[GA, not in queue] - Repeal "Consular Rights"

---

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging the efforts of the target resolution, Consular Rights, to mandate requirements for diplomatic assistance to citizens abroad;

Noting however that following the passage of GA 695, Dual Citizenship Arrangements, and GA 703, Consular Protection Arrangements, as well as other citizenship related resolutions such as GARs 386, 552 and 686, the rights and responsibilities of diplomatic missions abroad to help their citizens, if such help is required, have been expanded considerably beyond the scope of the target resolution;

Further noting that, as a result, the target is serving no substantive purpose in protecting the rights of citizens abroad not already detailed elsewhere;

Hereby repeals the target resolution, Consular Rights.

Click to expand...

Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations, NPA personnel, and those on NPA deployments will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote. If you are on an NPA deployment without being formally registered as an NPA member, name your deployed nation in your vote.

---

Voting Instructions:

• Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
• Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
• Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
• Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.

Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!

---

ifv

For as author. This is largely a cleanup resolution - following the passing of GA703, GA164 is pretty much entirely redundant. Gensec had ruled back in June 2023 that I don't need to repeal GA164 to pass GA703 because there's no conflict - GA703 substantially expands on GA164 but there's no actual conflict so I don't need to do a repeal-and-replace, so it ended up being a replace-then-repeal.

Very technically (since I analysed both resolutions in detail), GA164 allows "host nations to require these meetings to occur off of the actual grounds of the diplomatic mission, to prevent a situation where the accused refuses to leave the building the host nation is not allowed to access". GA703 simply says in 3(f) "from time to time (and with reasonable frequency, if requested by the citizen) have its mission staff meet with the citizen in a setting with sufficient levels of privacy, in order to offer or to render support" so very technically, the home nation will lose this right.

The subsequent resolutions that I wrote all assume good faith on the part of the home nation and therefore that this sort of situation should not occur, i.e., it is not using a diplomatic pretense to abscond. Julian Assange being a pretty special case. GA703 simply doesn't mention "where" a meeting with a diplomatic representative takes place.

Present

For

For

For

For.

For

For

I am for this proposal. It demonstrates clearly the redundancy of that which it aims to repeal.

Thread locked. Will probably resubmit later. I messed up the TGs and didn't campaign properly, my fault there.