(PASSED) Missing Individuals Act

[Mousebumples]

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.

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

I appreciate whatever support your two delegations can provide on this subject. Certainly, if there any concerns that I can help to allay, please do let me know.

Yours in thanks,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador for the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

[Mahaj WA Seat]

I CAST THE FIRST VOTE!!!!!!!


FOR.

[TheNoonanator]

This is a very important proposal. With this, many lives could be rebuilt, I am all for this

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Ms. Harper expected this to pass and I hope the current opposition can be overcome. iFOR.

[Nervea]

We in Nervea support this resolution.

[Brustacia]

I didn't see any provisions in the measure to increase military or law enforcement budgets, despite the fact that it claims it will do so right beneath the name of the bill.

[Astrolinium]

We cannot support this on grounds of illegality.

International Security
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

...

Precisely what it sounds like. "International Security" increases government spending on the police and military while "Global Disarmament" reduces government spending on the police and military. Both resolutions affect the military more than they do the police, but they do affect both.

These categories can cover any kind of weaponry used by the police or military: including, but not limited to, conventional, nuclear, biological, chemical, space-based, and non-lethal.

Do not use these categories to establish a WA military force. These are resolutions to change the level of national government spending. The WA does not maintain its own standing military under any circumstances.

Relevant sections underlined. Nowhere in your proposal do I see provisions to increase any budget for anything.

[Chalskanaka]

The Commonwealth of Chalskanaka is in favor of this proposal. We especially enjoy how it is written in such a way that allows WA member nations to deal with the details. Instead of forcing one ideal set of rules on all WA member nations.

[Flibbleites]

I didn't see any provisions in the measure to increase military or law enforcement budgets, despite the fact that it claims it will do so right beneath the name of the bill.

We cannot support this on grounds of illegality.

International Security
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

...

Precisely what it sounds like. "International Security" increases government spending on the police and military while "Global Disarmament" reduces government spending on the police and military. Both resolutions affect the military more than they do the police, but they do affect both.

These categories can cover any kind of weaponry used by the police or military: including, but not limited to, conventional, nuclear, biological, chemical, space-based, and non-lethal.

Do not use these categories to establish a WA military force. These are resolutions to change the level of national government spending. The WA does not maintain its own standing military under any circumstances.

Relevant sections underlined. Nowhere in your proposal do I see provisions to increase any budget for anything.

First off, you're both wrong. If you think about it this clause here,

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,

it will require nations spend more money because someone has to submit that info to the MIA and presumably they'll be drawing a paycheck.

Secondly, if you're going to make an illegality claim do so before it's at vote that way if it is actually illegal the Secretariat can actually do something about it.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Parti Ouvrier]

We have decided to abstain.

CJ
Diplomat for the DRPO

[Audiles]

While the impetus behind this act is laudable, we cannot support its current incarnation. Sympathizing with the Minoan delegation's concern for the rights of voluntarily missing persons, and with Ambassador Quelesh's further thinking along those lines as well as matters of cultural and infrastructural differences, we vote in the negative.

[Mahaj WA Seat]

We have decided to abstain.

CJ
Diplomat for the DRPO

Moosebumples?

[Punk Reloaded]

After much consideration, we have decided to vote against.

[Theyzer]

As the Regional Delegate for the Tea Party Movement we have voted to approve the current resoultion.

[Corellan]

I have decided to vote against this.

[Akbarastan]

While I applaud the thought behind this resolution and think a similiar resolution should be passed, we as a nation will vote against this resolution as it may have terrible unintended consequences for human rights.

Firstly, it does not specify exactly what a "missing person" is. Theoretically, any person could be classified as a "missing person" include politcal dissidents in exile.

Along the same line, all WA nations would be required to share relevent information about said missing person's location. In the case of political dissdents in exile, the secrecy of their locations may be a matter of life or death.

This resolution also gives the individual nations power to deport any "missing person" back to their country of origin against their will, without necessarily knowing the rationale of the person's disappearence. A minor who was forced into child slavery back in their home country and fled across international boarders may be deported back to their home nation without the deporting nation knowing the facts of the case. For these reasons, we will vote against the resolution and will attempt to have it repealed if passed.

[Huntersunited]

I disagree on the grounds that security is a bad thing, countries go to war specifically for their security, Huntersunited has many times, and we would prefer not to again. The very fact that you use security rhetoric means that you are endorsing security, which is an evil and destructive force. Securing yourself means seeing other people as "outsiders" and "others", which causes your nation to dehumanize them. This leads to high chances of genocide and war, and should not be passed on these grounds.

[Mallorea and Riva]

I disagree on the grounds that security is a bad thing, countries go to war specifically for their security, Huntersunited has many times, and we would prefer not to again. The very fact that you use security rhetoric means that you are endorsing security, which is an evil and destructive force. Securing yourself means seeing other people as "outsiders" and "others", which causes your nation to dehumanize them. This leads to high chances of genocide and war, and should not be passed on these grounds.

Zakath dropped the four juggling pins he had been practicing with, cursing as one landed on his foot

Ambassador what on earth are you talking about? Security is essential to a nation, and the use of security rhetoric does not entail the endorsement of genocide. Your premises are absurd.

[Roebiquestan]

The nation if Roebiquestan lauds your goal and the intent behind it as being good. Howeve I, being the leader, can't vote for this in good conscience.
First off, it seems to intrusive towards a nation. Would they legally be required to return a person if their "parent" nation thought they were in danger? What if someone ran away because they didn't agree with the rules and laws? Would we then be required to return them, even if it could mean their death as a political prisoner? I'm not saying that it will happen, but merely that is what I read from the law.
My second issue with the law flows directly from the first. If WA nations are required to return a missing person then maybe people leaving their nations will go to a non-WA state, possibly a rogue state. They would do this knowing that nation wouldn't be required to return them.

I think there needs to be a better definition for "missing". Right now it is too vague. Also, it can't be left up to the individual nation because o the diversity of ideals and cultures within the WA. What one nation sees as a runaway another might see as a political prisoner.

[Alsted]

The stack is on; I love it.

[Incredible Bums]

While I applaud the thought behind this resolution and think a similiar resolution should be passed, we as a nation will vote against this resolution as it may have terrible unintended consequences for human rights.

Firstly, it does not specify exactly what a "missing person" is. Theoretically, any person could be classified as a "missing person" include politcal dissidents in exile.

Along the same line, all WA nations would be required to share relevent information about said missing person's location. In the case of political dissdents in exile, the secrecy of their locations may be a matter of life or death.

This resolution also gives the individual nations power to deport any "missing person" back to their country of origin against their will, without necessarily knowing the rationale of the person's disappearence. A minor who was forced into child slavery back in their home country and fled across international boarders may be deported back to their home nation without the deporting nation knowing the facts of the case. For these reasons, we will vote against the resolution and will attempt to have it repealed if passed.

...brought to the point ! For the same reasons the delegate of the nation of incredible bums will vote against...
and then, some more unclarified questions : what, if the "missing person" meanwhile was granted "citizenship" in another country ? Would she be still a "missing person" (in theoretical case of dissidents) and subject to to the rules of this resolution ? And isn´t it against personal human (individual) rights to share "information" about a "missing individual", if this "individual" doesn´t want to be "found" ? There are some free and democratic nations like ours, which don´t see their citizens as "state property"...

have a nice day, ladies and gentlemen

Snorting Grunt, current head of state

[New Aventine]

While I applaud the thought behind this resolution and think a similiar resolution should be passed, we as a nation will vote against this resolution as it may have terrible unintended consequences for human rights.

Firstly, it does not specify exactly what a "missing person" is. Theoretically, any person could be classified as a "missing person" include politcal dissidents in exile.

Along the same line, all WA nations would be required to share relevent information about said missing person's location. In the case of political dissdents in exile, the secrecy of their locations may be a matter of life or death.

This resolution also gives the individual nations power to deport any "missing person" back to their country of origin against their will, without necessarily knowing the rationale of the person's disappearence. A minor who was forced into child slavery back in their home country and fled across international boarders may be deported back to their home nation without the deporting nation knowing the facts of the case. For these reasons, we will vote against the resolution and will attempt to have it repealed if passed.

After much deliberation in New Aventine, our Parliament has decided to vote against this resolution, for the reasons outlined above.

[Bassetland (Ancient)]

Great Region of EU: FOR

[Mousebumples]

(OOC: First, an apology for taking so long to respond to this thread, even though it's been at vote for (almost!) 24 hours now. Work yesterday ran late, and I basically just went to bed last night after getting home. I submitted when I had time to run a good TG campaign, but the way the queue worked out means that I have less free time to debate/etc., for both this proposal and the repeal before it.)

I'd like to begin by thanking those who have registered their votes In Favor. Your support is greatly appreciated.

So far as the concerns regarding political refugees, etc., being covered under this proposal's text ... I don't believe that's true - unless your nation wishes to recognize such claims from other nations.

As many of you in this body are aware, I'm a big proponent of National Sovereignty when it comes to GA proposal writing. I'm also not a big fan of turning proposals into dictionaries. It's difficult to create an airtight definition that cannot be exploited or be used to subvert the original intent of the proposal.

Both of these beliefs are dependent on using the Reasonable Nation Theory when interpreting the text of proposals and resolutions. The combination of that theory and some of the nice, NatSov-friendly clauses in this proposal make me confident that the security issues with regards to political refugees, etc., are overstated.

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,
"reasonable protocols" is the key phrase here, as that's what's required by this particular clause. Those protocols are meant to help prevent abductions and assist with the safe recovery of all. I would think that the "reasonable protocols" of a Reasonable Nation would include a list of whom a given nation would consider to be a "missing individual" subject to the details of this proposal.

ENCOURAGES the development of strong working relationships between WA member nations and any neighboring nations in order to better coordinate international efforts in the event of an international missing persons case.
I'm also a big fan of minimizing WA intervention in most areas of national governance, and I included this clause to encourage nations to work together on their own to help solve international missing persons cases. I don't need or want the WA holding my hand and telling me when I can breathe, blink, and go to the bathroom.

ALLOWS for WA member nations to add additional protocols and procedures within their own borders as appropriate for their nation's population and cultural needs.
This clause lets you add further protocols and procedures, beyond what's already covered in this proposal. For example, my nation will be stipulating that the MIA inclusion of individuals who have been "lost, abducted, or run away" will apply only to the following categories of people:

• Lost: this will apply to those who cannot be reasonably expected to assist in their own recovery (i.e. young children, elderly individuals with dementia, individuals of all ages who are mentally incapacitated, etc.); an adult individual of sound mind and body would be unlikely to fit under this categorization
• Abducted: individual must have been abducted against their will; some supporting evidence will be required for a missing individual to be categorized as being "abducted" (i.e. a witness report of the abduction, a random demand, a previously documented threat against their person, etc.)
• Run Away (national): this will only apply to minors within our nation, and we will use the family counseling program detailed in the proposal to determine if the runaway should be returned to their home; we will do our best to locate all runaways but we will not force any minors to return to an unsafe environment and will do our best to provide them with a good home environment
• Run Away (international): should a minor from a different nation run away to Mousebumples, we will do our best to locate the individual to determine that they are safe and unhurt; however, depending on the circumstances, we may not be willing to return the runaway to their home country/parents, depending on the circumstances in a given situation.

Certainly, I embrace the right of your nation to create your own definitions, as appropriate for your nation's needs. I think the above definitions are more than reasonable, but I understand that not all nations are like mine. As such, if you wish to expand some of the definitions with your borders, you're welcome to do so. If you wish to further limit the definitions within your borders, you're welcome to do so.

If there are further concerns, or if some of your concerns remain despite the growing length of this response, please do let me know. (OOC: I'll be at work later tonight for awhile, so whatever I am unable to respond to before then will likely not be addressed for 24+ hours.)

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

[Chalskanaka]

For those who keep bringing up "what if [enter nation] abused this?"
If all proposals were judged on what a small few might misuse them for; then, none would ever be passed. All proposals can be subverted if one simply tries hard enough. Judge this on what it will do for the majority.

The Commonwealth of Chalskanaka believes the needs of the many out-weigh the needs of the few.

Yours, sincerely, the beloved Prime-minister of Chalskanaka.