NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a draft (now submitted) of a proposal that I had an idea for in response to the issue raised about medicines during the UN Patent Law repeal debate. Suggestions, comments, and constructive criticism are welcome.

Medical Aid Convention
Category: Social Justice
Strength: Mild

The United Nations,

RECOGNIZING that providing needed medicines, medical supplies and personnel to nations that cannot afford them is a major concern for many nations;

NOTING that few international efforts to resolve this need, outside of disaster relief or funding, currently exist;

CALLS UPON its member states to contribute needed medical aid to the International Red Cross Organization (IRCO) for distribution on an ongoing basis.

1) Nations that wish to do so, on a voluntary basis, are encouraged to contribute medicines, medical supplies, and/or personnel to IRCO for distribution;

2) IRCO shall be responsible for distributing these donations to nations in need of them, based on severity of need and ability to distribute the items to the requesting nation;

3) Nations that are in need of medical relief are encouraged to apply to IRCO for assistance;

4) IRCO shall reserve the right to choose the next nation on the distribution list if conditions do not allow IRCO to do so at a requesting nation; this can include, but is not limited to, warfare, violence, unrest, threats to IRCO personnel or other reasons at IRCO's discretion;

5) IRCO shall retain responsibility for oversight of the use of materials, personnel and equipment provided by this convention;

6) If a nation that has received aid through this convention diverts the aid for purposes other than those requested by their application for assistance, IRCO shall retain the right to suspend aid until they are in compliance;

7) Nations that have aid suspended shall be required to reapply for assistance to IRCO, and agree to remain in compliance with their application, to receive aid again.

Nice.

4) IRCO shall reserve the right to choose the next nation on the distribution list if conditions do not allow IRCO to do so at a requesting nation; this can include, but is not limited to, warfare, violence, unrest, threats to IRCO personnel or other reasons at IRCO's discretion;

The bolded bit reads a little oddly. Would this get the same point across?

4) IRCO shall reserve the right to choose the next nation on the distribution list if conditions in a requesting nation prevent IRCO from acting; such conditions may include, but are not limited to, warfare, violence, unrest, threats to IRCO personnel or other reasons at IRCO's discretion;

The bolded bit reads a little oddly. Would this get the same point across?

It would, and that does read a bit better. I'll change clause 4 to your suggested version on the final draft.

This is a House of Cards violation. Without the IRCO, which exists solely under the conditions established in Res #29, this proposal couldn't exist. While it strikes me as unlikely that #29 will be repealed, it's certainly within the realm of possibilities.

If you changed it to "Internationally-recognized humanitarian aid organizations (such as the IRCO)", it would no longer be dependant on that resolution. Feel free to play with the phrasing or come up with a nice acronym, but the sole references to IRCO have to go.

This is a House of Cards violation. Without the IRCO, which exists solely under the conditions established in Res #29, this proposal couldn't exist. While it strikes me as unlikely that #29 will be repealed, it's certainly within the realm of possibilities.

If you changed it to "Internationally-recognized humanitarian aid organizations (such as the IRCO)", it would no longer be dependant on that resolution. Feel free to play with the phrasing or come up with a nice acronym, but the sole references to IRCO have to go.
But what about this section of the proposal rules:
A Proposal must be able to stand on its own even if all referenced Resolutions were struck from existance; however, you may assign duties to an existing committee. Should the Resolution that creates the committe be Repealed, the committee will continue to exist, but in a reduced capacity.
When the addition to the rules was suggested, it was with exactly this kind of situation in mind: so that we wouldn't have to create a new committee with every proposal and could use existing ones for a related purpose. The Epidemic Prevention Protocol (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=76) similarly uses the IRCO (I think another one may do as well, but I forget which). Edit: nevermind, it's the Natural Disaster Act, but only 'such as the IRCO'.

So, if #29 were repealed, wouldn't The IRCO continue to exist, but its functions would simply be as ordained by this resolution (plus EPP)?

Edit: Incidentally, and completely at random, that section of the rules could do with spell-checking.

Yeah, I'd forgotten that line. Still, I stand by assertion that it's a House of Cards. This resolution is entirely about adding new duties and responsibilities to an organization that should (by all rights) be disbanded if its charter is revoked.

People used The Pretenama Panel in other resolutions, but it was more of an add-in to a broader idea. TPP is called into existance as needed. The IRCO is a permanently-staffed, heavily funded, internationally based organization. It's not a committee like the TPP. Even Epidemic Prevention Protocol mentions it in a minor context, and clearly shows that the proposal can succeed even without the IRCO, thanks to "Health Ministries of its members".

Nope, this one is entirely about new duties for a standing organization, and I'm going to rule that you've broadened the exclusion line beyond its intended limits. It's House of Cards until rewritten.

Nope, this one is entirely about new duties for a standing organization, and I'm going to rule that you've broadened the exclusion line beyond its intended limits. It's House of Cards until rewritten.

We had been concerned about that during the initial drafting on Reclamation. I'll go ahead and draft another version that doesn't rely solely on IRCO for its distribution of the donated material.

Nope, this one is entirely about new duties for a standing organization, and I'm going to rule that you've broadened the exclusion line beyond its intended limits. It's House of Cards until rewritten.

OOC: which forum is the right one for discussing the basis for this ruling (NOT THE RULING ITSELF, before anyone starts)? I'm getting a strong sense of contradictory impulses, and I'd like to understand why you think the limits are intended to be at that point, Fris.

OOC: which forum is the right one for discussing the basis for this ruling (NOT THE RULING ITSELF, before anyone starts)?Moderation. Link back or quote (or both) to the ruling you're asking about.

Taking another stab at this.....

Medical Aid Convention
Category: Social Justice
Strength: Mild

The United Nations,

RECOGNIZING that providing needed medicines, medical supplies and equipment to nations that cannot afford them is a major concern for many nations;

NOTING that few international efforts to resolve this need, outside of disaster relief or funding, currently exist;

ESTABLISHES the United Nations Medical Aid Committee (UNMAC);

CALLS UPON its member states to contribute needed medical aid to UNMAC for distribution on an ongoing basis.

1) Nations that wish to do so, on a voluntary basis, are encouraged to contribute medicines, medical supplies, and/or equipment to UNMAC for distribution;

2) UNMAC shall be responsible for distributing these donations to nations in need of them, based on severity of need and ability to distribute the items to the requesting nation;

3) Nations that are in need of medical relief are encouraged to apply to UNMAC for assistance;

4) UNMAC shall reserve the right to choose the next nation on the distribution list if conditions in a requesting nation prevent UNMAC from acting; such conditions may include, but are not limited to, warfare, violence, unrest, threats to UNMAC personnel or other reasons at UNMAC's discretion;

5) UNMAC shall retain responsibility for oversight of the use of materials, personnel and equipment provided by this convention;

6) If a nation that has received aid through this convention diverts the aid for purposes other than those requested by their application for assistance, UNMAC shall retain the right to suspend aid until they are in compliance;

7) Nations that have aid suspended shall be required to reapply for assistance to UNMAC, and agree to remain in compliance with their application, to receive aid again.

The portion about personnel has been removed due to the fact that people cannot be contributed to a committee. Again, suggestions or comments are welcome.

There wasn't any comment on the second draft I made of this...not sure if that's because no one felt changes were needed, or lack of interest....either way, I'm dusting this thing off and bumping it for any final comments before I submit it and see if I can get it to quorum. There are some new people here since I posted this last, maybe new eyes will have new suggestions.

After some unexpected technical delays, this resolution has finally been submitted for approval. Even if it doesn't make it, I want to thank everyone on here, at Reclamation and at UNOG who gave advice on it.

Does it have any conflicts with the last sentence of Increased Acces to Medicine (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030045&postcount=43) or not?

Does it have any conflicts with the last sentence of Increased Acces to Medicine (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030045&postcount=43) or not?

The last sentence in question:

Nations may do this however they wish, from subsidizing their drug industries, to having their state provide more medicine and distributing it abroad.

I don't see how there would be a conflict. Assuming this passed, the effort would be strictly voluntary. No nation would be forced to contribute, thus maintaining their right to do everything that sentence refers to.