NationStates Jolt Archive

OK, this is one of the draft proposals I've been talking about.

Before I show you the text, I wanted to preface this by pointing out that some nations and / or states within those nations already have "Good Samaritan" laws that reduce and limit the liability that first responders have when they are rendering aid.

While domestically first responders are often protected in that they are emergency personnel, international first responders often include a significant number of professionals, especially engineers. These engineers are not digging out rocks and providing on-site medical aid, but are tasked with the job of telling rescue crews which structures are in danger of falling down or how best to move a beam that has trapped an individual. Unlike government medics, firefighters, and law enforcement personnel, these individuals are not protected by the same teams of government liability protection rights. They are often private citizens whom volunteer to help out. And that is why some socities, but not all, have granted these volunteers "Good Samaritan" expections.

My proposal attempts to do three things:

1) Protect these people, whom are necessary to recovery efforts,
2) To introduce into the UN the existence of not only first responders, but long-term disaster recovery assistance -- this is just as important and again frequently involves international cooperation, and
3) To re-use an existing UN organization ... why make a new committee when we can use something we already voted for! :)

OOC: Sep. 11, 2001 has really motivated some US states to follow practices that earthquake prone California already adapted with respect to engineers who volunteer. Here is an article about proposed NY laws, and this is what I'd like all of us to consider:

http://www.asce.org/pressroom/publicpolicy/NYGSmar1704.cfm

Now for my proposal:


Disaster Assistance Liability for Engineers
A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.

Category: Political Stability
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Mikitivity

Description:
The NationStates United Nations,

RECALLING its resolution, the IRCO, adopted Sep. 1, 2003, which established the voluntary funded International Red Cross Organization (IRCO) for United Nations members in order to be “the first response team to natural disasters, terrorist attacks, and any other events which threaten the lives of citizens”;

OBSERVING that in addition to medical and law enforcement personnel, that these first response teams include technical and engineering professionals who in many non-emergency situations may be highly regulated by domestic liability laws;

MAKING NOTE that of the existence of many other national and international disaster assistance programs in addition to the IRCO;

NOTING WITH APPROVAL the many nations, including both UN members and non-members, which have entered into bi-lateral agreements to provide local and regional disaster assistance;

CONCERNED that these disaster assistance programs are limited in their effectiveness to send both first response teams and long-term disaster recovery teams due to the lack of pre-existing bi-lateral and unilateral arrangements, such as arrangements concerning the liabilities associated with all personnel in the volunteer response and recovery teams;

1. ENCOURAGES all nations, including UN non-members, to lend whatever aid possible in the event of a disaster;

2. EXPRESSES ITS HOPE that nations will continue to enter into local and regional arrangements to prepare for and lend aid to one another in the event of a disaster;

3. DIRECTS the IRCO to set up an international aid clearing house to inventory the capabilities of existing national and international disaster assistance programs;

4. AUTHORIZES the IRCO to expand its role beyond lending first response teams to nations in need to developing additional disaster assistance programs focusing on long-term disaster recovery;

5. SUGGESTS that nations receiving any disaster assistance to appoint a single organization or office of their government to act as a coordination group in the event that multiple national or international disaster recovery and assistance teams are working together; and

6. CALLS UPON all nations to develop domestic “Good Samaritan” laws granting volunteer based first responder teams, including technical and engineering professionals, immunity to liability associated with work and professional judgments made while rendering disaster assistance.

OK, now for help ...

I've been debating back and forth about what is an appropriate category. I've been leaning torwards "Free Trade" because the restrictions of "liability" laws and the clearing house idea would promote increased international cooperation. But at the same time, this proposal basically is saying, "You can't sue somebody who comes to your country to help you, but you can refuse their help if you want to keep that right." That is a political freedom ... your freedom to literally bite the hand that feeds you. I'm not comfortable with that, because that freedom can and will result in more and more lives lost as more and more disasters occur.

But what do you think?

Free Trade?
Political Stability?
something else?

I hope to submit this draft proposal when I get back from my weekend trip.

Thanks!

Two immediate things strike me - first, the main thrust of this appears to be encouraging and organising help in the event of a disaster, with the liability stuff from the title appearing fairly minorly, in only 1 of the 6 operative clauses. Second, what that article mentions that your text doesn't is that a volunteer should not be exempt from liability if they "act with reckless or intentional disregard of known dangers" - something I think is worth including.

Anyway, I'll probably take a better look at this in the morning.

Engineers? Uhh, let's redo that title. Something like Shielding Humanitarian Aid Workers perhaps. Or IRCO Liability Shield.

There really isn't any category that accurately reflects a proposal like this. Frankly, my first thought is 'what the hell do we need this for?" This is an in-depth look at a problem probably nobody in-game has ever seen a need for. It's something I could see in the present-day UN, what with its depth of history and fully-developed international law ... but I don't think NS is ready for (or interested in) something along these lines. It's just too straight-forward and serious for this simple game. That's the main reason there is not a category that works for this proposal.

It's good. It's useful somewhere. I just think you'll waste your time if you submit and campaign for this one.

1) Ohhh. Ahhh. :D

2) Rinse, repeat.

3) Yeah, that and maybe possibly a Social Justice catagory ?

Engineers? Uhh, let's redo that title. Something like Shielding Humanitarian Aid Workers perhaps. Or IRCO Liability Shield.

There really isn't any category that accurately reflects a proposal like this. Frankly, my first thought is 'what the hell do we need this for?" This is an in-depth look at a problem probably nobody in-game has ever seen a need for. It's something I could see in the present-day UN, what with its depth of history and fully-developed international law ... but I don't think NS is ready for (or interested in) something along these lines. It's just too straight-forward and serious for this simple game. That's the main reason there is not a category that works for this proposal.

It's good. It's useful somewhere. I just think you'll waste your time if you submit and campaign for this one.


Well, I appreciate the advise, and though I personally like the title how about:

Liability Protection for Volunteer Emergency Personnel

I'm not sure "Shield" is such a positive sounding word, though that is exactly what I'm aimming for here.

I'm still interested in seeing something a bit more in depth come to the queue. Yes, I understand many nations will have "huh" moments, but I would have thought that some of my previous resolutions pushed the limit as well.

And Myopia, that is a great suggestion, I'll find a way to incorporate your suggestion, "act with reckless or intentional disregard of known dangers" into the resolution. The point isn't to allow reckless behavior, but to streamline aid.

And Myopia, that is a great suggestion, I'll find a way to incorporate your suggestion, "act with reckless or intentional disregard of known dangers" into the resolution. The point isn't to allow reckless behavior, but to streamline aid.

Good good. By the way, that text is directly from the article you linked to.

Though I still think that the subject the title refers to actually receives relatively little attention within the operative clauses, so the title should perhaps refer more to the emergency aid coordination aspect.

I agree with the points raised by Frisbeeteria. While my nation would support this resolution, I do feel that it is unlikely to attract much interest due not only to the nature of its subject matter but also to the need for a snappier title. A pity, perhaps, but such is the nature of the UN.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

Here is the revised version (changes shown in red):


Enhancing International Disaster Assistance
A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.

Category: Political Stability
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Mikitivity

Description:
The NationStates United Nations,

RECALLING its resolution, the IRCO, adopted Sep. 1, 2003, which established the voluntary funded International Red Cross Organization (IRCO) for United Nations members in order to be “the first response team to natural disasters, terrorist attacks, and any other events which threaten the lives of citizens”;

OBSERVING that in addition to medical and law enforcement personnel, that these first response teams include technical and engineering professionals who in many non-emergency situations may be highly regulated by domestic liability laws;

MAKING NOTE that of the existence of many other national and international disaster assistance programs in addition to the IRCO;

NOTING WITH APPROVAL the many nations, including both UN members and non-members, which have entered into bi-lateral agreements to provide local and regional disaster assistance;

CONCERNED that these disaster assistance programs are limited in their effectiveness to send both first response teams and long-term disaster recovery teams due to the lack of pre-existing bi-lateral and unilateral arrangements, such as arrangements concerning the liabilities associated with all personnel in the volunteer response and recovery teams;

1. ENCOURAGES all nations, including UN non-members, to lend whatever aid possible in the event of a disaster;

2. EXPRESSES ITS HOPE that nations will continue to enter into local and regional arrangements to prepare for and lend aid to one another in the event of a disaster;

3. DIRECTS the IRCO to set up an international aid clearing house to inventory the capabilities of existing national and international disaster assistance programs;

4. AUTHORIZES the IRCO to expand its role beyond lending first response teams to nations in need to developing additional disaster assistance programs focusing on long-term disaster recovery;

5. SUGGESTS that nations receiving any disaster assistance to appoint a single organization or office of their government to act as a coordination group in the event that multiple national or international disaster recovery and assistance teams are working together; and

6. CALLS UPON all nations to develop domestic “Good Samaritan” laws granting volunteer based first responder teams, including technical and engineering professionals, some immunity to liability associated with work and professional judgments made while rendering disaster assistance provided that they do not act with reckless or intentional disregard of known dangers.


Thank you all for your comments. First, I'm very aware that this may not seem like a "sexy" proposal topic, but my government still feels that the UN actually exists to streamline international activities. While my government has supported the long string of human rights and environmental issues, principles such as those that guided the foundation of the IRCO are equally important.

The Peaceful Uses of Outer Space collected over 100 endorsements without a single telegramm being sent out asking for an endorsement. Basically I limited my campaign to this forum. Personally, I think that is amazing.

My goal with this proposal (now named the "Enhancing International Disaster Assistance" proposal) is to send an early draft through the proposal queue to test the waters. I'd probably telegram a few nations (meaning ~10), but I'd like to see just how interested the UN Delegates might be in this issue. I do think that like many of us, they are interested in seeing the UN continue to work in other issues.

Finally, TrES-1 suggested that this is more of a social justice proposal. I actually agree that there are the trappings of a social justice program here, except I feel that the two most important focuses of this resolution are:

1) UN instructions to the International Red Cross, not increased funding,

2) Asking nations to basically develop laws to limit law suit happy individuals in order to allow emergency response people greater ability to "stablize" those socities in the event of a disaster.

I've submitted this one, though I really had to cut the name down:

Global Disaster Assistance

Though thus far it is not picking up many endorsements, but I'd like to see how a non-environmental proposal that touches upon a real international problem fairs.

2) Asking nations to basically develop laws to limit law suit happy individuals in order to allow emergency response people greater ability to "stablize" those socities in the event of a disaster.

Still, I don't think this is "stability" in the same sense as in "political stability". Plus, such a category is likely to put some people off. I think mild social justice would at least reflect that provision for all people in trouble is improved.

Still, I don't think this is "stability" in the same sense as in "political stability". Plus, such a category is likely to put some people off. I think mild social justice would at least reflect that provision for all people in trouble is improved.

Well, my thought was that governments will be reducing the 'political freedom' to sue the people that save your lives ... it goes right up there with removing the ability of a tresspasser to sue you if they happen to step on a nail in your backyard. It is a political freedom, but one that causes more problems than it solves.

The problem is there is not category for International Aid, and social justice is about building "welfare" (so the category claims) and dealing with discrimination based issues. Disaster assistance has nothing to do with removing social barriers to equality, but is jut plain old humanitarian aid.

OOC: Sadly, the category will frighten players off. But frankly, I pitty the NS player that actually plays the game based on the resolution categories. If that is all they care about I have a solution for them:

International Security
A resolution to improve police and military budgets ...

"Resolved that the world is not safe, this resolution will solve all international security problems."


Environmental
A resolution to restrict industry in ...

"Resolved that the world is full of pollution, this resolution will solve all pollution."


Global Disarmament
A resolution to cut military budgets ...

"Resolved that we can destroy one another in so many different ways, this resolution will cut all military budgets. People will use sticks."


etc.

The point of including *text* in the proposals / resolutions is to differentiate one proposal in a category from another one. Otherwise all we are voting for is a game stats change, which you can easily do using the daily issues.

If I honestly wanted to "game" this proposal, I'd resubmit the Peace Uses of Outer Space (though Cheney-Land will do that in a day or two) right after Global Disaster Assistance. Basically I'd use a "sexy" feel good idea in order to get the harder "it makes my head hurt" proposal get some attention.

And I'm aware that some players are gonna like complex proposals and others aren't. *shrug* I can't please everybody about *that*. But I still maintain that UN Delegates and Members alike should actually skim over the text of proposals instead of just reading the game stats summary. If that is all they are doing, this game has got to be God Awful boring, since there is only a finite amount of categories.

Well, my thought was that governments will be reducing the 'political freedom' to sue the people that save your lives ... it goes right up there with removing the ability of a tresspasser to sue you if they happen to step on a nail in your backyard. It is a political freedom, but one that causes more problems than it solves.

Are you sure that's political freedom you're restricting? I thought that referred to democracy and free speech, at least in NS.

Btw, Common Sense Act II, which restricted what you can sue over, was "human rights: significant" - on the basis that you're protecting the rights of the potential victim of the lawsuit. Previously, I think international aid-type resolutions have very often been human rights too.

I guess you're right about it not being social justice, and I agree that players should look past the category - it's just that the categories "moral decency" and "political stability" hold very negative connotations for a great many liberal nations, and so whether right or wrong, some will allow this to affect their voting choice.

Are you sure that's political freedom you're restricting? I thought that referred to democracy and free speech, at least in NS.

Btw, Common Sense Act II, which restricted what you can sue over, was "human rights: significant" - on the basis that you're protecting the rights of the potential victim of the lawsuit. Previously, I think international aid-type resolutions have very often been human rights too.

I guess you're right about it not being social justice, and I agree that players should look past the category - it's just that the categories "moral decency" and "political stability" hold very negative connotations for a great many liberal nations, and so whether right or wrong, some will allow this to affect their voting choice.

In an anarchy, the thought would be: sue whomever you like, you have the FREEDOM to do so. But of course, this freedom might mean nobody wants to help you for risking having you biting the hand that helps you ...

I'd say it is a political restriction much like how the daily issue where you tell corporations that they can't "buy votes" ends up being a political restriction, even if the intent is to bring political freedom back to citizens and away from corporations.

Basically, any all that restricts something is taking away from a civil liberty or a political right.

And while game stats are a necessary part of the game, I don't buy into the belief that the UN should be a free ride. We are already seeing nations proposing new environmental resolutions as "Free Trade" categories:


Resolution for a Healthy World
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Hagge

Description:
Good Day Mr/Mrs Chairman, UN Delegate, Ladies and Gentlemen,

We all know about the problem with Greenhouse gases. We the Nation of Hagge and the WWSETI Region have a better solution to the problem. We need Fusion.
So here is our proposal:

Resolution for a Healthy World

Greenhouse gas is the direct result of the burning of fossil fuels for use as sources of electricity.. If this resolution is adopted, all nations shall use 4% of their BNP to aid in the development of FUSION. Fusion is similar to nuclear fission power plants in use today, however fusion reactors do not use potentially harmful uranium for fuel. Fuel for fusion power plants can be taken from the rivers, lakes and oceans - it is helium molecules that are used to fuel the reactors.

Article 1:
All member nations are to use 4% of their annual BNP, for the research of fusion as an energy source.

Article 2:
An international research facility shall be built, under the watchful eyes of the UN.

Article 3:
All research shall be under strict scrutiny of UN, to ensure peaceful intentions of its use.

Article 5:
After a working prototype reactor has been designed and developed, member nations shall get expert help to build and operate similar reactors.

Article 6:
Within 10 years of the official development and launch of the first reactor, all fission and fossil fuel plants within member nations shall be shut down and permanently dismantled.

Article 7:
No forms of fission or fossil fuel energy shall be used to generate electricity within member nations after the aforementioned time has passed.

In conclusion:
With cheep energy the industry. The cost of producing product will be much less, which mean cheaper consumer goods. Which mean a stronger economy for the nations The Greenhouse gas will be cut with over 85%, and the economy will gain 10-25% over a 10 years period.

This important proposal should need your help and with your help you will help many other nations.

Thank you, for allowing me to talk to you and put forward our proposal,
Prez RealBigSwede of Hagge Nation and the founder of WWSETI region

Approvals: 7 (Saint Mere Eglise, The Gaza Strip, Shutthehellup, People of Iran, Coolet, Neudegg, DragonsReach)
Status: Lacking Support (requires 128 more approvals)
Voting Ends: Fri Sep 10 2004


It is an interesting way to say "I recognize that UN members cry when their game stats are changed, because they want their cake and to eat it too ... so I'll change my resolution so it fits into a category they will feel good about."

While I actually *agree* that the above proposal has just as much point as being a Free Trade resolution, I also feel that taking resolutions that seek to solve environmental problems out of the environmental category is wrong. I also see my proposal as doing two things:

1) Expanding the IRCO (which is an administrative / political issue),
2) Moving Nations into positions of hosting good samatarian debates (a political issues).

I'm moving governments *away* from being anarchies, and interestingly I'm kinda of banking on the fact that "Father Knows Best" states will actually see the merit in my proposal. ;)

Will a resolution that isn't hunky doory fine and zaps political freedoms survive the UN? Probably not. But do nations need to wake up and taste reality a bit? I certainly think so.