[DRAFT] Repeal GA №41 “Access To Life-Saving Drugs”

[The North Polish Union]

Ambassador Michał Wyrzykowski: "The North Polish Union is emphatic on the need to guarantee adequate health care to all in accordance with the teachings of the Holy Mother Church and, indeed, of Christ Himself. To this end, we propose the following repeal of GA №41 as we find that it does not successfully fulfil the role which it is intended to fill. We hope this repeal will lead to the creation of more thorough framework, and hope to author or assist in authoring a future replacement or replacements for GA №41

The World Assembly,

OBSERVING that GA Resolution #41 “Access To Life-Saving Drugs” was passed with the intention of ensuring that poor member states and poor populations within any member states do not face financial barriers to receiving life-saving medication;

APPLAUDING the intent of the resolution and other such efforts as being necessary to further the goals of this august body and improve quality of life in all member states;

REITERATING GA #41’s assertion that “no sapient being’s health should be held hostage” and supportive of the intent of the resolution and other such efforts as being necessary to further the goals of this august body and improve quality of life in all member states;

DISAPPOINTED that GA #41 fails to adequately codify such an important sentiment into WA law through a number of shortcomings, to wit:

1. Section 1) of GA #41 resolves that the World Health Authority (WHA) shall buy and distribute life-saving medications and in doing so negotiate with agencies and patent-holders to reach a price that neither hampers the industries affected nor the WA’s economic resources. In so doing, GA #41 requires the WHA to potentially enter into negotiations with corporations based in non-WA nations (or potentially the non-WA nations themselves), which are neither bound to follow WA law nor to cooperate with WA negotiators.
2. Additionally, GA #41 makes no provision for the WHA to negotiate increases of production volumes, meaning that although an agreement may have been made with regards to the price of a drug, a material shortage of the drug may still exist and in the absence of any increase in production may not be possible to solve.
3. Section 2) of GA #41 permits the WHA to temporarily waive the patents of life-saving drugs, albeit only in extraordinary circumstances, for as small a period as necessary, and only once all avenues of negotiations have been exhausted. However, in the case that the conditions for a patent waiver are met when dealing with a drug patented only in non-WA nations the WHA may not have access to the relevant patents, manufacturing processes, or other relevant information needed for the manufacture of such drugs.
4. For pharmaceuticals patented in WA member states, even if a patent is waived the realities of acquiring and implementing the needed manufacturing processes and equipment may take several years, by which point the severe potential consequences of a disease outbreak may have already come to pass and the waiver may no longer even be necessary.
5. Per Section 3) of GA #41, in the case of a patent waiver stakeholders shall receive compensation determined after a thorough audit by the WA itself. The one-sided nature such an audit may lead patentholders in non-WA nations to further resist coming to a negotiated agreement or even cooperating with the WHA on any issues related to pharmaceutical intellectual property.

SADDENED that GA #41 fails to achieve its lofty aims, though remaining supportive of the motivations behind its passage; and

HOPING that the issues present in GA #41 can be more thoroughly addressed and corrected by further legislation in the future;

HEREBY does repeal GA Resolution #41 “Access To Life-Saving Drugs”.

---

The World Assembly,

OBSERVING that GA Resolution #41 “Access To Life-Saving Drugs” was passed with the intention of ensuring that poor member states and poor populations within any member states do not face financial barriers to receiving life-saving medication;

APPLAUDING the intent of the resolution and other such efforts as being necessary to further the goals of this august body and improve quality of life in all member states;

REITERATING GA #41’s assertion that “no sapient being’s health should be held hostage”;

DISAPPOINTED that GA #41 fails to adequately codify such an important sentiment into WA law through a number of shortcomings, to wit:

1. Section 1) of GA #41 resolves that the World Health Authority (WHA) shall buy and distribute life-saving medications and in doing so negotiate with agencies and patent-holders to reach a price that neither hampers the industries affected nor the WA’s economic resources. In so doing, GA #41 requires the WHA to potentially enter into negotiations with corporations based in non-WA nations (or potentially the non-WA nations themselves), which are neither bound to follow WA law nor to cooperate with WA negotiators.
2. Section 2) of GA #41 permits the WHA to temporarily waive the patents of life-saving drugs, albeit only in extraordinary circumstances, for as small a period as necessary, and only once all avenues of negotiations have been exhausted. However, in the case that the conditions for a patent waiver are met when dealing with a drug patented only in non-WA nations the WHA may not have access to the relevant patents, manufacturing processes, or other relevant information needed for the manufacture of such drugs.
3. For pharmaceuticals patented in WA member states, even if a patent is waived the realities of acquiring and implementing the needed manufacturing processes and equipment may take several years, by which point the severe potential consequences of a disease outbreak may have already come to pass and the waiver may no longer even be necessary.
4. Per Section 3) of GA #41, in the case of a patent waiver stakeholders shall receive compensation determined after a thorough audit by the WA itself. The one-sided nature such an audit may lead patentholders in non-WA nations to further resist coming to a negotiated agreement or even cooperating with the WHA on any issues related to pharmaceutical intellectual property.

[/list]

SADDENED that GA #41 fails to achieve its lofty aims, though remaining supportive of the motivations behind its passage; and

HOPING that the issues present in GA #41 can be more thoroughly addressed and corrected by further legislation in the future;

HEREBY does repeal GA Resolution #41 “Access To Life-Saving Drugs”.

[Hulldom]

[Wearing a scowl and a black suit with a golden tie, Dr. Le Maldo walks in. He fishes his phone out of his pocket and at this point notices the drafts lying on a pile on the conference room table. He picks one up and examines it before putting it right now.]

"The Delegation from Hulldom see no objection from us to this right now, but that could change as other Ambassadors wander in and have the chance to make their points known.

Do you happen to have a replacement?"

[Untecna]

---

The World Assembly,

OBSERVING that GA Resolution #41 “Access To Life-Saving Drugs” was passed with the intention of ensuring that poor member states and poor populations within any member states do not face financial barriers to receiving life-saving medication;

APPLAUDING the intent of the resolution and other such efforts as being necessary to further the goals of this august body and improve quality of life in all member states;

REITERATING GA #41’s assertion that “no sapient being’s health should be held hostage”;

DISAPPOINTED that GA #41 fails to adequately codify such an important sentiment into WA law through a number of shortcomings, to wit:

1. Section 1) of GA #41 resolves that the World Heal Authority (WHA) Who is the "World Heal Authority"? I've never heard of them. shall buy and distribute life-saving medications and in doing so negotiate with agencies and patent-holders to reach a price that neither hampers the industries affected nor the WA’s economic resources. In so doing, GA #41 requires the WHA to potentially enter into negotiations with corporations based in non-WA nations (or potentially the non-WA nations themselves), which are neither bound to follow WA law nor to cooperate with WA negotiators. Honest mistake: Non-members are not affected by any resolutions and so could not actually have any corporations of theirs negotiated with.
2. Section 2) of GA #41 permits the WHA to temporarily waive the patents of life-saving drugs, albeit only in extraordinary circumstances, for as small a period as necessary, and only once all avenues of negotiations have been exhausted. However, in the case that the conditions for a patent waiver are met when dealing with a drug patented only in non-WA nations the WHA may not have access to the relevant patents, manufacturing processes, or other relevant information needed for the manufacture of such drugs. The chances of a non-member being the only one to have a certain drug is low, very much so. This goes with my above comment on how that above statement is an honest mistake.
3. For pharmaceuticals patented in WA member states, even if a patent is waived the realities of acquiring and implementing the needed manufacturing processes and equipment may take several years, by which point the severe potential consequences of a disease outbreak may have already come to pass and the waiver may no longer even be necessary. In that case provide them with the drug. The resolution in question seems to work here.
4. Per Section 3) of GA #41, in the case of a patent waiver stakeholders shall receive compensation determined after a thorough audit by the WA itself. The one-sided nature such an audit may lead patentholders in non-WA nations to further resist coming to a negotiated agreement or even cooperating with the WHA on any issues related to pharmaceutical intellectual property. See honest mistake comment.

SADDENED that GA #41 fails to achieve its lofty aims, though remaining supportive of the motivations behind its passage; and

HOPING that the issues present in GA #41 can be more thoroughly addressed and corrected by further legislation in the future;

HEREBY does repeal GA Resolution #41 “Access To Life-Saving Drugs”.

OOC: Excuse my previous post, wrong account. I meant to use this account.

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

Who is the "World Heal Authority"? I've never heard of them.

Try looking at past resolutions, since it is referenced in the target resolution. It can be quite informative and IA's past resolution thread makes it fairly simple. Nevertheless, homework done for you: [url="https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=31/council=1"]GA #31[/url].

Honest mistake: Non-members are not affected by any resolutions and so could not actually have any corporations of theirs negotiated with.

No. While I have several problems with the argument presented, I would not call it an honest mistake. There is a difference between resolution is not BINDING on non-members and pretending non-members do not exist. Several resolutions explicitly call on the WA/Member States to take some specific action in regards to a non-member. GA #566 even explicitly allows non-members to OPT-IN and have Word Health Authority inspectors present and working in them, presumably on the WA (and therefore member states)'s dime. I do not see any consistent way to have that and then say the WHA negotiating with a non-member state or corporation is somehow impossible.

---

However, I also am entirely unconvinced by the repeal argument as follows:

A. And? What alternative do you propose? How is this a problem with the resolution? If a state is not a member and/or a corporation does not operate in a member state, there is no way to address your concerns.

B. See above. So what? How would you suggest improving that situation?

C. I think recent experience IRL has shown this concern to be...un-warranted at best.

D. I think there MIGHT be something salvageable here if you focus on the problem with the one-sided auditing, the complete ban on private donation/charity (seriously, why should the WHA shell out of Bezos or Pfizer or whoever is willing to foot the bill?), and such and leave the non-WA members out of it (because, again, so what? Do you have some alternative that will magically alleviate your concern that they do not have to play nicely?).

[Hannasea]

"This is almost certainly the stupidest resolution the WA has ever passed. We adamantly support its repeal, though are disturbed by any talk of a replacement."

Daniella Russel, MA PhD
Representing the office of:
Ambassador Brittany Hepburn
Semi-Permanent Representative to the World Assembly

[Untecna]

Who is the "World Heal Authority"? I've never heard of them.

Try looking at past resolutions, since it is referenced in the target resolution. It can be quite informative and IA's past resolution thread makes it fairly simple. Nevertheless, homework done for you: [url="https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=31/council=1"]GA #31[/url].

My point was that it was a misspelling of "Health" that was the issue.

Honest mistake: Non-members are not affected by any resolutions and so could not actually have any corporations of theirs negotiated with.

No. While I have several problems with the argument presented, I would not call it an honest mistake. There is a difference between resolution is not BINDING on non-members and pretending non-members do not exist. Several resolutions explicitly call on the WA/Member States to take some specific action in regards to a non-member. GA #566 even explicitly allows non-members to OPT-IN and have Word Health Authority inspectors present and working in them, presumably on the WA (and therefore member states)'s dime. I do not see any consistent way to have that and then say the WHA negotiating with a non-member state or corporation is somehow impossible.

Since this resolution would not be bound to non-members, it's effects could not be applied onto non-members, therefore it would be impossible to negotiate with a non-member state's corporations. If it is health agencies, 566 is applicable, but that is at the non-member's digression; further, this repeal makes no mention of health agencies being negotiated with, only corporations, which, if in a non-member, would not really be subject to the target resolution. You said it yourself in your post here:

If a state is not a member and/or a corporation does not operate in a member state, there is no way to address your concerns.

[Apatosaurus]

Ambassador Scott walks into the halls of the World Assembly, despite his size being larger than most other individuals, due to the dominance of humans in the World Assembly. He reads the proposal before giving the following critiques.

REITERATING GA #41’s assertion that “no sapient being’s health should be held hostage”;

"We believe that this is unnecessary as there are already two clauses praising its intent.

DISAPPOINTED that GA #41 fails to adequately codify such an important sentiment into WA law through a number of shortcomings, to wit:

1. Section 1) of GA #41 resolves that the World Heal Authority (WHA) shall buy and distribute life-saving medications and in doing so negotiate with agencies and patent-holders to reach a price that neither hampers the industries affected nor the WA’s economic resources. In so doing, GA #41 requires the WHA to potentially enter into negotiations with corporations based in non-WA nations (or potentially the non-WA nations themselves), which are neither bound to follow WA law nor to cooperate with WA negotiators.
2. Section 2) of GA #41 permits the WHA to temporarily waive the patents of life-saving drugs, albeit only in extraordinary circumstances, for as small a period as necessary, and only once all avenues of negotiations have been exhausted. However, in the case that the conditions for a patent waiver are met when dealing with a drug patented only in non-WA nations the WHA may not have access to the relevant patents, manufacturing processes, or other relevant information needed for the manufacture of such drugs.
3. For pharmaceuticals patented in WA member states, even if a patent is waived the realities of acquiring and implementing the needed manufacturing processes and equipment may take several years, by which point the severe potential consequences of a disease outbreak may have already come to pass and the waiver may no longer even be necessary.
4. Per Section 3) of GA #41, in the case of a patent waiver stakeholders shall receive compensation determined after a thorough audit by the WA itself. The one-sided nature such an audit may lead patentholders in non-WA nations to further resist coming to a negotiated agreement or even cooperating with the WHA on any issues related to pharmaceutical intellectual property.

"The writing of this clause seems messy, and we would like to offer the following rewrite."

DISAPPOINTED that GA #41 fails to adequately codify such an important sentiment into WA law as it contains a number of shortcomings, detailed below:

1. Section 1 resolves that the World Health Authority (WHA) shall buy and distribute life-saving medications and in doing so negotiate with agencies and patent-holders to reach a price that neither hampers the industries affected nor the WA’s economic resources; however, in doing so, the resolution requires the WHA to potentially enter into negotiations with corporations based in non-member nations, or the non-member nations themselves, which are neither bound to follow WA law nor to cooperate with WA negotiators;
2. Section 2 permits the WHA to temporarily waive the patents of life-saving drugs, albeit only in extraordinary circumstances, for as small a period as necessary, and only once all avenues of negotiations have been exhausted; however, in the case that the conditions for a patent waiver are met when dealing with a drug patented only in non-WA nations, the WHA may not have access to the relevant patents, manufacturing processes, or other relevant information needed for the manufacture of such drugs;
3. For pharmaceuticals patented in WA member states, even if a patent is waived, the realities of acquiring and implementing the needed manufacturing processes and equipment may take an unreasonable period of time, by which point the severe potential consequences of a disease outbreak may have already come to pass and the waiver may no longer even be necessary; and
4. As per Section 3 of the resolution, in the case of a patent waiverm stakeholders shall receive compensation determined after a thorough audit by the WA itself; Unfortunately, the one-sided nature such an audit may lead patentholders in non-WA nations to further resist coming to a negotiated agreement or even cooperating with the WHA on any issues related to pharmaceutical intellectual property;

[Xanthorrhoea]

Since this resolution would not be bound to non-members, it's effects could not be applied onto non-members, therefore it would be impossible to negotiate with a non-member state's corporations. If it is health agencies, 566 is applicable, but that is at the non-member's digression; further, this repeal makes no mention of health agencies being negotiated with, only corporations, which, if in a non-member, would not really be subject to the target resolution. You said it yourself in your post here:

If a state is not a member and/or a corporation does not operate in a member state, there is no way to address your concerns.

I think you’re misinterpreting the rule on affecting non-WA states. Resolutions cannot, under their own power, bind non-members or force them into any action. However, nothing forbids WA nations, or WA organisations, from negotiating their own agreements with non-WA entities. That would be silly. DB was using GA 566 as an example of a resolution that does this. They (as far as I can tell) were not arguing it is applicable here, merely that it is an example of a resolution that empowers the WA to negotiate with non-WA entities on a voluntary basis.

The same logic applies to this resolution. Non-WA entities can’t be forced to give up their patents or be forced to negotiate a price through purely legal means. However, nothing is stopping them from negotiating a contract voluntarily, and nothing is stopping the WA from using economic pressure (e.g. trade embargoes, restricting non-WA companies’ markets share within the WA etc) to motivate them to do so.

Basically, just because a resolution cannot bind non-WA entities, does not mean it can’t affect them. They can volunteer to be affected if they so choose, and the WA and its members can pressure them to do so.

Additionally, this is rather moot anyway. If a non-WA company has a presence in a WA nation, then all of its activities within that nation are bound by that nation’s laws (and hence those of the WA). To argue otherwise would be equivalent to claiming that an Austrian tourist isn’t bound by US law while visiting the Grand Canyon (which is absurd).

The WA cannot cancel or affect patents in non-WA countries (unless they volunteer to be so affected), but it can cancel and negotiate patents within WA countries.

Edit: Otherwise I completely agree with DB about this proposal’s merits. I struggle to see an actual argument for repeal here. It’s more a list of observations, which aren’t all that accurate anyway.

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

My point was that it was a misspelling of "Health" that was the issue.

Sorry, I have a bit overmuch practice at reading what should be as opposed to what is. I did not notice the mis-spelling until you said so. Consider the snark about homework withdrawn with apologies.

Since this resolution would not be bound to non-members, it's effects could not be applied onto non-members, therefore it would be impossible to negotiate with a non-member state's corporations. If it is health agencies, 566 is applicable, but that is at the non-member's digression; further, this repeal makes no mention of health agencies being negotiated with, only corporations, which, if in a non-member, would not really be subject to the target resolution. You said it yourself in your post here:

Xanthorrhoea has adequately responded to this. 566 was, in fact, just an example. Sierra Lyricalia posted numerous others in the Sua Sponte challenge thread for the epidemic repeal as well. The fundamental disconnect you seem to have is making a false equivalency between "cannot mandate" and "cannot interact with/affect".

[Imperium Anglorum]

At a broad level, I agree with Xanthorrhoea and 'Desmosthenes and Burke' (quotations included due to multiple ands). Untecna is reading the rules too expansively: they do not bar WA action that affects non-members. The WA can take actions that affect non-members, but only if they route all those actions through other WA members. They cannot be enforced against directly, eg the WA assembles an army and invades them to seize their drugs. (Which would be a fantastic premise for a story!)

Xanthorrhoea's expansion about how non-X companies operating inside X are still bound by X law is true in most cases. There are a few cases where criminal jurisdiction is exercised on the nationality of the person rather than their location in a territory. This was notably the case with extraterritoriality in China, where treaties were signed giving certain foreigners extraterritoriality. Eg a British subject could only be tried in a British court for crimes in China; similarly, a Chinese subject in Britain could be tried only in Chinese courts.

[Hulldom]

In any event, see SL’s response to BA’s sua sponte for the likely proof you need for the notion that non-members can’t work within the WA and being subject to the title of the regulations they work under being complete poppycock.

[The North Polish Union]

(OOC: The misspelling of the WHA's name is fixed)

Ambassador Wyrzykowski quickly jots some notes on both the draft of the repeal and on his personal notes prepared in anticipation of addressing the Assembly again. He had spent more of the night than he would’ve preferred being briefed by aides on past GA precedent and while he felt comfortable with his knowledge of the issues, he hoped his lack of skill in extemporaneous speaking would not hold him back in bringing the other delegations around to his point of view. Having taken considerably longer than he would’ve like to collect his notes (and thoughts) he stood up and began to speak:

“First off, we would like to thank the delegations from Hulldom and Hannasea for their support for this repeal; we do not currently have a draft replacement ready to be presented to this Chamber, but one is in the works. To the Hannasean delegation we ask: why do you think a replacement for this resolution is unnecessary? It seems to us than ensuring impoverished populations receive medical care is very much in the GA’s interest.

“To address concerns of the legality of this proposal with respect to its description of the target’s interaction with non-member nations, we would note that we do not believe that the target places obligations (or attempts to place obligations) on non-members and the draft is written to reflect that. As members of the Secretariat have recently pointed out, there are a number of resolutions that do regulate the way WA members and the WA itself interact with non-members. GA №41 does so as well in that when it requires the WHA to negotiate prices for and buy life-saving medications, that requirement reasonably must include negotiations with and purchases from pharmaceutical manufacturers in non-members; to do otherwise and ignore the medical breakthroughs made by non-members would be irresponsible and would cause the WA to fail even more greatly at the resolution’s goal of providing access to life-saving drugs. Indeed, if the target specifically excluded the purchase of such drugs from non-members that would be an even stronger argument for its repeal, rather than against it. The relationship that the WA has with non-members is one that has been little-explored and is not well codified. We believe that GA №41 handles that relationship in a naïve and simplistic way, and substantial improvements in that regard can be made.

“We would now like to address specific points of contention in more depth:

The chances of a non-member being the only one to have a certain drug is low, very much so.

“With respect, we disagree. GA №304 notes that non-members outnumber WA members severalfold. Many of these non-members have highly-developed medical systems which are at the forefront of modern medicine. It would be foolhardy and the height of hubris on the WA’s part to assume that non-members have a lower standard of medical care or have not developed unique life-saving medications simply because they are not a part of this Assembly.

For pharmaceuticals patented in WA member states, even if a patent is waived the realities of acquiring and implementing the needed manufacturing processes and equipment may take several years, by which point the severe potential consequences of a disease outbreak may have already come to pass and the waiver may no longer even be necessary.

In that case provide them with the drug. The resolution in question seems to work here.

“It is not always feasible to simply provide populations with a drug. Drugs do not exist in vacuum, they must be produced and manufactured, and much of this manufacturing requires specialized equipment and processes. Even when the WHA waives patents and other associated intellectual property, the acquisition and implementation of such equipment and processes takes time.

“Additionally, if there is a sudden large spike in demand for a drug (such as in the case of a disease outbreak) existing manufacturers may not be able to fulfil that demand as other manufacturers begin production simply because they lack production capacity. It is also worth noting that GA №41 enables the WHA to negotiate prices but not quantities produced, although the issues discussed in this paragraph may be best suited to an additional section added to the draft in a later revision.

(OOC: To the above points, I work as a chemist in a factory that makes pharmaceuticals. Recently, the company sold one of our product lines to another company, but the acquisition of not only the product, but the engineering/manufacturing processes and equipment is estimated to take about 3 years (a lot of the machines that drugs are manufactured on contain intellectual property themselves). Now, could this process be sped up if a WA-like body was imposing it? Possibly, but new manufacturing equipment would still have to be built, processes learned, and employees trained. Reality isn’t as simple as ‘transfer the patent to somebody else that they can start producing it right away’.)

A. And? What alternative do you propose? How is this a problem with the resolution? If a state is not a member and/or a corporation does not operate in a member state, there is no way to address your concerns.

B. See above. So what? How would you suggest improving that situation?

“As we earlier noted, the relationship that the WA has with non-members is one that has been little-explored and is not well codified. Ultimately in a situation like this, the WHA has broader authority within negotiations and over intellectual property with member states than it does with non-members (where it has no authority). Our replacement (once presented to this Body) would seek to remedy this by acknowledging that the WA must use a different framework when negotiating with non-members versus members and would see the WHA take a ‘softer’ approach towards non-members to aid in cooperation. Ultimately this is not a situation that has a solution where one can say ‘see, this has been definitively solved,’ but the status quo can definitely be improved upon.

C. I think recent experience IRL has shown this concern to be...un-warranted at best.

(OOC: I actually disagree with this. Patent waivers for the COVID-19 vaccines are a very contentious subject globally and while the pandemic has made things like preprints and open-access journals more common for epidemiological research, vaccine and medication research are still very much closed-off processes comparatively. I also don’t think the comparison between what GA №41 does and the COVID pandemic is entirely accurate; even though GA №41 provides for some R&D its main concern is with drug distribution to impoverished countries, which is clearly something that has been handled terribly IRL.

As I see it, GA №41 deals mostly with ongoing situations more like the Yemeni cholera outbreak which is somewhat caused and certainly exacerbated by societal situations and poverty as opposed to the COVID pandemic, where those factors are not as strong I think would be better if handled primarily through other resolutions like GA №53, although there is some overlap between the resolutions’ spheres.)

D. I think there MIGHT be something salvageable here if you focus on the problem with the one-sided auditing, the complete ban on private donation/charity (seriously, why should the WHA shell out of Bezos or Pfizer or whoever is willing to foot the bill?), and such and leave the non-WA members out of it (because, again, so what? Do you have some alternative that will magically alleviate your concern that they do not have to play nicely?).

“As far as the one-sided auditing goes, WA members have already signed on to the idea that the WA’s auditing is fair. Although our delegation has reservations about allowing WA offices to greatly impact its member-states with minimal oversight, there is somewhat of a consensus among this Body that committees are infallible. Our delegation reserves this sort of infallibility to the Holy Church, but we don’t feel at this time that its necessary to fight this battle within the GA. Of course, non-members have no such consensus on WA committees, and so this repeal seeks to address their concerns, hopefully to the end of increased cooperation.

“As to the prohibition on private funding in the target, our delegation sees nothing wrong with that specifically, because it is easier to preserve the WA’s appearance of impartiality and avoid allegations of corruption if the WA itself, rather than random billionaires, distributes life-saving medications through WA programs; and we would include a similar clause in any replacement. This does not mean that billionaires are (or even should be) barred from medical philanthropy through their own charities/NGOs, just that the WA is not the appropriate venue for that philanthropy.

Ambassador Scott walks into the halls of the World Assembly, despite his size being larger than most other individuals, due to the dominance of humans in the World Assembly. He reads the proposal before giving the following critiques.

REITERATING GA #41’s assertion that “no sapient being’s health should be held hostage”;

"We believe that this is unnecessary as there are already two clauses praising its intent.

“Our delegation likes the quotation from the target because we believe it to be an important sentiment. However, in future drafts we will look at ways to incorporate it into one of the prior clauses rather than keeping it as a stand-alone clause.

DISAPPOINTED that GA #41 fails to adequately codify such an important sentiment into WA law through a number of shortcomings, to wit:

1. Section 1) of GA #41 resolves that the World Heal Authority (WHA) shall buy and distribute life-saving medications and in doing so negotiate with agencies and patent-holders to reach a price that neither hampers the industries affected nor the WA’s economic resources. In so doing, GA #41 requires the WHA to potentially enter into negotiations with corporations based in non-WA nations (or potentially the non-WA nations themselves), which are neither bound to follow WA law nor to cooperate with WA negotiators.
2. Section 2) of GA #41 permits the WHA to temporarily waive the patents of life-saving drugs, albeit only in extraordinary circumstances, for as small a period as necessary, and only once all avenues of negotiations have been exhausted. However, in the case that the conditions for a patent waiver are met when dealing with a drug patented only in non-WA nations the WHA may not have access to the relevant patents, manufacturing processes, or other relevant information needed for the manufacture of such drugs.
3. For pharmaceuticals patented in WA member states, even if a patent is waived the realities of acquiring and implementing the needed manufacturing processes and equipment may take several years, by which point the severe potential consequences of a disease outbreak may have already come to pass and the waiver may no longer even be necessary.
4. Per Section 3) of GA #41, in the case of a patent waiver stakeholders shall receive compensation determined after a thorough audit by the WA itself. The one-sided nature such an audit may lead patentholders in non-WA nations to further resist coming to a negotiated agreement or even cooperating with the WHA on any issues related to pharmaceutical intellectual property.

"The writing of this clause seems messy, and we would like to offer the following rewrite."

DISAPPOINTED that GA #41 fails to adequately codify such an important sentiment into WA law as it contains a number of shortcomings, detailed below:

1. Section 1 resolves that the World Health Authority (WHA) shall buy and distribute life-saving medications and in doing so negotiate with agencies and patent-holders to reach a price that neither hampers the industries affected nor the WA’s economic resources; however, in doing so, the resolution requires the WHA to potentially enter into negotiations with corporations based in non-member nations, or the non-member nations themselves, which are neither bound to follow WA law nor to cooperate with WA negotiators;
2. Section 2 permits the WHA to temporarily waive the patents of life-saving drugs, albeit only in extraordinary circumstances, for as small a period as necessary, and only once all avenues of negotiations have been exhausted; however, in the case that the conditions for a patent waiver are met when dealing with a drug patented only in non-WA nations, the WHA may not have access to the relevant patents, manufacturing processes, or other relevant information needed for the manufacture of such drugs;
3. For pharmaceuticals patented in WA member states, even if a patent is waived, the realities of acquiring and implementing the needed manufacturing processes and equipment may take an unreasonable period of time, by which point the severe potential consequences of a disease outbreak may have already come to pass and the waiver may no longer even be necessary; and
4. As per Section 3 of the resolution, in the case of a patent waiverm stakeholders shall receive compensation determined after a thorough audit by the WA itself; Unfortunately, the one-sided nature such an audit may lead patentholders in non-WA nations to further resist coming to a negotiated agreement or even cooperating with the WHA on any issues related to pharmaceutical intellectual property;

(OOC: What did you change here aside from formatting how the target is referenced and adding the word “Unfortunately” to section (d)? Am I missing something?)

[Apatosaurus]

"The writing of this clause seems messy, and we would like to offer the following rewrite."

(OOC: What did you change here aside from formatting how the target is referenced and adding the word “Unfortunately” to section (d)? Am I missing something?)

OOC: Changed the grammar and reworded a few parts.

[The North Polish Union]

(OOC: What did you change here aside from formatting how the target is referenced and adding the word “Unfortunately” to section (d)? Am I missing something?)

OOC: Changed the grammar and reworded a few parts.

(OOC: I'm still really only seeing the addition of the word 'unfortunately'.

Are there any other suggestions for now? I'm hoping to have a draft of a replacement up by the end of the week.)

[The North Polish Union]

(OOC: Draft II is below as well as edited into the OP. Still hopeful to have the draft of a replacement posted shortly.)

The World Assembly,

OBSERVING that GA Resolution #41 “Access To Life-Saving Drugs” was passed with the intention of ensuring that poor member states and poor populations within any member states do not face financial barriers to receiving life-saving medication;

APPLAUDING the intent of the resolution and other such efforts as being necessary to further the goals of this august body and improve quality of life in all member states;

REITERATING GA #41’s assertion that “no sapient being’s health should be held hostage” and supportive of the intent of the resolution and other such efforts as being necessary to further the goals of this august body and improve quality of life in all member states;

DISAPPOINTED that GA #41 fails to adequately codify such an important sentiment into WA law through a number of shortcomings, to wit:

1. Section 1) of GA #41 resolves that the World Health Authority (WHA) shall buy and distribute life-saving medications and in doing so negotiate with agencies and patent-holders to reach a price that neither hampers the industries affected nor the WA’s economic resources. In so doing, GA #41 requires the WHA to potentially enter into negotiations with corporations based in non-WA nations (or potentially the non-WA nations themselves), which are neither bound to follow WA law nor to cooperate with WA negotiators.
2. Additionally, GA #41 makes no provision for the WHA to negotiate increases of production volumes, meaning that although an agreement may have been made with regards to the price of a drug, a material shortage of the drug may still exist and in the absence of any increase in production may not be possible to solve.
3. Section 2) of GA #41 permits the WHA to temporarily waive the patents of life-saving drugs, albeit only in extraordinary circumstances, for as small a period as necessary, and only once all avenues of negotiations have been exhausted. However, in the case that the conditions for a patent waiver are met when dealing with a drug patented only in non-WA nations the WHA may not have access to the relevant patents, manufacturing processes, or other relevant information needed for the manufacture of such drugs.
4. For pharmaceuticals patented in WA member states, even if a patent is waived the realities of acquiring and implementing the needed manufacturing processes and equipment may take several years, by which point the severe potential consequences of a disease outbreak may have already come to pass and the waiver may no longer even be necessary.
5. Per Section 3) of GA #41, in the case of a patent waiver stakeholders shall receive compensation determined after a thorough audit by the WA itself. The one-sided nature such an audit may lead patentholders in non-WA nations to further resist coming to a negotiated agreement or even cooperating with the WHA on any issues related to pharmaceutical intellectual property.

SADDENED that GA #41 fails to achieve its lofty aims, though remaining supportive of the motivations behind its passage; and

HOPING that the issues present in GA #41 can be more thoroughly addressed and corrected by further legislation in the future;

HEREBY does repeal GA Resolution #41 “Access To Life-Saving Drugs”.

[The North Polish Union]

*bump*

[The North Polish Union]

(Now that I'm quadruple-posting I hope to submit this soon unless any further suggestions are made)

[Xanthorrhoea]

Section a is one giant honest mistake. Non-WA entities are very much bound by WA law when acting within WA jurisdiction (e.g. when selling drugs in WA countries). While IA is correct in that some legal systems may base their jurisdiction on nationality rather than location (a modern day example being cases of diplomatic immunity), this is by no means universal (or even common). There is absolutely no reason to assume that every WA nation will base its jurisdiction on nationality. Hence, when conducting business within WA nations, non-WA companies will be subject to WA law. Hence, the logic used in clause a is extremely flawed.

As a side note, even if your logic did apply, so what? You’re complaining that a GA resolution is unable to do something that GA resolutions can’t do. That’s akin to criticising GAR#2 because it doesn’t impose duties on non-WA states, or criticising a rabbit because it can’t fly. What exactly about clause a justifies repeal of this resolution?

Clauses b through d are all relatively legitimate (if minor) issues, but they are issues that could be easily fixed by a supplementary resolution, instead of a repeal and replace.

Clause e is the only point that carries any weight for me, and it does not carry nearly enough to justify a repeal.

May I suggest abandoning the repeal, and simply writing your replacement to address the problems you have identified in clauses b c and d? Why waste the WA’s time with 2 resolutions, when 1 will do?

[The North Polish Union]

Section a is one giant honest mistake. Non-WA entities are very much bound by WA law when acting within WA jurisdiction (e.g. when selling drugs in WA countries). While IA is correct in that some legal systems may base their jurisdiction on nationality rather than location (a modern day example being cases of diplomatic immunity), this is by no means universal (or even common). There is absolutely no reason to assume that every WA nation will base its jurisdiction on nationality. Hence, when conducting business within WA nations, non-WA companies will be subject to WA law. Hence, the logic used in clause a is extremely flawed.

As a side note, even if your logic did apply, so what? You’re complaining that a GA resolution is unable to do something that GA resolutions can’t do. That’s akin to criticising GAR#2 because it doesn’t impose duties on non-WA states, or criticising a rabbit because it can’t fly. What exactly about clause a justifies repeal of this resolution?

Clauses b through d are all relatively legitimate (if minor) issues, but they are issues that could be easily fixed by a supplementary resolution, instead of a repeal and replace.

Clause e is the only point that carries any weight for me, and it does not carry nearly enough to justify a repeal.

May I suggest abandoning the repeal, and simply writing your replacement to address the problems you have identified in clauses b c and d? Why waste the WA’s time with 2 resolutions, when 1 will do?

"Although we do not argue that non-WA entities can be bound by WA law when they operate within WA jurisdiction, we disagree that this makes Section (a) an honest mistake or that our logic in drafting the clause is flawed.

"GA №41 foresees situations in which the WHA must intervene in an outbreak of disease and in doing so authorizes the WHA to negotiate for life-saving drugs. It does not (nor should it) limit these negotiations to drug manufacturers already operating within WA jurisdiction and the fact that non-members outnumber members severalfold makes it not improbable that non-members or corporations not currently operating in WA jurisdiction will be parties in these negotiations. Many in the WA behave as though most states act in some sort of international cosmopolitan goodwill, and though this may generally be the case among WA members it is not so outside the WA.

"Regrettably, GA №41 provides no guidance as to how these negotiations ought to be handled, instead establishing guidelines that only function properly when dealing with members. Unlike members, the WA may not compel non-members to (for example) cede intellectual property rights, and additionally non-members need not assume that the WA is behaving in good faith towards them or that the gnomes staffing WA's committees will make the correct decision. The fact that a resolution on the books indicates to non-members that the WA may attempt to expropriate their intellectual property is cause for alarm on their part, thereby creating a significant barrier to cooperation.

"This framework is extremely detrimental to public health, and our draft replacement attempts to address these shortcomings.

"The way in which the WA (as a body, rather than individual WA members) interacts with non-WA nation-states has been little-explored to date. This is unfortunate, and so long as the WA prefers to keep its policies cloistered away from examination of this area it makes it difficult for the WA to materially improve the lives of individuals living in its members to the greatest possible extent."