[GA - PASSED] WA Border Policy

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hulldom

Hulldom

Winter Kingdom
Pronouns
He/Him/His
TNP Nation
Hulldom
Discord
seathestarlesssky
ga.jpg

WA Border Policy
Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Mild
Proposed by: The Wary Walrus | Onsite Topic​

The World Assembly,

Cognizant of the fact that no comprehensive General Assembly law regarding the state of borders between World Assembly member nations exists,

Believing that in the interests of economic prosperity and international cooperation, the creation of zones of free movement is to be encouraged,

However aware that not all member states are able or willing to open their borders to all other member states,

Hereby
  1. Creates the World Assembly Border Committee ("WABC") as a subcommittee of the Global Emigration, Security, Travel And Passport Organisation
  2. Tasks WABC with processing applications from member states to join a free movement zone ("WABC Zone"),
  3. Requires that applicant states, in order to be approved by WABC, meet a list of criteria established by WABC which will include an analysis of their border security regarding non-consenting and non-member states,
  4. Explains that the WABC Zone applies to consenting states only and allows unlimited travel across borders at designated points between consenting states without the need of the traveler to present documentation at each border,
  5. Authorizes WABC to negotiate on behalf of consenting states with member states and non-member states in order to loosen border restrictions without necessarily having the member state or non-member state consent to join the WABC Zone,
  6. Further authorizes WABC to change a consenting state's border laws to create a single unified policy across consenting states that is to be publicized before any member state joins,
  7. Directs WABC to develop procedures for a consenting state to withdraw from the WABC Zone in an efficient, timely manner,
  8. Forbids consenting states from restricting the right of individuals from other consenting states to travel or find employment within any consenting state differently from existing citizens of the state in question, subject to such reasonable restrictions that consenting states may institute in the interest of public health and safety,
  9. Compels all member states, including those which do not join the WABC Zone, to conduct an annual review of their border policies,
  10. Designates that each member state shall appoint at least one liaison to the WABC, and lastly
  11. Encourages all member states to negotiate bilateral agreements with the WABC even if they do not wish to consent to join the WABC Zone
Click to expand...
Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations and NPA personnel will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to 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!
[TR][TD] For [/TD][TD] Against [/TD][TD] Abstain [/TD][TD] Present [/TD][/TR][TR][TD]11[/TD][TD]7[/TD][TD]0[/TD][TD]2[/TD][/TR]
 
Last edited:
IFV
Overview
This proposal aims to establish a mutual free movement zone between consenting World Assembly member states. It establishes the the World Assembly Border Committee (WABC), which is tasked with negotiating border policies that are to exist between member states that enter into the committee's mutual free movement zone.The proposal forbids consenting member states from restricting the entry, travel, or employment-seeking affairs of individuals from other consenting member states, save for "reasonable" restrictions that they may impose "in the interest of public health and safety."

Recommendation
Though the proposal comes from a place of genuine desire to improve border crossing processes between member states, the result is unfortunately poorly executed and fundamentally of little benefit. The proposal's free movement zone is entirely optional in terms of membership, and similar agreements can easily be negotiated by member states directly without the need for an overarching WA bureaucracy. The few provisions that actually impact the WA as a whole are similarly pointless, such as the mandate that member states evaluate their border policies annually. Additionally, the proposal's handling of its free movement zone is itself questionable: the proposal pushes the concept of voluntary participation within these WABC zones, yet relies on the management of an overarching body over agreements between two or more consenting member states. A better way of approaching this concept would have been for the WABC to coordinate with consenting member state legislatures or other such equivalent lawmaking bodies in order to streamline border laws and help facilitate the establishment of mutual free movement agreements, as opposed to the WABC imposing such changes by fiat.

For the above reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends voting Against the at-vote General Assembly proposal, "World Assembly Border Policy".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This proposal has achieved the necessary approvals to enter the formal queue. It will take the floor for voting at Saturday’s Major Update.
 
Against, and will be writing a repeal if this passes. The flaw that just tears a hole through this proposal is the lack of any clause actually allowing the WABC to create the zone referenced throughout the proposal. There are still some things that the proposal will accomplish, but the bulk of the proposal will be rendered null due to this lack of instruction/permission.
 
Morover:
Against, and will be writing a repeal if this passes. The flaw that just tears a hole through this proposal is the lack of any clause actually allowing the WABC to create the zone referenced throughout the proposal. There are still some things that the proposal will accomplish, but the bulk of the proposal will be rendered null due to this lack of instruction/permission.
Click to expand...
From my reading, it seems to me that the member states are to create their own zones and that the WABC is merely processing it, regarding point 2. I vote Present since I think if two states want to create something like this, they can do that bilaterally already so this is somewhat redundant.
 
Last edited:
Morover:
Against, and will be writing a repeal if this passes. The flaw that just tears a hole through this proposal is the lack of any clause actually allowing the WABC to create the zone referenced throughout the proposal. There are still some things that the proposal will accomplish, but the bulk of the proposal will be rendered null due to this lack of instruction/permission.
Click to expand...
As discussed on discord, I'm going to argue with you over this because it sounds fun. And also because I'm actually on the right side of the argument - the hole you're referring to exists only in your imagination.

Clause 2 gives WABC the right to process the applications, and Clause 8 is the enforcement mechanism. The "WABC Zone" is just the term used for those states which comprise the states accepted by WABC from Clause 2. It's a concept referenced in the resolution resulting from the admission of various states - not a standalone concept that exists independent from the functionality of the proposal.

I'm actually surprised this has never been tried before.
 
Mall:
As discussed on discord, I'm going to argue with you over this because it sounds fun. And also because I'm actually on the right side of the argument - the hole you're referring to exists only in your imagination.

Clause 2 gives WABC the right to process the applications, and Clause 8 is the enforcement mechanism. The "WABC Zone" is just the term used for those states which comprise the states accepted by WABC from Clause 2. It's a concept referenced in the resolution resulting from the admission of various states - not a standalone concept that exists independent from the functionality of the proposal.

I'm actually surprised this has never been tried before.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think you're right. I think it's worded in such a way that is somewhat unclear, but you managed to explain it to me in a way that, upon rereading it, makes more sense to me. I'm going to change my vote to "present" for this vote, because I'm not sure exactly how I feel following this clarification. Thanks, Mall.
 
Morover:
Yeah, I think you're right. I think it's worded in such a way that is somewhat unclear, but you managed to explain it to me in a way that, upon rereading it, makes more sense to me. I'm going to change my vote to "present" for this vote, because I'm not sure exactly how I feel following this clarification. Thanks, Mall.
Click to expand...
Cheers, and kudos to you for being willing to rethink a position - a rare trait in the GA, but a very welcome one.
 
Boston Castle:
IFV
Overview
This proposal aims to establish a mutual free movement zone between consenting World Assembly member states. It establishes the the World Assembly Border Committee (WABC), which is tasked with negotiating border policies that are to exist between member states that enter into the committee's mutual free movement zone.The proposal forbids consenting member states from restricting the entry, travel, or employment-seeking affairs of individuals from other consenting member states, save for "reasonable" restrictions that they may impose "in the interest of public health and safety."

Recommendation
Though the proposal comes from a place of genuine desire to improve border crossing processes between member states, the result is unfortunately poorly executed and fundamentally of little benefit. The proposal's free movement zone is entirely optional in terms of membership, and similar agreements can easily be negotiated by member states directly without the need for an overarching WA bureaucracy. The few provisions that actually impact the WA as a whole are similarly pointless, such as the mandate that member states evaluate their border policies annually. Additionally, the proposal's handling of its free movement zone is itself questionable: the proposal pushes the concept of voluntary participation within these WABC zones, yet relies on the management of an overarching body over agreements between two or more consenting member states. A better way of approaching this concept would have been for the WABC to coordinate with consenting member state legislatures or other such equivalent lawmaking bodies in order to streamline border laws and help facilitate the establishment of mutual free movement agreements, as opposed to the WABC imposing such changes by fiat.

For the above reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends voting Against the at-vote General Assembly proposal, "World Assembly Border Policy".
Click to expand...
You would prefer that a multination free-movement and free trade zone be organized without the involvement of the only extant international body of its kind? Why would you want that?

The provisions that impact the rest of the WA are not burdensome - they save the legality of the proposal from being optional-only without imposing an undue burden on member states.

As an aside, the GA always changes national law by fiat - it's fundamentally how the GA operates.
 
I want to vote for this but I'm concerned there are no protocols covering a transnational pandemic as part of this resolution.

How would the WABC handle a pandemic which would lead states to wish to close their borders or otherwise severely restrict travel?
 
Eluvatar:
I want to vote for this but I'm concerned there are no protocols covering a transnational pandemic as part of this resolution.

How would the WABC handle a pandemic which would lead states to wish to close their borders or otherwise severely restrict travel?
Click to expand...
Clause 8 carves out the right of nations to institute reasonable restrictions in the interest of public health/safety. That's where nations would find safe harbor to close their borders or restrict travel in the event of an emergency.
 
Mall:
You would prefer that a multination free-movement and free trade zone be organized without the involvement of the only extant international body of its kind? Why would you want that?

The provisions that impact the rest of the WA are not burdensome - they save the legality of the proposal from being optional-only without imposing an undue burden on member states.

As an aside, the GA always changes national law by fiat - it's fundamentally how the GA operates.
Click to expand...
1) I didn’t write this one in particular, though I certainly provided some help in drafting it.
2) That I happened to have the IFV post is incidental, it’s just supposed to be whoever posts the thread posts “IFV” underneath it as a placeholder.
 
Boston Castle:
1) I didn’t write this one in particular, though I certainly provided some help in drafting it.
2) That I happened to have the IFV post is incidental, it’s just supposed to be whoever posts the thread posts “IFV” underneath it as a placeholder.
Click to expand...
That's fine, I just responded to your post because you posted it :P
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top