NationStates Jolt Archive

The proposal has been advanced for a vote before the General Membership.
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/34071/page=un

Please visit and vote in favor of its passage. If you have any questions about the proposal, please ask them here.

The nation of The United Socialist States of Snoogit (here to fore referred as the USSS) have a few questions.

#1 It is stated in the resolution that any nation has the right to quarantine any inbound passenger from another UN member, but if the inbound passenger is not a UN member, what are our rights as a nation to quarantine such people?

#2 We must include in this resolution a basic human rights and signity clause that states that a government if it deems neccisary to quarantine an inbound passenger, that it must provide, safe and humane means of doing so. If a nation decided to quarantine a citizen, and he or she is sent into say that nations prison system, shouldnt that be shunned upon by this delegation?

Furthermore, until these issues are resolved the nation of Snoogit cannot pass this resolution

USSS, the right to quarantine is within the scope of an individual nation's sovereignty. In the drafting of the resolution, we (the Free Land of Slackerness) had similar questions. The resolution merely acknowledges that quarantine is within the existing rights of nations and invites respect of quarantined foreign nationals.

Your concern about the treatment of quarantined persons is noted. We are not certain whether detailing the specifics of quarantine would infringe upon national sovereignty.

This is a pretty clearly a social justice resolution, not a moral decency one.

Tuesday Heights is a very big fan of proposals that seek to help regulate things in the world that are international in nature; epidemics of the size this proposal seek to prevent are just what the world needs right about now.

whoever started this, have you ever read Executive Orders by Tom Clancy?

This is a pretty clearly a social justice resolution, not a moral decency one.

Yep. How did this get support in the proposal stage, let alone be so far in front now? It's not a poorly-written piece or anything, it's fine... it's just that firstly it should be Social Justice, and secondly it shouldn't be labelled as 'strong' legislation.

Tanah Burung, I am not sure how the proposal got classified under 'Moral Decency'. I agree with you - it seems odd. Unfortunately, Huai Bei (the sponsor and architect of the resolution) is having problems with his NS account so we will have to wait for a clarification.

Naval Snipers, I have not read that novel by Tom Clancey. And of course, the sponsor cannot respond to your question at this time. But would you care to mention how the novel relates to the Epidemic Prevention Protocol?

Tuesday Heights, thank you. I agree that this resolution is the sort of proposal that the UN should be concerning itself with.

Tanah Burung, I am not sure how the proposal got classified under 'Moral Decency'. I agree with you - it seems odd. Unfortunately, Huai Bei (the sponsor and architect of the resolution) is having problems with his NS account so we will have to wait for a clarification.

Naval Snipers, I have not read that novel by Tom Clancey. And of course, the sponsor cannot respond to your question at this time. But would you care to mention how the novel relates to the Epidemic Prevention Protocol?

Tuesday Heights, thank you. I agree that this resolution is the sort of proposal that the UN should be concerning itself with.

Since you agree, I recommend a motion to suspension of the legislation for resubmittal with a correct consequence tag. The vast majority of UN-voters will vote on the merit of the text rather than the category, and don't read the UN board to catch up on the latest opinions and discussions.

Since you agree, I recommend a motion to suspension of the legislation for resubmittal with a correct consequence tag. The vast majority of UN-voters will vote on the merit of the text rather than the category.

I think since most people will vote on the basis of the text that the category doesn't matter. Surely it is a minor bureaucratic thing. But getting this resolution to vote was a a fairly major chore - not one I care to go through again any time soon.

The nation of The United Socialist States of Snoogit (here to fore referred as the USSS) have a few questions.

#1 It is stated in the resolution that any nation has the right to quarantine any inbound passenger from another UN member, but if the inbound passenger is not a UN member, what are our rights as a nation to quarantine such people?

#2 We must include in this resolution a basic human rights and signity clause that states that a government if it deems neccisary to quarantine an inbound passenger, that it must provide, safe and humane means of doing so. If a nation decided to quarantine a citizen, and he or she is sent into say that nations prison system, shouldnt that be shunned upon by this delegation?

Furthermore, until these issues are resolved the nation of Snoogit cannot pass this resolution

The Nomadic Peoples of Jessiecow agree with Snoogit's concerns. We must try to evaluate this act in away that must protect civilians rights; be that they are from another nation or our own nations. We are concerned about how and where the civilian will be quarantined, and will international affairs interfere with that persons national rights. We are not CHALLENGEING the fight against disease and epidemics, we feel that more governmental funds should be used in these cases. In any case, we will remain neutral in this vote until clarification has been made. :confused:

The Nomadic Peoples of Jessiecow
" Love your cow, feed your cow, and give it rights"

I see this as Moral Decency in the same sense as Mikitivity's Good Samaritan Laws was moral decency - not about morals, but instead about (slightly) reducing civil rights. In Good Samaritan Laws, your right to sue someone saving your life was curtailed. In this, your ability to travel anywhere is reduced, according to this:
3. a)Every Nation has the right to quarantine any inbound passenger and potential-pathogen-carrier-cargo from Nation which is hit by the outbreak.

I'm not sure I agree with the 'Strong' strength, though. I'd regard this as 'Significant' at most.

So if I have a backup dancer or makeup artist who's HIV positive, then they get quarantined by the government of a country? And I have nothing to say about it? Uh-uh. This delegate's voting "no".

Jessiecow, thank you for expressing your concern. I am uneasy with the idea of the UN prescribing detention and quarantine rules to individual nations but perhaps would make a good separate resolution.

Britney and Cletus, HIV is widely recognized as a non-epidemic disease. It is not transmitted via the air or by casual contact.

Enn, thank you for your insights on the category and the thinking behind it. I must confess that I had lilttle to do with that part of the proposal so I am all at sea when it comes to explaining it.

In reviewing previous resolution, The United Socialist States of Snoogit cannot vote in favor of this resolution because it is clearly a violation of Habeas Corpus.

A disease is not, and can never be a reason for detention.

This is a pretty clearly a social justice resolution, not a moral decency one.
Social Justice: "A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare."

I don't see this as adjusting "income inequality" in the slightest.

So if I have a backup dancer or makeup artist who's HIV positive, then they get quarantined by the government of a country? And I have nothing to say about it? Uh-uh. This delegate's voting "no".

HIV is not contaigious in the sense that 'flu and ebola are. So there would be no need to quarrantine them.

HIV is not contaigious in the sense that 'flu and ebola are. So there would be no need to quarrantine them.

But the resolution's definition of epidemic is as follows:

1.Definition of Epidemic :
affecting or tending to affect a disproportionately large number of individuals within a population, community, or region at the same time

It makes no reference to how contaigious (sp?) a disease is, merely how many people it affects. (OOC: and with nations in reality having HIV/AIDS adult prevalence rates up to 38.80% - Swaziland as of 2003 according to the CIA world Factbook at http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2155rank.html - it's safe to assume that there would be analogous cases in NS where HIV/AIDS could easily be said to be affecting a disproportionately large number of individuals). Thus, this resolution would give nations every right to detain anyone and everyone coming from a nation where HIV/AIDS was widespread.

On top of this, the resolution's definition of epidemic doesn't even demand that it has to be a medical disease. Homophobic nations could declare pro-gay rights nations to be suffering an "epidemic" of homosexuality. Some nations regard capitalists as "parasites" and some of them might feel like declaring that capitalist nations are suffering from an epidemic. They would then have the right to indefinitely detain anyone coming from those nations. They might even fudge research to provide evidence for the existence of pathogens which spread these social "diseases" - and thereby legitimise trade embargoes on other nations.

I know this is all a little extreme, but if anyone can see how the resolution doesn't allow any of this, please do explain it to me.

But the resolution's definition of epidemic is as follows:



It makes no reference to how contaigious (sp?) a disease is, merely how many people it affects. (OOC: and with nations in reality having HIV/AIDS adult prevalence rates up to 38.80% - Swaziland as of 2003 according to the CIA world Factbook at http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2155rank.html - it's safe to assume that there would be analogous cases in NS where HIV/AIDS could easily be said to be affecting a disproportionately large number of individuals). Thus, this resolution would give nations every right to detain anyone and everyone coming from a nation where HIV/AIDS was widespread.

On top of this, the resolution's definition of epidemic doesn't even demand that it has to be a medical disease. Homophobic nations could declare pro-gay rights nations to be suffering an "epidemic" of homosexuality. Some nations regard capitalists as "parasites" and some of them might feel like declaring that capitalist nations are suffering from an epidemic. They would then have the right to indefinitely detain anyone coming from those nations. They might even fudge research to provide evidence for the existence of pathogens which spread these social "diseases" - and thereby legitimise trade embargoes on other nations.

I know this is all a little extreme, but if anyone can see how the resolution doesn't allow any of this, please do explain it to me.


"Globalization, international trade and advanced transportation systems accelerate the spreading pace of contagious diseases and make every nation vulnerable. We need a solution to this problem :
Contagious Disease Epidemic Prevention Protocol "

This is the description of the proposal. And it uses the words "contagious diseases".

But as for the description of diseases and so forth - yeah. That might be an issue

It may not be a moral issue, but dead people can't have morals, can they? They're wormchow.

"Globalization, international trade and advanced transportation systems accelerate the spreading pace of contagious diseases and make every nation vulnerable. We need a solution to this problem :
Contagious Disease Epidemic Prevention Protocol "

This is the description of the proposal. And it uses the words "contagious diseases".

But as for the description of diseases and so forth - yeah. That might be an issue

The introduction may use the word contagious, but the actual definition of epidemic does not. And anyway, HIV/AIDS is contagious, just less so than other diseases. In fact, contagious can be applied to non-diseases, e.g. smiles (even www.dictionary.com acknowledges this as a legitimate, proper use of the word, so we're back at square one - you can define lots of things as "spreading from person to person" and thus as contagious, including political philosophy etc)

I don't see the use in arguing. The propisiotion always wins once it gets enough endorsements. There have been VERY few times that a proposition with suffecient endorcenments has been given the boot since I started playing last December.

I don't see the use in arguing. The propisiotion always wins once it gets enough endorsements. There have been VERY few times that a proposition with suffecient endorcenments has been given the boot since I started playing last December.

The legal marriage age. I think that one was voted against by quite a margin.

Ok, some do get shot down, but that is very rare.

The Democratic States of Anthronesia will be voting against the proposal in its current form. The proposal supports a worhwhile proposition but certain civil and political rights need to be specifically referenced in the document in order for Anthronesia to vote in favour.

We would like to take this opportunity to identify some areas that need further clarification.

Article 1 makes reference to "prudent medical means" to isolate epidemic scale outbreaks. What, in reference to this proposal, should the General Assembly (and possibly Security Council) regard as 'prudent'? More than this, are there any means to isolate outbreaks that are not permissible? We would reccomend that in addition to a nation identifying itself as being the subject of an epidemic that they also submit a plan of action to the World Health Organisation (or similar body) indicating how the nation intends to resolve the epidemic as well as identifying key areas where support from the international community is needed. We would require that such plans be consistent with the Bill of Rights.

Article 3 stipulates two national rights: (a) to quarantine passengers or goods originating from a country identified as having an epidemic in effect, and (b) to legislatively ban the importation of any food or medical products that are merely suspected to be carrying a pathogen that has the potential to lead to an outbreak.

With regards to (a) we would require that the detention process be outlined to indicate firstly, the length of time that a person may expect to be held in quarantine; secondly, the measures that the government detaining the person is obligated to undertake; and thirdly, an affirmation of the freedom of all individuals travelling between nations (consistent with the immigration laws of sovereign nations). In addition we would reccomend that a register be developed as a result of this bill, administered by the World Health Organisation (or similar body) to identify both epidemic potential pathogens and current centres of epidemic.

With regards to (b) we would like to append to the last suggestion of the previous paragraph that the WHO also take a role in compiling a list of potential pathogens as well as indicating that there must be reasonable grounds on which to suspect that the specified cargo is carrying a pathogen.

Explanation 1 gives a definition of 'epidemic' that needs further clarification. We need further explanation of what proportion is to be considered 'disproportionate'.

Explanation 2 states that the national sovereignty of member-nations is guaranteed. This proposal does not guarantee this. It needs to be stated, in more explicit terms, either in the proposal, or in support of this proposal, why this needed to be added.

We wish to iterate again that this is a worthwhile endeavour, but that we feel that certain factors need to be addressed.

This is a pretty clearly a social justice resolution, not a moral decency one.

I couldn't agree more. I agree with everything said in the resolution itself, but I voted against it because of its category and that's what really affects my nation as well as all of yours.

The People's Republic of Zazarstan (PRZ) will vote against the proposal in its current form, agreeing some of The Democratic States of Anthronesia's and other nations' points of view.

The PRZ also considers that the definition of Epidemic is quite insufficient nor clear enough. The definition could take more or less such a form :

"a largely recognized medical affection that tends to quickly affect a disproportionately large number of individuals within a population of living beings"
1a "largely recognized" means recognized so by epidemic experts worldly reknowns such as the US CDC or the Pasteur Institute (or their equivalent in Nation States...)
1b "quickly" and "disproportionately large" means considered so by previously quoted experts
1c "living beings" means any living creature - don't forget animals can also widespread dangerous diseases, be they dangerous for man or no doesn't matter - imagine that all the chicken of the world are struck by such a disease as ebola for manking, we wouldn't be eating chicken for decades, which could dangerously hinder chicken eating populations (and also decrease the income of Kentucky Fried Chicken, by the way...)
1d the words "community" and "region" have to be banned, "community", as it may be used to justify unbearable and unnecessary bad treatments upon various well-known not-always-loved communities, such as gays, jews, tzigans and politicians, or well-known "disputed" regions such as Palestine, Tibet or my bathroom (or their known pendants in Nation States...)

Discussing point 3, related to the quarantining of the infected people (known later as the "pathogen vehicle"), the PRZ doesn't quite fully agree with people fearing for the good treatment of the pathogen vehicle or fearing it may be in contradiction with the "Habeas Corpus" resolution. To some extent, the problem lies in the fact that, in cases of widespread epidemic diseases such as ebola or any such virus, action has to be taken quickly to limitate the area of contamination, which may be, for the sake of the largest number of living beings, in contradiction with the necessity to be having to act "gently" and "humanly" with the pathogen vehicle. We have to accept the fact that, in some very specific cases, the human rights may not be respected for the sake of numbers.

We, the PRZ, know that some occidental dummies at Hollywood have already widespread the stupidest of ideas that it was unacceptable to eliminate a living being (well, let's rather say a human being, they don't usually care for animals) when there was still a chance to save it, and that it was far better to endanger the rest of mankind doing so than to act cleverly. We, the PRZ, know that, by proclaiming this point of view, will probably not be understood and clearly compared to violent dictatorships, but we aren't. We're simply concerned by the survival of the many in extreme cases, that can be endangered by inadequate rules.

The PRZ agrees with the "donation" points, with the remark that it could be useful for the UN to constitute a specific section of experts, with enough staff and material to react to such specific cases of epidemic quickly widespread diseases; it could be useful, too, that this special section of epidemic experts may have clearly defined protocols to react to the threat, defined in conjunction with existing IRCO units' protocols.

We, as members of the polite state of Glabladia, must attempt to vote against this legislation. While it is regrettable that we must do this, we believe that the right of Habeas Corpus overrides any possible danger this poses.

This choice is very regrettable indeed, and we would wish to have to not make such a decision. Indeed, our council was deadlocked for several hours until President Æther SPOON! cast their tiebreaker vote.

However, in an alternate, we do wish to offer our training in our nation's public health services to any UN nation that feels as though they need to control such awful outbreaks of diseases that go against mankind. Our compassionate citizens are easily qualified to assist in such manners and are willing to help.

So after I've quarantined peoples that have a currently uncurable communicable disease, what do I do with them?

1. Try to save them with the best medical knowledge you have in your country
2. Try to do the same with all available foreign help
3. Pray on your gods
4. If none of the above works, then you'll have either to help them pass on the other side if your national laws allow it or to held them under quarantine until they naturally die...

Simple but true...

I voted against it because of its category and that's what really affects my nation as well as all of yours.

I am confused. How does the category affect any nation?

We have to accept the fact that, in some very specific cases, the human rights may not be respected for the sake of numbers.

Such a point of view is consistent with rights considerations where certain rights may be temporarily suspended in cases of manifest harm, though this does not include the right to life. Which is largely why we quarantine people rather than shoot them and incinerate them.

o vote against this legislation. While it is regrettable that we must do this, we believe that the right of Habeas Corpus overrides any possible danger this poses..

Habeas Corpus shouldn't be an issue. If someone attempting to enter a foreign country refuses quarantine there should be no reason why they can't simply turn around and return from where they came.

Habeas Corpus shouldn't be an issue. If someone attempting to enter a foreign country refuses quarantine there should be no reason why they can't simply turn around and return from where they came.

Thats the problem, there is no provision in the amendment to allow someone to just "turn around" and go home.

Such a point of view is consistent with rights considerations where certain rights may be temporarily suspended in cases of manifest harm, though this does not include the right to life. Which is largely why we quarantine people rather than shoot them and incinerate them.

The PRZ agrees on that furthering of our own point of view, with the extent that the 'right to life' is also the right to do what one wants of one's life, i.e. if euthanasia is allowed in the concerned nation, a willing pathogen vehicle, foreign to the country or not, should be granted the right to have a soft, quick and merciful death. In fact, a precision to the amendment could be added, allowing the concerned nation to temporally allow euthanasia for the duration of the crisis.

I am confused. How does the category affect any nation?

OOC: If it is Moral Decency (which I think it is), then there will be a slight drop in Civil Freedoms, but at a "Mild" strength this movement is really just to center. If your Civil Freedoms aren't too high, there should be a very modest impact -- at least as I remember it. The previous resolution really didn't change my game stats.

BTW, I have mixed feelings about categories and resolutions. First, the game moderators are the ones who should be policing this a bit. They do, but resolutions do make it through. Second, I think the classification might be passed on some of the clauses.

I'll still have to look as I just got back from being out of town. But I hope to catch up on things! :)

I see this as Moral Decency in the same sense as Mikitivity's Good Samaritan Laws was moral decency - not about morals, but instead about (slightly) reducing civil rights. In Good Samaritan Laws, your right to sue someone saving your life was curtailed. In this, your ability to travel anywhere is reduced, according to this:


I'm not sure I agree with the 'Strong' strength, though. I'd regard this as 'Significant' at most.

Thanks Enn.

This Clause 3a, is in fact a strong case for a Moral Decency issue.

Social Justice doesn't apply here. Social Justice programs are used to create and or promote equality. A good Social Justice program would be the Needle Exchange Programs I presented in the Needle Sharing Prevention resolution. These are programs that target a specific group in order to help protect an otherwise "underpriveledged" group.

With that in mind, my government has cast its vote in favour.

Good job!

Thats the problem, there is no provision in the amendment to allow someone to just "turn around" and go home.
On top of it, my great nation of Glabladia does not believe in denying foreign nationals rights already possessed by those of native born people. Thus, detaining these people is just as horrendous as detaining those of our citizens.

In addition, what would happen if a citizen of Glabladia would go off to a foreign nation such as Ziinlo, catch who knows what, come back, and is detained? They obviously cannot return to Ziinlo, where they were most likely kicked out as otherwise they would be sacrificed, but at the same breath they ARE residents of Glabladia.

We cannot allow this to happen.

Thats the problem, there is no provision in the amendment to allow someone to just "turn around" and go home.

That's not a provision that needs to be made for this specific resolution, but should be addressed in more general terms for when a person is not allowed to enter a country.

Our nation shall vote FOR, because this resolution is good in spirit. There are details that could do with improvement, the category is a bit doubtfull, but we have considered that if this proposal is rejected, no better proposal will be made. We'd rather have an imperfect resolution that is good in spirit, than no resolution at all.

Regards,

UN Ambassador of the PRoGG

OOC: If it is Moral Decency (which I think it is), then there will be a slight drop in Civil Freedoms

Thank you for the explanation, and welcome back! :)

The PRZ agrees on that furthering of our own point of view, with the extent that the 'right to life' is also the right to do what one wants of one's life, i.e. if euthanasia is allowed in the concerned nation, a willing pathogen vehicle, foreign to the country or not, should be granted the right to have a soft, quick and merciful death. In fact, a precision to the amendment could be added, allowing the concerned nation to temporally allow euthanasia for the duration of the crisis.

Zazarstan's comments illustrate a complicated point with regards to ending the lives of the terminally ill - this is the distinction between euthanasia and doctor-assisted suicide. The Anthronesian government does not support euthanasia, but supports doctor-assisted suicide in certain cases. This highlights the difference that we are referring to here with the right to life. The decision to end an individual's life should be the choice of the individual (one reason to support greater awareness of so-called 'living wills'). Quarantine, properly executed, is an appropriate method of dealing with potential outbreaks.

While Anthronesia is supportive of the resolution, but will not vote in favour because of the aforementioned reasons, we would vehemently oppose any resolution that allowed any person, other than the individual under consideration, to end another's life. This can be further compounded by the observation that some nations may not have the health infrastructure to adequately deal with pathogen-carrying individuals and so may resort to an euthanasia article to execute the perceived threat.

Any national (or international) government should not have the power of life or death directly placed in their hands.

This resolution has nothing to do with euthanasia.

We the PRZ think that this resolution should take in consideration the euthanasia issue, as it is well related to such specific major disease situation.

Cave Canem will be supports this resolution on balance, although the reservations that we have expressed on its strength, as expressed elsewhere, remain.

OOC - we are actually considering addressing no further issues so that our ratings change only in line with UN resolutions, and seeing what kind of nation we end up with. Hmm.

We the PRZ think that this resolution should take in consideration the euthanasia issue, as it is well related to such specific major disease situation.

This legislation is about preventing the spread of epidemic diseases, so unless you're suggesting euthanasia as a method for preventing the spread of epidemics (i.e. kill everyone who has the disease), then euthanasia should be presented in another piece of legislation.

As for this act, I have a short time to decide whether I am going to leave the UN before this Act is implemented. The Act itself is not a problem, but the fact that there is no category that fits it well enough means it has to be a moral decency or social justice Act. I think it is closer to the latter, but it is really neither, and though I agree with the Act, I do not believe that moral decency has anything to do with epidemic prevention, and the effects of such categorisation can have negative effects to many nations. The UN needs another category of effects to class this sort of legislation under, because these are real issues that good legislation can be brought forward for. I considered a global disease control legislation similar to this (but more limited), but decided against presenting it because it did not fit any of the categories.

Anthronesia says:

Any national (or international) government should not have the power of life or death directly placed in their hands.

Anthronesia does raise an interesting moral point, which this resoulution does not give an opinion on. Take this for example. Pneumonic plague has broken out in a hospital, but has been contained within the building. However, a group of patients and staff are attempting to break out of the hospital. You have 2 choices, use armed police on them, or allow them to get out. This is a more likely situation than an infected patient in a hospital and does give the government the power of life or death. In my opinion, this is a matter for a national government to decide, based on the ethics of that nation, and not something that should be legislated. (Unless they're about to charge across a border or something, in which case it's an international issue)

From the UN entry page:


Last UN Decision

The resolution Epidemic Prevention Protocol was passed 12,093 votes to 2,458, and implemented in all UN member nations.


Congrats to the team of you involved with this one.

Not only did this resolution reach the queue faster than any other since I've been participating in the UN, but it did so with a 4.9 vote ratio, making this among the most popular UN resolutions!

Thank you Mikitivity. There have been many good suggestions for amendments to the resolution and the Free Land of Slackerness is willing to support a proposal that would (among other things) clarify the definition of 'epidemic'.

The concerns over quarantine also seem valid. Is there perhaps an existing non-partisan agency which visits and ensures the rights of Prisoners of War? Perhaps this same agency, or a similar office based upon its principles, could guarantee the well treatment of persons in quarantine.

If any nation is interested in modifying the Epidemic Prevention Protocol they will find an interested party in Slackerness.

Thank you Mikitivity. There have been many good suggestions for amendments to the resolution and the Free Land of Slackerness is willing to support a proposal that would (among other things) clarify the definition of 'epidemic'.

The concerns over quarantine also seem valid. Is there perhaps an existing non-partisan agency which visits and ensures the rights of Prisoners of War? Perhaps this same agency, or a similar office based upon its principles, could guarantee the well treatment of persons in quarantine.


The Wolfish Convention of POW covers their treatment, but there is no agency that my government is aware of. In once conflict, the IRCO was asked to make sure that the Wolfish Convention was adhered to.

Hello. As a new member, I want to say that I'll comply with the protocol. :)