NationStates Jolt Archive

Good Samaritan Laws
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.

Category: Moral Decency
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;

CONCERNED that international disaster assistance programs like the IRCO as well as volunteer disaster assistance teams sent by other nations are limited in their effectiveness to quickly respond to disasters and emergency situations due to the lack of pre-existing disaster assistance arrangements, such as arrangements concerning the liabilities associated with volunteer response and recovery teams carrying out emergency aid;

1. AFFIRMS the right of nations responding to offers of disaster assistance to decide which offers to accept and which offers to refuse;

2. PROCLAIMS that nations responding to offers of disaster assistance also have the right to refuse assistance from specific individuals and / or types of aid;

3. CALLS UPON all nations to develop domestic “Good Samaritan” laws granting volunteer based first responder teams, including technical and engineering professionals, some immunity to civil 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; and

4. DECLARES that the immunity to liability associated with rendering aid applies only to work associated in disaster or emergency assistance, and that all other normal domestic laws should apply to these individuals.

Voting Ends: Fri Oct 8 2004
The above resolution is at vote. Discuss.

Very good law... But I'm afraid this is wrong "Good Samaritan Laws
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency"

This law doesn't seem to me like "A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency"... so I won't vote for it unless you explain me why, and also the idea of restricting civil freedom in the interest of moral decency doesn't seem nice to me.

Please explain yourself otherwise I'm afraid I'll have to vote agaisnt it and cousel nations from my region to do so, and also counsel friendly nations from other regions to do the same.

Is this resolution proposing that we teach volunteers to have the training necessary to be knowledgeable in caring for injured people? If it is, where will the funding come from for these programs?

Background Behind the “Good Samaritan Laws” Resolution

There have been a few resolutions concerned with international disaster assistance, but the two most notable to my government have been the Human Rights The IRCO (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029657&postcount=30) resolution, adopted 2003.09.01 and the International Security Tracking Near Earth Objects (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030193&postcount=65) resolution, adopted 2004.07.05.

The history behind the IRCO should be obvious, but the Tracking Near Earth Objects resolution introduced two concepts that my government still believes need to be strengthened. First, the Tracking Near Earth Objects resolution encouraged nations to work together to assess celestial disasters. Naturally many of our nations already have some agreements to address other disasters, but my government feels that organizations like the IRCO should be included in the drafting of these agreements and should also be encouraged to respond to disasters. Second, this resolution talked about developing long-term contingency plans. Obviously large-scale disasters may very well require international responses, so my government began looking into ways to streamline international disaster relief efforts.

With that in mind, my government drafted a Disaster Assistance Liability for Engineers (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=354625) proposal back in early September. Based on feedback provided by the NS UN forum, that draft was later changed (text and title) and submitted as the Global Disaster Assistance (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=356141) proposal. The proposal had positive feedback from UN delegates, but failed to break 100 endorsements when we did not engage in a telegram campaign.

When my government resubmitted the proposal, the proposal was deleted (and my nation issued a warning) (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=356458) by the UN Secretariat for being in the wrong category (then it was Political Stability). On advice (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7057325&postcount=16) from the UN Deputy Secretary-General from Cogitation, the proposal was divided into two proposals. The second half of the Global Disaster Assistance proposal was turned into the Moral Decency Good Samaritan Laws (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=359213) proposal.

It has been a bit frustrating, but my government has tried to accommodate all of the suggestions that have come from UN members or from the UN Secretariat (in fact, Cogitation’s advice was very appreciated).

Very good law... But I'm afraid this is wrong "Good Samaritan Laws
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency"

This law doesn't seem to me like "A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency"... so I won't vote for it unless you explain me why, and also the idea of restricting civil freedom in the interest of moral decency doesn't seem nice to me.

Please explain yourself otherwise I'm afraid I'll have to vote agaisnt it and cousel nations from my region to do so, and also counsel friendly nations from other regions to do the same.

I think it is because of the paragraph that requires the nation in distress to forgoe the right to sue anyone who comes to help them. That could be classed as a restriction of civil freedoms, from a certain point of view :}

Very good law... But I'm afraid this is wrong "Good Samaritan Laws
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency"

This law doesn't seem to me like "A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency"... so I won't vote for it unless you explain me why, and also the idea of restricting civil freedom in the interest of moral decency doesn't seem nice to me.

Please explain yourself otherwise I'm afraid I'll have to vote agaisnt it and cousel nations from my region to do so, and also counsel friendly nations from other regions to do the same.

I'll dig up the exact post where my government outlined it position with respect to "Moral Decency" impacts, but every day each of our nations faces one or two "major issues". These are challenges where we often are faced with a serious trade off.

Somedays we must trade away a small civil right, in this case the right that exists in a society with very few laws to sue people for looking at you funny or helping you, for a legal protection or immunity for those that help maintain order and security.

My government believes by having a "mild" civil (and often frivelous) right somewhat restricted, that granting immunity to international disaster relief workers will streamline the process and agreements reached between nations, and that lives and property can be saved in the event of:


Earthquakes
Hurricanes
Torandos
Flash Floods
Volcanic Erruptions
Forest Fires
Mudslides
Blizzards
Terrorist Attacks


Basically the immediate short-term needs for many disasters and extreme events requires that first responders come in and make quick judgements. Most of our governments give immunity to government / public sector first responder teams, but our teams of lawyers and advocates do not universally apply to either volunteers nor to visiting international professionals.

This resolution merely recommends that in order to streamline the process of getting first responder teams from one nation into another that our governments need to adopt some forms of legal protection for volunteers.

[OOC: I'll post real-life examples if it will help, but 2004 has been a devasting year and I can help but think that international standardization in this case wouldn't have been but more beneficial.]

Is this resolution proposing that we teach volunteers to have the training necessary to be knowledgeable in caring for injured people? If it is, where will the funding come from for these programs?

No. It makes no suggestion about the training and funding of the people who come to help. It just says that if your nation has suffered an horrific disaster and you ask for people from neighbouring nations to come and help, you should treat them with kindness and respect because they are giving up their time (and possibly risking life and limb) to help you out.

Is this resolution proposing that we teach volunteers to have the training necessary to be knowledgeable in caring for injured people? If it is, where will the funding come from for these programs?

No, but that is a good idea.

There is a International Red Cross Organization, and the Good Samaritan Laws resolution was originally a small part of a Global Disaster Assitance proposal which was broken into two parts. The first part did in fact imply that volunteers and IRCO teams need to focus on short and long-term disaster recovery skills.

As it stands now, after an earthquake (one example) professional engineers will come to a nation or city and offer free professional advise by telling law enforcement and medical personell which buildings and bridges may be inhabited. Until an engineer can certify a structure as safe, it is unwise to even put temporary medical / command centers in these buildings, so it is important that private sector experts in construction and building integrity offer their advice as soon as possible.

Being that these professionals do care, they often will be happy in an emergency to use their special skills and training for free, but sometimes they might make a judgement (trust me, they are conservative in their judgements to begin with ... what engineer is not) that turns out to injury somebody, but the truth is they aren't able to spend years analyzing a situation. This proposal would provide them legal protection when they used their best knowledge in reaching a timely and professional situation as a volunteer.

I like this one. Now I can undertrain my Emergency Response Crews and not get sued for it!

(Excerp of last response)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rashawn

not sure if this is the proper place to post this but I disagree with the last line of the proposal most of all. For Example If my nation sends "Good Samaritans" to a country of the Reich. And after the disaster is over they are held to test their aryan purity and any are found to be of Semetic decent; then they can be held for domestic crimes. I think the UN should Support Full Diplomatic Immunity, with the hosting country having the option of severing diplomatic relations for gross abuse of said immunity. As well as a Judicial Review of any Diplomats (Samaritan or otherwise) that blatantly violate the spirit(as opposed to the written legal deffinitions for all those book lawyers) of the Good Sameritan.

------------------------

The only problem with the Full Diplomtic Immunity is that then the relief workers can not be prosectued for any crimes - such as theft, rape, murder, pillage and so forth. Which, as you can imagine, would be unacceptable for a fair amount of nations.
And even if the diplomatic relations are severed, the crimes have still happened, and the people will have the immunity and consequently can cross back to their own country before they can be prosecuted.
------------------------------
That's the point, there is no check or balance that can cover every eventuality. The Idea is that those answering the good samaritan call, will be member nations of the UN. As member nations their personal conduct is open for review by the UN. Their conduct realates back to the UN, and their Judicial Review should be at the discression of the UN. If the UN Expedites them back to face Justice for crimes then it is made by a fair governing body, following the resolutions in both writing and Spirit. If a member nation has representitives that rape, pillage, murder (or even torture) then use the diplomatic immunity; their nation must bear the brunt of economic sanctions and perhaps even police action. We must be responsible for our own on a global level, part of that responsibility is to give protection full and without reservation to those representives carryiong out humanitarian aid work. Another part of that responsibility is to weed out those that abuse this great responsibility of full immunity. Just as we would police any nation perpetrating crimes against humanity as a whole.

Yeah thats a good idea but not all nations will agree to it. I mean why do you need all these nations coming to aid you when something bad happens? Why cant everyone just have their own emergency team that runs to their aid everytime something like this happens? You never know when you could be out helping anouther nation and you have a natural disaster of your own. What are you gonna do then? Get everyone to leave the nation they were helping to come help you? That would be wrong. If that happened then you would have nations hating nations and then that would edventually lead to war. Many people don't take this into consideration when trying to pass laws like this. You cant always depend on everyone to be there when you need help and not all nations would come anyways. :confused: Why do you need help from other nations if you cant even help yourself. :mad: It doesn't always work out the way you want it to.

Bloody good show, Mikitivity! Way to affirm the inherent rights of nations and still get something done.

Remember this everyone-

National Sovereignty: It's Like That "Tolerance" Crap on a National Level

Yeah thats a good idea but not all nations will agree to it. I mean why do you need all these nations coming to aid you when something bad happens? Why cant everyone just have their own emergency team that runs to their aid everytime something like this happens? You never know when you could be out helping anouther nation and you have a natural disaster of your own. What are you gonna do then? Get everyone to leave the nation they were helping to come help you? That would be wrong. If that happened then you would have nations hating nations and then that would edventually lead to war. Many people don't take this into consideration when trying to pass laws like this. You cant always depend on everyone to be there when you need help and not all nations would come anyways. :confused: Why do you need help from other nations if you cant even help yourself. :mad: It doesn't always work out the way you want it to.

Because sometimes you can't do it on your own. Take my nation for example.

At the time of this debate I have a population of 56 million, spread across 15 regional counties. All it would take it an earthquake that hits three of four of them - which is not unheard of - and my entire national system would be in chaos. 2, 3 million dead in the earthquake, nearly three times that left homeless. Disease and starvation are spreading across the land. It would not be too much of a leap to realise that I need help from everyone in my country, and from people outside of it.

So I think that expecting one nation to deal with its disasters on it's own is asking a bit much, and if someone comes to help me I would not reward them by suing them for everything they have just because things did not go to plan.

I like this one. It ensures in multiple clause that nations sovereignty is protected; both the victim of the disaster and also that of those helping the victim. In no way are you forced to go to the aid of an enemy or stranger; it's suggested (as it should be) but it's not mandatory. Good job, Mikitivity. I'd be surprised if this one doesn't pass.

I like this one. It ensures in multiple clause that nations sovereignty is protected; both the victim of the disaster and also that of those helping the victim. In no way are you forced to go to the aid of an enemy or stranger; it's suggested (as it should be) but it's not mandatory. Good job, Mikitivity. I'd be surprised if this one doesn't pass.

Thank you! I'm glad to see that most nations have leadership that understand this exact key point:

Nations have the right to choose to accept or decline volunteer disaster assistance. A boob off the street of some other country may easily be an unqualified (say godmoder) to render first aid, and not immune to civil suits, because governments can easily say, "Thanks for your offer to help, but we feel we are better off without your help."

This is so important that I made it the very first clause:

1. AFFIRMS the right of nations responding to offers of disaster assistance to decide which offers to accept and which offers to refuse;


Arguments by others that this will lead to substandard emergency aid are coming from nations that don't know what they are talking about.

Before becoming the UN Ambassador for my nation I *was* by profession an engineer. When an earthquake struck a neighboring nation, I volunteered to go there to render aid, but that nation was not willing to offer me or my government immunity for free services I was willing to offer (I'd be taking vacation time) while there. My government then advised me to stay put.

[OOC: This is a very story. I actually *am* a registered civil engineer and two years ago Mexico was hit with a large earthquake. I was organizing a team of civil engineers representing the State of California to go, but the Mexican Consultant said that their government had no rules to protect visiting engineers coming to inspect schools and buildings.

After 9/11, *some* California private sector engineers traveled to New York city to inspect the saftey of buildings near ground zero. Though these engineers did this at their own personal risk to liability (the US does not yet have a uniform law, though states like California *do*), few international engineering teams came to our aid. :(

http://sections.asce.org/metropolitan/samaritan.html


The tragedies of 9/11 shed light on the need for Good Samaritan protection for engineers. New York’s Good Samaritan Act covers doctors, nurses, and other professionals against such exposure, but not engineers. It is unfair that these professionals answered the call in our time of need, only to find themselves subject to more risk than medical professionals who offered to help during the crisis. Clearly, legislative action is necessary to protect the engineering community in the future.

Other States Provide Immunity to Engineers

On October 1, 2003, Connecticut’s Good Samaritan law, which provides immunity to engineers volunteering in a declared emergency, took effect. At least 18 other states also have some type of Good Samaritan law protecting engineers. Washington, Colorado, New Mexico, Virginia, Oregon, North Dakota, North Carolina, Maryland, Louisiana, Kentucky, Georgia and Florida currently have comprehensive Good Samaritan Laws, while others have laws that address specific emergencies or specific kinds of volunteer work.

Now I've not said exactly what national good samaritan laws should look like. My roleplay nation is big on states rights. But my nation has also been a huge proponent of human rights and international security ... we've already brought to the UN:

Ballast Water (co-authored) resolution,
Tracking Near Earth Objects resolution,
Needle Sharing Prevention resolution,

in addition to having been supportive of many other resolutions and international services. My nation has been among the first to offer humanitarian aid to others and will continue to do so. But I honestly 100% believe that this resolution, which is based on real world movements, is the responsible thing for any government that cares about its people to do. I'm saying this both as a player *and* as a civil engineer with first hand experience in these areas. :)

Is the nation "in need of aid" permitted to refuse aid from other nations? If not, then we will most certainly not vote for this resolution, once we are admitted to the United Nations.

If so, then we will still vote against this issue, as we feel that the only aid should be external. Foreign nations should be permitted to give the needy nation supplies, be they monetary or medical or whatever is needed, but should not be allowed to prance into their borders with impunity.

1. AFFIRMS the right of nations responding to offers of disaster assistance to decide which offers to accept and which offers to refuse

Is the nation "in need of aid" permitted to refuse aid from other nations?

Yes. Countries who ask for aid have the right to refuse aid from any country.

Foreign nations should be permitted to give the needy nation supplies, be they monetary or medical or whatever is needed, but should not be allowed to prance into their borders with impunity.

4. DECLARES that the immunity to liability associated with rendering aid applies only to work associated in disaster or emergency assistance, and that all other normal domestic laws should apply to these individuals.

They are not allowed to "prance into their borders" and do whatever the hell they want. Emergency workers are still under the law of the country they are aiding. Immunity would only be on a professional level and only associated with work in disaster and emergency assistance.

However, I wanted to toss something else out, which was a suggestion from the Epidemic proposal ...

Q: Why do we need laws like this?

A: To make it easier for relief workers to come.

I believe, the NGO "Doctors Without Borders" uses non-profit funds to have a paid staff coordinate out these types of arrangements on a case-by-case basis. I could be wrong.

Here is why I think this is the case:

http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/volunteer/field/vol_faq.shtml#security

What are some of your security and safety procedures for field volunteers?
Working with MSF is adventurous but not reckless. Adherence to our field guidelines for personal and team conduct and safety is non-negotiable. MSF has standard security guidelines and each mission has country-specific security guidelines. In some contexts, there may even be cause for project-specific security guidelines. Your safety and the safety of all team members depends on each person's commitment to and implementation of the guidelines.

A "fictional" organization that also might be useful to look at if you are still voting against this (which I hope you aren't), would be US Agency for International Development (USAID).

http://www.usaid.gov/

In particular, take a look at what this fictional government is doing for other hurricane struck nations (also fictional):

http://hurricane.info.usaid.gov/


USAID/Disaster Assistance Response Team (USAID/DART) for the Caribbean
A five-person USAID/DART remains in Haiti. The USAID/DART in Grenada is phasing out emergency relief activities and transitioning to rehabilitation and reconstruction assistance. USAID/OFDA consultants remain in The Bahamas and Jamaica to respond to the needs of hurricane-affected populations.

This however sounds like a small team given that USAID reports:


On September 30, DPC reported 1,554 people dead and 904 missing due to flooding caused by Tropical Storm Jeanne. Overall, DPC reports that 299,000 people have been affected by flooding in the Artibonite and Northwest departments. According to OCHA, bodies are still being recovered as water levels recede.

Remember, this region has been hammered (in fiction) by three other hurricanes in less than 60 days! :(

Now the big question that should be on everybody's mind is how does UNAID work? Well, it most certainly has gone into other countries and worked out agreements with those countries to protect US Government employees (remember this is fictional of course ... NS has no USA). ;)

The following is a big long pdf of tort policy for USAID. The point of this resolution is to streamline and reduce the need for this kind of international document.

http://www.usaid.gov/policy/ads/100/152.pdf

Anyway, even if the above is from a "fictional" country, I hope that my government's position is clear. Lives and property is lost due to administrative delays. As a government for the people, each of our governments must look out for the best interests of our citizens and our own futures. My government clearly believes that by working together to address liability issues related to international aid workers, that we can in fact save guard lives and property.

Please join my nation. I'm visiting many of the Pacific forums, and will be away on diplomatic (Oktoberfest) duties on Friday. If anybody wants me to visit their regional forum, I'll be happy to explain my POV, but it is clear based on other posts that a great many other nations clearly understand my nation's position and goal, and I'd be honored if you felt comfortable in taking the debate to your forums on my government's behalf!

Thanks,
10kMichael

if the target nation is allowed to refuse aid, is a nation allowed to decline to offer it? This seems to be "holding a gun" to nations heads saying that you will help others in need whether, removing your own free will.

In a forum where (in other areas) we argue about peoples "freedom of choice" we attempt to remove an entire nations freedom of choice, possibly to its detriment.

It is easy to show compassion when we are doing it with the wealth and prosperity of other nations at stake. But our own giving is what is shows the greatest and largest heart and the greatest warmth of spirit.

I will vote against this resolution, not because I have no inclination to help those in need, I have the greatest inclination to do so. I just have no inclination to stare in judgement of anyone else who does not join me in doing so.

I will not judge those who do not walk a mile in my shoes. For I do not claim to be a better man or nation than they are merely due to my level of generosity.

I will not judge those who cannot give at a time that they also may be facing certain issues that may be so internal that I cannot understand. They need not explain to me or the world. " I cannot" is good enough for me. Should it be habit...I will wish them well and continue my journey without them. Kharma pays dividends to those who plant bitter seeds.


I am only heartened by the fact that I see no teeth in this resolution. There seems to be no harsh penalty for those who refuse to provide help by its provisions. It matters little to me, for I have already stated that I will abide by it even though I will vote against it because I do believe in helping those who are in need, I just want my aid to be to those whom I choose worthy of that aid (those who truly have not planted those bitter seeds).

Beware of that smell....Be well.

The barking spiders.

The Emissary from Ahsmenistan supports this resolution, as does the delegate from the region EP Freedom.

In response to the representative from Barking Spiders, we do not see how this resolution takes away freedom of choice from any nation. Nations are not being forced to help, as the word "volunteer" indicates.

While granting that every nation has the right to vote for this resolution as they wish, we do not agree with the reasons stated by the representative from Barking Spiders. This resolution in no way passes judgement on anyone not volunteering to help. The purpose is to encourage volunteering, by letting the volunteers know that they will not be prosecuted for their good deeds. It also grants nations the right to refuse help.

We would encourage Barking Spiders to vote for this resolution, by re-iterating that the resolution does not force any nation to help another, it does not lead to passing of judgement, and that any such notions are misconceptions.

all i got to say is: you got my vote :)

(mildly edited to add numbers so I can reply to your points)


NO on Good Samaritan Laws

1) This law is basically moot. If nation one (Receiver) does not wish to accept aid from nation two (Giver), why would Giver *want* to force unwanted generosity?
2) Also, if Receiver starts arresting Giver's aid workers, they will not receive any assistance in the future. This type of thing is an example of letting the "market" manage itself or forcing people down a certain path.

3) What is worse is that the subject for this resolution is "Moral Decency" so the true effect will be an increase in faith based, "moralistic" laws aimed at decreasing civil rights.

I am opposed to this resolution, since it only seeks to enforce, and poorly, what is already universally practiced.

MammonLord, President of The Confederacy of Brokers


1) The "Giver" nation might use a national disaster as cover to take soldiers, or other unwanted help, in to the "Receiver" nation. So this allows the "Receiver" nation to prevent this from happening. It has to be states explicitly, otherwise there would be nothing to prevent it.

2) What you have said is true. But it doesn't help the people who have already been arrested. And this also covers civil actions - litigation and so forth - not just arrest and imprisonment.

3) These laws are not faith based. It makes no mention of religion or belief anywhere. It just asks for people to have the decency not to punish those who come to help them, regardless of creed or colour.

I respect your right to vote no, but would you at least consider the points raised?

Just to reiterate, in no way does this motion force nations either to accept aid or give it if they don't wish to.

This is an excellent motion. It is our view that this kind of humanitarian project is precisely the kind of thing the UN should be concentrating it's efforts on. We urge a "yes" vote for this motion.

This resolution does not force any action on any nation. It's TOTALLY voluntary. Not only are you not forced to give or receive aid, you aren't even forced to give the immunity - you're merely "called upon". This is effectively a position statement, saying that the UN endorses good samaritan laws (as well as reiterating national sovereignty rights that all nations already had, by virtue of the fact that, AFAIK, they haven't yet been legislated upon by the UN). So what's the problem?

all i got to say is: you got my vote :)
That is very respectable. Usually the only people who follow the "debate this in the UN forum" link are people that think the proposer is a monkey or a nazi. Or both.

Oh, and ditto.

The nation of Movalpolos supports this resolution, as do the rest of my Comrades in the Sons of Stalin.

My small nation has neither the financial ability nor the manpower to consent to this act. I cannot support this bill for this reason, but there are also other reasons.

For instance, I will not suggest that 'Moral Decency' be enforced in my territority, because it is ludicrus to restrict such freedoms. Also, this bill has the potential for abuse. I could send my forces to a region promising 'aid' and instead use their soldiers for an internal takeover. This bill is ridiculus and I will not support it in any way.

My small nation has neither the financial ability nor the manpower to consent to this act. I cannot support this bill for this reason, but there are also other reasons.
Where does this require you to pay money? You do not have to put in money, or manpower. It is entirely voluntary.
And if you don't have manpower to help other nations, what happens if a disaster happens on your soil? How do you have the finances or manpower to support yourself in such a situation? You would have to ask for foreign aid, which is exactly what this resolution is intended to protect.
For instance, I will not suggest that 'Moral Decency' be enforced in my territority, because it is ludicrus to restrict such freedoms.
The only freedom that is being restricted is the freedom to sue someone who is doing all they can to save your life. Not a freedom I would mind waving goodbye to.
Also, this bill has the potential for abuse. I could send my forces to a region promising 'aid' and instead use their soldiers for an internal takeover. This bill is ridiculus and I will not support it in any way.
Hence the first article of the resolution,
1. AFFIRMS the right of nations responding to offers of disaster assistance to decide which offers to accept and which offers to refuse
The receiving nation has the right to refuse your offer. If that article was not there, then you would indeed be able to internally conquer the receiving nation.
And look! It's the first article! That must mean Mikitivity thought it important!

The Free Land of Slackerness agrees that national soveriegnty is the foundation of any UN resolution. But we heartily applaud the framers of the current resolution for their careful protection of our rights.

My small nation has neither the financial ability nor the manpower to consent to this act. I cannot support this bill for this reason, but there are also other reasons.

For instance, I will not suggest that 'Moral Decency' be enforced in my territority, because it is ludicrus to restrict such freedoms. Also, this bill has the potential for abuse. I could send my forces to a region promising 'aid' and instead use their soldiers for an internal takeover.

We must disagree with you on several points. First, contributing aid is voluntary - the resolution incurs no cost to a nation unless that nation chooses to make a donation.

Second, 'Moral Decency' is merely a bureaucratic category name - in no way are the laws of individual nations compromised, nor are individual freedoms restricted.

Third, a recipient nation has the right to refuse any offer of assistance. There is no compulsion to accept aid from hostile countries or to accept mammoth transfers of foreign personnel.

The resolution respects national sovereignty and participation with its provisions is entirely voluntary. The Free Land of Slackerness sees no threats to liberty, individual or collective.

This resolution losses my vote due to the fact that the writer has not even bothered to come to this forum so as to answer some of the very valid questions brought up by my fellow members. Thus, if the creator does not feel strongly enough about their res. why does it warrent my vote?


Fill that void with answers . . .

This resolution losses my vote due to the fact that the writer has not even bothered to come to this forum Scroll up, bonehead.

Mik has been around extensively, and answered tons of questions in this and the various creation topics. He probably answered yours already, though I'm not in the mood to research it for you. Read ...

Draft: Good Samaritan Laws (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=359213)
Proposal: Global Disaster Assistance (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=356141)
Draft Proposal: Disaster Assistance Liability for Engineers (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=354625)

As it happens, he has a life outside of NationStates. Not all of us have time to sit in judgment of our betters.

Scroll up, bonehead.

Mik has been around extensively, and answered tons of questions in this and the various creation topics. He probably answered yours already, though I'm not in the mood to research it for you. Read ...

Draft: Good Samaritan Laws (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=359213)
Proposal: Global Disaster Assistance (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=356141)
Draft Proposal: Disaster Assistance Liability for Engineers (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=354625)

As it happens, he has a life outside of NationStates. Not all of us have time to sit in judgment of our betters.

OOC: I in fact to have a life away from my computer. Tonight I was talking long-distance to my brother about my grandmother who is in intesive care, after watching the vice-presidential debate, and for the past two days I've been attending a water / environmental concerned here in the state capital, such that between that and this resolution, I've actually *missed* a few replies.

With that in mind, if I miss a few more, please cut me a bit of slack, as I *am* spread thinly. The only time I would *not* reply to a post is if I thought it were rude or godmoding. Generally I *love* questions and if you look at my post count, you might conclude that you'll have a HARDER time asking me to shut the heck up. ;)

Here is another great page / resource on Good Samaritan Laws:

http://www.canadianlawsite.com/goodsamaritan.htm
http://www.nursefriendly.com/nursing/legal.nurse.consultants.lnc/good.samaritan.laws.acts.htm

I think the second one is better.

Now if you are looking at these sites, I want to answer a question that has been telegrammed to me:

No, this resolution does not force people to volunteer. Though in the real world France has such a law, there are in fact *two* different types of real world good samaritan laws.

France and it looks like Quebec have the ones that say you have to help somebody if they are hurt or injured. While I think that is a good role to live by, I'm not ready to tell your nations to do that.

The other type are what Florida, California (for engineers), Missouri, and other US states have. These are laws that say you don't have to volunteer *and* that if somebody refuses your help, you can *not* touch them. But if they accept your help and you choose to offer it, they can't change their mind later and sue you.

These are the "middle-ground" laws.

NOTE: if your nation has French / Roman styled Good Samaritan Laws that force action, this resolution does *not* change those laws. :) But this means that when your citizens are in another country they have *some* protection they might not have otherwise.

If your nation doesn't have these laws, you'll have to make some following the passage of this resolution (fingers crossed). I intentionally left some "wiggle room" as I *hate* one-size-fits-all UN resolutions where we name the exact name of the laws and force our ideals on nations. That is why this is a mild resolution.

But as one national leader to other national leaders, I urge your nations to think about your citizens. With laws like these, it is easier for us to send international relief crews which I firmly believe will save lives. I would not be up here if I didn't 100% believe in this, because as I said above, I've got plenty of other things to keep me busy. It was just a bit hard to watch RL Florida get hit again and again, and not think about people in need and how I might bring this debate into NationStates. I also thought that Moral Decency isn't a bad topic if done "right". I wanted to come up with something well written to show people that the debate should focus on the issues and topics, and not on the political category (or political party). ;)

For those of you whom have been supporting this resolution in debate here, I've read and agreed with all of your posts. You have COMPLETELY captured and understand exactly what I'm trying to do here, and that is just so unspeakably cool to see that happening! :)

This resolution losses my vote due to the fact that the writer has not even bothered to come to this forum so as to answer some of the very valid questions brought up by my fellow members. Thus, if the creator does not feel strongly enough about their res. why does it warrent my vote?


Fill that void with answers . . .

OK, I've telegrammed answers to you, and I *do* appreciate telegrams and will try to respond. That said, I will be out of the country on Friday, so for the next person that wants to claim I'm not responding, please cut me a small bit of slack.

Second, when I am on-line I've been defending my resolution in many different forums:

http://s4.invisionfree.com/The_IDU/index.php?showtopic=41
http://s4.invisionfree.com/The_IDU/index.php?showtopic=84
http://s2.invisionfree.com/The_North_Pacific/index.php?showtopic=2682
http://s2.invisionfree.com/The_North_Pacific/index.php?showtopic=3000
http://s8.invisionfree.com/The_West_Pacific/index.php?showtopic=1068
http://s8.invisionfree.com/The_West_Pacific/index.php?showtopic=1128
http://invisionfree.com/forums/The_East_Pacific/index.php?showtopic=1632
http://invisionfree.com/forums/CACE/index.php?showtopic=1920

In each of these topics you'll find some nations like the resolution, and others don't. But I am taking all polite questions / debates very seriously and I am listening.

Please note: I am avoiding all the spin-off threads posted here in NationStates. There is supposed to be one thread per resolution, so if you've posted something elsewhere, please delete that post and repost your discussion here.

Bottom line, I do care a great deal about this. While I know that there will be nations that simply look at the category and vote based on silly game stats, I would rather nations look at the text and debate and decide based on that. This is an important issue, and a new debate for NationStates.

In short, yes votes are important to me / my nation.

And to answer one of the questions: this isn't about fines or "payment". If a disaster strikes a country and another nation volunteers to send aid, the first nation can say yes or no. If they say yes to the aid, then they basically agree to offer some legal protection to the relief volunteers.

The above resolution is at vote. Discuss.

I must oppose the above legislation for two reasons.

1) Its pointless. Offering immunity to people who dont act reckless or intentional disregard only gives immunity to people who dont need it to begin with.

2) There are other groups, particularly religious organizations, that might be able to do the job better than this international group. Why not let the volunteer organizations that get their first handle the job?

I must oppose the above legislation for two reasons.

1) Its pointless. Offering immunity to people who dont act reckless or intentional disregard only gives immunity to people who dont need it to begin with.

2) There are other groups, particularly religious organizations, that might be able to do the job better than this international group. Why not let the volunteer organizations that get their first handle the job?

1) The thing is it is possible to act without recklessness and without intentional disregard, and still cause an accident or cause some negative effect. This law would protect those who make a judgement, that to the best of their knowledge was the right one at the time, and it turns out that that judgement has unforseen errors. No recklessness, no disregard, but still something that someone could punish them for.

2) (from the proposal) "...that international disaster assistance programs like the IRCO as well as volunteer disaster assistance teams sent by other nations ..." - this applies to ALL volunteer teams that come to help in the event of a disaster. Not just the IRCO.

Is this going to slow the public liability nightmare? If so, it gets my vote.

Is this going to slow the public liability nightmare? If so, it gets my vote.

I'm not exactly sure about this.

Basically the resolution will reduce the number of frivilous law suits (that is taking away a small civil freedom in the interest of having a faster response time and greater ability to save lives).

Let's pretend you are in a crowded theatre. Freedom of Speech would suggest that you have the civil right / freedom to scream: "FIRE!". However, this is a unnecessary freedom, because the "good" that is generated from being a jerk any time you like is outweighed by the panic that screaming "FIRE" in a crowd will call. Your right to scream fire is actuall frequently less than somebody else right to not having to worry that some jerk will scream fire and cause a riot that will trample him or her.

That is a classic example of "Moral Decency".

Governments do other things that limit your "economic" freedoms as well. Take a hypothetical "Food and Drug" administration. These would be designed to make sure that somebody else's freedom to put rat meat in your peanut butter is limited. Now instead of giving corporations the "freedom" to do whatever the hell they like, they must report what they've done and print it on a label (as well as be subject to inspections).

Our governments do things for our citizens all the time, and this resolution really says, "If you are a nation and somebody volunteers to help you out in an emergency, you are now somewhat responsible for ensuring that they can do their job without your other citizens suing them."

This is not diplomatic immunity. Not by a long shot. If a foriegn medic robs a bank while "rescueing" people, he or she is still guilty of criminal actions. Clause 3 grants some immunity to civil liabilities. That just means the medic can't be sued for ripping a man's shirt open in order to assess his wounds.

And yes, look around ... there are nations where people are just that petty and would literally "bite the hand that feeds them".

One of the sad, but hallmark events that has been often sited as a justification for "Good Samaritan Laws" would be the collaspe of the WTC.

Here is a FEMA report worth reviewing:

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch1.pdf

In that document you can get the feel for what it is to be a professional who volunteers to respond and help out at a disaster site. Bear in mind that the number of individuals with the skill sets to perform these duties are limited, and it is for just that reason that we need a standardization in our laws. Not necessarily a "one-size-fits-all" approach, as my government supports the idea of finding local solutions to global problems.


For a more general description of the problem associated with liability / risk in volunteering, this "fictional" site, from the National Society of Professional Engineers is worth reading as well:

http://www.nspe.org/govrel/gr2-4042.asp


During natural disasters or other catastrophic events, the demand for emergency services often exceeds the capacity of government agencies. State and local governments rely on the private sector to assist in responding to the relief and recovery needs of communities. The expertise and skills of professional engineers are particularly needed in times of such crises. States and localities need assurances that professional engineers will assist in providing essential engineering services.

Professional engineers are willing to voluntarily assist in emergency situations. However, they face substantial liability exposure when doing so. Without sufficient immunity from liability, professional engineers may be hesitant to volunteer.


To give you a better idea of just how important this is (and to stress that this applies to many types of disasters), keep reading ...


Some states have responded to this concern, but only after an emergency situation occurred. For example, when Hurricane Hugo struck South Carolina in 1989, engineers were made temporary employees of the state so that they could assist in relief efforts without fear of liability exposure. In Florida, the state Department of Community Affairs granted engineers "agent of the state" status in order to afford the volunteer engineers liability protection when they responded to Hurricane Andrew in 1992. However, this practice is legally untested and vague, and may still leave the volunteers exposed to liability.


Please join my nation, as the above really seem like solid proof of a justification of the need for this civil practice to be limited in order to promote international humanitarian aid.

While the above examples focus on a large "fictional" nation, the USA, many smaller nations do not have teams of engineers and doctors available to respond to disasters. An international call for domestic laws / action is necessary to address this ... hopefully we can save lives.

The NationStates Region has voted against this proposal on the fundamental reason that we do not believe that the UN has the right to define the ambiguity of what determines Moral Decency at the expense of Civil Liberties.

Further, discussions with this Resolution's author has solidified our opposition as we were disparaged in character based solely upon our democratic right to disagree with said author.

We feel these "discussions" were indicative of one man's self-righteous perspective that can not be allowed to determine the unfolding evolution of our democratic SOVEREIGN Nation and Region.

In time we hope that the author learns to practice Good Samaritan diplomacy as opposed to the name-calling he has spewed upon the gracious Region of NationStates.

Mikeswill
UN Delegate
NationStates Region

The NationStates Region has voted against this proposal on the fundamental reason that we do not believe that the UN has the right to define the ambiguity of what determines Moral Decency at the expense of Civil Liberties.

Further, discussions with this Resolution's author has solidified our opposition as we were disparaged in character based solely upon our democratic right to disagree with said author.

We feel these "discussions" were indicative of one man's self-righteous perspective that can not be allowed to determine the unfolding evolution of our democratic SOVEREIGN Nation and Region.

In time we hope that the author learns to practice Good Samaritan diplomacy as opposed to the name-calling he has spewed upon the gracious Region of NationStates.

Mikeswill
UN Delegate
NationStates Region

You are aware that a fair number of people have been speaking in support of this proposal? And quite a lot of them (in fact all but one of them) are not the author of the proposal? This is more than "one man's self-righeous perspective" about what "good behaviour" entails - it is a statement that says if someone is coming to help you, for no reward and at their own time and expense, and at the very real risk of life and limb, you should not react by suing them for what they are doing.

The NationStates Region has voted against this proposal on the fundamental reason that we do not believe that the UN has the right to define the ambiguity of what determines Moral Decency at the expense of Civil Liberties.

Further, discussions with this Resolution's author has solidified our opposition as we were disparaged in character based solely upon our democratic right to disagree with said author.

We feel these "discussions" were indicative of one man's self-righteous perspective that can not be allowed to determine the unfolding evolution of our democratic SOVEREIGN Nation and Region.

In time we hope that the author learns to practice Good Samaritan diplomacy as opposed to the name-calling he has spewed upon the gracious Region of NationStates.



But aside from voting against the resolution because you hate its author, could you perhaps explain why and how this resolution interferes with sovereignty? Furthermore, could you name some other resolutions that do *not* interfer with sovereignty?

I think that if you look at all UN resolutions, that your complaint about sovereignty can be applied to them all. If you voted against everything on the basis of sovereignty, that there would in reality be no real reason to stay in the UN.

That said, the resolution is not about "morality". Please site where in the text it suggests this.

It is about telling people that their ability to proverbally "swing their fist, ends where another person's saftey / nose begins".

Governments are a trade-off. In order to protect our citizens we hire police forces. The more police, the safer a society. The degree to which he hire police and infringe upon civil liberties varies with each state. What this resolution is saying is that in order to save human lives, we have to agree to limit a very mild civil liberty ... that being the liberty to sue somebody who just saved your life.

Have you read the links I've shown about talking about the 9/11 attacks and volunteer engineers? What is wrong with trying to adopt laws that will save lives if the civil liberty cost is extremely limited?

Sincerely,
10kMichael


p.s. It sounds to me like your issue here is that you read the category and only play NS for game stats changes ... that is a real shame. In the real world, governments *are* making and adopting Good Samaritan Laws: France, Quebec, Florida, California, Missouri, and others have such laws. New York is working on one now. To judge based on game stats is like judging a book based on its cover ...

We agree that there are merits to this Resolution and that it's intention is well founded. However, the ambiguity of what determines Moral Decency allows "self-righteous" definitions that we believe erodes our sovereignty.

Our experience in this direct matter is the result of three telegrams by the author of this Resolution attempting to Bully my Region's vote. Unfortunately, we can not tolerate such behavior.

Our vote remains opposed.

Mikeswill
UN Delegate
NationStates

We agree that there are merits to this Resolution and that it's intention is well founded. However, the ambiguity of what determines Moral Decency allows "self-righteous" definitions that we believe erodes our sovereignty.


Could you actually quote where in the resolution that there is "self-righteous" defintions?

The resolution doesn't give direct mandates, because if you would have read the above posts, you'd see that many UN members (including mine) believe in a philosophy of "one-size-fits-all laws are less likely to work than local laws designed to solve global problems".

If I say, "You will make a law mandating that on Sundays people shouldn't go to work." that is a moral resolution and a pretty big impact on sovereignty.

If instead I say, "You have the choice to say who can come and who can not come to give aid to your country." that actually is pro-sovereignty.

I still think your arguments are based on a rather close-minded approach of not looking at the resolution text, and I think that is incredibly unfair.

Cave Canem supports this resolution and applauds its careful wording.

We speak as a nation that has been persuaded by good solid arguments both here and in our regional forum, from an original position of opposition.

A collection of subtle but important resolutions such as this can have an impact on the world that is far greater than the sum of their parts and is certainly more effective as a way of introducing change than apparently world-altering alternatives.

Cave Canem

Thankyou for your replies. Although I mostly use NS as a basis for an RP (which uses some game stats), the issues and resolutions that come up are also interesting (as well as make for fun in the RP), and must be treated seriously.

If you really want to "improve" your statistics (defence, economy etc.), resign from the UN...

I'll be away for the rest of this debate (out of town), but I encourage continued discussion.

Thanks to all! I'll hear from many of you next week.

10kMichael

Observed:

3 minutes ago: The resolution Good Samaritan Laws was passed 10,303 votes to 3,990, and implemented in all UN member nations.

Congrats, Mik!

Congrats, Mik. How many resolutions is that now?

Congratulations, Mik. You're resolution passed. Just out of curiosity, what (if any) other resolutions have you penned?

Congratulations, Mik. You're resolution passed. Just out of curiosity, what (if any) other resolutions have you penned?

My government would like to thank all of the nations involved in the draft proposal stage through the final discussions here in the UN forum. Your comments were extremely helpful and I feel those of you that are actively participating in the official UN forum (not just sitting around and voting) really made this possible. My government would not have even attempted to do this without your support and participation.

Thanks,
10kMichael
Ambassador, Confederated City States of Mikitivity


p.s. and for the purpose of closing debate:

Last UN Decision

The resolution Good Samaritan Laws was passed 10,303 votes to 3,990, and implemented in all UN member nations.



OOC: What a wonderful sight for my eyes after my delayed flight back from Canada. :) I kinda wondered, since when I left Friday morning, one of my Pacifics was out with computer problems, another was voting against, and two of the remaining three were leaning 75% / 25% in favour. That is a lot of votes to swing at the last hour!!!

That makes the current number 3 or 4 depending on how you count them:

Ballast Water - Environmental: All Businesses (Jamalya submitted a proposal that I rewrote, but that nation -- now retired, did 100% of the campaining ... I just made sure that the UN debate would understand the importance of invasive species ... a serious real-world problem).

Then as Mikitivity, naturally with campaining / telegramming asstistance from many allies:

Track Near Earth Objects -- International Security: Mild
Needle Sharing Prevention -- Social Justice: Mild
Good Samaritan Laws -- Moral Decency: Mild

There is one other resolution on the books that I did some extensive suggestions for, and literally about a half dozen that I've advocated for on and off forum with serious intensity. What can I say, when I see people bring creative solutions to very serious problems and work hard to bring them to our attention, I'll fight for their ideas as well as my own 110%! :)