[GA, in queue] - Repeal "Right of Emigration"

Simone

Simone

Milky white thingy
-
-
-
-
Pronouns
It
TNP Nation
Simone_Republic
ga.jpg

Repeal "Right of Emigration"
Category: Repeal | GA #279
Proposed by: Simone Republic | Onsite Topic
Replacement: < Right to Exit a Member State >​

The World Assembly (WA),

Affirming that it is a fundamental right for individuals to freely exit from a nation without hinderance;

Noting that the target resolution allows individuals to be prevented from leaving a WA state, subject to certain conditions, but these conditions contain several loopholes that can be exploited by others to deliberately impede someone from leaving a WA state, such as:

  1. Exemption “b” permitting anyone “undergoing legal proceedings” to be prevented from leaving a WA state fails to:
    • distinguish between civil and criminal proceedings, nor the parties involved;
    • consider the severity of any legal proceedings, or whether they are frivolous in nature;
  2. Exemption “d” for probable cause to commit a crime does not account for the scenario of certain actions by an individual being a crime in one WA states but not another, and require a more nuanced solution that accounts for, for example, the severity of the crime or any appeals;

Horrified that as a result of these loopholes, well-resourced malicious actors, government-affiliated or otherwise, can effectively prevent anyone from leaving a country through vexatious litigation, or a potential emigrant can be beholden to an inefficient court system or entangled in endless legal proceedings due to engaging in a profession that is prone to civil litigation;

Looking forward to the WA passing future resolutions that affirm the right to exit a WA state without the said flaws;

Hereby repeals the target resolution, Right of Emigration.
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!

ForAgainstAbstainPresent
8000
 
Last edited:
For as author.

This is largely to fix the language regarding "civil litigation" in GA279. It's been in the works for about 11 months because I kind of never got around to fully fixing the replacement until now.

Issues with GA279
  1. The main issue is actually Exemption B - it is worded in such a way that ignores the severity of the offence (speeding tickets vs murders) and the fact that "legal proceedings" can be broadly read to mean civil proceedings, and these proceedings can last for years or decades (say inheritance law). The case of William Jennens lasted 117 years, and of course was the basis for Bleak House by Charles Dickens.
  2. In modern US law, Marshall v Marshall (ie the Anna Nicole Smith one) has been ongoing since 1996 and involved two roundtrips to the US Supreme Court, and both the plaintiff and the defendant died before the conclusion of the case. (It started January 25, 1996 and ended October 24, 2022, 26 years). It's patently unfair to hold someone from exiting a nation when a case can last 26 years and let both the original litigants drop dead before they could leave if IRL mirrored WA laws.
  3. The most horrifying scenario (in my mind) is that if a billionaire hates someone, that billionaire can simply file enough lawsuits against someone for the next 100 years and prevent that person from leaving. Suits lawsuits would not be frivolous, for example, if say the billionaire is suing someone who is a competitor in the same industry and there are arguably valid reasons such as restraint of trade or employment etc.
  4. The civil litigation loophole would also apply to someone who works in a very litigious industry, such as construction or insurance.
 
Last edited:
For. Pretty soon, General Assembly resolutions are going to be able to affect in-game national policies. I have the no emigration policy, so if this stays on the books, I'm fucked.
 
Last edited:
Comfed:
For. Pretty soon, General Assembly resolutions are going to be able to affect in-game national policies. I have the no emigration policy, so if this stays on the books, I'm fucked.
Click to expand...

The proposal at the moment is only to change stats directly, unless the stats changes are enough to cause a policy change.
 
I am in favour of this proposal. It addresses the issues of the target well, and it will clear the way for a superior replacement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top