[GA, IFV Drafting] Repeal "Rights Of The Quarantined"

[Sil Dorsett]

Staff, let's come up with a recommendation early for this one, even though it hasn't been submitted yet. I want it written before I start a pre-submission voting thread for it.

Category: Repeal
Target: GA #389
Proposed by: Wicheye
Onsite Topic

The World Assembly,

Understanding that quarantines can cause many issues due to individual needs conflicting with society needs;

Acknowledging that the resolution implements numerous measures that tackle some of these issues and improves the standards of the quarantines;

Regretting that GA#389 fails to tackle a significant number of issues involving enforcement within a quarantine;

Distraught that the resolution does not put a limit on force allowed against possible escapes;

Unsettled by the requirement to move all "ceased to be infected" people outside of the quarantine, forgetting the action of possible after effect contagion;

Concerned by the resolution's requirement to move all infected people to the nearest quarantine zone, causing unsettling difficulties with a possible long-distance displacement;

Hoping to clear the hastiness of the resolution from these halls and pass a new resolution that fills the gaping holes GA#389 created;

Hereby repeals " Rights Of The Quarantined ".

This is a discussion thread, not a voting thread.

 

[Guy]

I'm still not sure I can get behind this.

The repeal makes some perfectly good points. It appears quite likely that GA#309 is inadequate in a number of aspects to protect those rights.

There is nothing in GA#309, as far as I can tell, that would stop a new resolution that extends the rights it grants.

Essentially, if a resolution doesn't go far enough, I don't think repealing it is the solution. Writing a resolution to extend it is.

There is also a risk involved - if a replacement isn't promptly passed, we'd be left without any protections. I don't believe a replacement has been drafted.

 

[abc]

If this were to be repealed (as Guy said) a replacement would have to be drafted and we'd run into big problems if we were unable to pass that replacement.

 

[Sil Dorsett]

Here's a bit of history about the whole quarantine issue:

In my opinion it is a very bold proposal. I think it's one of the most difficult political issues legally regulate.

However, I think it contains no substantial differences with GAR # 53, Epidemic Response Act. I think he might have been better to present it as an amendment to GAR # 53.

Broadly speaking, it does not establish the procedure for prevention cases. Understands the quarantine only cases where an epidemic is declared. I think that should define the measures to be taken to safeguard the uninfected areas. Also whether to suspend civil rights and for how long, who will handle the emergency government in severe cases and their political powers...

I miss some mention of preventive to be adopted by other countries in the event of an epidemic measures.

It is a typical legal initiative can only succeed the 'worst' option.

The author of the target resolution is the author of this repeal, which speaks volumes about whether or not this repeal effort ought to succeed. This repeal is being done with the aim of replacing the current resolution with a superior version, one that would address the mandates that do more harm than good. As it stands, the resolution overburdens nations by trying to do too much without regard for the most effective way each individual nation could apply its principles. Further review was not only warranted, it was desired by the author, and is not the final vision for this proposal that the author intended. As it is so clearly the aim of the author and the resolution's proponents to see the most perfect version of this resolution possible and they themselves do not believe this is it, we need not concern ourselves solely with the individual merits of the resolution.

I'll elaborate on the point that Ash posted on my behalf. Yes, I did reference the CDC website for some guidance on this resolution, and it brought up a valid point that leads to my objection.

1. I understand that the use of the term "quarantine" is heavily generalized in this write-up, considering the character limit of resolutions, but there's actually a difference between "quarantine" and "isolation". As stated in Ash's post, Quarantine is used to restrict the movement of people who may have been exposed to an infectious disease. If a person shows signs that they were indeed infected and have gotten sick they are moved to isolation. The resolution doesn't mention anything about those who have been exposed. It only requires actions to be taken on infected sick persons, leaving the exposed, possibly infected, and potentially contagious still out in public. Thus, the actions required by the resolution are insufficient to control an outbreak.

2. We must also consider the reason we recommended a repeal of the original resolution. Other than the fact that the author asked for it, we also considered the fact that, as Pallaith put it in the repeal recommendation, "the resolution overburdens nations by trying to do too much without regard for the most effective way each individual nation could apply its principles." This leads to point three.

3. The changes from Quarantine Regulation are really minor. Other than a slight redefinition of an epidemic and an new ethics clause, the resolution is about the same as it was before. Only the preamble had significant changes to stress the importance of not infringing on basic rights, but the operative clauses don't reflect it. My guess is that the repeal was only strongly worded to get the original off the books. The new resolution does not adequately address the written reasons for the repeal.

The resolution is a resubmission of Quarantine Regulation (GA #385), which was repealed by its author in GA #387. The new resolution adds an ethics board, but the rest of the operative clauses remain effectively unchanged, and does not address all of the concerns the original author raised in the repeal of GA #385. We supported repealing GA #385 because it burdened nations with mandates that did not consider their own principles and existing healthcare systems, and this new resolution does not address the concerns raised in our recommendation for the repeal.

Additionally, the new resolution only addresses those who are confirmed to be infected and sick, who should be isolated. It does not address those who may have been exposed to disease and need to be quarantined to see if they become sick.

Regulating the specific actions a nation must take in the event of an outbreak is best left to that nation's government, but should the World Assembly decide to regulate this matter, the resolution should cover all possibilities.

For these reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs encourages a vote against this resolution.