[MISSED] Repeal GA Resolution № 53 “Epidemic Response Act”

[The North Polish Union]

Ambassador Michał Wyrzykowski wandered through the sprawling halls of the World Assembly, lost. Having never left the section of the WA Complex reserved for the Security Council before he was overwhelmed by the massive bureaucratic nightmare of offices and committees the General Assembly had created. He'd heard that any time an ambassador sneezed a new committee was created, which, ironically, was the reason he was here.

Konstantyn had found something in an ancient and venerable GA resolution that needed addressed. Of course, Konstantyn was only an intern, which was why he'd been assigned to the GA so that the full-time staff could focus their energy on SC matters. Unfortunately, the kid was motivated and ambitious and his uncle was a high-ranking bishop. Not content with quietly voting (on the Ambassador's behalf) against anything that reached the floor, Konstantyn had dug though the GA archives and looked over past resolutions until he found, well, something. Ambassador Wyrzykowski still wasn't sure quite what in spite of Konstantyn's best effort to explain to him that the GA did, in fact, exist. In any case, Ambassador Wyrzykowski did understand that presenting a draft proposal to the WA required an ambassador themselves, not a mere intern, which is why he was lost here in an endless maze of halls, looking for the GA Chamber.

Finally, after what seemed like an eternity, Ambassador Wyrzykowski found the set of doors above which was the inscription "GENERAL ASSEMBLY CHAMBERS". He would remember to ask his priest how to avoid purgatory to ensure he didn't wind up in those halls again after he died. "Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now, and at the hour of death." Anxiously, he approached the doors and opened them slowly, then stepped back in alarm. He'd heard about the "deviancy" that was commonplace in the GA, but had hoped it was exaggerated; he was wrong, Hieronymus Bosch had painted depictions of the vices more pleasing to the eyes (and nose) than what greeted him in the room beyond, but he had to go in. After a minute, Ambassador Wyrzykowski crossed himself, stepped over the threshold, and walked up to the podium at the front.

"Ladies, gentlemen, and errr, creatures of the General Assembly; the delegation from the North Polish Union would like to submit a draft proposal to the GA for scrutiny and review. Your feedback is welcome and appreciated."

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY,

NOTING that GA Resolution # 53 “Epidemic Response Act” (ERA) created the Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Response Center (EPARC) within the World Health Authority; and while

APPLAUDING the intent of the ERA to institute a co-ordinated effort to combat epidemics and other public health crises;

CONCERNED that the text of the ERA as written appears to grant EPARC sweeping powers with respect to the borders and healthcare systems of member states, in some cases beyond those needful for the ERA’s goal of epidemic prevention, as discussed below; and in particular

FURTHER NOTING that EPARC cannot be truly recommending restrictions under Section 6 of the ERA if member nations are mandated to follow them, leading to appearance of the ERA being a self-contradictory piece of legislation;

ALARMED that Section 6 of the ERA fails to limit EPARC's powers to recommend and implement travel restrictions in member-nations to only apply during an epidemic or pandemic, an oversight which could result in unnecessary restrictions being put in place, causing undue harm to the targeted nation in an overzealous effort by EPARC to prevent spread of disease to an impractical degree;

BELIEVING that resolutions enacted since the passage of the ERA have provided for further epidemic control and guidance on quarantines, disease prevention, and border closures via more transparent mechanisms than those which the ERA provides; particularly GA Resolution # 320, “Infectious Disease Control” and GA Resolution # 389, “Rights of the Quarantined” which together provide a framework through which EPARC can continue to operate in a way similar to that found in Section 6 of the ERA even without the over-broad mandate the ERA provided it; therefore

BEING APPRECIATIVE of the ERA’s attempt to provide an overarching position on infectious disease control at a time when no such position existed; but observing that legislation passed since the ERA’s enactment has provided a more thorough framework for disease mitigation that avoids many of the pitfalls existing in the ERA as written;

THIS BODY does hereby repeal GA Resolution # 53, “Epidemic Response Act”.

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY,

NOTING that GA Resolution # 53 “Epidemic Response Act” (ERA) created the Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Response Center (EPARC) within the World Health Authority; and while

APPLAUDING the intent of the ERA to institute a co-ordinated effort to combat epidemics and other public health crises;

CONCERNED that the text of the ERA as written appears to grant EPARC sweeping powers with respect to the borders and healthcare systems of member states, in some cases beyond those needful for the ERA’s goal of epidemic prevention; and in particular

FURTHER NOTING that EPARC cannot be truly recommending restrictions under Section 6 of the ERA if member nations are mandated to follow them;

ALARMED that Section 6 of the ERA fails to limit EPARC's powers to recommend and implement travel restrictions in member-nations to only apply during an epidemic or pandemic, an oversight which could result in unnecessary restrictions being put in place, causing undue harm to the targeted nation in an overzealous effort by EPARC to prevent spread of disease to an impractical degree;

BELIEVING that resolutions enacted since the passage of the ERA have provided for further epidemic control and guidance on quarantines, disease prevention, and border closures via more transparent mechanisms than those which the ERA provides; particularly GA Resolution # 320, “Infectious Disease Control” and GA Resolution # 389, “Rights of the Quarantined” which together provide a framework through which EPARC can continue to operate in a way similar to that found in Section 6 of the ERA even without the over-broad mandate the ERA provided it; therefore

BEING APPRECIATIVE of the ERA’s attempt to provide an overarching position on infectious disease control at a time when no such position existed; but observing that legislation passed since the ERA’s enactment has provided a more thorough framework for disease mitigation that avoids many of the pitfalls existing in the ERA as written;

THIS BODY does hereby repeal GA Resolution # 53, “Epidemic Response Act”.

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY,

NOTING that GA Resolution № 53 “Epidemic Response Act” (ERA) created the Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Response Center (EPARC) within the World Health Authority; and while

APPLAUDING the intent of the ERA to institute a co-ordinated effort to combat epidemics and other public health crises;

CONCERNED that the text of the ERA as written appears to grant EPARC sweeping powers with respect to the borders and healthcare systems of member states, in some cases beyond those needful for the ERS’s goal of epidemic prevention; and in particular

ALARMED that Section 6 of the ERA “MANDATES that all member nations act responsibly in the control of the nation's land, sea, and airport [sic] and impose travel restrictions, if recommended by the World Health Authority EPARC” without restricting EPARC’s Section 6 power to those situations where a public health crisis has reached the epidemic or pandemic stage;

FURTHER NOTING that EPARC cannot be truly ‘recommending’ restrictions if member nations are ‘mandated’ to follow them;

BELIEVING that resolutions enacted since the passage of the ERA have provided for further epidemic control and guidance on quarantines, disease prevention, and border closures via more transparent mechanisms than those which the ERA provides;

PARTICULARLY drawing attention to GA Resolution № 320, “Infectious Disease Control” and GA Resolution № 389, “Rights of the Quarantined” which together provide a framework through which EPARC can continue to operate in a way similar to that found in Section 6 of the ERA even without the over-broad mandate the ERA provided it; therefore

BEING APPRECIATIVE of the ERA’s attempt to provide an overarching position on infectious disease control at a time when no such position existed; but

OBSERVING that legislation passed since the ERA’s enactment has provided a more thorough framework for disease mitigation that avoids many of the pitfalls existing in the ERA as written;

THIS BODY does hereby repeal GA Resolution № 53, “Epidemic Response Act”.

---

OOC: I've never proposed anything to the GA before. Help is appreciated.

[Tinhampton]

That is a lot of words to convey a message that EPARC should not be telling nations to impose travel bans.

As an aside, CTEd nations like yours do not automatically rejoin the WA when they are revived.

[Morover]

Welcome to the General Assembly! It's a steep learning curve but we hope you stick around; I can say that roleplay such as yours is certainly missed within the chamber, so it would be great to have some more devout RPers here.

A few notes on the proposal:
It has somewhat fallen out of style to fully capitalize the operative words of each clause, with it being a bit trendier to not give the operative words any emphasis at all.
The clauses "further noting" and "believing" need another line break between them.
The character "№" is a bit odd and honestly, I'd refrain from using it in the proposal. I seem to recall there being issues with odd characters in past proposals.
I agree with Tin that this goes on a bit longer than it necessarily should, and can probably be condensed. It's not essential that you do this, but in my opinion, it's better to have concise resolutions, where possible.
Your "further noting" clause should do a better job of specifying that it's referring to clause 6, as it's a bit confusing otherwise.

Overall, a very good first draft for your first go at the General Assembly. While this post was OOC (for the sake of welcoming you and the like), my delegation will probably get behind it as the arguments are rather compelling (I say this without looking into GA320 and 389). For real though, hope you'll stick around because I think you'll get along well.

Good luck with your proposal!

[Bears Armed Mission]

"Hrarroom!" ("Greetings!")

"This proposal does seem worthy of discussion, for true."

Artorrios O SouthWoods,
ChairBear,
Bears Armed Mission at the W.A. .

_________________________________________________________

OOC:Yes, he's an anthropomorphic Bear.
Yes, he's using understandable speech, in English in fact -- apart from his initial word of greeting -- although the building's 'ACME universal translators' system would have told you what he was saying anyway.
Yes, he's wearing clothes, today a rather smart 'Arrbearri' suit in greenish-grey.

[The North Polish Union]

Thanks for the replies. I'll make the most of the minor formatting changes at some point (although I do like the capitalization of the first word in each clause, personally) as well as clarify the 'FURTHER NOTING" clause.

Any help with condensing the text without sacrificing its argumentative rigor would be appreciated.

[Bananaistan]

Bleary eyed and barely able to distract himself from the drinking game he'd been engaging in with the delegation representing the Nation of the Sapient Goats, Ted shouts "here Ambassador, catch," as he throws a mostly empty bottle of whiskey vaguely in the direction of Ambassador Wyrzykowski.

"Alas, what a waste," he says realising that he had not put the cap on first and his aim was so bad, it landed on the ChairBear's desk.

"Regretfully we must oppose this repeal. The travel restrictions in section 6 are key to protecting the international proletariat. There's no chance that the governments of the so-called liberal democracies would ever put their citizens' health before the chance of some corporation making a few bob by introducing travel restrictions off their own bat. The other resolutions mentioned simply do not have the same provision of the WA imposing lockdowns where necessary."

OOC: Keep your capitalised words if you wish. People who oppose just because of minor formatting quirks are a pain in the arse.

Also, regarding GAR#389. I think recent RL events have shown that it's unrealistic and draconian and should be repealed.

[Bears Armed Mission]

OOC: Keep your capitalised words if you wish. People who oppose just because of minor formatting quirks are a pain in the arse.

OOC: Unfortunately at least one of them is a delegate with a large number of endorsements, and thus with a powerful voting strength...

[Morover]

Emphasis on the operative clause isn't enough for opposition, but I still bring it up where applicable because I think it's worth noting. If you do insist on keeping it due to stylistic preference (which is valid), I'd suggest changing it up in the clause beginning with "particularly" as it seems somewhat odd to only capitalize particularly and not the actual operative word.

"ALARMED..." should probably be rephrased to reduce the quote and increase clarity, as it takes a few reads from my end to understand exactly what it's saying. It tends to be my philosophy that issues in repeals should be written as:

Referencing clause (without the need to quote it) -> explaining what is wrong with it -> explaining why that is bad.

So, for that clause, I would rewrite it as something to the effect of

Alarmed at clause six of the target, which fails to implement proper regulations for EPARC's powers to recommend, and thus implement, travel restrictions in member-nations to only be present during an epidemic or pandemic, which may lead to unnecessary restrictions put in place that may put undue harm unto the nations targeted by these restrictions in an effort by EPARC to be more cautious to prevent spread of disease than needed

For this specific one, you may get the argument that "committees are infallible", a generally accepted standard within the GA Community, but I feel the argument still holds true.

Similar formats such as this can be employed more readily throughout the proposal if it makes it easier for you, though it is far from necessary and my own preference with these things shouldn't necessarily be how everyone does things.

I'd put the "further noting" clause before "alarmed", and the two clauses could even be combined to make things clearer.

"Believing" and "particularly" clauses can definitely be combined. So too can "being appreciative" and "observing", and honestly all four of these clauses can probably be combined. As it stands, the proposal layout is:

Recognizing and appreciating target.
Recognizing and appreciating target.
Criticism.
Criticism.
Criticism.
Conclusion, with a note that the goal of the resolution is effectively accomplished already.
Conclusion, with a note that the goal of the resolution is effectively accomplished already.
Conclusion, with a note that the goal of the resolution is effectively accomplished already.
Conclusion, with a note that the goal of the resolution is effectively accomplished already.
Actual repeal clause.

The conclusion just goes on for too long imo, and you can certainly make the argument that pointing out that other resolutions cover the intent effectively shouldn't be a part of the conclusion, but I'd refute that and even if I'm wrong, it can be at least halved from the four clauses it currently is.

Also, regarding GAR#389. I think recent RL events have shown that it's unrealistic and draconian and should be repealed.

Unless someone beats me to the punch, you may have just given me an idea for something to do at some point soon...

Hope this helped

And again, there's quite a bit of criticism here but I do want to emphasize that this is a remarkably good draft, especially for it being your first attempt.

[Texkentuck]

gone for good

[The North Polish Union]

Ambassador Wryzykowski was alarmed by the reaction to the reading of his draft. He had expected (and partly hoped) to be laughed out of the GA. At least then he could've fired Konstantyn while avoiding any political discomfort. However, and much to his surprise, he was whisked off to another nearby room, where an eclectic mixture of individuals began offering advice, critiques, and support for his draft. The two most surprising of these were a fully clothed bear who addressed him in English and a very inebriated individual who, from what he could understand from the slurred and hiccup-filled introduction, represented some sort of socialist banana republic.

Somewhat overwhelmed by the suggestions, Wyrzykowski wished he could've had a bit of whatever spirit the banana fellow had been enjoying. Unfortunately, it had been thrown at the bear just as Wyrzykowski entered the room. Understanding that he would be expected to defend his proposal, Wyrzykowski lit a cigar that another ambassador had offered him, racked his brain for the talking points he'd been given before coming over, and finally addressed the room.

"A number of you have expressed encouragement or support for this proposal, which is greatly appreciated. As for those who object, the position of the North Polish government is not that the WA or its subsidiary bodies such as EPARC ought never to be allowed to introduce travel restrictions in the case of a genuine international public health crisis. Our objection to the ERA is that it allows EPARC to impose such restrictions at any time and for any reason. We believe that the existence of an agency with such powers runs contrary to the principles on which the WA is built.

"The WA, both when it passes international law via the GA and when it impacts international and interregional affairs through the SC, does so through the majority consensus of its members. EPARC does no such thing when it operates using Article 6 of the ERA, and while many WA subcommittees regularly conduct their day-to-day operations within WA member states without such an express consensus, none has such broad powers as EPARC to completely isolate a nation from the outside world without any limitations. Even if EPARC is 'perfect' and never engages in that behavior, the mere existence of an agency with such a sweeping mandate not only creates exceptionally bad optics for the WA, it also may give individuals living in WA member-states concern that their ability to move about and travel may be restricted arbitrarily by an unelected supernational body. It is well known that not just corruption, but also the appearance of corruption is enough to damage or destroy trust in a governing body; and we believe that the ERA creates precisely such an appearance with the powers it grants EPRAC.

"We do not propose that EPARC no longer be allowed to exercise their statutory role given them in resolutions passed since the ERA; nor would we necessarily oppose future legislation that would once again permit EPARC to issue travel restrictions, as long as such legislation provided clear limitations on EPARC's power. However, as WA resolutions cannot be amended, we feel it is in the international community's best interest to repeal the ERA and do away with what is, at best, the appearance of serious corruption. Thank you."

--

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY,

NOTING that GA Resolution # 53 “Epidemic Response Act” (ERA) created the Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Response Center (EPARC) within the World Health Authority; and while

APPLAUDING the intent of the ERA to institute a co-ordinated effort to combat epidemics and other public health crises;

CONCERNED that the text of the ERA as written appears to grant EPARC sweeping powers with respect to the borders and healthcare systems of member states, in some cases beyond those needful for the ERS’s goal of epidemic prevention; and in particular

FURTHER NOTING that EPARC cannot be truly recommending restrictions under Section 6 of the ERA if member nations are mandated to follow them;

ALARMED that Section 6 of the ERA fails to limit EPARC's powers to recommend and implement travel restrictions in member-nations to only apply during an epidemic or pandemic, an oversight which could result in unnecessary restrictions being put in place, causing undue harm to the targeted nation in an overzealous effort by EPARC to prevent spread of disease to an impractical degree;

BELIEVING that resolutions enacted since the passage of the ERA have provided for further epidemic control and guidance on quarantines, disease prevention, and border closures via more transparent mechanisms than those which the ERA provides; particularly GA Resolution # 320, “Infectious Disease Control” and GA Resolution # 389, “Rights of the Quarantined” which together provide a framework through which EPARC can continue to operate in a way similar to that found in Section 6 of the ERA even without the over-broad mandate the ERA provided it; therefore

BEING APPRECIATIVE of the ERA’s attempt to provide an overarching position on infectious disease control at a time when no such position existed; but observing that legislation passed since the ERA’s enactment has provided a more thorough framework for disease mitigation that avoids many of the pitfalls existing in the ERA as written;

THIS BODY does hereby repeal GA Resolution # 53, “Epidemic Response Act”.

[Outer Sparta]

For future reference, make your proposal edits in your OP instead of in a new post that will get buried.

[The North Polish Union]

For future reference, make your proposal edits in your OP instead of in a new post that will get buried.

I actually did both here

[Outer Sparta]

For future reference, make your proposal edits in your OP instead of in a new post that will get buried.

I actually did both here

No need to do both. Just edit it in the OP.

[Bananaistan]

I actually did both here

No need to do both. Just edit it in the OP.

OOC: Glad to see we're focusing on the important issues here.

@ OP it's a good idea to link to the target somewhere in the OP.

[Pland Adanna]

OOC: Here are my thoughts:

CONCERNED that the text of the ERA as written appears to grant EPARC sweeping powers with respect to the borders and healthcare systems of member states, in some cases beyond those needful for the ERS’s goal of epidemic prevention; and in particular

I would specify what this is referring to. The ERA only requires that member states comply with EPARC if the recommendation is "to help control the spread of the disease" so I would clarify the ways that could be exploited. I think you should certainly keep this point but it should be more specific.

FURTHER NOTING that EPARC cannot be truly recommending restrictions under Section 6 of the ERA if member nations are mandated to follow them;

I mean, sure but this isn't really a reason to repeal. It's really just a language thing.

ALARMED that Section 6 of the ERA fails to limit EPARC's powers to recommend and implement travel restrictions in member-nations to only apply during an epidemic or pandemic, an oversight which could result in unnecessary restrictions being put in place, causing undue harm to the targeted nation in an overzealous effort by EPARC to prevent spread of disease to an impractical degree;

This clause is clear enough about how EPARC could exploit its powers so good job!

BELIEVING that resolutions enacted since the passage of the ERA have provided for further epidemic control and guidance on quarantines, disease prevention, and border closures via more transparent mechanisms than those which the ERA provides; particularly GA Resolution # 320, “Infectious Disease Control” and GA Resolution # 389, “Rights of the Quarantined” which together provide a framework through which EPARC can continue to operate in a way similar to that found in Section 6 of the ERA even without the over-broad mandate the ERA provided it; therefore

BEING APPRECIATIVE of the ERA’s attempt to provide an overarching position on infectious disease control at a time when no such position existed; but observing that legislation passed since the ERA’s enactment has provided a more thorough framework for disease mitigation that avoids many of the pitfalls existing in the ERA as written;

I would maybe combine these two clauses because they discuss the same thing.

I'll re-evaluate this in a later stage of drafting to determine whether Pland Adanna will support but good luck!

[Texkentuck]

In Texkentuck Parliament is taking the Pandemics of the world Seriously. For all citizens of nations visiting or immigrants they must have a vaccine card....Fraudulent vaccine cards that are discovered those citizens will be refused from All Texkentuck Airports and will be returned to their homeland or back to the place of incoming destination. Any WA nation must make this into the next proposal. Our law is being enforced in Texkentuck.... Masks are not required on our flights. We encourage people to quarantine when they arrive in our nation for up to 5 days. It's not enforced but the cards are in Texkentuck. For each nation citizens receive an email of vaccinated requirements.

Texkentuck Parliament and the CEO of Go Flight Airlines and other airlines that are HQ in Texkentuck will help to enforce this law. If an airline refuses and arrives with unvaccinated recipients. The Airlines will be fined up to 1 trillion dollars NSD....

[Tinhampton]

To be perfectly clear, I am not going to require that member states deploy vaccine passport schemes under any circumstances in my proposed replacement for Rights of Crime Victims.

"ERS" should probably read "ERA" in the CONCERNED clause.

[The North Polish Union]

OOC: Here are my thoughts:

CONCERNED that the text of the ERA as written appears to grant EPARC sweeping powers with respect to the borders and healthcare systems of member states, in some cases beyond those needful for the ERS’s goal of epidemic prevention; and in particular

I would specify what this is referring to. The ERA only requires that member states comply with EPARC if the recommendation is "to help control the spread of the disease" so I would clarify the ways that could be exploited. I think you should certainly keep this point but it should be more specific.

I would say that this clause is setting up my arguments further on in the proposal than making a stand-alone argument, but I can clarify that further

FURTHER NOTING that EPARC cannot be truly recommending restrictions under Section 6 of the ERA if member nations are mandated to follow them;

I mean, sure but this isn't really a reason to repeal. It's really just a language thing.

I'll edit this clause to explain why I think this is an issue.

[Texkentuck]

[quote="Tinhampton";p="38865606"]To be perfectly clear, I am not going to require that member states deploy vaccine passport schemes under any circumstances in my proposed replacement for Rights of Crime Victims.

"ERS" should probably read "ERA" in the CONCERNED clause.[/quote

In the oppinion of The Texkentuck Government then there is really almost no point and nations that lecture us on pandemic prevention.... Well the government in Texkentuck emotion is clearly


All these nations will be mask on mask off..Hands up and hands down type nations.....Make them go uhhhh nah nah nah as the pandemic spreads....We tell the world have fun but the virus isn't going to have a catastrophic affect in Texkentuck and we aren't going to do such a game..... We will make sure most in Texkentuck are vaccinated but childeren and adults below or over a certain age may opt out....There are diffirent situaitions which require citizens to opt out and use flight to get from place to place. We don't see this as a one size fits all solution but if a foreigner wants to visit or become an immigrant it's a definite requirement.

Ambassador- General William Walt VonVorkinkophfburg
Texkentuck Monarchy Republic Federation
UCCR

[Kurogasa]

In the oppinion of The Texkentuck Government then there is really almost no point and nations that lecture us on pandemic prevention.... Well the government in Texkentuck emotion is clearly


All these nations will be mask on mask off..Hands up and hands down type nations.....Make them go uhhhh nah nah nah as the pandemic spreads....We tell the world have fun but the virus isn't going to have a catastrophic affect in Texkentuck and we aren't going to do such a game..... We will make sure most in Texkentuck are vaccinated but childeren and adults below or over a certain age may opt out....There are diffirent situaitions which require citizens to opt out and use flight to get from place to place. We don't see this as a one size fits all solution but if a foreigner wants to visit or become an immigrant it's a definite requirement.

Ambassador- General William Walt VonVorkinkophfburg
Texkentuck Monarchy Republic Federation
UCCR

Your nation isn't in the WA, your opinion on resolutions is nothing more than a bathroom break for representatives.

[Texkentuck]

gone for good

[Kurogasa]

Your nation isn't in the WA, your opinion on resolutions is nothing more than a bathroom break for representatives.

The Ambassador takes another drink of his vodka....

then makes the statement-

If that was true your nation wouldn't take interest in such a response....

The Ambassador pauses and smiles looking at Udō Jin-e and salutes his nation with his glass of vodka.....

A representative with out a mask on walks over to the table that Udō Jin-e is before, and the representative places a mask before Udō Jin-e on the table and states for you from the free-speaking citizens of Texkentuck ....

Representative returns to the table and TFS Agents are more shown before the Table of the Ambassador.....

The Ambassador states-
Our nation is on track and we find your statement expected...

Ambassador Verbatimkophf
Texkentuck Monarchy Republic Federation
UCCR

You think our emperor is here for some random General Assembly meeting?...he has more important things to do.

[Texkentuck]

gone for good

[Tinfect]

"The Imperium is opposed." Said Feren, eliciting a gasp from a nondescript Imperial aide, "On this matter the clear benefits of established means of international cooperation and authority clearly outweigh concerns of absolute border impermeability; none of the concerns raised within this draft, those being that it is a potentially unwieldy piece of legislation, are so much as founded, much less so concerning as to justify its repeal.

To clarify, the Target requires Member-States to provide samples to World Assembly authorities such that research and control efforts may be adequately established throughout Member-States; clause four, if you've not read it. Such is not reflected in the later legislation cited, and the repeal would thus risk Member-States finding information relevant to certain epidemics inaccessible at critical juncture, delaying effective response, and potentially causing dramatic loss of life. Civil Oversight is of the opinion that the current Legislation is, if anything, insufficient in this objective, not overbroad. There is therefore, no reason to repeal it on grounds both utterly unfounded, and counter to the objectives of epidemic control."

[Kurogasa]

You think our emperor is here for some random General Assembly meeting?...he has more important things to do.

Of course Emperor...............

He's not here...you would know if he was.