NationStates Jolt Archive

The Regulation and Treatment of International Epidemics

Preface: Recognizing that a single strain of disease, virus or bacteria can single handedly annihilate the whole of the human race, that a worldwide pandemic is not a question of if, but when, and that the world is unprepared to face such a foe, the United Nations brings forth this Resolution. It aims are to establish a code of conduct for infectious diseases, viruses, bacteria, etc. (a.k.a. contagions) in which have spread to more than 1% of a nation’s population.

Article One: Curable diseases

This Article dictates standards on curable diseases.

Section#1: Upon an outbreak of curable contagion larger than 5% of the nation’s population it should be considered a curable outbreak. All infected individuals within the country should immediately be advised to report to a nearby medical facility for inoculation. Upon said inoculation, the individuals treated are free to return to their homes. The country may call for international and U.N. aid for manpower, supplies or funds should the nation infected run into confrontation in such matters.

Section#2: Upon an outbreak of curable contagion larger than 9% of the nation’s population it should be considered a curable epidemic. All infected individuals within the country should be required to report to a nearby medical facility for inoculation. Any individual who refuses to report should be forcibly moved to a medical facility for inoculation. Upon said inoculation the individuals treated are free to return to their homes. The country may call for international and U.N. aid for manpower, supplies or funds should the nation infected run into confrontation in such matters.

Section#3: Upon an outbreak of curable contagion larger than 16% of the nation’s population it should be considered a dangerous but curable epidemic. All infected individuals within the country should be required to report to a nearby medical facility for inoculation. Government roundups of the infected population, if warranted or necessary are permitted as long as conducted in a humane manner. Any individual who refuses to report should be forcibly moved to a medical facility for inoculation. An individual that attempts open resistance against inoculations shall be dealt with by the government accordingly. Limitations on the treatment of offenders are restricted only to torture. Upon said inoculation the individuals treated are free to return to their homes. The country may call for international and U.N. aid for manpower, supplies or funds should the nation infected run into confrontation in such matters.

Article 2: Treatable contagions
This Article is devoted to contagions that, while not curable, are treatable by modern medicine.

Section#1: Upon an outbreak of treatable contagion larger than 2% of the nation’s population it should be considered a treatable outbreak. The United Nations realizes that not all nations are capable of providing the funds for treating an entire percentage of their population. For nations that are incapable of providing such care to its population, contagious individuals should not be allowed to be mixed with the general population (Notice this does not apply to contagions that are not acquired through contact with an infected individual, or being in close proximity to an infected individual. For example, infected individuals who can only pass the contagion through bodily fluids or functions may be allowed to mingle with the uninfected population.). Therefore camps or settlements are to be provided to infected individuals for retention. These camps are to be constructed with an extended stay of 10 years or longer in mind. U.N. inspectors will inspect these camps periodically to make sure the utmost is being done to treat the infected population humanely. Runaways are dealt with however the country decides is prudent (ruling out torture). Countries are entitled to U.N. aide if requested.

Section#2: Upon an outbreak of treatable contagion larger than 5% of the nation’s population it should be considered a treatable epidemic. The United Nations realizes that not all nations are capable of providing the funds for treating an entire percentage of their population. For nations that are incapable of providing such care to its population, contagious individuals should not be allowed to be mixed with the general population (Notice this does not apply to contagions that are not acquired through contact with an infected individual, or being in close proximity to an infected individual. For example, infected individuals who can only pass the contagion through bodily fluids or functions may be allowed to mingle with the uninfected population.). Therefore camps or settlements are to be provided to infected individuals for retention. These camps are to be constructed with an extended stay of 10 years or longer in mind. U.N. inspectors will inspect these camps periodically to make sure the utmost is being done to treat the infected population humanely. Runaways are dealt with however the country decides is prudent (ruling out torture). Countries are entitled to U.N. aide if requested. If the issue is absolutely impossible to deal with by the nation in question, third party countries may take portions of the population into their own care to ease the burden of the host country.

Section#3: Upon an outbreak of treatable contagion larger than 8% of the nation’s population it should be considered a treatable dangerous epidemic. The United Nations realizes that not all nations are capable of providing the funds for treating an entire percentage of their population. For nations that are incapable of providing such care to its population, contagious individuals should not be allowed to be mixed with the general population (Notice this does not apply to contagions that are not acquired through contact with an infected individual, or being in close proximity to an infected individual. For example, infected individuals who can only pass the contagion through bodily fluids or functions may be allowed to mingle with the uninfected population.). Therefore camps or settlements are to be provided to infected individuals for retention. These camps are to be constructed with an extended stay of 10 years or longer in mind. U.N. inspectors will inspect these camps periodically to make sure the utmost is being done to treat the infected population humanely. Runaways are dealt with however the country decides is prudent (ruling out torture). Countries are entitled to U.N. aide if requested. If the issue is absolutely impossible to deal with by the nation in question, third party countries may take portions of the population into their own care to ease the burden of the host country. IN EXTREME CASES such as this, when a nation may find nearly all of its options exhausted, a nation may choose to begin retiring afflicted individuals to ease the overwhelming burden on the country. Retiring is only to be used as a last resort, and under close U.N. observation. It must be carried only in the most humane method determined by international standard.

Article 3: Untreatable, Incurable contagions
This Article deals with untreatable, incurable contagions.

Section#1: Upon an outbreak of untreatable, incurable contagion larger than 2% of the nation’s population it should be considered an untreatable, incurable outbreak. Contagious individuals should not be allowed to be mixed with the general population (Notice this does not apply to contagions that are not acquired through contact with an infected individual, or being in close proximity to an infected individual. For example, infected individuals who can only pass the contagion through bodily fluids or functions may be allowed to mingle with the uninfected population.). Therefore camps or settlements are to be provided to infected individuals for retention. These camps are to be constructed with an extended stay of 25 years or longer in mind, or as long as possible. U.N. inspectors will inspect these camps periodically to make sure the utmost is being done to treat the infected population humanely. Runaways are dealt with however the country decides is prudent (ruling out torture). U.N. aide is mandatory. IN EXTREME CASES such as this, when a nation may find nearly all of its options exhausted, a nation may choose to begin retiring afflicted individuals to ease the overwhelming burden on the country. Retiring is only to be used as a last resort, and under close U.N. observation. It must be carried only in the most humane method determined by international standard.

Section#2: Upon an outbreak of untreatable, incurable contagion larger than 4% of the nation’s population it should be considered an untreatable, incurable epidemic. Contagious individuals should not be allowed to be mixed with the general population (Notice this does not apply to contagions that are not acquired through contact with an infected individual, or being in close proximity to an infected individual. For example, infected individuals who can only pass the contagion through bodily fluids or functions may be allowed to mingle with the uninfected population.). Therefore camps or settlements are to be provided to infected individuals for retention. These camps are to be constructed with an extended stay of 25 years or longer in mind, or as long as possible. U.N. inspectors will inspect these camps periodically to make sure the utmost is being done to treat the infected population humanely. Runaways are dealt with however the country decides is prudent (ruling out torture). U.N. aide is mandatory. IN EXTREME CASES such as this, when a nation may find nearly all of its options exhausted, a nation may choose to begin retiring afflicted individuals to ease the overwhelming burden on the country. Retiring is only to be used as a last resort, and under close U.N. observation. It must be carried only in the most humane method determined by international standard.

Section#3: Upon an outbreak of untreatable, incurable contagion larger than 6% of the nation’s population it should be considered an untreatable, incurable dangerous epidemic. Contagious individuals should not be allowed to be mixed with the general population (Notice this does not apply to contagions that are not acquired through contact with an infected individual, or being in close proximity to an infected individual. For example, infected individuals who can only pass the contagion through bodily fluids or functions may be allowed to mingle with the uninfected population.). Therefore camps or settlements are to be provided to infected individuals for retention. These camps are to be constructed with an extended stay of 25 years or longer in mind, or as long as possible. U.N. inspectors will inspect these camps periodically to make sure the utmost is being done to treat the infected population humanely. Runaways are dealt with however the country decides is prudent (ruling out torture). U.N. aide is mandatory. IN EXTREME CASES such as this, when a nation may find nearly all of its options exhausted, a nation may choose to begin retiring afflicted individuals to ease the overwhelming burden on the country. Retiring is only to be used as a last resort, and under close U.N. observation. It must be carried only in the most humane method determined by international standard.

Section 4: Any untreatable, incurable contagion larger than 8% requires immediate international involvement. The country in question is to be quarantined and all trade shut off. The rules above apply, with the following exceptions.

1. Runaways and dissenters are to be immediately retired, for fear of spreading the contagion.
2. International and U.N. aide is required for the situation.
3. The government of the country in question seconds itself to the international or U.N. coalition currently assisting in its crises in which the nation in question is a part of. This is to last the duration of the crisis.
4. Under no circumstance is a citizen of the country in question to leave or enter the country until deemed by the international or U.N. coalition.
5. Martial law is to be announced to keep order until deemed unnecessary by the international or U.N. Coalition. Troops from the U.N. or international coalition can be stationed in the country in question without its consent. The country in question’s military may be internationalized (if possible) by the international or U.N. coalition if the nation in question is not cooperative.
6. Refugees from the country in question are to be immediately turned back and turned over to authorities to prevent the spread of the contagion.

Article 4: International/U.N. Coalition
In extreme cases sited above, an International/U.N. Coalition (IUNC) is required to assemble to intervene in the crises. The government of the IUNC is as follows.

1. Each nation involved, including the nation in question is represented by a delegate on the governing council of the IUNC. The council makes the decisions based on a majority vote.
2. The leading nation of the IUNC heads the council with a “chairman”. The chairman has a vote power of 2 as opposed to 1 from other countries. This is not including the 1 vote from the council delegate on council (for a max of 3 votes).
3. The leading nation of the IUNC is determined in which nation is contributing the largest amount of aide to the country in question. If the amount of aide is too close to call between 2 or more nations, a democratic vote may take place in the IUNC as to who will lead it.
4. The IUNC’s powers include anything relevant to the crises in question. This is included but not limited too the country in question’s health spending, troop and law enforcement deployments, martial law status, diplomatic relations (the IUNC can negotiate cease-fires with countries that are at war with the country in question.), medical priorities, border patrol, and defense spending.
5. The IUNC will not included countries that have had increased tension towards the country in question as of late. This includes but is not limited to war, diplomatic tensions, trade embargos, and anything else of this nature.

Conclusion: The purpose of this resolution is to safeguard from a worldwide epidemic spreading from a single country. If the steps are followed by the nation(s) to the letter, a possible international disaster could be averted.

Oops. I almost forgot :D . This is a draft for a bill that i think should be considered. Please post your input!

This is a laudable attempt to deal with an issue that is undoubtedly within the UN's remit. I am very glad that you have submitted a draft to the forum first.

There are certain aspects that I wish to question.

1) In the preamble, it's worth noting that a 'worldwide epidemic' is a misnomer. This is termed a 'pandemic'.

2) Where have the percentages come from? I assume they're not arbitrary.

3) While Ecopoeia condemns the use of torture, I'm not sure it is technically illegal among UN member states (could someone confirm this please?), so I'm not convinced it's wise to make reference to it in this resolution.

4) I am very concerned about the principle of 'retiring'. While I could reluctantly accede the 'optional' nature of most clauses, I cannot accept the compulsory 'retiring' of runaways in Section 4. I would prefer the adoption of a military approach which would at least allow for the possibility capture rather than execution.

5) 'Leading nation' of the IUNC. How is this determined? Why is a 'leading nation' required. Why is a chairperson required to have an extra vote? I would prefer to see a non-voting chairperson with a casting vote if need be.

6) Please note that non-UN member states are not bound by this ruling.

Thank you for your hard work.

Best wishes
Ursula Kohl
Speaker for Health & Medical Affairs
The Community of Ecopoeia

In response to your questions-

You are correct about "pandemic" and is has been fixed.

The percentages were instituted as a guide to how large of an outbreak requires what kind of reaction from the nation or from the worldwide community. They are, of course, open to debate.

I am unsure of whether torture is illegal in the U.N. as well, which is why I included its restriction in the resolution. However, if torture is or is not legal in this U.N. I do not believe that it is an appropriate response to deal with offendors of this resolution. It is, of course, open to debate.

A runaway of an incurable and untreatable disease could quite possibly spread the contagion to throughout a large amount of people with little effort. I could comprimise that if the Runaway does surrender after a warning, that the retiring procedure could be avoided. However, if the Runaway does not surrender, I believe retiring the individual should be neccessary.

Unfortunately I forgot to place this in the resolution :roll: . I always meant however the nation that was the clear leader in aide to the country in question would be the IUNC. Or, if nations are to close to call in their support, a democratic vote within IUNC could be employed.

Thanks for your kind words. The obvious problems have been edited into the resolution.

In response to your questions-

You are correct about "pandemic" and has been fixed.

The percentages were instituted as a guide to how large of an outbreak requires what kind of reaction from the nation or from the worldwide community. They are, of course, open to debate.

I am unsure of whether torture is illegal in the U.N. as well, which is why I included its restriction in the resolution. However, if torture is or is not legal in this U.N. I do not believe that it is an appropriate response to deal with offendors of this resolution. It is, of course, open to debate.

A runaway of an incurable and untreatable disease could quite possibly spread the contagion to throughout a large amount of people with little effort. I could comprimise that if the Runaway does surrender after a warning, that the retiring procedure could be avoided. However, if the Runaway does not surrender, I believe retiring the individual should be neccessary.

Unfortunately I forgot to place this in the resolution :roll: . I always meant however the nation that was the clear leader in aide to the country in question would be the IUNC. Or, if nations are to close to call in their support, a democratic vote within IUNC could be employed.

Thanks for your kind words. The obvious problems have been edited into the resolution.

The currently healthy yet prone to infection nation of Berkylvania sees merit in this resolution. However, we are far too uncomfortable with idea of 'ghettoizing' for 10+ years any portion of a country's population. Particularly since you have not established exactly what constitutes a "contagion" and what is simply...well, annoying. For example, any of the herpes simplex virdiae could be considered, by your own legislation, a treatable epidemic requiring "camping" of infected individuals whereas the common cold could be considered an untreatable, incurable outbreak (as you cannot directly attack the virus). Furthermore, does this

We are also not comfortable with 'retiring' any portion of our population, no matter how humane the means or nobel the reasoning. While we understand and support the need for a global action plan regarding potential pandemics, we can not and will not support any resolution that requires us to move against our citizens in such a draconian fashion. We realize that this is an option of "last resort," but are still opposed to it inclusion in the resolution at all.

Furthermore, we do not approve of any sweeping legislation that allows any governing body to summarily take control of any soverign nation, which this resolution clearly allows for. Particularly when this control can be "bought" and there are no provisions for when it would be returned to the original nation.

We accept and applaude the nation of Sicrat for bringing this notable piece of policy to the UN's attention. However, we feel that, while it is a step in the right direction, it far too flagrantly ignores basic human rights and national soverignty in favor of a vauge, no-end-game response that may be out of proportion to the pandemic occuring. We do support the need for a clear, easily followed, global response to emergant viridae and other pathogens, but in it's present form, this resolution can not be it.

In response to the first part of your objection, Berkylvania, perhaps what constitutes a contagion should be included in the resolution. I agree that what does constitute a contagion is vague.

In response to interning the infected population, this is by no means required by a nation that can afford treatment to its citizens that actually contract the contagion. However, if the nation is too poor to afford such treatment, the infected population should not simply be allowed to stay in contact with the uninfected population. Retention seems to be the only acceptable response for nations that cannot provide treatment to their sick.

Retiring your population is by no means required. But I believe it should be included in the resolution because of the immense strain an epidemic can have on a country. If a country cannot sustain the strain, a country should not be forced into anarchy or economical depression too keep the infected population of an incurable disease alive.

At the time that an IUNC is required to be brought in, the problem is by far of an international scope. We cannot allow the stubborness of a sovereign nation to jeopardize international health. The nation will be granted sovereign control again once the problem is deemed under control by the IUNC. I don't want to place a restriction on that, because I believe that nations that would volunteer to assist a fellow nation in times of crises would not dare attempt to damage the nation it attempting to help under such international scrutiny.

In order to properly express our objection to this proposal, we present the following scenario to our fellow member nations.

Nations A, B, and C are all members of this international coalition to eradicate disease. Nation A and C are bitter rivals, nation B is a neutral party. A random dispute arises, and nation C decides that some kind of action must be taken against the offeders, Nation A. In order to bring about this disruption, they launch a convert bioweapons attack upon Nation A. Soon, a communicable yet curable disease is sweeping across Nation A, and the coalition is activated to bring about order. Now, Nation C can progress upon its merry way, reaping the rewards that come while the government of Nation A is paralyzed. Or worse, Nation C is on the board of the coalition, and uses that power to their own benefit.

This is a rather broad generalization, but imagine the damage should any one of these examples turn specific. It is in the best interest of the UN to fight disease, yes, but that goal should not be met by creating an all-consuming emergency agency with this kind of power. If you'd like to fight disease, commit aid and resources to other nations while working within your own to prevent illness. This is simply going too far.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

We agree with Berylvania, and add that enforcement will demand an enormous, expensive bureaucracy.

Instead, why not set up an international center for disease control, to develop vaccines, educate the public, and advise member nations without use of force? It could be a unique think-tank for medical science. It would also leave individual freedoms intact.

I admit I was not as thorough as possible on the formation of the IUNC. It was not meant to be a pre-determined assembly. The idea was that if an incurable, intreatable contagion passed a certain stage, that a voluntary coalition of countries named the IUNC would be formed. Perhaps, though, there should be a screening process to keep nations that have caused harm to the nation in question in the near future or possibly mean to causes harm to the nation in question be excluded from the IUNC. I will make the necessary changes to the resolution now.

I admit I was not as thorough as possible on the formation of the IUNC. It was not meant to be a pre-determined assembly. The idea was that if an incurable, intreatable contagion passed a certain stage, that a voluntary coalition of countries named the IUNC would be formed. Perhaps, though, there should be a screening process to keep nations that have caused harm to the nation in question in the near future or possibly mean to causes harm to the nation in question be excluded from the IUNC. I will make the necessary changes to the resolution now.

bump

I like the idea of this resolution, but there are some things I'd like to ask: First, when a person is forcibly taken into a camp and then released, will they recieve any compensation of this imprisonment? Otherwise, it would be like sentencing and punishing a person for something they cannot prevent. Secondly, what if some of the ctizens are allergic to these vaccinations, and dieing from it? Also, doing these actions could cause some of the weaker (economically) nations to completely collapse if they cannot afford these treatments, and losing a large chunk of their population.

For the first question it is a matter of the nation's choice. If the country wishes to provide its citizens with compensation that is its choice. The second question is more of a specific case penomena. Of course if a vaccine is thought to be hurting some people it being destributed would have to be reconsidered. U.N. assistance is most likely to be given to poorer nations that cannot afford the immunizations.

bump