[AT VOTE] Repeal Standardized Passport Arrangements

[Goobergunchia]

Target is linked here:

The World Assembly,

Understanding that travel between different nations is a necessity in the current state of the world and the benefit that passports provide to nations in facilitating such movement legally;

Acknowledging that GA#717 attempted to protect passport and travel rights amongst all WA member nations with the introduction of the Passports, Nationality and Refugees Administration (PASA);

Displeased with the mandate in clause 2a that all WA member states must follow templates laid down by PASA, stifling potential passport innovation and ingenuity with unnecessary and potentially burdensome requirements;

Distraught by PASA’s unabashed overreach in clause 5, wherein PASA is allowed to issue passports solely at its own discretion, with no restrictions on issuing passports to individuals belonging to a WA member nation that may otherwise be disallowed from having a passport by the laws of that WA member nation, allowing for the potential to circumvent the home rule of any WA nation;

Dismayed by the further overreach of PASA in clauses 5c and 5d, wherein with clause 5c, PASA is permitted to issue passports to citizens of collapsed WA members, with no distinction on how this is to be determined, thereby allowing for potential corruption of the system, and with clause 5d, wherein PASA is allowed to issue passports to individuals rendered stateless by non-WA member nations, which is a wholly unnecessary action for a WA body, and has the potential to pull the entire WA into disputes that the WA otherwise has no business being in;

Perturbed by PASA’s ability to interact with non-WA member nations at its own discretion, as stated in clauses 2f and 6b, as this body feels that PASA interacting with non-WA member nations feels like an opportunity for non-WA members to take advantage of the WA, gaining benefits of the WA without being a member subject to any of the rules and regulations that the WA may otherwise impose;

Disappointed that the end result is a committee with powers far extending from what should be acceptable from a WA regulated organization;

Hereby repeals GA#717 “Standardized Passport Arrangements"

The World Assembly,

Understanding that travel between different nations is a necessity in the current state of the world and the benefit that passports provide to nations in facilitating such movement legally;

Acknowledging that GA#717 attempted to protect passport and travel rights amongst all WA member nations with the introduction of the Passports, Nationality and Refugees Administration (PASA);

Displeased with the mandate in clause 2a that all WA member states must follow templates laid down by PASA, stifling potential passport innovation and ingenuity with unnecessary and potentially burdensome requirements;

Dismayed by the unabashed overreach of PASA in clause 5, with PASA issuing passports at its own discretion, which constitutes a violation of a nation’s right to self-regulation for WA member nations any time that PASA issues a passport to one of their citizens against their will;

Perturbed by PASA’s ability to interact with non-WA member nations, as stated in clauses 2f and 6b, which this body feels is wholly inappropriate for the purposes of the WA, and can be interpreted as an intrusion into a nation’s foreign affairs, as PASA interacting with non-WA member nations at its own discretion is a direct assault on the self determination of foreign affairs for WA member nations;

Unamused by the potential for misunderstandings within the PASA mandate, seen for instance in the conflict between clause 4d, where it is stated that nations must recognize passports from all other WA members as valid, contrasted with what was stated in clause 9c that this resolution does not interfere with WA members’ powers regarding border control;

Disappointed that the end result is a committee with powers far extending from what should be acceptable from a WA regulated organization;

Hereby repeals GA#717 “Standardized Passport Arrangements"

The World Assembly,

Understanding that travel between different nations is a necessity in the current state of the world and the benefit that passports provide to nations in facilitating such movement legally.

Acknowledging that GA#717 attempted to protect passport and travel rights amongst all WA member nations with the introduction of the Passports, Nationality and Refugees Administration (PASA).

Disappointed by GA#717’s failure to define how PASA is to choose the members of its committee, in addition to a lack of checks on its power in general, which may lead to large-scale corruption of the committee as a whole.

Dismayed by the unabashed overreach of PASA, with PASA issuing passports at its own discretion, which constitutes a violation of a nation’s right to self-regulation for WA member nations any time that PASA issues a passport to one of their citizens against their will.

Perturbed by PASA’s ability to interact with non-WA member nations, which this body feels is wholly inappropriate for the purposes of the WA, and can be interpreted as an intrusion into a nation’s foreign affairs, as PASA interacting with non-WA member nations at its own discretion is a direct assault on the self determination of foreign affairs for WA member nations.

Unamused by potential for misunderstandings within the PASA mandate, seen for instance here, where it is first stated that nations must recognize passports from all other WA members as valid, but goes on to state that this resolution does not interfere with WA members’ powers regarding border control.

Disappointed that the end result is a committee with powers far extending from what should be acceptable from a WA regulated organization.

Hereby repeals GA#717 “Standardized Passport Arrangements"

[The Ice States]

"As the target replaced a resolution titled in cromulent Stevidian with a non-standard variant thereof, we support repeal of the target in principle. Grammatically we would prefer that clauses be ended in semicolons or commas in place of periods. It may also help to improve clarity to cite which clauses of the target have the effects described."

~Claudia Lindner,
Deputy World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

Ooc: Welcome to the GA! As to this clause:

Disappointed by GA#717’s failure to define how PASA is to choose the members of its committee, in addition to a lack of checks on its power in general, which may lead to large-scale corruption of the committee as a whole.

It would have been illegal under the proposal rules for the target to define membership of a committee (the Committees rule specifically; see here for a practical case where this has been enforced). I don't know whether it is legal for a repeal to allege that a resolution fails to do this, but even if it were this is a weak argument for the reason that the target is literally unable to address it.

[Tinhampton]

Vehement and unabashed support.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I won't vote in favour of this repeal if the following clause is retained:

Disappointed by GA#717’s failure to define how PASA is to choose the members of its committee, in addition to a lack of checks on its power in general, which may lead to large-scale corruption of the committee as a whole.

It's kinda ridiculous to demand that an author break the committee rule in their proposal (or otherwise complain that they didn't).

[Barfleur]

"Why should a nation be free to restrict its citizens from receiving passports from an international body? Furthermore, recognizing PASA passports as valid does not mean that all of a sudden, member nations are required to adopt open borders. They may still choose to forbid entry from specific nations, or impose immigration control, et cetera. It merely means that they may not deny an otherwise qualified person entry or exit because their passport comes from PASA."

[Belleroph]

Ooc: Welcome to the GA! As to this clause:

Disappointed by GA#717’s failure to define how PASA is to choose the members of its committee, in addition to a lack of checks on its power in general, which may lead to large-scale corruption of the committee as a whole.

It would have been illegal under the proposal rules for the target to define membership of a committee (the Committees rule specifically; see here for a practical case where this has been enforced). I don't know whether it is legal for a repeal to allege that a resolution fails to do this, but even if it were this is a weak argument for the reason that the target is literally unable to address it.

I won't vote in favour of this repeal if the following clause is retained:

Disappointed by GA#717’s failure to define how PASA is to choose the members of its committee, in addition to a lack of checks on its power in general, which may lead to large-scale corruption of the committee as a whole.

It's kinda ridiculous to demand that an author break the committee rule in their proposal (or otherwise complain that they didn't).

A valid point on all fronts, it is not at all fair to complain about a piece of legislation not breaking the rules, a new draft is up that removes the offending argument.

"As the target replaced a resolution titled in cromulent Stevidian with a non-standard variant thereof, we support repeal of the target in principle. Grammatically we would prefer that clauses be ended in semicolons or commas in place of periods. It may also help to improve clarity to cite which clauses of the target have the effects described."

~Claudia Lindner,
Deputy World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

Clauses are now ended in semicolons, and citations added.

[Simone Republic]

Unamused by the potential for misunderstandings within the PASA mandate, seen for instance in the conflict between clause 4d, where it is stated that nations must recognize passports from all other WA members as valid, contrasted with what was stated in clause 9c that this resolution does not interfere with WA members’ powers regarding border control;

Just because nations recognize passports from all other WA members as valid do not mean they cannot close their borders for any reason.

[Kay Pacha]

Unamused by the potential for misunderstandings within the PASA mandate, seen for instance in the conflict between clause 4d, where it is stated that nations must recognize passports from all other WA members as valid, contrasted with what was stated in clause 9c that this resolution does not interfere with WA members’ powers regarding border control;

Just because nations recognize passports from all other WA members as valid do not mean they cannot close their borders for any reason.

Passport validity means the passport may be used.

[The Ice States]

Just because nations recognize passports from all other WA members as valid do not mean they cannot close their borders for any reason.

Passport validity means the passport may be used.

Ooc: As a form of identification or similar then yes; however it does not imply that other nations have to allow travel using such a passport. Having a perfectly valid Mokan passport does not entitle someone to travel into Ordena.

-----

"The updated draft certainly reads better than the previous version, and many of its arguments are indeed strong ones. 'Displeased', in particular, is one which we find to be compelling; international bureaucrats determining templates for passports is easily prone to not taking into account the culture of each member nation, when the nation itself would do just as well in designing its passports."

"On the other hand, we do not find either 'Dismayed' or 'Unamused' to be compelling, broadly for the reasons stated by the Barfleurian mission. With regards to 'Dismayed', we note that Section 5 only applies when a person is stateless or otherwise themselves in dire circumstances. If a person is stateless then there is no member nation with an actual reason to object; if a person is not stateless but still in need of one then it seems to be a basic civil rights issue to receive such a passport; one which should not merely be objected to by a member nation because the person happens to hold citizenship there."

"'Perturbed' has the potential to be a strong argument but requires more elaboration on how this violates self-regulation, or is otherwise harmful. Indeed, I do not see a plausible argument for how it infringes on the sovereignty of member nations; the interactions of the sort described in 2f and 6b have no measurable effect on third parties, let alone enough as to violate the sovereignty of uninvolved nations, members of the World Assembly or not. A more compelling argument would be that providing for bilateral agreements with non-member nations is prone to corruption, particularly on the side of non-member nations not subject to WA regulation."

"In any case, we pray that our commentary manifests itself in a more polished draft which the Eternal Union may support. Best of luck, Ambassador."

~Robert Desak,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

[Simone Republic]

"The updated draft certainly reads better than the previous version, and many of its arguments are indeed strong ones. 'Displeased', in particular, is one which we find to be compelling; international bureaucrats determining templates for passports is easily prone to not taking into account the culture of each member nation, when the nation itself would do just as well in designing its passports."

"It's much more convenient to have a standarized passport so it can be read by machine readable readers." A bear says. "Have you actually ever travelled to another country, or queued for several hours to enter some hellhole countries?"

[Belleroph]

"Why should a nation be free to restrict its citizens from receiving passports from an international body? Furthermore, recognizing PASA passports as valid does not mean that all of a sudden, member nations are required to adopt open borders. They may still choose to forbid entry from specific nations, or impose immigration control, et cetera. It merely means that they may not deny an otherwise qualified person entry or exit because their passport comes from PASA."

Passport validity means the passport may be used.

Ooc: As a form of identification or similar then yes; however it does not imply that other nations have to allow travel using such a passport. Having a perfectly valid Mokan passport does not entitle someone to travel into Ordena.

-----

"The updated draft certainly reads better than the previous version, and many of its arguments are indeed strong ones. 'Displeased', in particular, is one which we find to be compelling; international bureaucrats determining templates for passports is easily prone to not taking into account the culture of each member nation, when the nation itself would do just as well in designing its passports."

"On the other hand, we do not find either 'Dismayed' or 'Unamused' to be compelling, broadly for the reasons stated by the Barfleurian mission. With regards to 'Dismayed', we note that Section 5 only applies when a person is stateless or otherwise themselves in dire circumstances. If a person is stateless then there is no member nation with an actual reason to object; if a person is not stateless but still in need of one then it seems to be a basic civil rights issue to receive such a passport; one which should not merely be objected to by a member nation because the person happens to hold citizenship there."

"'Perturbed' has the potential to be a strong argument but requires more elaboration on how this violates self-regulation, or is otherwise harmful. Indeed, I do not see a plausible argument for how it infringes on the sovereignty of member nations; the interactions of the sort described in 2f and 6b have no measurable effect on third parties, let alone enough as to violate the sovereignty of uninvolved nations, members of the World Assembly or not. A more compelling argument would be that providing for bilateral agreements with non-member nations is prone to corruption, particularly on the side of non-member nations not subject to WA regulation."

"In any case, we pray that our commentary manifests itself in a more polished draft which the Eternal Union may support. Best of luck, Ambassador."

~Robert Desak,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

"With regards to 'Dismayed', it is the Bellerophan viewpoint that PASA has been granted far too much discretion in terms of when they are allowed to issue a passport. Allowing PASA the discretion to issue passports to stateless individuals due to the collapse of a WA state feels as though it is a definition that is rife for corruption. When is a state considered 'collapsed'? Is the government of one other WA nation recognizing an entity to be collapsed sufficient to trigger such an allowance, or would it instead require a majority of WA nations to recognize it as such? It may be the case that what some consider a backwater, collapsed society, is simply a state that is functioning well within it's own parameters. Allowing a simple committee to make such a distinction feels far too rife for potential corruption, and it is Bellerophan opinion that such an allowance must be rectified. In addition, Section 5 goes on to state that PASA is permitted to give individuals who are "rendered stateless as a result of an action by a state, regardless of whether that state is a WA state." a passport. We feel that, regardless of how well intentioned it may be, that it is not permissable for the WA to interfere in affairs of states that are not members of the WA, even in the event that such a non-WA member ceases to exist. We simply feel that there is far too much potential for PASA to involve the WA in affairs that are beyond the scope and intention of the WA. With these statements in mind, 'Dismayed' has been updated to better clarify the Bellerophan position.

With regards to 'Perturbed', while we maintain that it is a potential violation of the diplomatic discretion of every individual WA Nation, we do agree that it is better stated that bilateral agreements with non-WA members is something that opens the door for potential corruption to be allowed into the WA. Allowing non-WA members to have access to WA resources without having to follow WA regulations, subject only to the whims of PASA, feels like a far reaching and overbearing action for a simple committee to make. Once again, the text has now been updated to better take these arguments in mind.

After careful deliberation, we have decided to withdraw the 'Unamused' argument. While Belleroph is still of the opinion that the current wording in the text has the potential to cause confusion, we understand that this reasoning may not be as compelling to many others.

A new clause, 'Dismayed', has been added as well, addressing the fact that Section 5 allows for PASA to issue passports solely at its own discretion, with no stated protections against issuing a passport to an individual who may otherwise be disallowed from owning a passport in their home nation, which we feel is a violation of the national self determination of any WA member nation. While we understand that Section 5 may be well intentioned, we feel that without any explicit protections for the laws of individual nations, that there is far too much potential for corruption, and otherwise undue actions that may harm a WA member's ability to self govern.

We hope that the current draft is much better recieved, and ask for any and all feedback that you may have"

- Artemis Sallane
Ambassador of the Empire of Belleroph

[Belleroph]

Bump, would like to hear more feedback on this over the weekend while I have time to make any adjustments

[Belleroph]

Last Call for any criticism. If you have any concerns, speak up now.

[Tinhampton]

RE DISTRAUGHT: PASA cannot issue Article 5 passports to just anyone. Such passport recipients must be "verifiably in dire circumstances."
I agree that PASA giving passports to people who are a serious flight risk (such as, to use an IRL example, people under Football Banning Orders during European Championships and World Cups; they are required to surrender their passports for the duration of those tournaments because they may travel to the host countries and perform acts of hooliganism, although by ministerial order rather than statute law) is an issue. But I'm not sure that anyone in the circumstances described by Article 5 is such a genuine flight risk as to warrant their not deserving a passport, at all.

RE DISMAYED: I think that the definition of a collapsed member state is obvious. Everybody knew when the USSR had fallen apart on Christmas Day 1991.

Other than those points, I think I can support this repeal.

---

RE PERTURBED: Not a concern, but I'm in accord with the argument that the WA should just not be dealing with non-members - I've long opposed the principle that non-members should be sanctioned for violating WA laws that they are not required to adhere to, dating back to the Epidemic Investigation Act back in 2021 if not earlier.

[Bananaistan]

"The argument regarding 5d and the generality of a WA body handing out passports willy nilly to individuals who were not previously citizens of a member states is sufficient to support this."

[Simone Republic]

"The argument regarding 5d and the generality of a WA body handing out passports willy nilly to individuals who were not previously citizens of a member states is sufficient to support this."

"A passport is merely a travel document. It does not confer citizenship and merely confirms identity."

(OOC)

Actually this is done IRL by the Red Cross
https://www.icrc.org/en/publication/436 ... l-document

This section was modelled after the Red Cross Emergency Travel Document.

[Belleroph]

RE DISTRAUGHT: PASA cannot issue Article 5 passports to just anyone. Such passport recipients must be "verifiably in dire circumstances."
I agree that PASA giving passports to people who are a serious flight risk (such as, to use an IRL example, people under Football Banning Orders during European Championships and World Cups; they are required to surrender their passports for the duration of those tournaments because they may travel to the host countries and perform acts of hooliganism, although by ministerial order rather than statute law) is an issue. But I'm not sure that anyone in the circumstances described by Article 5 is such a genuine flight risk as to warrant their not deserving a passport, at all.

RE DISMAYED: I think that the definition of a collapsed member state is obvious. Everybody knew when the USSR had fallen apart on Christmas Day 1991.

Other than those points, I think I can support this repeal.

---

RE PERTURBED: Not a concern, but I'm in accord with the argument that the WA should just not be dealing with non-members - I've long opposed the principle that non-members should be sanctioned for violating WA laws that they are not required to adhere to, dating back to the Epidemic Investigation Act back in 2021 if not earlier.

Regarding Article 5, I feel as though the wording leaves a bit to be desired. PASA is authorized at its own discretion to issue passports to folks in "verifiably dire circumstances", but the wording is open ended, and goes on to say "such as" rather than a more explicit listing, and I feel as though that is troublesome. It leaves too much opportunity on the table for problematic and broad interpretations, wherein there is the potential for PASA overreach.

Regarding Dismayed, I don't think the collapse of a country is always so obvious, indeed, a broad majority might agree that the Soviet Union was definitely collapsed on December 25th, 1991, but would it be completely unreasonable to say that the Soviet Union might have been collapsed or partially collapsed on May 8, 1990, after the three Baltic nations declared their independence? A majority of people may not agree, but there's certainly some room for that interpretation, especially in similar theoretical cases where the nations declaring independence may be much larger.

[Simone Republic]

(IC)

An ursine assistant, with Halloween makeup removed, speaks on the mic.

"We hate going line by line on repeals, but here we are."

Target is linked here:
Displeased with the mandate in clause 2a that all WA member states must follow templates laid down by PASA, stifling potential passport innovation and ingenuity with unnecessary and potentially burdensome requirements;

(IC)

"Try travelling without standardized (or ised, whatever) machine readable passports or spend several hours queueing at Customs, especially in shitholes like JFK."

Distraught by PASA’s unabashed overreach in clause 5, wherein PASA is allowed to issue passports solely at its own discretion, with no restrictions on issuing passports to individuals belonging to a WA member nation that may otherwise be disallowed from having a passport by the laws of that WA member nation, allowing for the potential to circumvent the home rule of any WA nation;

"That's a feature, not a bug. Right to exit a member state is important. If someone isn't allowed to leave a WA state, and due process has been followed, they can always block that individual from leaving at the port anyway."

Dismayed by the further overreach of PASA in clauses 5c and 5d, wherein with clause 5c, PASA is permitted to issue passports to citizens of collapsed WA members, with no distinction on how this is to be determined, thereby allowing for potential corruption of the system

"Issuing emergency visas and travel documents in "verifiably in dire circumstances" is again a feature, not a bug."

(OOC)

See the International Red Cross Emergency Travel Document.

https://www.icrc.org/en/publication/436 ... l-document

and with clause 5d, wherein PASA is allowed to issue passports to individuals rendered stateless by non-WA member nations, which is a wholly unnecessary action for a WA body, and has the potential to pull the entire WA into disputes that the WA otherwise has no business being in

(Back to IC)

"That was kind of a way to reduce statelessness, back when people cared (re GA386 etc)."

Perturbed by PASA’s ability to interact with non-WA member nations at its own discretion, as stated in clauses 2f and 6b, as this body feels that PASA interacting with non-WA member nations feels like an opportunity for non-WA members to take advantage of the WA, gaining benefits of the WA without being a member subject to any of the rules and regulations that the WA may otherwise impose;

"That's at least a justifiable point even if we disagree with you, at least it's basically saying that you don't want to pay for non-WA members etc. But then goes back to whether reducing statelessness across the entire multiverse is a goal or not."

[Belleroph]

Last Call, let me know if you have any concerns.

[Simone Republic]

Please note that I have countered TG for quorum and will campaign against repeal.

Key message:

Please think of the refugees and asylum seekers. The proposal provides for important safeguards against citizens from failing to obtain their own passports, and to issue passports to individuals that are verifiably in dire circumstances, such as anyone, fleeing an active war, travelling as refugees or seeking asylum, or rendered stateless. These are vulnerable individuals. These are fundamental human rights. The proposal to abolish such rights in the name of "overreach" by the WA strips away fundamental human rights protections carried out (in real life) by the Red Cross and other organisations.

Thank you.

[Erstavik]

For immediate release.

Statement by His Imperial and Most Catholic Majesty Luke I:

The Holy Catholic Empire of Erstavik will vote in favor of the proposed resolution Repeal: “Standardized Passport Arrangements”. While Erstavik supports the principle of uniform minimum passport standards to facilitate international travel and enhance security, the Empire shares the author’s concerns regarding GA Resolution #717. In particular, the provision granting PASA the authority to issue passports at its own discretion undermines national sovereignty and creates unnecessary complications in passport governance.

Erstavik remains committed to advancing cooperative international efforts to improve travel and identification systems but believes these must respect the sovereignty and legal frameworks of member states.

Issued at the Imperial Palace
The Holy Catholic Empire of Erstavik
This Third day of December in the year of our Lord Two Thousand and Twenty-four.

[Great Britain-and Northern Ireland]

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland officially supports this proposal.

[Freemarket]

Freemarket supports the repeal of GA#717, "Standardized Passport Arrangements," as it represents a clear case of bureaucratic overreach and unwarranted interference with national sovereignty. The mandates imposed by PASA stifle innovation, undermine the authority of member nations, and entangle the WA in matters outside its proper scope, particularly in its dealings with non-WA members and its discretion in issuing passports.

[The Denton Isles]

Just because nations recognize passports from all other WA members as valid do not mean they cannot close their borders for any reason.

Passport validity means the passport may be used.

But just because a passport is valid, does not mean it needs to be accepted.

[The Overmind]

I'm not going to die on this hill, but I find these arguments broadly unconvincing.

The target proposal doesn't really enforce any requirements on WA member nations whatsoever outside of the standardization of the creation, issuance, and authentication of passports, which, themselves, create no further burdens.

At best clause 4.c. implies, though does not enforce, that WA passports provide part of the means to exit a member state, while, in the same breath, removing any of the potential tooth behind that implication.

Please do not make me defend Simone Republic resolutions in the future.