[PASSED] Repeal: "World Assembly Border Policy"

[Luna Amore]

Repeal: "World Assembly Border Policy"
Category: Repeal | Target: GA#564 | Proposed by: Barfleur

---

The World Assembly hereby finds as follows:

1. Resolution No. 564 "World Assembly Border Policy" (hereafter "the target resolution") is a good-intentioned law enacted to further a beneficial goal, namely, the voluntary harmonization of borders across member nations. Such harmonization has been shown to be of great economic and social benefit to those nations which choose to take part in it. Nevertheless, Resolution No. 564 fails in its intended goals, and actively harms member nations, for reasons stated below.
   
   
2. The target resolution's first flaw is in its second clause, which establishes a committee called the WABC and then "[t]asks WABC with processing applications from member states to join a free movement zone." Nations possess all sovereign powers which they have not explicitly forfeited as a condition of membership in this august body. Therefore, any two (or more) nations which wish to form a free movement zone could do so on their own, without intervention from this body or any of its committees. In fact, two (or more) nations would likely negotiate a better and fairer free movement zone among themselves, as their policymakers would:
   
   1. be far more aware of the relevant nations' interests than indifferent (though hardworking and dedicated) gnomes assigned to an international committee;
   2. benefit from the ability to engage in more one-on-one discussion with officials of the other nations; and
   3. not need to concern themselves with the interests of a potentially infinite number of other nations, in different universes, with different forms of government and attitudes to (and modes of) international travel.
3. The target resolution's third clause, which "[r]equires that applicant states, in order to be approved by WABC, meet a list of criteria established by WABC which will include an analysis of their border security regarding non-consenting and non-member states," is empty at best and dangerous at worst. This is because:
   
   1. there are no criteria listed upfront, only the promise that future criteria will be dictated by an international committee, a state of affairs which may be expected to result in nations unsure as to whether joining an international free movement zone will be in their national interest, as they will not know what the conditions of joining will be; and
   2. the clause's reference to "non-consenting ... states" is not at all clear in terms of what it means; a nation may reasonably choose to allow unrestricted travel from one nation and restrict travel from another based on factors such as existing trade, terrorism, and government cooperation.
4. Reducing crime and terrorism is a priority of both national governments and of this body. However, the target resolution actively hampers this goal by "allow[ing] unlimited travel across borders at designated points between consenting states without the need of the traveler to present documentation at each border." Requiring member nations to permit individuals to freely cross from one jurisdiction to another without even verifying identity opens the door to widespread trafficking in contraband goods (including stolen property), drugs, weapons, endangered and invasive species, and even sapient beings subject to the worst forms of exploitation. It is good policy to encourage international cooperation on matters of transnational crime; it is shockingly bad policy to require international complicity in such crime.
   
   
5. It is a common refrain that the target resolution, through its mostly optional nature, has negligible effects on most nations, and is therefore not a serious contender for a a repeal. But its tenth clause forces member nations, even those which emphatically reject the artificially-created free movement zone, to conduct relations with such zone through a specially-appointed liaison. Thus, while largely saving its harms for the nations which voluntarily subject themselves thereto, the target resolution cannot be seen as an optional affair which a nation can just as easily opt out of.
   
   
6. On balance, while the target resolution has noble aims, it serves no purpose which member nations cannot serve on their own in a more thorough and efficient manner, and actively undermines many of the objectives that this same body has previously ordained as international law. It therefore warrants a repeal.

Now, therefore, be Resolution No. 564 "World Assembly Border Policy" repealed.

"I see that the delegations from Cretox State and Imperium Anglorum have proposed repeals of GA#564, and I now wish to offer this to the maddening crowd."
OOC: I mean no disrespect at all to The Wary Walrus, nor any personal ill-will.

[Imperium Anglorum]

C Marcius Blythe. I have no objections in principle. Furthermore, if you would like to use anything from my draft, go ahead, if you provide a co-author credit.

[Apatosaurus]

"We see no issues with this repeal on a first read. Full support."

[Fachumonn]

Full support as written.

[Barfleur]

"We appreciate the support of the delegations from Imperium Anglorum, Apatosaurus, and Fachumonn. Regarding the noble and esteemed Amb. Blythe, I do not yet know whether I will take him up on that generous offer."

[Fachumonn]

The Fachumonn special, *grammar and spelling edits only*!

• The target resolution's first flaw is in its second clause, which "[t]asks WABC with processing applications from member states to join a free movement zone." Nations possess all sovereign powers which they have not explicitly forfeited as a condition of membership in this august body. Therefore, any two (or more) nations which wish to form a free movement zone could do so on their own, without intervention from this body or any of its committees. In fact, two (or more) nations would likely negotiate a better and fairer free movement zone among themselves, as their policymakers would:

"which wish" -> "that wish".

• benefit from the ability to engage in more one-on-one discussion with officials of the other nations; and

"discussion" -> "discussions" you got me lost here

• Reducing crime and terrorism is a priority of both national governments and of this body. However, the target resolution actively hampers this goal by "allow[ing] unlimited travel across borders at designated points between consenting states without the need of the traveler to present documentation at each border." Requiring member nations to permit individuals to freely cross from one jurisdiction to another without even verifying identity opens the door to widespread trafficking in contraband goods (including stolen property), drugs, weapons, endangered and invasive species, and even sapient beings. It is good policy to encourage international cooperation on matters of transnational crime; it is shockingly bad policy to require international complicity in such crime.

Change "allow[ing]" -> "allowing" because it doesn't make sense to have [] here.
4th sentence start "it is good policy" -> "it is a good policy".

It is a common refrain that the target resolution, through its mostly optional nature, has negligible effects on most nations, and is therefore not a serious contender for a a repeal. But its tenth clause forces member nations, even those which emphatically reject the artificially-created free movement zone, to conduct relations with such zone through a specially-appointed liaison. Thus, while largely saving its harms for the nations which voluntarily subject themselves thereto, the target resolution cannot be seen as an optional affair which a nation can just as easily opt out of.

End of sentence one. "a a repeal" -> "a repeal".
"the target resolution cannot be seen as an optional affair which a nation" "the target resolution cannot be seen as an optional affair that a nation"

On balance, while the target resolution has noble aims, it serves no purpose which member nations cannot serve on their own in a more thorough and efficient manner, and actively undermines many of the objectives that this same body has previously ordained as international law. It therefore warrants a repeal.

"It therefore" -> "It, therefore,"



Looks incredible otherwise!

[Imperium Anglorum]

The Fachumonn special, *grammar and spelling edits only*!

• The target resolution's first flaw is in its second clause, which "[t]asks WABC with processing applications from member states to join a free movement zone." Nations possess all sovereign powers which they have not explicitly forfeited as a condition of membership in this august body. Therefore, any two (or more) nations which wish to form a free movement zone could do so on their own, without intervention from this body or any of its committees. In fact, two (or more) nations would likely negotiate a better and fairer free movement zone among themselves, as their policymakers would:

"which wish" -> "that wish".

In English, "which" and "that" are used interchangeably to introduce restrictive clauses. https://www.lexico.com/grammar/that-or-which. No change is needed.

• benefit from the ability to engage in more one-on-one discussion with officials of the other nations; and

"discussion" -> "discussions" you got me lost here

"More discussion" is correct; the example given is a specific bilateral negotiation. "Discussions" would be appropriate if the meetings are separate ones between different parties.

• Reducing crime and terrorism is a priority of both national governments and of this body. However, the target resolution actively hampers this goal by "allow[ing] unlimited travel across borders at designated points between consenting states without the need of the traveler to present documentation at each border." Requiring member nations to permit individuals to freely cross from one jurisdiction to another without even verifying identity opens the door to widespread trafficking in contraband goods (including stolen property), drugs, weapons, endangered and invasive species, and even sapient beings. It is good policy to encourage international cooperation on matters of transnational crime; it is shockingly bad policy to require international complicity in such crime.

Change "allow[ing]" -> "allowing" because it doesn't make sense to have [] here.
4th sentence start "it is good policy" -> "it is a good policy".

The use of brackets is correct. The original text of the resolution uses the verb form "allows"; the brackets mark that the quote is not verbatim. "It is good policy" is acceptable English. English permits omission of articles before generic or plural nouns. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-marking_in_English.

"the target resolution cannot be seen as an optional affair which a nation" "the target resolution cannot be seen as an optional affair that a nation"

Supra, re introduction of restrictive and non-restrictive clauses.

On balance, while the target resolution has noble aims, it serves no purpose which member nations cannot serve on their own in a more thorough and efficient manner, and actively undermines many of the objectives that this same body has previously ordained as international law. It therefore warrants a repeal.

"It therefore" -> "It, therefore,"

Use of "XYZ therefore ABC" without isolating commas is commonly attested in English. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... /therefore.

[Barfleur]

OOC: This proposal has been sent to the delegates ahead of a very busy few weeks for me.

[Imperium Anglorum]

There was raised (somewhere I don't recall) the pseduo-HM challenge that the following is a veracity violation:

Reducing crime and terrorism is a priority of both national governments and of this body. However, the target resolution actively hampers this goal by "allow[ing] unlimited travel across borders at designated points between consenting states without the need of the traveler to present documentation at each border." Requiring member nations to permit individuals to freely cross from one jurisdiction to another without even verifying identity opens the door to widespread trafficking in contraband goods (including stolen property), drugs, weapons, endangered and invasive species, and even sapient beings subject to the worst forms of exploitation.

I dismissed the argument – premised on reading "requiring" to be wholly mandatory and incompatible with the WA Border Policy's "consenting states" provision – by analogy: contracts are made by consent (and a "meeting of the minds") but are still binding and impose requirements and duties. The contextualisation provided in the previous sentence also vitiates some kind of hyperliteralist reading of "Requiring member nations" to refer to member nations as a whole only.

[Groot]

OOC: This is at vote.

[Fachumonn]

The Libertarian Socialist Confederation has voted Against due to a plurality of the region's members voting against.

[Socialist Republic of Cantonia]

As a socialist state, we fully support this decision.

[Barfleur]

"As the proposing delegation, it is not too much of a surprise that we are voting in favor."

[Vietstalia]

"Reducing crime and terrorism is a priority of both national governments and of this body. However, the target resolution actively hampers this goal by "allow[ing] unlimited travel across borders at designated points between consenting states without the need of the traveler to present documentation at each border." Requiring member nations to permit individuals to freely cross from one jurisdiction to another without even verifying identity opens the door to widespread trafficking in contraband goods (including stolen property), drugs, weapons, endangered and invasive species, and even sapient beings subject to the worst forms of exploitation. It is good policy to encourage international cooperation on matters of transnational crime; it is shockingly bad policy to require international complicity in such crime."

That was our plan-scheme.
OPPOSED

[The Wallenburgian World Assembly Offices]

Trevanyika stands, reading a prepared statement.

My colleague Comrade Ogenbond cast his delegation's vote against the target of this repeal, rightfully recognizing that the target's volunteer free movement zone is a recipe for international disaster as a result of its far too broad allowances for the movement of goods and people across jurisdictional boundaries. Despite the technical allowance for restrictions under section 8 of the target, explicit allowance under its section 4 for "unlimited travel across borders at designated points...without the need of the traveler to present documentation at each border" inevitably places participating states in jeopardy of unchecked smuggling and trafficking. Furthermore, the target's requirements of non-participating member states are, as this repeal successfully argues, useless to the limit of ridicule.

I do not share the Wallenburgian position that the target is a capitalist ploy against socialist liberty, but I anticipate no less eagerly the repeal of such a mediocre resolution. This repeal enjoys the support of my office.

[Barfleur]

"I appreciate the support from the Wallenburgian WA Offices. As to Vietstalia, well, now is the time to say something about those meddling kids and escape in your conveniently parked spacecraft."

[Tuseth]

In place of a delegate, a screen is in place. It flickers on, revealing a tall, yet slender woman with short, auburn hair and green eyes sitting at a desk wearing a traditional Tusethian outfit. Her nameplate reads 'Isabel Vaygea, Tusethian Delegate to the World Assembly.'

"I apologize that I could not appear in person, but the Communist Party insists that governmental officials refrain from leaving the country. Something about national security. Anyway, we see nothing but issues with the WABP, especially its mandate that we have no border controls. As such, Tuseth emphatically votes for its repeal."

The screen flickers off.

[The World Assembly Elite]

At midnight, 14 April 2022, GA #564 "World Assembly Border Policy" was repealed with the assent of 14,707 votes against 1,256 (92.1%). Compliance is no longer mandatory.