[DEFEATED] Repeal "Volcanic Activity Convention"

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

Approvals go here!

The World Assembly,

Believing that, with the current risk of those previously thought as dead mysteriously awakening, it is indeed an important goal to prevent more people from dying and potentially returning in a zombified form, something which the resolution has contributed to via efforts to ensure that member nations are protected from the often-deadly dangers of volcanic activity; yet

Finding that the resolution has become superfluous since its passage, as "Disaster Precautions and Responses" already ensures that precautions are taken to ensure that member nations are protected from volcanic activity, as well as other disasters, thus eliminating the need for the "Volcanic Activity Convention",

Observing that even the more specific areas of disaster preparedness that the resolution attempts to address -- including "cooperation between member nations [in] handling disasters like multinational volcanic activity" -- are covered by other existing resolutions;

• The mandates of "Emergency Broadcasting Standards" adequately cover communication between nations affected by a multinational disaster;
  
  
• "Humanitarian Aid Coordination" also ensures the distribution of humanitarian aid to nations in need of the same, such as those victim of volcanic activity or needing to address an outbreak of the undead;

Haunted too by exceedingly unclear and ambiguous wording in many mandates of the resolution, such as Section 2a.iii, which mandates that member nations at risk of volcanic activity reverse damage from recent volcanic activity "within reason"; and Section 2a.ii, which requires member nations at such risk to distribute resources deemed "relevant" and "necessary"; thus both opening the doors to exploitation of the resolution's mandates, and making bona fide attempts at compliance with the resolution's spirit unclear,

Deducing that the resolution is therefore no longer necessary to mitigate the dangers of volcanic activity, while also being ultimately ineffectual in many of its efforts, meaning that there is no real reason to keep the resolution standing,

Repeals the "Volcanic Activity Convention".

The World Assembly,

Believing that it is indeed important there are strong measures in place to protecting member nations from volcanic activity, which poses a significant danger to many member nations, yet

Objecting to the resolution's self-professed "attempt" at this goal, as it stands in blissful ignorance of the metaphorically limp-wristed, overly restrictive, and burdensome nature of many of its mandates -- making it flawed to the point where repeal is imperative,

Convinced that it is in the interests of all member nations to clear the body of World Assembly law of dross that fails to actually achieve its ostensible goal while wasting member nation finances, especially when such legislation is now superfluous and redundant,

Finds as follows _

• Vague and subjective language is open to abuse by delinquent member nations. For this reason, the resolution's most inoffensive mandates are easily exploitable and open to evasion, contradicting the resolution's aims. Terminology such as conditioning minimisation of damage to the environment as "reasonable", mandating distribution of "necessary" resources, and only requiring reversal of damage from volcanic activity "within reason", is extremely subjective and abusable; delinquent member nations can thus avoid these "duties" and fail to protect themselves from volcanic activity by, for example, refusing to distribute resources on the basis that they are not "necessary", or failing to reverse any more than minimal damage from volcanic activity on the grounds that it is not "within reason" to do so.
  
  
• Further, Section 2b mandates that member nations at risk of volcanic activity "provid[e] aid to each other in an evacuation"; however, the resolution omits any explicit or implicit mandate whatsoever to prevent member nations from misusing such aid. Diversion very rarely occurs in public so as to give nations an opportunity to instead provide non-material aid in response to the diversion. As a result, this will open up a very likely possibility of a receiving nation misusing such aid -- eg diverting all financial aid to politicians' off-shore bank accounts -- but member nations that happen to be at risk of volcanic activity still being forced to throw money and resources to that nation en masse. Wasteful spending mechanisms reduce the amount of funds available for more important projects funded by member nations, including humanitarian aid for nations that actually require such aid. Member nations should not be allowed to dishonestly flush other member nations' funds down the toilet.
  
  
• Repeal of the resolution eliminates no actual substantial protection in volcanic activity, as all of the resolution ultimately falls under the purview of "Humanitarian Aid Coordination", "Disaster Precautions and Responses" and "Emergency Broadcasting Standards", which more comprehensively and competently legislate on protections in all disasters -- including "cooperation between member nations when it comes to handling disasters" -- rather than narrowly only targetting one specific disaster event. This renders the "Volcanic Activity Convention" obsolete, such that it covers nothing original in World Assembly law, and its significant flaws outweigh any benefit it otherwise may have. Further, any flaws in these resolutions ought to be addressed by replacing them with similar omnibi, rather than only targetting an exceedingly narrow scope of any such flaws.

For these reasons, be the "Volcanic Activity Convention" repealed.

The World Assembly,

Agreeing with the resolution that volcanic activity can cause serious damage to nations, and that strong measures are needed to help protect member nations from volcanic activity,

Dissatisfied with the resolution's self-professed "attempt" at this goal, as it stands in blissful ignorance of the overly restrictive, burdensome, and metaphorically limp-wristed nature of many of its mandates -- making it flawed to the point where repeal is imperative,

Believing that it is in the interests of all member nations to clear the body of World Assembly law of dross that wastes member nation finances while failing to actually achieve its ostensible goal,

Finds as follows _

• Wasteful spending mechanisms reduce the amount of funds available for more important projects funded by member nations -- including humanitarian aid for evacuating nations that actually require such aid. Section 2b, in mandating that member nations at risk of volcanic activity "provid[e] aid to each other in an evacuation" -- opens up a very likely possibility of a receiving nation misusing such aid, but member nations that happen to be at risk of volcanic activity still being forced to provide "aid" en masse to that nation. Without a mandate preventing member nations from diverting this aid -- which is wholly omitted from the resolution -- this will inevitably result in many member nations being forced to throw money and resources to nations unlikely to actually use them for their intended purpose, eg by diverting all financial aid to politicians' off-shore bank accounts. Therefore, the resolution will oftentimes flush precious member nation funds down the toilet for nothing.
  
  
• In addition, the resolution's most inoffensive mandates are easily exploitable and open to evasion. Terminology such as conditioning minimisation of damage to the environment as "reasonable", mandating distribution of "necessary" resources, and only requiring reversal of damage from volcanic activity "within reason", allows delinquent member nations to avoid these duties and fail to protect their nations from volcanic activity by, for example, refusing to distribute resources on the basis that they are not "necessary", or defining attempts to minimise damage to the environment as not "reasonable".
  
  
• Finally, nearly all of the resolution ultimately falls under the purview of "Disaster Precautions and Responses" and "Emergency Broadcasting Standards", which more comprehensively and competently legislate on all disaster situations, rather than narrowly only targetting one disaster situation. This renders the "Volcanic Activity Convention" obsolete, such that it covers nothing original in World Assembly law. Further, any flaws in these resolutions ought to be addressed by replacing them with similar omnibi, rather than only targetting an exceedingly narrow component of them.

For these reasons, be the "Volcanic Activity Convention" repealed.

Agreeing with the resolution that volcanic activity can cause serious damage to nations and their populaces, and that strong measures are necessary to improve the safety of member nations from volcanic activity,

Not satisfied by the resolution's self-professed "attempt" at this goal, as it stands in blissful ignorance of the overly restrictive, burdensome, and metaphorically limp-wristed nature of many of its mandates -- making it flawed to the point where repeal is imperative,

Thoroughly believing that it is in the interests of all member nations to repeal legislation that wastes member nation finances while failing to actually achieve its ostensible goal,

Informed of the following _

• Wasteful spending mechanisms reduce the amount of funds available for more important projects funded by member nations -- including humanitarian aid for evacuating nations that actually require such aid. Section 2b, in mandating that member nations at risk of volcanic activity "provid[e] aid to each other in an evacuation" -- opens up a very likely possibility of a receiving nation misusing such aid, but member nations that happen to be at risk of volcanic activity still being forced to provide "aid" en masse to that nation. Without a mandate preventing member nations from diverting this aid -- which is wholly omitted from the resolution -- this will inevitably result in many member nations being forced to throw money and resources to nations unlikely to actually use them for their intended purpose, eg by diverting all financial aid to politicians' off-shore bank accounts. Therefore, the resolution will oftentimes flush precious member nation funds down the toilet for nothing.
  
  
• Additionally, the resolution's most inoffensive mandates are easily exploitable and open to evasion. Terminology such as conditioning minimisation of damage to the environment as "reasonable", mandating distribution of "necessary" resources, and only requiring reversal of damage from volcanic activity "within reason", allows delinquent member nations to avoid these duties and fail to protect their nations from volcanic activity by, for example, refusing to distribute resources on the basis that they are not "necessary", or defining attempts to minimise damage to the environment as not "reasonable".
  
  
• Lastly, nearly all of the resolution ultimately falls under the purview of "Disaster Precautions and Responses" and "Emergency Broadcasting Standards", which more comprehensively and competently legislate on all disaster situations, rather than narrowly only targetting one disaster situation. This renders the "Volcanic Activity Convention" obsolete, such that it covers nothing original in World Assembly law. Further, any flaws in these resolutions ought to be addressed by replacing them with similar omnibi, rather than only targetting an exceedingly narrow component of them.

[/list]

Resultantly concluding that, for these reasons, the resolution remains amateurish, puzzling, and redundant, and as resolutions cannot be amended -- only repealed -- thus ought to be repealed,

Unconvinced that there is anything good to be gained by keeping it in the books, instead that repeal of the resolution would help keep the body of World Assembly law clean from useless dross, the World Assembly

Strikes out and repeals the "Volcanic Activity Convention".

Agreeing with the resolution that volcanic activity can cause serious damage to nations and their populaces, and that strong measures are necessary to improve the safety of member nations from volcanic activity,

Dissatisfied with the resolution's self-professed "attempt" at this goal, as it has several overly restrictive, burdensome and metaphorically limp-wristed mandates that make it flawed to the point where repeal is necessary,

Believing that flawed legislation should not be kept in place because of the goal it ostensibly tries to achieve, and reminding member nations that a repeal of this resolution does not prevent the World Assembly from reestablishing protections to achieve similar aims but in a less burdensome and flawed way,

This World Assembly repeals the "Volcanic Activity Convention" for these reasons _

• The verbiage of 2b -- which, in an attempt to promote cooperation between nations at risk of volcanic activity, requires member nations at such risk to "provide aid to each other in an evacuation" -- does not include any sort of explicit or implicit condition that the evacuation aid be necessary or even helpful for the evacuation, or that the member nation be able to provide such aid. The resolution thus needlessly drains the funds of member nations that happen to be at risk of volcanic activity, as they are now forced to provide aid in every evacuation due to volcanic activity that occurs in the thousands of nations in the world, regardless of the need for such aid, while establishing no mechanism to support member nations unable to cope with this burden. A developing member nation may very well have to defund essential services such as education, public transport, and law enforcement, in order to assist in an evacuation of a small nation on the opposite side of the world which can proceed perfectly without such aid. Inefficient uses of member nation funds reduce the amount of funds available for more important projects funded by member nations -- including humanitarian aid for evacuating nations that actually require such aid.
  
  
• This mandate further flushes member nation funds down the toilet as the resolution omits any prohibition on member nations misusing such aid, or an allowance for member nations to deny aid to nations that misuse the aid. Thus, this mandate still forces member nations to throw money and resources at evacuating nations even if they are, for example, diverting all financial aid to politicians' off-shore bank accounts.
  
  
• The resolution also makes draconian demands through section 2di, which requires member nations to ensure that "anyone at immediate risk of volcanic activity knows how to evacuate, when to evacuate, and where to evacuate to". This includes persons who are mentally incompetent such that ensuring that they know how to evacuate is difficult or impossible -- such as infants, young children, or mentally incapacitated persons -- thus making compliance unrealistic. Further, such an unreasonable demand is not necessary, as the resolution itself implicitly acknowledges in requiring member nations to "evacuate those unable to evacuate themselves".
  
  
• Finally, while the resolution contains a number of overly restrictive and harmful mandates, its most inoffensive mandates can easily be exploited. Terminology such as conditioning minimisation of damage to the environment as "reasonable" and mandating provision of "necessary" resources allows delinquent member nations to avoid these duties and fail to protect their nations from volcanic activity by, for example, refusing to provide resources on the basis that they are not "necessary", or defining attempts to minimise damage to the environment as not "reasonable".

[Honeydewistania]

Against.

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

Against.

"Why so?"

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Coletti,
Senior Staffer of the Ice World Assembly mission,
Temporary World Assembly Ambassador in the absence of Duke Vliet,
The Empire of The Ice States

[Minskiev]

Hi, target author here.

The verbiage of 2b -- which, in an attempt to promote cooperation between nations at risk of volcanic activity, requires member nations at such risk to "provide aid to each other in an evacuation" -- does not include any sort of explicit or implicit condition that the evacuation aid be necessary or even helpful for the evacuation, or that the member nation be able to provide such aid

False. 2b reads:

Work with nations likely to be significantly affected to prepare for any volcanic activity via communication and combined efforts to protect the general public from volcanic activity or the damage it will or has caused, including providing aid to each other in an evacuation;

1) You posit that the aid doesn't need to be necessary. Member states aren't required to give unnecessary aid under this resolution. The mandate is "work with nations likely to be significantly affected to prepare for any volcanic activity via communication and combined efforts to protect the general public". So first, I highly doubt that nations likely to be significantly affected wouldn't need aid, meaning that your argument hardly applies to reality. Second, *if* the government is able to handle the situation without aid, then other member states may simply communicate or make efforts to protect the general public without sending aid (aid as in money or supplies). They may provide logistical aid with the evacuation, for example. Aid (as in money or supplies) is not mandated if it wouldn't protect the general public from volcanic activity or the damage it will or has caused, which is what the combined efforts are for.

2) You posit that the aid doesn't even need to be helpful. There was a GAer a while ago who loved to pull out dictionaries to make points. Most of their dictionary-backed arguments were nonsensical, but I hope this one lands.

Oxford: "help, typically of a practical nature." Help cannot be unhelpful, especially when practical.
Merriam-Webster: "help given : ASSISTANCE" & "tangible means of assistance (such as money or supplies)" -> assistance definition: "the act of helping or assisting someone or the help supplied : AID". How can assistance/helping someone be unhelpful?
Dictionary.com: "help or support; assistance." How can help or support be unhelpful?

3) As I said in point 1, member states may provide logistical aid and communication.

P.S. The GAer I mentioned in 2 loved to use "financial burden" in the way you do, despite it making no sense to me. Oh, and you misspelled bankruptcy.

This mandate further flushes member nation funds down the toilet as the resolution omits any mandate preventing member nations from misusing such aid, or an allowance for member nations to deny aid to nations that misuse the aid. Thus, this mandate still forces member nations to throw money and resources at evacuating nations even if they are, for example, diverting all financial aid to politicians' off-shore bank accounts.

False, as argued prior. This doesn't "force member nations to throw money and resources at evacuating nations".

The resolution also makes draconian demands through section 2di, which requires member nations to ensure that "anyone at immediate risk of volcanic activity knows how to evacuate, when to evacuate, and where to evacuate to". This includes persons who are mentally incompetent such that ensuring that they know how to evacuate is difficult or impossible -- such as mentally incapacitated persons -- thus making compliance unrealistic. The mandate is therefore too restrictive on member nations, and ultimately useless to the resolution's efforts.

This is a "draconian demand"? Anyway, to shut this down, the clause is to "take whichever evacuation measures ensure that anyone at immediate risk of volcanic activity knows how to evacuate, when to evacuate, and where to evacuate to". If it is impossible for one to know this information because of any mental incapacitation, then they are likely in some center. This center is likely not at "immediate risk of volcanic activity", so this argument applies rarely. But there are evacuation measures that ensure that there is nobody at immediate risk of VA who is wholly unable to know how to evacuate, when to evacuate, and where to evacuate to, which would be to relocate them to a safer place. Now, is this draconian? More so, but compliance is not "unrealistic".

Finally, while the resolution contains a number of excessively restrictive and harmful mandates, its most inoffensive mandates can easily be exploited. Terminology such as conditioning minimisation of damage to the environment as "reasonable" and mandating provision of "necessary" resources allows delinquent member nations to avoid these duties and fail to protect their nations from volcanic activity by, for example, refusing to provide resources on the basis that they are not "necessary", or defining attempts to minimise damage to the environment as not "reasonable".

This is mostly valid. Now, I'll argue with necessary. Necessary is not subjective like you claim it is. If the resources are necessary and unprovided, then the evacuation fails and because it'll be known that it was because of a lack of provided resources that were necessary to the success of the evacuation, the nation(s) that didn't provide the necessary resources because they claimed it was not necessary will be found to not be in compliance.

P.S. that former GAer I mentioned earlier also had a pretty bad track record of knowing which vague words were subjective or objective. Weird.

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

Ooc, as I assume the above post is also Ooc _

Hi, target author here.

The verbiage of 2b -- which, in an attempt to promote cooperation between nations at risk of volcanic activity, requires member nations at such risk to "provide aid to each other in an evacuation" -- does not include any sort of explicit or implicit condition that the evacuation aid be necessary or even helpful for the evacuation, or that the member nation be able to provide such aid

False. 2b reads:

Work with nations likely to be significantly affected to prepare for any volcanic activity via communication and combined efforts to protect the general public from volcanic activity or the damage it will or has caused, including providing aid to each other in an evacuation;

1) You posit that the aid doesn't need to be necessary. Member states aren't required to give unnecessary aid under this resolution. The mandate is "work with nations likely to be significantly affected to prepare for any volcanic activity via communication and combined efforts to protect the general public". So first, I highly doubt that nations likely to be significantly affected wouldn't need aid, meaning that your argument hardly applies to reality. Second, *if* the government is able to handle the situation without aid, then other member states may simply communicate or make efforts to protect the general public without sending aid (aid as in money or supplies). They may provide logistical aid with the evacuation, for example. Aid (as in money or supplies) is not mandated if it wouldn't protect the general public from volcanic activity or the damage it will or has caused, which is what the combined efforts are for.

Cool, that's not what the resolution says. I'd agree if it just said "communication and combined efforts to protect the general public from volcanic activity or the damage it will or has caused", which would be a common sense mandate. However, the resolution specifies that these efforts shall be "including providing aid to each other in an evacuation".

2) You posit that the aid doesn't even need to be helpful. There was a GAer a while ago who loved to pull out dictionaries to make points. Most of their dictionary-backed arguments were nonsensical, but I hope this one lands.

Oxford: "help, typically of a practical nature." Help cannot be unhelpful, especially when practical.
Merriam-Webster: "help given : ASSISTANCE" & "tangible means of assistance (such as money or supplies)" -> assistance definition: "the act of helping or assisting someone or the help supplied : AID". How can assistance/helping someone be unhelpful?
Dictionary.com: "help or support; assistance." How can help or support be unhelpful?

Do not misrepresent my views. I never argued that it would be harmful to the evacuator. I'm arguing that it would be a burden on the providing nation -- not the evacuator -- especially if it isn't necessary for the evacuation.

3) As I said in point 1, member states may provide logistical aid and communication.

This is the only fair point you have made so far.

P.S. The GAer I mentioned in 2 loved to use "financial burden" in the way you do, despite it making no sense to me. Oh, and you misspelled bankruptcy.

"financial burden" is actually rather well-used, including by you. The issue as to misspelling "bankruptcy" is noted and fixed.

The resolution also makes draconian demands through section 2di, which requires member nations to ensure that "anyone at immediate risk of volcanic activity knows how to evacuate, when to evacuate, and where to evacuate to". This includes persons who are mentally incompetent such that ensuring that they know how to evacuate is difficult or impossible -- such as mentally incapacitated persons -- thus making compliance unrealistic. The mandate is therefore too restrictive on member nations, and ultimately useless to the resolution's efforts.

This is a "draconian demand"? Anyway, to shut this down, the clause is to "take whichever evacuation measures ensure that anyone at immediate risk of volcanic activity knows how to evacuate, when to evacuate, and where to evacuate to". If it is impossible for one to know this information because of any mental incapacitation, then they are likely in some center. This center is likely not at "immediate risk of volcanic activity", so this argument applies rarely. But there are evacuation measures that ensure that there is nobody at immediate risk of VA who is wholly unable to know how to evacuate, when to evacuate, and where to evacuate to, which would be to relocate them to a safer place. Now, is this draconian? More so, but compliance is not "unrealistic".

This is also a fair point, and I admit that it isn't really the strongest argument. Nixed.

Finally, while the resolution contains a number of excessively restrictive and harmful mandates, its most inoffensive mandates can easily be exploited. Terminology such as conditioning minimisation of damage to the environment as "reasonable" and mandating provision of "necessary" resources allows delinquent member nations to avoid these duties and fail to protect their nations from volcanic activity by, for example, refusing to provide resources on the basis that they are not "necessary", or defining attempts to minimise damage to the environment as not "reasonable".

This is mostly valid. Now, I'll argue with necessary. Necessary is not subjective like you claim it is. If the resources are necessary and unprovided, then the evacuation fails and because it'll be known that it was because of a lack of provided resources that were necessary to the success of the evacuation, the nation(s) that didn't provide the necessary resources because they claimed it was not necessary will be found to not be in compliance.

"Necessary" for what? The mandate does nothing that the other mandates don't already do, because if they really are necessary to comply, they will already be distributed. Anything it is intended to do that other mandates don't already does nothing.

[Fort Concord]

Seven usages of a term across more than a decade is probably not the airtight evidence of frequent use you seem to think it is.

[Heavens Reach]

We're not sure this is actually ready for prime time, and we would want to see the actual replacement draft before making a decision on whether or not to support this

[Imperium Anglorum]

We're not sure this is actually ready for prime time, and we would want to see the actual replacement draft before making a decision on whether or not to support this

C Marcius Blythe. We disagree. A volcanic eruption is the same kind of natural disaster as that which we already handle with GA 570 "Disaster Precautions and Responses". It is simply not that different.

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

We're not sure this is actually ready for prime time, and we would want to see the actual replacement draft before making a decision on whether or not to support this

C Marcius Blythe. We disagree. A volcanic eruption is the same kind of natural disaster as that which we already handle with GA 570 "Disaster Precautions and Responses". It is simply not that different.

"The mission is in the process of drafting a replacement, but indeed, we are unconvinced that it would be entirely non-redundant to propose a replacement."

[Heavens Reach]

We're not sure this is actually ready for prime time, and we would want to see the actual replacement draft before making a decision on whether or not to support this

C Marcius Blythe. We disagree. A volcanic eruption is the same kind of natural disaster as that which we already handle with GA 570 "Disaster Precautions and Responses". It is simply not that different.

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We've submitted an approval

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

C Marcius Blythe. We disagree. A volcanic eruption is the same kind of natural disaster as that which we already handle with GA 570 "Disaster Precautions and Responses". It is simply not that different.

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We've submitted an approval

Ooc: The current submission is solely a test run, and is not intended to get to vote.

[Heavens Reach]

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We've submitted an approval

Ooc: The current submission is solely a test run, and is not intended to get to vote.

OOC: What is it a test run of, if not whether it accumulates approvals/votes or not?

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

Ooc: The current submission is solely a test run, and is not intended to get to vote.

OOC: What is it a test run of, if not whether it accumulates approvals/votes or not?

Legality, as concerns were raised of legality -- even though I strongly disagree with said concerns.

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

bump

[Minskiev]

Arf arf

[Honeydewistania]

The acrostic is highly immature, and sheds light on this draft being motivated by opposition to the author than to the actual policy. In that case, all iterations of this proposal by this author will be strongly opposed by our office and we will campaign heavily against this effort.

-Benji

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

The acrostic is highly immature, and sheds light on this draft being motivated by opposition to the author than to the actual policy. In that case, all iterations of this proposal by this author will be strongly opposed by our office and we will campaign heavily against this effort.

-Benji

"The acrostic -- which has since been removed -- was indeed a poor joke, and the staffer responsible has been reprimanded. However, our mission would have drafted a repeal of this target regardless of its authoring ambassador or mission. As resolutions cannot be amended, the listed flaws in the target are, in our view, serious enough to deserve repeal in any case."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Coletti,
Senior Staffer of the Ice World Assembly mission,
Temporary World Assembly Ambassador in the absence of Duke Vliet,
The Empire of The Ice States

[Heavens Reach]

The acrostic is highly immature, and sheds light on this draft being motivated by opposition to the author than to the actual policy. In that case, all iterations of this proposal by this author will be strongly opposed by our office and we will campaign heavily against this effort.

-Benji

"The acrostic -- which has since been removed -- was indeed a poor joke, and the staffer responsible has been reprimanded. However, our mission would have drafted a repeal of this target regardless of its authoring ambassador or mission. As resolutions cannot be amended, the listed flaws in the target are, in our view, serious enough to deserve repeal in any case."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Coletti,
Senior Staffer of the Ice World Assembly mission,
Temporary World Assembly Ambassador in the absence of Duke Vliet,
The Empire of The Ice States

You should not have removed it, since it's relevant to our decision to support or not support the proposal. You might want to hide it behind a spoiler, or some other similar act of contrition, to make it clear that you regret posting it, but erasing it altogether is a prime example of "dirty deleting"

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

"The acrostic -- which has since been removed -- was indeed a poor joke, and the staffer responsible has been reprimanded. However, our mission would have drafted a repeal of this target regardless of its authoring ambassador or mission. As resolutions cannot be amended, the listed flaws in the target are, in our view, serious enough to deserve repeal in any case."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Coletti,
Senior Staffer of the Ice World Assembly mission,
Temporary World Assembly Ambassador in the absence of Duke Vliet,
The Empire of The Ice States

You should not have removed it, since it's relevant to our decision to support or not support the proposal. You might want to hide it behind a spoiler, or some other similar act of contrition, to make it clear that you regret posting it, but erasing it altogether is a prime example of "dirty deleting"

Ooc: Done.

[The Ice States]

Bump.

[Honeydewistania]

We reiterate our opposition to this proposal based on the poir aguments (combined efforts would ensure that member nations know to not send aid they know will be siphoned into offshore accounts, and they can provide logistical aid or provide it directly instead of through corrupt leech middlemen), as well as the authoring delegation's petty vendetta against this proposal.

-Benji

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

We reiterate our opposition to this proposal based on the poir aguments (combined efforts would ensure that member nations know to not send aid they know will be siphoned into offshore accounts, and they can provide logistical aid or provide it directly instead of through corrupt leech middlemen), as well as the authoring delegation's petty vendetta against this proposal.

-Benji

"You have already declared your opposition, ambassador. However, it is simply untrue that nations can just provide other types of aid. For obvious reasons, diversion of aid will very rarely occur in public so that it is known that it is occuring during the evacuation process so as to give the providing member nation opportunity to change the type of aid it is providing in response to the diversion. Further, the WACC has greater organisation and impartiality to be able to duly investigate that diversion is occured. The correct solution is prohibiting and -- through the compliance mechanisms -- punishing diversion of aid such that member nations are reasonably deterred from doing so, thus minimising the diversion of aid. By allowing nations to divert aid without due consequences, the resolution will cause member nations to oftentimes end up throwing money and resources to corrupt nations."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Coletti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States

[Honeydewistania]

We reiterate our opposition to this proposal based on the poir aguments (combined efforts would ensure that member nations know to not send aid they know will be siphoned into offshore accounts, and they can provide logistical aid or provide it directly instead of through corrupt leech middlemen), as well as the authoring delegation's petty vendetta against this proposal.

-Benji

"You have already declared your opposition, ambassador. However, it is simply untrue that nations can just provide other types of aid. For obvious reasons, diversion of aid will very rarely occur in public so that it is known that it is occuring during the evacuation process so as to give the providing member nation opportunity to change the type of aid it is providing in response to the diversion. Further, the WACC has greater organisation and impartiality to be able to duly investigate that diversion is occured. The correct solution is prohibiting and -- through the compliance mechanisms -- punishing diversion of aid such that member nations are reasonably deterred from doing so, thus minimising the diversion of aid. By allowing nations to divert aid without due consequences, the resolution will cause member nations to oftentimes end up throwing money and resources to corrupt nations."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Coletti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States

Member nations are not foolish enough to not know if someone is likely to be corrupt, and they would also like to minimise the risk of wasted funds as much as possible by providing other forms of aid or ensuring that diversion is as unlikely as possible to occur. If a nation does not wish to take these steps themselves, it is likely that they simply don't care, so if they aren't bothered there's no reason to get into a big fuss about apparent lost funds by these nations. Also, the target of the resolution does not simply allow nations to divert aid without due consequences. That is simply nonsensical. Consequences can be levied by nations even without WACC sanctions. You are creating mountains out of molehills here.

-Benji

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

Member nations are not foolish enough to not know if someone is likely to be corrupt, and they would also like to minimise the risk of wasted funds as much as possible by providing other forms of aid or ensuring that diversion is as unlikely as possible to occur. If a nation does not wish to take these steps themselves, it is likely that they simply don't care, so if they aren't bothered there's no reason to get into a big fuss about apparent lost funds by these nations. Also, the target of the resolution does not simply allow nations to divert aid without due consequences. That is simply nonsensical. Consequences can be levied by nations even without WACC sanctions. You are creating mountains out of molehills here.

-Benji

"Your argument hinges on two assumptions: nations somehow will always know whether a nation will divert or is diverting aid; and the damage to a nation's reputation when diversion is exposed is sufficient to deter diversion. To address the first assumption, this is simply not the case. That diversion of foreign aid has occured, in fact, shows that it is not possible for nations to know 100% of the time whether aid will be diverted. (Ooc: See the articles linked in the OP.) To address the second assumption, many nations commit actions that would be damaging to a nation's reputation, and are still prohibited by World Assembly law; for example, allowing slavery, or performing genocide, or supporting piracy, or backing terrorist groups, or whatever else you want. World Assembly law against these actions is not unnecessary simply because doing it would be damaging to a nation's reputation. Not even World Assembly law is completely effective all of the time, insomuch as non-compliers exist -- so why do you believe that reputational damage will be able to sufficiently deter diversion of aid? Once again, the fact that diversion of humanitarian aid has occured is evidence that reputational damage does not necessarily deter diversion."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Coletti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States

[Honeydewistania]

I have no idea how you construed 'reputational damage' and knowing '100% of the time if someone's corrupt' out of my argument and proceeded to ignore my actual points, but alright. I do question how this is relevant to the proposal in question. Humanitarian Aid Coordination, which you cited, also provides aid to nations but makes no mention of diversion. And neither that nor Volcanic Activity Convention does not stop punishments from being levied, or entities making smart decisions during cooperations to mitigate the risk of corruption. You provide no solution to the problem of aid diversion, and repealing Volcanic Activity Convention will not do anything to that effect, as it will merely make less aid available to nations. If the solution to aid diversion is to cut off all aid, I am eager to see how this plays out on the voting floor.

-Benji