The World Assembly hereby finds as follows:
- Resolution No. 564 "World Assembly Border Policy" (hereafter "the target resolution") is a good-intentioned law enacted to further a beneficial goal, namely, the voluntary harmonization of borders across member nations. Such harmonization has been shown to be of great economic and social benefit to those nations which choose to take part in it. Nevertheless, Resolution No. 564 fails in its intended goals, and actively harms member nations, for reasons stated below.
- The target resolution's first flaw is in its second clause, which establishes a committee called the WABC and then "[t]asks WABC with processing applications from member states to join a free movement zone." Nations possess all sovereign powers which they have not explicitly forfeited as a condition of membership in this august body. Therefore, any two (or more) nations which wish to form a free movement zone could do so on their own, without intervention from this body or any of its committees. In fact, two (or more) nations would likely negotiate a better and fairer free movement zone among themselves, as their policymakers would:
- be far more aware of the relevant nations' interests than indifferent (though hardworking and dedicated) gnomes assigned to an international committee;
- benefit from the ability to engage in more one-on-one discussion with officials of the other nations; and
- not need to concern themselves with the interests of a potentially infinite number of other nations, in different universes, with different forms of government and attitudes to (and modes of) international travel.
- The target resolution's third clause, which "[r]equires 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," is empty at best and dangerous at worst. This is because:
- there are no criteria listed upfront, only the promise that future criteria will be dictated by an international committee, a state of affairs which may be expected to result in nations unsure as to whether joining an international free movement zone will be in their national interest, as they will not know what the conditions of joining will be; and
- the clause's reference to "non-consenting ... states" is not at all clear in terms of what it means; a nation may reasonably choose to allow unrestricted travel from one nation and restrict travel from another based on factors such as existing trade, terrorism, and government cooperation.
- Reducing crime and terrorism is a priority of both national governments and of this body. However, the target resolution actively hampers this goal by "allow[ing] unlimited travel across borders at designated points between consenting states without the need of the traveler to present documentation at each border." Requiring member nations to permit individuals to freely cross from one jurisdiction to another without even verifying identity opens the door to widespread trafficking in contraband goods (including stolen property), drugs, weapons, endangered and invasive species, and even sapient beings subject to the worst forms of exploitation. It is good policy to encourage international cooperation on matters of transnational crime; it is shockingly bad policy to require international complicity in such crime.
- It is a common refrain that the target resolution, through its mostly optional nature, has negligible effects on most nations, and is therefore not a serious contender for a a repeal. But its tenth clause forces member nations, even those which emphatically reject the artificially-created free movement zone, to conduct relations with such zone through a specially-appointed liaison. Thus, while largely saving its harms for the nations which voluntarily subject themselves thereto, the target resolution cannot be seen as an optional affair which a nation can just as easily opt out of.
- On balance, while the target resolution has noble aims, it serves no purpose which member nations cannot serve on their own in a more thorough and efficient manner, and actively undermines many of the objectives that this same body has previously ordained as international law. It therefore warrants a repeal.
Now, therefore, be Resolution No. 564 "World Assembly Border Policy" repealed.
