[At Vote] Repeal "Right of Emigration" [Complete]

[Sil Dorsett]

Category: Repeal
Target: GA#279
Proposed by: Imperium Anglorum
Onsite Topic

General Assembly Resolution #279 “Right of Emigration” (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

This august World Assembly,

Observing that there is a provision to allow for emigration restriction in the case of criminal sentences, but also seeing that such a provision does not create a restriction for civil liabilities, and therefore concerned that the right of emigration could be used to evade court-mandated civil liabilities, such as child support,

Concerned that this right, in a world of extremely quick travel, could also be used to evade court summons and thereby deprive governments of much-needed evidence to substantiate criminal prosecutions,

Noting that because the resolution prevents emigration restrictions in times of war, mass emigration is likely, which would lead to labour shortages for war industries and stop the production of materiel needed for the defence of the nation, and

Further noting that the resolution states that 'no government may prevent the emigration of individuals from their nation', which, when combined with the existence of outbound border controls, requires nations to either choose to disband such outbound controls (and therefore be unable to measure population outflows) or be burdened with the massive costs of issuing passports to all citizens,

Hereby repeals 279 GA 'Right of Emigration'.

Please vote For, Against, Abstain, or Present

 

[Sil Dorsett]

The "Right of Emigration" resolution was well intended to prevent governments from trapping their residents within their borders, but was very broad in its approach, using a wide-reaching mandate with limited exceptions rather than a narrow and focused mandate that specifically targeted despotic dictators. "Right of Emigration" does not consider every possible reason why a person may want to leave their country, or why a government would have reason to compel a person to stay.

However, the author of the repeal has stated that there are no plans to replace the target resolution, and would try to repeal any successful attempt at a replacement. The repeal is also based on a lack of exceptions for attempts to avoid the effects of civil judgments, even though a failure to abide by civil judgments in most cases is a crime, which is covered in the existing resolution. The repeal also mentions the need to maintain adequate labor for war industries, but ignores the more fundamental right of civilians to preserve their lives.

Voting for the repeal of "Right of Emigration" returns the full responsibility of outbound border control law to individual states, while voting against the repeal retains the World Assembly's version of outbound border control which, except for very rare and specific instances, covers most cases in which a person's right to emigrate would be suspended, but otherwise guarantees it.

 

[Darcania]

For.

 

[Corporal Clegg]

For as well.

 

[Sil Dorsett]

"Noting that because the resolution prevents emigration restrictions in times of war, mass emigration is likely, which would lead to labour shortages for war industries and stop the production of materiel needed for the defence of the nation..."

Hate this line. Civilians should be free to flee from war, especially civil wars. But, it's not enough to make me not to want sensible outbound border controls back. The target resolution tries to attempt to prevent nations from being like North Korea, which basically outlaws leaving the country, but fails to consider all reasons why someone may want to leave, or why a government may need someone to stay. Vote is mostly...

For

 

[r3naissanc3r]

For.

 

[Argonisi Hub]

The Monarchy of Argonisi votes For

 

[Pallaith]

For.

 

[Eyes that do not Lie]

I wonder why so many people on-site are voting against this.

For

 

[Altmoras]

I wonder why so many people on-site are voting against this.

For

Personally I voted against because there was no accompanying replacement resolution.

As for why the big disparity, you can attribute that to the resolution getting the big fat Aleisyr stomp against an hour in.

 

[Tomb]

For.

 

[Ash]

For.

 

[Gatland]

For

 

[Unimaginable Doom]

Observing that there is a provision to allow for emigration restriction in the case of criminal sentences, but also seeing that such a provision does not create a restriction for civil liabilities, and therefore concerned that the right of emigration could be used to evade court-mandated civil liabilities, such as child support,

Concerned that this right, in a world of extremely quick travel, could also be used to evade court summons and thereby deprive governments of much-needed evidence to substantiate criminal prosecutions,

Subsection (b) & (c) of the General Assembly Resolution #279 "Right of Emigration" already provides an exception with regards to legal proceedings. I believe these exceptions are entirely adequate for the judicious and swift dispensation of justice by the legal systems of most member states.

As an aside in most legal systems, failure to comply with a civil judgment would contitute contempt of court; which could entail the issuing of an arrest warrant.

Noting that because the resolution prevents emigration restrictions in times of war, mass emigration is likely, which would lead to labour shortages for war industries and stop the production of materiel needed for the defence of the nation, and

The article here runs counter to GA#279's raison detre of preventing the 'gross abuse of sapient rights'. I am not inclined to support the assertion that the right of sovereign states to ensure adequate labour in the occurence of war overrides the more fundamental right of individuals to flee areas of conflict to preserve their personal safety and autonomy.

Further noting that the resolution states that 'no government may prevent the emigration of individuals from their nation', which, when combined with the existence of outbound border controls, requires nations to either choose to disband such outbound controls (and therefore be unable to measure population outflows) or be burdened with the massive costs of issuing passports to all citizens,

This particular article is unfortunately fallacious by presenting a false dichotomy between, the complete abolition of all border controls and, the issuing of passports to all citizens.

GA#279 categorically does not mandate the abolition of border controls by member states. Neither does it call for the free movement of people across borders.

It merely enshrines a specific right of individuals to emigrate. Emigration refers to an act of leaving one country and settling in another. Ordinary international trips for business or pleasure do not constitute emigration.

Similarly GA#279 does not create an obligation on the part of receiving countries to accept all potential or would be emigrants.


Against.

 

[Pallaith]

Voting on this resolution has ended.

Thanks to those nations who cast their votes. Your participation is a great help to the region.

This topic has been locked and sent to the Archives for safekeeping. If you would like this topic to be re-opened for further discussion, please contact the WA Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.