[DRAFT] Health Emergency Service Border Regulation

[Samog]

This was made ILLEGAL stating "Megagaming (mentions political statistics and regions as a gameside concept), Optionality (proposals cannot be made optional)"
I am looking at redrafting it. If you could help, I would love that.
https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1560884212


To the World Assembly and its honourable members,

World Assembly Member States' borders are clearly enforced by the individual Member Nations or their respective Regions.

Regardless of Civil Rights, Economic Situation, Political Freedoms, every person, regardless of their nationality should have their basic Health-related needs addressed.

This document proposes the necessary steps to combat the lack of Healthcare accessibility in Border Regions and Exclaves.

ADDRESSING KEY ISSUES

a. Basic Healthcare Needs

b. Individual Freedom

c. Nation's Law


a. BASIC HEALTHCARE NEEDS

1. Basic Healthcare Needs in this document are defined as the need for vaccine shots, medical emergency equipment, basic medical training (ex. First Aid), response vehicles, hospital grounds, medical professionals.

2. If any of the aforementioned Basic Healthcare Needs are missing in a Border Region, defined as 15 kilometres from the Country Border, any Emergency Healthcare Response Vehicle and/or Service has the assumed right of responding to an emergency (crossing a Nation's border) at any point when help is called.

3. If all the aforementioned Basic Healthcare Needs are available in a World Assembly Member Nation's Border Area, an Emergency Healthcare Response Vehicle and/or Service does not have the assumed right of crossing Border to a response, unless agreed upon by Nations or Regions individually.


b. INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM

1. Any Member Nation or its Region has the right to refuse entry to Response Vehicles if the Basic Healthcare Needs are available.

2. Any Member State citizen has the right to refuse medical treatment even if help is called.

3. Member States do not have the right to refuse entry while a Response Vehicle is in transit with the patient inside.


b. NATION'S LAW

If any of the legislature passed in a Member Nation contradicts this Proposal, the Member Nation's Law applies.
If any of the legislature passed in a Member Nation Region contradicts this Proposal, the Member Nations Region's Law applies.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC Welcome to the General Assembly. As has been mentioned, your proposal was illegal for metagaming and optionality. Luckily, both of these problems are quite fixable. In this case, the metagaming violation was mentioning regions, as these are a gameplay mechanic that can’t be mention by the General Assembly. You should remove any mention of regions or regional laws from your legislative text. Also, you mentioned statistics such as civil rights in your preamble, which also must be removed.

Likewise, the optionality rule was violated due to your last clause, which essentially meant a member nation can completely ignore this proposal. GA law should always supersede national law and regional law, though the latter case doesn’t really apply since regions don’t exist in a GA context. I encourage you to stay here drafting for a while, so your proposal can be improved by player here. For reference, here are the rules.)

[Araraukar]

This was made ILLEGAL stating "Megagaming (mentions political statistics and regions as a gameside concept), Optionality (proposals cannot be made optional)"
I am looking at redrafting it. If you could help, I would love that.
https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1560884212


To the World Assembly and its honourable members,

World Assembly Member States' borders are clearly enforced by the individual Member Nations or their respective Regions.

Regardless of Civil Rights, Economic Situation, Political Freedoms, every person, regardless of their nationality should have their basic Health-related needs addressed.

This document proposes the necessary steps to combat the lack of Healthcare accessibility in Border Regions and Exclaves.

ADDRESSING KEY ISSUES

a. Basic Healthcare Needs

b. Individual Freedom

c. Nation's Law


a. BASIC HEALTHCARE NEEDS

1. Basic Healthcare Needs in this document are defined as the need for vaccine shots, medical emergency equipment, basic medical training (ex. First Aid), response vehicles, hospital grounds, medical professionals.

2. If any of the aforementioned Basic Healthcare Needs are missing in a Border Region, defined as 15 kilometres from the Country Border, any Emergency Healthcare Response Vehicle and/or Service has the assumed right of responding to an emergency (crossing a Nation's border) at any point when help is called.

3. If all the aforementioned Basic Healthcare Needs are available in a World Assembly Member Nation's Border Area, an Emergency Healthcare Response Vehicle and/or Service does not have the assumed right of crossing Border to a response, unless agreed upon by Nations or Regions individually.


b. INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM

1. Any Member Nation or its Region has the right to refuse entry to Response Vehicles if the Basic Healthcare Needs are available.

2. Any Member State citizen has the right to refuse medical treatment even if help is called.

3. Member States do not have the right to refuse entry while a Response Vehicle is in transit with the patient inside.


b. NATION'S LAW

If any of the legislature passed in a Member Nation contradicts this Proposal, the Member Nation's Law applies.
If any of the legislature passed in a Member Nation Region contradicts this Proposal, the Member Nations Region's Law applies.

OOC: This bit at least gets this proposal in trouble: "If any of the legislature passed in a Member Nation contradicts this Proposal, the Member Nation's Law applies." WA resolutions are of higher tier than national laws, so if the two clash, the WA law is the one applied.

On top of that, this is of very weird format, it's hard to tell what you actually want done. Like, are we talking about ambulance services in the border zone? Or just the border crossings? And shouldn't the request for help come from the authorities of the nation where help is needed, rather than the other nation hacking into the emergency services of the first nation to intercept the calls?

But welcome to the GA forum nevertheless!

[Samog]

I appreciate your support and a welcoming reply to my message. I rewrote this Proposal:

To the World Assembly and its honourable members,

If this Proposal is accepted, the World Assembly recognizes that:

World Assembly Member States' borders are clearly enforced by the individual Member Nation but regulated by the World Assembly.

Every person regardless of their nationality should have their basic Health-related needs addressed.

This document proposes the necessary steps to combat the lack of Healthcare accessibility in Border Regions and Exclaves.

ADDRESSING KEY ISSUES

a. Basic Healthcare Needs

b. Individual Freedom


a. BASIC HEALTHCARE NEEDS

1. Basic Healthcare Needs in this document are defined as the need for vaccine shots, medical emergency equipment, basic medical training (ex. First Aid), response vehicles, hospital grounds, medical professionals.

2. If any of the aforementioned Basic Healthcare Needs are missing in a Border Region, defined as 15 kilometres from the Country Border, any Emergency Healthcare Response Vehicle and/or Service has the assumed right of responding to an emergency (crossing a Nation's border) at any point when help is called.
3. Help is called with a Nation's standard emergency number. Help being called is defined when there is a distress call in a Border Region. This document proposes the possibility of not enough Basic Healthcare Needs being provided.

4. A call for help is made with a Nation's standard emergency number and, if the Basic Healthcare Needs that are needed for the treatment are not provided by the host Nation, a Nation is required to send the burden of treatment to a bordering Nation (therefore giving the assumed right of crossing the host Nation's border to a Response Vehicle and/or Service) if the need for treatment is in the Border Region.

5. If all the aforementioned Basic Healthcare Needs are available in a World Assembly Member Nation's Border Area, an Emergency Healthcare Response Vehicle and/or Service does not have the assumed right of crossing Border to a response, unless agreed upon by Nations individually.


b. INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM

1. Any Member Nation has the right to refuse entry to Response Vehicles if the Basic Healthcare Needs are available.

2. Any Member State citizen has the right to refuse medical treatment even if help is called.

3. Member States do not have the right to refuse entry while a Response Vehicle is in transit to transfer the injured across a border if needed.


Is this good enough for it to be LEGAL?

[Kenmoria]

‘When a proposal is passed, it will be a resolution. Therefore, you should talk about your proposal as of it were a resolution in the legislative text. This means that the opening clause, about the possible acceptance of the proposal, needs to be re-written.”

[Grays Harbor]

Is this good enough for it to be LEGAL?

Here you make a common mistake, confusing “legal” with “good”. Concentrate on the latter, and the former generally takes care of itself.

(You also get much more cooperation when you go for good and useful, instead of just barely legal)

[Araraukar]

I appreciate your support and a welcoming reply to my message.

OOC: Neither Kenmoria nor I support your proposal. We do support your participation on this forum, that's all.

If the below feedback sounds harsh to you, please remember that I'm criticizing what you wrote, not you as a person.

If this Proposal is accepted, the World Assembly recognizes that:

The proposal text should always refer to the proposal as a resolution, since if it passes and becomes a resolution, it doesn't make sense for it to talk of itself as a proposal.

World Assembly Member States' borders are clearly enforced by the individual Member Nation but regulated by the World Assembly.

Erm, no. The member nations regulate their own borders. That's the whole point of border control. Also, "member states" or "member nations", capital letters are not needed. I'd also refer to the nations as states when talking of the collective authorities (government, all state agencies and offices and police and whatnot), and as nations when talking about the thing that gets borders drawn on a map.

Every person regardless of their nationality should have their basic Health-related needs addressed.

Why are you capitalizing health?

This document proposes the necessary steps to combat the lack of Healthcare accessibility in Border Regions and Exclaves.

What are exclaves? And again drop the random capitalizing. Also, what makes you think that border zones aren't included in the previous resolutions that mandate nations to provide healthcare to all their inhabitants?

ADDRESSING KEY ISSUES

a. Basic Healthcare Needs

b. Individual Freedom

This whole thing makes the proposal read more like an essay than a proposal. Remove it.

a. BASIC HEALTHCARE NEEDS

Also, you don't need headers like this.

1. Basic Healthcare Needs in this document are defined as the need for vaccine shots, medical emergency equipment, basic medical training (ex. First Aid), response vehicles, hospital grounds, medical professionals.

This just makes no sense whatsoever. Usually people's basic healthcare needs (drop the extra capitalization) are access to emergency care when necessary, being able to see a healthcare professional (doctor/nurse/physiotherapist/etc.) when necessary, getting the necessary medication, and having access to more intensive care (like surgeries, dialysis, chemotherapy, etc.) when necessary. Also, why have you switched to calling the proposal "this document"? If not for the incomprehensible list, that would make me suspect you've copied bits of this from somewhere.

2. If any of the aforementioned Basic Healthcare Needs are missing in a Border Region, defined as 15 kilometres from the Country Border, any Emergency Healthcare Response Vehicle and/or Service has the assumed right of responding to an emergency (crossing a Nation's border) at any point when help is called.

The random capitalization of words is really really annoying, you know. Also, how do you define border zone for a sea border? Do you count it from where the national waters end or where the shoreline begins? Additionally, the way this currently reads is that you only need to have one hospital in the border region, and you're good with this proposal, even if your land border was as ridiculously long as Russia's.

3. Help is called with a Nation's standard emergency number. Help being called is defined when there is a distress call in a Border Region. This document proposes the possibility of not enough Basic Healthcare Needs being provided.

This "clause" has three very separate things in it, and I can't fathom why they've all been clumped together. The definition should come before you use what you define. And also, can't you call help via radio too, if you're outside of phone reach but within radio reach? And that last sentence is basically just gibberish in this context.

4. A call for help is made with a Nation's standard emergency number and, if the Basic Healthcare Needs that are needed for the treatment are not provided by the host Nation, a Nation is required to send the burden of treatment to a bordering Nation (therefore giving the assumed right of crossing the host Nation's border to a Response Vehicle and/or Service) if the need for treatment is in the Border Region.

If the call for help is made within Nation A's borderzone, to Nation A's emergency services number, how the fuck would Nation B (on the other side of the border) have any kind of fucking clue that an emergency call has been made in the first place? Also, what does "burden of treatment" mean? And instead of moving someone across the border, wouldn't it make more sense to move them further inland into a local hospital? The people in the other nation probably won't even speak the same language.

5. If all the aforementioned Basic Healthcare Needs are available in a World Assembly Member Nation's Border Area, an Emergency Healthcare Response Vehicle and/or Service does not have the assumed right of crossing Border to a response, unless agreed upon by Nations individually.

The random capitalizing of words - AAAARRRRRRGGGHHHH. Also, no vehicle should assume to have the right to cross a national border, no matter what phonecall they tapped into illegally.

b. INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM

Again, you don't need these headers. And also, I don't know why you'd call it individual freedoms when you're clearly talking about national freedoms. An individual is a person, unless the word is followed by a noun.

1. Any Member Nation has the right to refuse entry to Response Vehicles if the Basic Healthcare Needs are available.

Member nations have the right to refuse entry, period. If you want to change that fact somehow, you're going to need a lot better justifications.

2. Any Member State citizen has the right to refuse medical treatment even if help is called.

But they need to be able to understand the result of that choice, which, if they're heavily inebriated or unconscious or otherwise uncapable of consenting, they likely aren't.

3. Member States do not have the right to refuse entry while a Response Vehicle is in transit to transfer the injured across a border if needed.

This will never pass the way it's been written. And also contradicts some existing resolutions.

Is this good enough for it to be LEGAL?

It's neither good nor legal. Sorry.

[Bears Armed]

This document proposes the necessary steps to combat the lack of Healthcare accessibility in Border Regions and Exclaves.

What are exclaves?

An 'exclave' is a small section of one nation that is geographically detached from its main body and surrounded by (i.e. is an enclave within) the territories of a different nation instead.
By some people's definitions it might also cover any such detached sections that are sandwiched between the territories of two or more foreign nations.
In RL, even today (when borders have been simplified in various places during the last couple of centuries), there's a Spanish exclave surrounded by [mainland] France, a German exclave surrounded by Switzerland, a rather complicated situation where a partly-Belgian village is surrounded by the Netherlands but also includes at least one are area of Netherlandish territory that is surrounded in turn by the village's Belgian section (and there might be further complications, whose details I know less about, also involved there), and a number of exclaves on both sides of the India/Bangladesh border... and maybe more?

[East Meranopirus]

What are exclaves?

And exclave is a small section of one nation that is geographically detached from its main body and surrounded by (ie. is an enclave within) the territories of a different nation.
In RL, even today (when borders have been simplified in various places during the last couple of centuries), there's a Spanish exclave surrounded by [mainland] France, a German exclave surrounded by Switzerland, a rather complicated situation where a partly-Belgian village is surrounded by the Netherlands but also includes at least one are area of Netherlandish territory that is surrounded in turn by the village's Belgian section (and there might be further complications, whose details I know less about, [i]also involved), and a number of exclaves on both sides of the India/Bangladesh border... and maybe more?

I have a feeling he's only asking that to force the author to define an "exclave".

[Bears Armed]

And exclave is a small section of one nation that is geographically detached from its main body and surrounded by (ie. is an enclave within) the territories of a different nation.
In RL, even today (when borders have been simplified in various places during the last couple of centuries), there's a Spanish exclave surrounded by [mainland] France, a German exclave surrounded by Switzerland, a rather complicated situation where a partly-Belgian village is surrounded by the Netherlands but also includes at least one are area of Netherlandish territory that is surrounded in turn by the village's Belgian section (and there might be further complications, whose details I know less about, [i]also involved), and a number of exclaves on both sides of the India/Bangladesh border... and maybe more?

I have a feeling he's only asking that to force the author to define an "exclave".

OOC
I think that including a definition of this word in the proposal, when it has a clear enough RL meaning, isn't really necessary.

[Araraukar]

I have a feeling he's only asking that to force the author to define an "exclave".

OOC: I was asking it more to force the author to define their whole idea better (I mean, is all of border zone defined as a single continuous zone? and in case of the exclaves, which can obviously be fairly small, 15 kilometres is overdoing it by far), but ty BA for the informative answer. I think that one particular Belgian/Netherlands village has a restaurant which is half and half, which makes it interesting as restaurant closing times are different in those two countries...

[Bears Armed]

I think that one particular Belgian/Netherlands village has a restaurant which is half and half, which makes it interesting as restaurant closing times are different in those two countries...

OOC: In that village, I've been told, if a building is in contact with one of the borders then you can actually change which of the nations it counts as belonging too by changing which side its main door opens onto!

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: On a housekeeping note, please could you keep the current draft in the top post of the thread. That way, it is much easier for people to see which version it is on which they should give feedback.)