(PASSED) Missing Individuals Act

[Jasarite]

this has my support.

[Parti Ouvrier]

this has my support.

I'm instinctively oppose to the politics of fear. We will oppose all resolutions using emotional blackmail, there are enough of them already in the WA.

CJ

[Mousebumples]

REQUIRES that all WA member nations have reasonable protocols in place that both prevent abductions of their residents and also aid in the safe recovery of all missing individuals,

If the police track down a missing individual and learn that she does not wish to be recovered, does the fact that the government now knows where she is meet the "safe recovery" requirement? I suppose this isn't such a big deal, since this clause only requires "reasonable protocols" that "aid" a safe recovery; it does not require that any "recovery" actually take place.

Pretty much. I want to at least ATTEMPT to track down runaways to be sure that they have ACTUALLY run away. I'd hate to have runaway "escapes" faked as a cover for an actual abduction, which is why I have this clause in here and am including runaways. Safe recovery, in my mind, AT MINIMUM requires ensuring the individual is safe and recovering them from any kidnappers and/or danger that may be present.

SPECIFIES that member states may determine whether runaways from within their jurisdiction should be returned to their home,

I do like this clause, at least insofar as it allows us to leave runaways alone, at least so long as they are not "suspected or known" to have crossed a national border.

Essentially, yes.

MANDATES that the relevant local and national agencies share relevant information through MIA and also cooperate with other WA member nations whenever it is suspected or known that a missing individual has moved across a national border,

If someone from another member state runs away and makes his way to Quelesh, and our law enforcement is notified by MIA or by the other member state that he may be in our nation, would we be required to apprehend him? Would we be required to force him to return to his nation of origin if he does not want to go back? Would this affect our ability to grant him asylum?

That's where you need to "cooperate with other WA member nations." However, speaking as the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples, if you would refuse diplomatic efforts to get a runaway minor returned to his home nation ... it would likely sour diplomatic relations between us. Nothing is "required," insofar as asylum granting being allowed or disallowed. However, decisions you make in this regard will reflect on your nation's international reputation and - depending on what nations you (potentially) cross - could lead to various military conflicts.

Also, does the requirement to "cooperate with other WA member nations" compel us to extradite any individuals that the other nation believes were involved in an abduction, even if there is a possibility that they will be put to death?

I am NOT covering extradition within this proposal. As it is not outlawed by current WA law, that would be a yes, I would expect. If you are concerned about that eventuality, I'd suggest writing a proposal draft on the subject.

STIPULATES that all who were knowingly involved in the abduction of an individual shall be prosecuted to the full extent of national and international law,

I appreciate the addition of the word "knowingly" to this clause; however, this wording could still require the prosecution of someone who was unwillingly involved. If Person A holds a gun to Person B's head and demands that Person B participate in an abduction, we should not be required to prosecute Person B for complying with Person A's demand, even though Person B was "knowingly involved."

Granted, there is somewhat of a loophole in this clause, in that it only requires prosecution "to the full extent of... [the] law." If our law does not allow for the prosecution of those who were unwillingly involved in an act (the full extent of the law does not allow any prosecution at all), then the requirement of the clause has been met. However, I would still be happier with the inclusion of the word "willingly" or something similar.

The loophole you mention is intentional. Each nation has their own laws, and - presumably - those living/residing in such a nation know the laws.

Also, Person B in your scenario could potentially be viewed as another abductee. They are being forced to do something or go somewhere against their will. Depending on how all the details play out, I think they could be included as a "victim."

[Mousebumples]

As we have said before we support this.

Many thanks for your support, Honorable Duchess.

this has my support.

Your nation's support is greatly appreciated.

I'm instinctively oppose to the politics of fear. We will oppose all resolutions using emotional blackmail, there are enough of them already in the WA.

You are entitled to your opinion, Ambassador, but I would like to encourage a reconsideration on the subject as this needs effective GA legislation, in my mind, regardless of the presence of "emotional blackmail," as you term it.

[Cool Egg Sandwich]

Hey I just wanted to reiterate that for consistency of language you should refer to WA members as either 1) member nations or 2) member states.

You seem to use both at various points; just from a stylistic point of view it would be better to pick one and stick with it.

Rgds.,

[Mousebumples]

Hey I just wanted to reiterate that for consistency of language you should refer to WA members as either 1) member nations or 2) member states.

You seem to use both at various points; just from a stylistic point of view it would be better to pick one and stick with it.

Rgds.,

I probably do. Damn edits on differing occasions. I'll make a note to change that when I'm less tired.

Thanks for the observation.

[Cool Egg Sandwich]

Hey I just wanted to reiterate that for consistency of language you should refer to WA members as either 1) member nations or 2) member states.

You seem to use both at various points; just from a stylistic point of view it would be better to pick one and stick with it.

Rgds.,

I probably do. Damn edits on differing occasions. I'll make a note to change that when I'm less tired.

Thanks for the observation.

Pretty much the only thing I'm good at...

[Mousebumples]

Pretty much the only thing I'm good at...

"Ah, in that case ... " Nikolas begins before leaning over to whisper some quick instructions to a nearby flunky. She quickly leaves the room and returns shortly thereafter with a cardboard box under her arm. She deposits the box on Ambassador Darke's desk and promptly retreats back to the Mousebumplonian delegation thereafter.

"We found these super-zoom goggles in one of the offices that we, uh, appropriated. Each member of my delegation has excellent vision, so we have no real need for these goggles. However, given your skill at 'observing' ... I thought you may have a use for these to better refine your skills."

Sincerely yours,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador for the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

[Cool Egg Sandwich]

Why thank you, Mr. Eberhart; what a fine gift this is. I shall cherish this on those long nights spent "observing" through my neighbor's windows.....

[Parti Ouvrier]

If there is a realization that most countries have procedures in place to deal with missing individuals, then why the moral panic and call for this resolution? I think we're all capable of pulling together to help one another find our missing individuals yet the bureaucratic MB believes the WA should have a resolution in place to tell us what we already know from experience.

Take this for example:

REQUIRES that all WA member nations have reasonable protocols in place that both prevent abductions of their residents and also aid in the safe recovery of all missing individuals,

The implication is that we are not competent enough to work out any protocols and like children, we must be instructed that we should have protocols. Oh, and ones to prevent abductions of our residents as if there is a sudden explosion of individuals being abducted. This is yet another example of what happens when we do not have due vigilance, the main abduction I see here is one of the right to what I.Kant said, to 'use our own understanding without the guidance from others.' Of course we should not be surprised that the misanthropists shove this liberty reducing resolution on the basis of something that might happen so we must have preventative protocols in place for this. The author naturally reveals their own authoritarianism in writing this resolution, a cynic would think this is an excuse to increase military and police spending, but I think the politics of fear of something bad might happen is what really inspired this resolution.

Remain opposed.

CJ

[Mousebumples]

If there is a realization that most countries have procedures in place to deal with missing individuals, then why the moral panic and call for this resolution? I think we're all capable of pulling together to help one another find our missing individuals yet the bureaucratic MB believes the WA should have a resolution in place to tell us what we already know from experience.

Take this for example:

REQUIRES that all WA member nations have reasonable protocols in place that both prevent abductions of their residents and also aid in the safe recovery of all missing individuals,

The implication is that we are not competent enough to work out any protocols and like children, we must be instructed that we should have protocols. Oh, and ones to prevent abductions of our residents as if there is a sudden explosion of individuals being abducted. This is yet another example of what happens when we do not have due vigilance, the main abduction I see here is one of the right to what I.Kant said, to 'use our own understanding without the guidance from others.' Of course we should not be surprised that the misanthropists shove this liberty reducing resolution on the basis of something that might happen so we must have preventative protocols in place for this. The author naturally reveals their own authoritarianism in writing this resolution, a cynic would think this is an excuse to increase military and police spending, but I think the politics of fear of something bad might happen is what really inspired this resolution.

I'm not at all familiar with this "I.Kant" fellow you mention, but this proposal was prompted and drafted as a result to the terribly overreaching and unnecessary resolutions on the subject that have already needed to be repealed. This proposal IS very friendly to national governments and their ability to conduct business on their own. In fact, should this proposal pass, it would ensure the right of governments to continue to operate in such a way.

Further, the clause you cite is standard inclusion within a GA proposal of this type. You state the obvious that MOST nations already cover in order to ensure that even the more "rogue" nations will be doing so after the passage of such a proposal.

However, If you cannot be bothered to support a proposal that will SUPPORT your nation as it continues to search for missing individuals in order to safely recover them, then I see no point in arguing the point with you further.

[Serrland]

The Serri delegation finds this to be a well-crafted and much-needed resolution. However, it would wish to offer a suggestion regarding the wording of one of the clauses, quoted below.

STIPULATES that all who were knowingly involved in the illegal/illicit abduction of an individual shall be prosecuted to the full extent of national and international law,

[Sanctaria]

The Serri delegation finds this to be a well-crafted and much-needed resolution. However, it would wish to offer a suggestion regarding the wording of one of the clauses, quoted below.

STIPULATES that all who were knowingly involved in the illegal/illicit abduction of an individual shall be prosecuted to the full extent of national and international law,

I may be having a mind blank here, but when is an abduction legal, Ambassador? I think the word abduction has a very clear meaning - taken against their will.

Rgds.,

[Serrland]

The Serri delegation finds this to be a well-crafted and much-needed resolution. However, it would wish to offer a suggestion regarding the wording of one of the clauses, quoted below.

I may be having a mind blank here, but when is an abduction legal, Ambassador? I think the word abduction has a very clear meaning - taken against their will.

Rgds.,

The Serri delegation requested that change with police actions in mind - legal incarceration in a gaol or other such facilities is not so terribly different from abduction in certain circumstances. Related are non-consensual assignments to psychiatric facilities.

[Knootoss]

I still think this resolution is shiny.

Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

[Parti Ouvrier]

We've never voted for any of MB's resolutions because I wasn't around at the time, but they weren't half bad. That is to say I might have voted for them, I certainly would not have voted against them. However this resolution gives me the impression of a delegate desperate to get another resolution on their list of achievements, only this one is so very grey and far from shiny. The last resolution I voted for was shiny because it was bold. The last resolution represented fearlessness,(Res. #142) this one represents an uninspiring dullness and fearfulness.

Remain opposed.

CJ

[Mousebumples]

The Serri delegation requested that change with police actions in mind - legal incarceration in a gaol or other such facilities is not so terribly different from abduction in certain circumstances. Related are non-consensual assignments to psychiatric facilities.

Does your nation prosecute individuals who are involved with police actions? If not, I see no legal punishment that would be applicable under the "fullest extent of the law" provision.

If the action is not rendered illegal in your nation (or within the GA as a whole; however, I doubt that we'll be outlawing such activities) ... there is no prosecution that would need to happen. (However, I believe the psychiatric example is currently outlawed by Uni's heath resolution.)

I suppose a nation could also, technically, use this as a loophole by making abductions legal in their borders. But I'd figure that has to be covered under GA law somewhere, right? (I must admit that I am actually far too lazy to check right now.)

I think that the current wording is simple and straightforward, so while I do appreciate the suggestion, I will be sticking with the current wording in this circumstance.

We've never voted for any of MB's resolutions because I wasn't around at the time, but they weren't half bad. That is to say I might have voted for them, I certainly would not have voted against them. However this resolution gives me the impression of a delegate desperate to get another resolution on their list of achievements, only this one is so very grey and far from shiny. The last resolution I voted for was shiny because it was bold. The last resolution represented fearlessness,(Res. #142) this one represents an uninspiring dullness and fearfulness.

Remain opposed.

Yes. Because the only possible reason why anyone here would ever submit a resolution that you disagree with is because I'm just trying to 'add another resolution to my list of achievements.'

Right. I'm definitely going to going with the "agree to disagree" with regards to your opinion on this proposal from here on out.

[Bears Armed]

I suppose a nation could also, technically, use this as a loophole by making abductions legal in their borders. But I'd figure that has to be covered under GA law somewhere, right? (I must admit that I am actually far too lazy to check right now.)

Here.

[Parti Ouvrier]

I suppose a nation could also, technically, use this as a loophole by making abductions legal in their borders. But I'd figure that has to be covered under GA law somewhere, right? (I must admit that I am actually far too lazy to check right now.)

Here.

Res. #84 already covers forced disappearances for the furtherment of democracy I understand.Which begs the question of why we need an international resolution such as this for a far more commonly national problem such as 'Missing Individuals Act' which is mostly a re-hash of earlier resolution proposals,(merely using different words of course) on this subject and to re-ignite the author's own sense of moral purpose. Such is the bankruptcy of ideas that we now have to debate this "dreck", er resolution proposal.

Junior Diplomat to the World Assembly
Chris Jones

[Mousebumples]

After more than a month with no further comments, this proposal has been submitted!

Delegates, please approve!

[Mousebumples]

This is the next proposal in the queue and set to be at vote in about .... 15-ish hours. I won't be around then to bump this up (or to answer queries during the early At Vote process), so I figured I'd see if there were any last minute questions or queries that I could respond to now.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to thank all the delegates who approved this proposal. Your support is, as always, greatly appreciated.

[Mahaj WA Seat]

I guess I can tentatively offer support...

[Mousebumples]

I guess I can tentatively offer support...

Any particular reservations as to why your support is "tentative" at this time?

Regardless, your support is appreciated.

[Groundisred]

Any man, woman, or child who are taken as hostages or for random - or for any demeaning purpose, against their will, is inadmissible as a legal act towards another being. In regards to a person's liberty, we should not declare it as admissible to allow someone to be taken forcefully..

I support this, and my resolve is in favor of this - granted, this is at quorum.

My state's support, nonetheless, is quite evident.

[Punk Reloaded]

I can almost support this. I will give this resolution considerable consideration.