope that this is already something that many nations do; analyzing one's own national policies is a good task for bookkeeping and statistics, after all. I have no idea what you mean by 'ignore their judgement use their resources on an activity,' I think you're missing a comma or something. Furthermore, again, there is nothing necessarily wrong by asking nations to do this; only the truly failed states will lack the capacity to crunch some numbers and provide a basic analysis of border policy. The problem isn't that it could be unnecessary, but that if you forgo the analysis, you will never know if you should."

"So, member states can determine on their own if they need to review their border policy, and how often to do it. Just like they do on any other aspect of their domestic policy. There's no need for the WA to mandate that they do so annually."

Bewildered by the mandate "that each member state shall appoint at least one liaison to the WABC", which could in many cases be an unnecessary waste of staff,

"Good Winds, don't be so bewildered on hiring ONE person to do something!" Manhu chuckled, beating his wing on his desk as he tried to hold back a much more disruptive laughing holler in his throat. "If your government can't even provide for a single person to represent you, then I think you have much bigger problems. Governments can employ hundreds to thousands to tens of thousands of people in roles like this; this is your weakest argument by far and does not do anything other than show how far you'll try to dig to get another line on your repeal. Trash this bit entirely before I have a stroke, heheh..."

"Thanks for the advice, but perhaps I had better call a doctor. Not all governments are as much of a morass of inefficiency as some seem to be. In any case, I don't see the need to have one person doing a job that is unnecessary, even if I am perfectly capable of employing that person."

[Merni]

Bump.

[Arakwall]

I personally don't see the need to repeal this resolution. Open borders means less hassle and check points and more tourism for everyone.

[Sincluda]

I personally don't see the need to repeal this resolution. Open borders means less hassle and check points and more tourism for everyone.

And this resolution makes it more of a hassle to make open borders. Hence the repeal

[Kurogasa]

I personally don't see the need to repeal this resolution. Open borders means less hassle and check points and more tourism for everyone.

And this resolution makes it more of a hassle to make open borders. Hence the repeal

How?, you can just not opt into this resolution and make your special border policy with another nation as you see fit.

[Sincluda]

And this resolution makes it more of a hassle to make open borders. Hence the repeal

How?, you can just not opt into this resolution and make your special border policy with another nation as you see fit.

Yes, you can opt out, but what's the point of opting in? It will just make things longer and less flexible for member states who join.

[Kurogasa]

How?, you can just not opt into this resolution and make your special border policy with another nation as you see fit.

Yes, you can opt out, but what's the point of opting in? It will just make things longer and less flexible for member states who join.

You are not explaining why or how it makes it more of a hassle.

On that logic everything is a hassle, and yet that's not good enough of a reason to repeal anything.

[Sincluda]

Yes, you can opt out, but what's the point of opting in? It will just make things longer and less flexible for member states who join.

You are not explaining why or how it makes it more of a hassle.

On that logic everything is a hassle, and yet that's not good enough of a reason to repeal anything.

It is quicker and more flexible to directly discuss border policy directly with border nations.

[Kurogasa]

You are not explaining why or how it makes it more of a hassle.

On that logic everything is a hassle, and yet that's not good enough of a reason to repeal anything.

It is quicker and more flexible to directly discuss border policy directly with border nations.

You can still do that.

[Sincluda]

It is quicker and more flexible to directly discuss border policy directly with border nations.

You can still do that.

Correct, so what's the point of the resolution, then?

[Kurogasa]

You can still do that.

Correct, so what's the point of the resolution, then?

Creates a group of weird nations to share open borders with each others if they choose to join it.

It's harmless enough, so even if my nation won't join it, there's no reason to repeal it.

[Sincluda]

Correct, so what's the point of the resolution, then?

Creates a group of weird nations to share open borders with each others if they choose to join it.

It's harmless enough, so even if my nation won't join it, there's no reason to repeal it.

They can do that directly with each other if they need to. The only thing this resolution is is a pitfall for an unsuspecting member state who will get caught up in bureaucratic tape because they picked an option that is less efficient and less flexible than direct negotiation. The resolution is not harmless, albeit not terribly threatening, but it is unnecessary, and serves only to make things harder for some people.

[The Great Boom]

Our delegation will oppose this repeal, and we stand firmly behind the World Assembly Border Policy. We fail to see a good reason for repeal listed.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Link to the target in the OP.

[Berhakonia]

The delegation of Berhakonia offers its full support.