[PASSED] Promotion of International Education

by **NERVUN** » Mon Jul 04, 2011 12:25 am

At Vote starting here

As in very rough draft. Catagory BTW is education:

Edit: Second draft, hopefully addresses some security concerns, adds in visa requirements (Because I'm an idiot and forgot the whole health issue *sighs*, and number caps because I forgot that too).

Edit p3: Strikes the bit about being in the GAO since everyone seems to feel this should be its own little commitee.

Edit p4: Third draft up, noted OEX as final board of arbitration for irreconciable differences, makes clear that other exhcange programs beyond this one are acceptable and welcome.

Promotion of International Education

The World Assembly:

Desiring to promote peace and international good will

Realizing that among the best ways to accomplish this is to promote student exchanges and study abroad programs for young adults attending institutions of higher education in the hopes that memories of other places and people will broaden their minds.

I. Definitions:
1. Higher education as institutes providing post-secondary education that leads to the granting of an academic degree such as, but not limited to, colleges, universities, research institutes, or military academies; OR providing education that leads to the granting of a professional license or rating such as, but not limited to, medical schools or technical-trade schools.

2. Student exchanges as fully enrolled/matriculated students attending an institution of higher education other than their own in a foreign country for a short period of no less than one academic term and no longer than two academic years with the degree/license/rating granted by their original institution.

3. Study abroad as fully enrolled/matriculated students attending an institution of higher education in a foreign country until transferring to a new institution, quitting the institution and returning to their home nation, or fulfilling requirements for their degree program/license/rating.

II. Office for Education Exchange
1. Creates the Office for Education Exchange (OEX).
(a) Charges OEX with developing guidelines promoting student exchanges and study abroad programs within institutes of higher education of member states as well as
(b) Accredit institutes of higher education within member states as having satisfied said guidelines as well as
(c) Develop scholarship programs to allow for students who currently experience financial burden to attend either a student exchange or study abroad.
(d) Designates OEX as the final binding board of arbitration regarding irreconcilable conflicts between institutes of higher education in matters of credit transfers and course applicability to the students’ degree program/license/rating.

III. Institutes of Higher Education
1. Requires member states with such to designate at least one institute of higher education as a candidate for accreditation by OEX for a student exchange or study abroad program.

2. Prohibits discrimination against students in student exchanges or study abroad programs; excepting:
(a) Allows member states to set reasonable requirements for enrollment based on academic standing, language ability, physical requirements (Where needed and in accordance with international law), and/or financial ability.
(b) Allows restrictions to sensitive information and/or facilities where access to such would normally be controlled.
(c) Requires students to meet all other visa requirements of the host nation in accordance with international law.
(d) Allows institutions of higher education to set enrollment caps on the number of foreign students it accepts.

3. Requires OEX accredited institutions of higher education in member states to accept grades/credits from other OEX accredited institutions of higher education.

4. Encourages member states to promote student exchanges or study abroad to their own youth.
(a) Encourages and allows member states to have multiple exchange/study abroad programs beyond this resolution.

Current count at 3403. So... thoughts?

by **EY Diplomatic Headquarters** » Mon Jul 04, 2011 12:30 am

Wouldn't placing it under the GAO be rather funny?

Interesting concept.

by **Moronist Decisions** » Mon Jul 04, 2011 12:36 am

Makes sense given that A Promotion of Basic Education

Establishes a division of the WA General Accounting Office (GAO), entitled the Global Initiative for Basic Education (GIBE) to oversee the creation, accuracy and continuance of a registrar that lists all member nations that are currently deemed to be genuinely unable to economically support the requirements of basic edification based on this document;

We support this in question, but ...

A couple of questions:

1. Would it be possible to exclude students from e.g. military school or sensitive defense training programs, where it would normally require significant background checks?

2. 3(a) I believe can be combined with the main clause.

3. What if we have no institutes of higher education?

by **Knootoss** » Mon Jul 04, 2011 12:40 am

Knootoss can support the basic thinking behind this. However, we already have a resolution that deals with the accreditation of diplomas by national national institutions. It seems unnecessary, not to mention needlessly intrusive, to have an additional WA institute that deals with accreditation.

As mentioned before, a national security clause would be good as well. ((I study at a university IRL where Pakistani students helped to steal nuclear secrets that contributed to them making a-bombs. This is not just a reactionary fantasy.))

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

by **NERVUN** » Mon Jul 04, 2011 12:41 am

EY Diplomatic Headquarters wrote:Wouldn't placing it under the GAO be rather funny?

Interesting concept.

Eh, the other education committee is currently living there. Who am I to buck a trend?

Moronist Decisions wrote:We support this in question, but ...

A couple of questions:

1. Would it be possible to exclude students from e.g. military school or sensitive defense training programs, where it would normally require significant background checks?

2. 3(a) I believe can be combined with the main clause.

3. What if we have no institutes of higher education?

1. We ask that at least one insitute of higher education be open for exchanges, we didn't say all of them. We felt that a number of nations would be willing to have military exchanges, thus we left the possibility open for it, but by no means require it.

2. You're probably right, long day.

3. We did include technical/trade schools for that. We suppose that it could be written as "1. Requires member states with such to designate at least one institute of higher education as a candidate for accreditation by OEX for a student exchange or study abroad program."

by **NERVUN** » Mon Jul 04, 2011 12:44 am

Knootoss wrote:Knootoss can support the basic thinking behind this. However, we already have a resolution that deals with the accreditation of diplomas by national national institutions. It seems unnecessary, not to mention needlessly intrusive, to have an additional WA institute that deals with accreditation.

As mentioned before, a national security clause would be good as well. ((I study at a university IRL where Pakistani students helped to steal nuclear secrets that contributed to them making a-bombs. This is not just a reactionary fantasy.))

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

To address your concerns:

This is slightly different from accredidation of diplomas. OEX would be helping develop exchange agreements between member states and certifying that such programs follow WA guidelines allowing for student exchanges/study abroad to take place.

And as noted, there's nothing saying that a member state has to open its military academies.

by **Knootoss** » Mon Jul 04, 2011 12:46 am

True. I suppose that Knootoss can always designate the Catholic Higher Household School for Girls (teaching valuable life skills such as knitting) as our official WA Assembly exchange school and legislate its other educational institutions as normal.

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

by **EY Diplomatic Headquarters** » Mon Jul 04, 2011 12:47 am

Knootoss wrote:True. I suppose that Knootoss can always designate the Catholic Higher Household School for Girls (teaching valuable life skills such as knitting) as our official WA Assembly exchange school and legislate its other educational institutions as normal.

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

What about male students?

by **Moronist Decisions** » Mon Jul 04, 2011 12:47 am

NERVUN wrote:1. We ask that at least one insitute of higher education be open for exchanges, we didn't say all of them. We felt that a number of nations would be willing to have military exchanges, thus we left the possibility open for it, but by no means require it.

The real issue being that we have embedded much sensitive work - e.g. military and defense studies, biodefense, and chemical defense to name just a few - in the regular universities. We recommend altering III.3 to add in

(b) Allows nations in cases where the field of study has direct national security applications, to limit enrolment by exchange students for national security purposes.

Or some such.

by **Quelesh** » Mon Jul 04, 2011 12:51 am

What if a nation does not have any institutions that grant professional licenses or degrees? Would it then be able to comply with III.1?

Quelesh has a couple of certificate-issuing institutions, but these are mainly used by those who need to do business in foreign countries that require some kind of certification.

by **NERVUN** » Mon Jul 04, 2011 1:52 am

Moronist Decisions wrote:
NERVUN wrote:1. We ask that at least one insitute of higher education be open for exchanges, we didn't say all of them. We felt that a number of nations would be willing to have military exchanges, thus we left the possibility open for it, but by no means require it.

The real issue being that we have embedded much sensitive work - e.g. military and defense studies, biodefense, and chemical defense to name just a few - in the regular universities. We recommend altering III.3 to add in

(b) Allows nations in cases where the field of study has direct national security applications, to limit enrolment by exchange students for national security purposes.

Or some such.

How about:

2. Prohibits discrimination against students in student exchanges or study abroad programs, excepting:
(a) Allows member states to set reasonable requirements for enrollment based on academic standing, language ability, physical requirements (Where needed and in accordance with international law), and/or financial ability.
(b) Allows restrictions to sensitive information and facilities where access to such would normally be controlled.

This, we feel, should allow areas that normally would require background checks, restrictions, etc. to be placed off limits while still allowing for access elsewhere.

Quelesh wrote:What if a nation does not have any institutions that grant professional licenses or degrees? Would it then be able to comply with III.1?

Quelesh has a couple of certificate-issuing institutions, but these are mainly used by those who need to do business in foreign countries that require some kind of certification.

As stated, we would be open to amending that to "1. Requires member states with such to designate at least one institute of higher education as a candidate for accreditation by OEX for a student exchange or study abroad program." However, we also note that our proposal includes technical-trade schools that issue ratings such as certified mechanics, journeyman, etc.

by **Knootoss** » Mon Jul 04, 2011 2:03 am

While Knootoss is an extremely open society, and one that is welcoming foreign exchange students in general, I would like for the author to recognise the great strength of this proposal. The great strength of this proposal is in that it mandates nations to open their borders to foreign exchange students from all World Assembly member nations. Considering this, it really is quite reasonable that nations would like the ability to restrict access purely on the basis of nationality or principles of national security. For example, to exclude nations with which one is at war, or which have a reputation for using immigration to ship in terrorists.

This is simply a matter of making sure that nations retain control of who passes their own borders. The author can afford to be a little bit more generous in allowing nations to impose reasonable restrictions on programme participants.

I have a few other suggestions, but would first like to see this national security issue addressed properly.

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

by **NERVUN** » Mon Jul 04, 2011 2:43 am

Knootoss wrote:While Knootoss is an extremely open society, and one that is welcoming foreign exchange students in general, I would like for the author to recognise the great strength of this proposal. The great strength of this proposal is in that it mandates nations to open their borders to foreign exchange students from all World Assembly member nations. Considering this, it really is quite reasonable that nations would like the ability to restrict access purely on the basis of nationality or principles of national security. For example, to exclude nations with which one is at war, or which have a reputation for using immigration to ship in terrorists.

This is simply a matter of making sure that nations retain control of who passes their own borders. The author can afford to be a little bit more generous in allowing nations to impose reasonable restrictions on programme participants.

I have a few other suggestions, but would first like to see this national security issue addressed properly.

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

Honored ambassador, such restrictions would run afoul of the CoCR. I believe my suggested amendment to keep certain information/ facilities off limits coupled with the fact that a nation is allowed to sponsor whichever institution(s) of higher education it wishes, shall provide more than adequate cover for national security reasons and still remain true to the provisions already spelled out in international law and the spirit of this proposal.

by **Knootoss** » Mon Jul 04, 2011 2:52 am

Please forgive me, but that strikes me as a very curious interpretation of the CoCR. Does His Modliness mean to say that nations cannot control their own borders on the basis that denying unwanted foreigners, hostile aliens, suspected terrorists etc would be "discrimination"? National security considerations are reasonable and practical considerations, and in this resolution you are deliberately opting for a far more narrow band of "admissible" concerns to deny access to a programme.

This, unfortunately, weakens the resolution. Nations which take national security considerations seriously (a majority, one would hope) will be forced to use loopholes such as the one I described above to keep their nations safe. This just reduces overall participation in a very worthy endeavour, for no practical reason that I can think of.

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

by **Grays Harbor** » Mon Jul 04, 2011 6:40 am

We do not see where this would require terrorists or hostiles to be considered for scholarships or admission to universities, or how denying them could be discrimination. In fact, we do not see how it requires any university to accept anybody they deem unfit to attend. This seems a rather extreme position to state otherwise, and believe that to be forced to delineate each and every instance might well lead to over-definition. All in all, we do not object to this and believe that exchange programs are indeed a good thing for education systems and nations. We intend to support this fully should it be submitted.

by **Knootoss** » Mon Jul 04, 2011 6:43 am

Grays Harbor:

2. Prohibits discrimination against students in student exchanges or study abroad programs.
(a) Allows member states to set reasonable requirements for enrollment based on academic standing, language ability, physical requirements (Where needed and in accordance with international law), and/or financial ability.

This actually compels nations to accept all students who join the WA-mandated programme, except on the very narrow grounds noted. Removing this entire article would be the best solution.

by **Grays Harbor** » Mon Jul 04, 2011 7:14 am

Knootoss wrote:Grays Harbor:

2. Prohibits discrimination against students in student exchanges or study abroad programs.
(a) Allows member states to set reasonable requirements for enrollment based on academic standing, language ability, physical requirements (Where needed and in accordance with international law), and/or financial ability.

This actually compels nations to accept all students who join the WA-mandated programme, except on the very narrow grounds noted. Removing this entire article would be the best solution.

We apparently read that clause differently then, as we naturally assume that common-sense and national immigration/visa policies are to be applied in such situations. Perhaps an additional clause which requires exchange students to comply with relevent national immigration/visa law in the nation they intend to reside in for their studies? Honestly, given the current statutes on international travel, passports and visas in force, we thought this would already be implied, if not an actual fact.

Resolution 25, WA Counterterrorism Act

REQUIRES member states to take all effective measures at their disposal, subject to the rule of law, to prevent non-state actors from using their territory to commit terrorist acts against another nation.

Resolution 76, Standardized Passport Act

AFFIRMS that any national of a member state, carrying a valid passport and visa cannot be denied entry to a nation, except where either the security of that nation is at stake, for reasons of medical quarantine, where there is reason to believe the terms of the visa are likely to be violated or if there is reason to believe the visa was obtained fraudulently,

Those clauses would suggest that it would indeed not be discrimination to deny entry to those who are actively seeking to harm your nation.

by **Knootoss** » Mon Jul 04, 2011 7:32 am

Both of these resolutions can legally be repealed, which would give "Promotion of International Education" an unintended side-effect. Either that, or it could be read as contradicting a previous resolution. Or being let into the programme does not necessarily entail that nations must also permit "students" access to the country.

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

by **Omigodtheykilledkenny** » Mon Jul 04, 2011 8:28 am

NERVUN wrote:
EY Diplomatic Headquarters wrote:Wouldn't placing it under the GAO be rather funny?

Interesting concept.

Eh, the other education committee is currently living there. Who am I to buck a trend?

You're hilarious. What does the accreditation of educational institutions have to do with accounting?

by **Droskianishk** » Mon Jul 04, 2011 9:43 am

Our security concerns are already being voiced by several other delegates. In general though we support this.

by **Bears Armed** » Mon Jul 04, 2011 10:08 am

NERVUN wrote:
Knootoss wrote:
While Knootoss is an extremely open society, and one that is welcoming foreign exchange students in general, I would like for the author to recognise the great strength of this proposal. The great strength of this proposal is in that it mandates nations to open their borders to foreign exchange students from all World Assembly member nations. Considering this, it really is quite reasonable that nations would like the ability to restrict access purely on the basis of nationality or principles of national security. For example, to exclude nations with which one is at war, or which have a reputation for using immigration to ship in terrorists.

This is simply a matter of making sure that nations retain control of who passes their own borders. The author can afford to be a little bit more generous in allowing nations to impose reasonable restrictions on programme participants.

I have a few other suggestions, but would first like to see this national security issue addressed properly.

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

Honored ambassador, such restrictions would run afoul of the CoCR.

But surely the CoCR only prohibits discrimination amongst any member nation's "inhabitants", and if a nation choose not to let a particular person into its territories in the first place then that person isn't by any reckoning an "inhabitant" of that nation?
:blink:

Also, nations should be recognised as having the right to set upper limits on how many foreign students they let in, to avoid having these swamp their institutions and displace native students to a greater degree than they consider acceptable.

What about nations that do have such institutions but in which jurisdiction over them lies at a lower level of government than the national one, and in which the national government has no authority to tell the governments at that other level how to handle educational matters?

by **Charlotte Ryberg** » Mon Jul 04, 2011 10:35 am

Question: would students taking part in overseas education exchange be protected from wars?

I assume it isn't mandatory to send children against their will on overseas education exchange? (sorry if it is a bit excessive)

by **Moronist Decisions** » Mon Jul 04, 2011 11:37 am

Charlotte Ryberg wrote:Question: would students taking part in overseas education exchange be protected from wars?

I don't think that's practical - and since they are adults, I'd say caveat emptor beyond the usual consular protection that people typically enjoy. To me, that goes beyond the scope of this.

by **Aetrina** » Mon Jul 04, 2011 11:46 am

With the security questions addressed The Kingdom of Aetrina would consider supporting this.

by **Unibot II** » Mon Jul 04, 2011 5:35 pm

I think this resolution assumes that education is gradated with platforms like secondary, tertiary. "A Promotion of Basic Education" specifically made allowances for non-gradated systems, which gave it an added cultural flexibility and freedom that appealed to voters.

[PASSED] Promotion of International Education

[PASSED] Promotion of International Education

Who is online