Helping people in need is a worthwhile goal, and well-written humanitarian aid resolutions such as
GA 340 "Access to Humanitarian Aid" and
GA 334 "Protected Status in Wartime" are a great way to effectuate that.
Unfortunately, a far older humanitarian aid resolution, GA 6 "Humanitarian Transport," is compromised by numerous irredeemable holes big enough to sail a humanitarian vessel through and has been comprehensively superseded by the far better written GA 340. Given the subject matter's importance and the target's utter redundancy, it's critical to repeal it posthaste.
Thus, the General Assembly finds as follows:
- As mentioned, GA 340 meets the target's policy focus in a superior way. It protects the ability of humanitarian efforts to operate, handles potential misbehavior, shields them from undue interference, and even covers recognizable markings, and does so in a more encompassing way than the target. Repealing the target would cost this body nothing of value. This is especially the case given that the broader subject of conduct during wartime is also well-covered by GA 334.
- The target is riddled with critical flaws:
- It "[declares] the right of humanitarian vessels to maintain defensive weapons" without defining what actually qualifies as a defensive weapon. This potentially creates a gaping loophole for ferrying military equipment into conflict zones, contradicts the target's earlier discouragement from carrying weapons on humanitarian transports, and makes every humanitarian vessel a potential threat.
- It "[authorizes] any national vessel within hailing distance of a humanitarian vessel to request, if there is sufficient cause, the humanitarian vessel to transmit their cargo manifest and prepare for boarding and inspection," and "[further requires] humanitarian vessels to present a cargo manifest and to submit to the above inspection." Without defining what constitutes "sufficient cause" or requiring communication between searching vessels, this leaves a loophole for nations to significantly impede humanitarian efforts through unnecessary searches.
- It "[prohibits] searching vessels from firing upon any humanitarian vessel that has provided its cargo manifest, allowed a search, and surrendered any non-humanitarian cargoes" regardless of what actions the humanitarian vessel takes afterwards. This opens the drydock gates for rogue humanitarian vessels to attack searching vessels so long as they complied with the quoted provision, which is made even more hideously problematic by the aforementioned issue with the target not bothering to define or regulate "defensive weapons."
- It prohibits "nations from firing upon vessels that are only carrying humanitarian cargoes" even though a nation would not know whether a given vessel is only carrying those cargoes until a search has been conducted. This provides belligerent nations with a dangerous degree of plausible deniability.
- The target does not actually define a "humanitarian vessel" despite (vaguely) defining what constitutes "humanitarian cargoes." Additionally, clause 11 of the target implies that a vessel carrying non-humanitarian cargoes can still be considered a humanitarian vessel. This ambiguity complicates compliance even for nations operating in good faith, and is inexcusable where potentially life-saving relief efforts and potentially life-threatening situations are concerned.
Questioning why a redundant resolution that actively compromises an otherwise well-covered area of international law is still on the books, and
Vastly preferring GA 340's approach over a (bizarre) attempt to (poorly) legislate the specifics of boarding actions and naval engagements involving humanitarian vessels,
We repeal GA 6 "Humanitarian Transport."
