[GA—UP NEXT] Right to Exit a Member State

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jinkies

Minister
-
-
-
TNP Nation
Vapid
Discord
solringen
ga.jpg

Right To Exit A Member State
Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Simone Republic | Onsite Topic

The World Assembly (WA),

Affirming the fundamental right for a sapient individual to freely leave a member state of the WA ("exit state"), at any time, temporarily or permanently, of their own free will and accord;

The WA hereby enacts as follows:

  1. Right to exit. No restrictions can be placed on an individual from leaving an exit state, unless the exit state can conclusively show (with the burden of proof on that exit state) that the particular individual:
    • is deemed legally incompetent in the exit state, and, under the laws of the exit state, has not been permitted to leave the exit state by the legal parent(s) and/or guardian(s) of the individual;
    • is currently incarcerated in accordance with due process of law;
    • has been granted bail pending trial in the exit state for a serious criminal offence, and that bail is granted on condition of that inhabitant staying in the exit state;
    • has an outstanding duly issued arrest warrant for a serious criminal offence in the exit state; or
    • has been duly convicted of a serious criminal offence, and the tariff (or other conditions such as parole) requires that the individual seeks approval from a competent authority of that WA state prior to traveling or exiting that state.
  2. Appeals to restrictions. A WA state is required to, subject to due process of law applicable to that WA state:
    • inform the individual if they are restricted from travel, and provide channels for appeals against such restrictions;
    • regularly review the restrictions placed on an individual's right to exit, and ensure that they are only in place for as long necessary; and
    • consider any humanitarian requests for temporary exits, such as to attend funerals.
  3. No retribution.
    • If someone leaves the WA state in violation of clause (1), no WA state may impose retribution on anyone related to that individual, such as relatives, neighbors, friends, or associates, merely for the said violation.
    • The aforesaid does not govern offences under other applicable laws, such as a prison warden charged with abetting a jailbreak that results in a violation of clause 1.
  4. Exclusions. This resolution does not govern:
    • exits if the WA state is at a state of war (either declared by the WA state or deemed as such by WA organs);
    • exits related to national security (including national service or emergency civilian service);
    • exits by anyone acting on behalf of the WA or a WA organ;
    • exits involving transfers of prisoners (including prisoners of war and civilians);
    • entry and exit conditions of officially accredited diplomats from other states; and
    • anyone subject to a duly authorized quarantine.
  5. Jurisdiction. Each WA state is to interpret and enforce this resolution.


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
51000
 
Last edited:
[Non-WA]

I'm against this resolution as it stands because it intentionally excludes civil proceedings from a list of reasons people can be detained in a member state. It is an unfortunate fact that people may flee a civil suit after service, and member states should have the right to govern that on their own terms.
 
For. The exclusion of civil proceedings is entirely intentional. Otherwise you end up with the bizarre situation where someone rich can sue say Haymarket Riot until the heat death of the universe to stop them from leaving a country. (Actually that was the rationale for repealing the previous resolution).
 
Last edited:
I’m not sure why the terminology switches around where exit state is defined and used in the first part and then never again in favor of WA state. I also believe it is understood that WA resolutions only apply to WA states so I’m not sure why this is being specified. It rubs me the wrong way.

Jinkies makes a fair point, and while a previous version of this resolution may have been repealed for abusing a civil proceedings loophole, this one seems to be creating an opposite loophole. That aspect should have been addressed in some way.

Against
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top