NationStates Jolt Archive

Humanitarian Transport Convention

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Mikitivity

Description:
The World Assembly,

CONCERNED about the absence of international standards governing the conduct of nations in international territory,

ACKNOWLEDGING that nations transport basic humanitarian supplies, including doctors and medical supplies as well as prisoners of war and other non-combatants through international territories,

CONCERNED that vessels moving humanitarian supplies or prisoners of war by land, air, sea, or space could also be used to move other cargo used in the conflict at the same time,

DEEPLY DISTURBED at the possibility that parties in a conflict could use prisoners of war or humanitarian supplies as shields for other military activities,

OBSERVING that no international standard has been established to make it easier for nations to identify and recognize other vessels used to transport prisoners, non-combatants, and humanitarian supplies,

1. CONSIDERS items and persons not being used to directly support combat operations, including prisoners of war, doctors and other medical experts, medical supplies, basic food and water supplies, sick and wounded combatants, and civilians to be humanitarian cargoes,

2. DISCOURAGES the practice of transporting humanitarian cargoes in the same vessel(s) or convoy as materials directly supporting combat operations,

3. RECOMMENDS that when possible, that exclusive vessels and convoys be used to transport humanitarian cargoes,

4. CALLS UPON nations to adopt a standard for identifying their humanitarian transports, such as painting the hull of dedicated humanitarian vessels completely white or flagging the vessels with an internationally recognized symbol associated with humanitarian aid,

5. URGES nations to follow this code of conduct and to inform the international community what standards they have adopted to identify their humanitarian transports,

6. DECLARES the right of humanitarian vessels to maintain defensive weapons and to have free and safe passage in international territories by prohibiting nations from firing upon vessels that are only carrying humanitarian cargoes,

7. REQUIRES humanitarian vessels to not initiate hostilities with any other vessel or targets unless first attacked and to not actively support offensive campaigns,

8. AUTHORIZES any national vessel within hailing distance of a humanitarian vessel to request, if there is sufficient cause, the humanitarian vessel to transmit their cargo manifest and prepare for boarding and inspection,

9. FURTHER REQUIRES humanitarian vessels to present a cargo manifest and to submit to the above inspection,

10. MANDATES that any searches conducted on humanitarian vessels must not put those vessels or their passengers or crew in any danger,

11. AUTHORIZES parties searching humanitarian vessels to seize any non-humanitarian cargoes, as defined in clause 1, including items listed on the cargo manifest,

12. PROHIBITS searching vessels from firing upon any humanitarian vessel that has provided its cargo manifest, allowed a search, and surrendered any non-humanitarian cargoes,

13. REQUESTS nations develop separate agreements to strengthen the basic goal protecting humanitarian cargoes,

14. EXPRESSES ITS HOPE that as more nations agree to standards of practice making transporting humanitarian cargoes safer, more nations will provide humanitarian aid.

food and water being crucial to any military (at least one of carbon based lifeforms) the Mud Planet of Decapod Ten reserves its sovereign right to destroy them.

We would definitely like to echo Decapod Ten's words. The disruption of food and water supplies has always been a cornerstone of war and it is not unhumanitarian (in a war), considering your men are blowing the guts out of their potential recipients.

The Dominion

I may be missing something, but I don't see that this actually prohibits attacks on humanitarian vessels.

-- Samantha Benson

I agree that food and water are legitimate targets in warfare. If you're running out of either, you can easily get round the problem by surrendering. However, one can't raise the dead by surrendering.

It might be possible to merge this with certain aspects of Maritime neutrality - specifically the sections concerning evacuation of civilian ships prior to sinking them. I think Maritime Safety had a few things relevent, too

I may be missing something, but I don't see that this actually prohibits attacks on humanitarian vessels.

-- Samantha Benson

Thanks, it isn't finished at clause 8, and the proposal is intended to condemn attacks (prohibits is the goal, but more than likely some nations will claim that water, food, or even oxygen are weapons of war and still attack humanitarian vessels). ;)

Is your government OK with the basic scope of the proposal?

Yes, sorry, it wasn't a criticism: it was meant as a reply to those suggesting food is a legitimate target.

Yes, sorry, it wasn't a criticism: it was meant as a reply to those suggesting food is a legitimate target.

True and danke! But I believe they too understood that the condemnation of targeting humanitarian vessels was intended to be included (it was).

My question for all is, if my government rewords the proposal to make it clear that materials used to support combat operations, fuel, food, etc. can be seized, would this make the proposal more to your governments' approvals?

My ultimate goal is to see if we can reach a middle ground that enough of us are comfortable with such that there is some code of conduct and protection afforded to purely humanitarian vessels.

Based on the comments thus far, there is some confusion about the first clause:


1. CONSIDERS, for the purpose of this resolution, the transportation of items not being used to directly support combat operations, including prisoners of war, doctors and other medical experts, medical supplies, basic food and water supplies, sick and wounded combatants, and civilians to be humanitarian cargoes,

The key phrase is that the food and water supplies described in this clause are "not being used to directly support combat operations".

I see how this is confusing, but I'd like to explain the intent here. First, my government uses military luftschiffen (airship) transports to bring food and water to nations in need. The vessels are completely operated by the Miervatian Luftwaffe. However, it would make our operations much more effective if we did not need to have the vessels escorted by large convoys of fighters.

We are more than willing to agree that providing food and water to combat units sustains their ability to fight, and thus our third-party vessels should not be off-limits.

Does the phrase "not being used to directly support combat operations" cover this? Was this perhaps overlooked? Or do any governments have a suggestion how we can reword this (perhaps in two shorter clauses) to prevent this sort of misunderstanding?

I honestly appreciate all the comments.

*bump*

I was hoping that nations might weigh in on the issue of restrictions -vs- allowances for humanitarian vessels to transport food and water.

Does is clause 1 clear or should it be reworked?

It seems perfectly clear to me, but isn't there a grammar issue? It starts off talking about 'the transporation' and ends 'to be humanitarian cargoes'. That doesn't intuitively read correctly. I think you can exclude 'the transportation of'. I also added a bolded suggestion, for clarity:
1. CONSIDERS, for the purpose of this resolution, items and persons not being used to directly support combat operations, including prisoners of war, doctors and other medical experts, medical supplies, basic food and water supplies, sick and wounded combatants, and civilians to be humanitarian cargoes,
The only issue would be with 'directly': what would indirect support constitute?

Humanitarian Transport Convention

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Mikitivity

Description:
The World Assembly,

CONCERNED about the absence of international standards governing the conduct of nations in international territory,

ACKNOWLEDGING that nations transport basic humanitarian supplies, including doctors and medical supplies as well as prisoners of war and other non-combatants through international territories,

CONCERNED that vessels moving humanitarian supplies or prisoners of war by land, air, sea, or space could also be used to move other cargo used in the conflict at the same time,

DEEPLY DISTURBED at the possibility that parties in a conflict could use prisoners of war or humanitarian supplies as shields for other on-going military activities,

OBSERVING that no international standard has been established to make it easier for nations to identify and recognize other vessels used to transport prisoners, non-combatants, and humanitarian supplies away from active combat zones,

1. CONSIDERS, for the purpose of this resolution, items and persons not being used to directly support combat operations, including prisoners of war, doctors and other medical experts, medical supplies, basic food and water supplies, sick and wounded combatants, and civilians to be humanitarian cargoes,

2. CONDEMNS the practice of mixing humanitarian cargoes in the same transport vessel(s) or convoy as materials directly used in a combat operation thereby making the humanitarian cargo a shield for on-going military operations and endangering assets that are no longer active participants in the conflict,

3. RECOMMENDS that when possible, that exclusive vessels and convoys be used to transport humanitarian cargoes,

4. ESTABLISHES the clearly visible use of a flashing blue light, a red-white-red flare combination, white hospital vessels, or another international recognized symbol associated with humanitarian aid, to be standards for identifying vessels that are being used for the exclusive transport of humanitarian cargoes, which are hence forth referred to as humanitarian vessels and subject to the following code of conduct,

5. EMPHASIZES the right of humanitarian vessels to maintain defensive weapons,

6. REQUIRES humanitarian vessels to not initiate hostilities with any other vessel or targets unless first attacked and to not actively support offensive campaigns,

7. AUTHORIZES any vessel within hailing distance of a humanitarian vessel to request the humanitarian vessel to transmit their cargo manifest and prepare for boarding and inspection,

8. FURTHER REQUIRES humanitarian vessels to present a complete cargo manifest and to allow belligerent forces in a conflict to board and search the vessel,

9. CONDEMNS the practice of purposefully delaying or interrupting the operations of humanitarian vessels beyond the reasonable amount of time it would take to quickly review the cargo manifest and search the vessel,

10. MANDATES that any searches conducted on humanitarian vessels must not put those vessels or their passengers or crew in any danger,

11. AUTHORIZES parties searching humanitarian vessels to seize any non-humanitarian cargoes, as defined in clause 1, including items listed on the cargo manifest,

12. PROHIBITS searching vessels from firing upon any humanitarian vessel that has provided its cargo manifest, allowed a search, and surrendered any non-humanitarian cargoes,

13. RECOGNIZES that every situation is unique and that many circumstances between hostile parties may not be easily resolved by a simple code of conduct,

14. CALLS UPON nations to either develop lines of communication and separate agreements to strengthen the basic goal of this code of conduct, the protection of humanitarian transports,

15. REMINDS nations that if they are concerned that their humanitarian convoys will still be targeted, that in addition to maintaining defensive armaments, that they may opt to protect humanitarian vessels as they would military transports,

16. EXPRESSES ITS HOPE that as more nations agree to standards of practice that make transporting humanitarian cargoes safer, that more nations will take measures to provide basic humanitarian services.

It seems perfectly clear to me, but isn't there a grammar issue? It starts off talking about 'the transporation' and ends 'to be humanitarian cargoes'. That doesn't intuitively read correctly. I think you can exclude 'the transportation of'. I also added a bolded suggestion, for clarity:

The only issue would be with 'directly': what would indirect support constitute?

Thanks! You posted that as I was hacking out a longer version. I've rolled your first amendment straight in. :)

I think indirect is gonna be a quibbling point, so could be so many of the other clauses. Ultimately I don't believe a resolution can cover everything, but instead is used to just emphasize a major point, which in this case is:

Attacking humanitarian vessels reduces the amount of international humanitarian aid.

I agree, but your latest additions - which I haven't had time to review yet, but will try to do so later - push it about 700 characters over the character limit. It really can't cover everything.

I agree, but your latest additions - which I haven't had time to review yet, but will try to do so later - push it about 700 characters over the character limit. It really can't cover everything.

Thanks!

What is the character limit?

It was obviously too long for the World Assembly. I was thinking the following clause could be removed:


9. CONDEMNS the practice of purposefully delaying or interrupting the operations of humanitarian vessels beyond the reasonable amount of time it would take to quickly review the cargo manifest and search the vessel,

The limit is 3000 or 3500 characters; I forget which. The last post in the rules thread should have the numbers.

12. PROHIBITS searching vessels from firing upon any humanitarian vessel that has provided its cargo manifest, allowed a search, and surrendered any non-humanitarian cargoes,

But firing on it before you ask to search it is fine?

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

Humanitarian Transport Convention

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Mikitivity

Description:
The World Assembly,

CONCERNED about the absence of international standards governing the conduct of nations in international territory,

ACKNOWLEDGING that nations transport basic humanitarian supplies, including doctors and medical supplies as well as prisoners of war and other non-combatants through international territories,

CONCERNED that vessels moving humanitarian supplies or prisoners of war by land, air, sea, or space could also be used to move other cargo used in the conflict at the same time,

DEEPLY DISTURBED at the possibility that parties in a conflict could use prisoners of war or humanitarian supplies as shields for other military activities,

OBSERVING that no international standard has been established to make it easier for nations to identify and recognize other vessels used to transport prisoners, non-combatants, and humanitarian supplies,

1. CONSIDERS items and persons not being used to directly support combat operations, including prisoners of war, doctors and other medical experts, medical supplies, basic food and water supplies, sick and wounded combatants, and civilians to be humanitarian cargoes,

2. DISCOURAGES the practice of transporting humanitarian cargoes in the same vessel(s) or convoy as materials directly supporting combat operations,

3. RECOMMENDS that when possible, that exclusive vessels and convoys be used to transport humanitarian cargoes,

4. CALLS UPON nations to adopt a standard for identifying their humanitarian transports, such as painting the hull of dedicated humanitarian vessels completely white or flagging the vessels with an internationally recognized symbol associated with humanitarian aid,

5. URGES nations to follow this code of conduct and to inform the international community what standards they have adopted to identify their humanitarian transports,

6. DECLARES the right of humanitarian vessels to maintain defensive weapons and to have free and safe passage in international territories,

7. REQUIRES humanitarian vessels to not initiate hostilities with any other vessel or targets unless first attacked and to not actively support offensive campaigns,

8. AUTHORIZES any national vessel within hailing distance of a humanitarian vessel to request the humanitarian vessel to transmit their cargo manifest and prepare for boarding and inspection,

9. FURTHER REQUIRES humanitarian vessels to present a cargo manifest and to submit to the above inspection,

10. MANDATES that any searches conducted on humanitarian vessels must not put those vessels or their passengers or crew in any danger,

11. AUTHORIZES parties searching humanitarian vessels to seize any non-humanitarian cargoes, as defined in clause 1, including items listed on the cargo manifest,

12. PROHIBITS searching vessels from firing upon any humanitarian vessel that has provided its cargo manifest, allowed a search, and surrendered any non-humanitarian cargoes,

13. REQUESTS nations develop separate agreements to strengthen the basic goal protecting humanitarian cargoes,

14. EXPRESSES ITS HOPE that as more nations agree to standards of practice making transporting humanitarian cargoes safer, more nations will provide humanitarian aid.

But firing on it before you ask to search it is fine?

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

Good point.

In the latest proposed draft, I've added a bit:

6. DECLARES the right of humanitarian vessels to maintain defensive weapons and to have free and safe passage in international territories,

Free and safe passage implies that you can't just fire on humanitarian vessels. Naturally you *can* still do so in your territorial waters ... your backyard, do what you will. This is more consistent with the preamble.

And Hack, the post said the limit is around 3500, including spaces. MS Word has my count around 3300. It might just barely fit. I'm torn between trimming more and letting it slide.

MS Word has my count around 3300. It might just barely fit. I'm torn between trimming more and letting it slide.MS Word counts differently than the game's parser. I don't think it'll be a 200 character difference, though.

If you ever want to check, C+p the text into the submission box. Then, with a quick bit of C+ping, add a large number of characters to the end: I used just a string of zeroes. It will force it over the limit, and the 'Uh-oh!' message will tell you by how much. If it's by more than the number of extraneous characters, you need to trim. If it's fewer, you're fine.

On searches, shouldn't they basically be pursuant to normal laws on searches? As in, a warrantless search of a humanitarian vessel should be as illegal as is such a search of a commercial vessel.

On searches, shouldn't they basically be pursuant to normal laws on searches? As in, a warrantless search of a humanitarian vessel should be as illegal as is such a search of a commercial vessel.

Who would issue the warrant for international waters? It seems that a nation could waste everybody's time and just stop every ship they come in contact with hoping to catch non-humanitarian cargoes, but after that would be a waste of time.

Part of the point of allowing the search of humanitarian vessels, is that the resolution gives free and safe passage otherwise. The searches are a check on the right to move around where other vessels may not be able to do so.

I'm open to addressing this ... I just don't know how. Perhaps we could add a short bit along the lines of:

8. AUTHORIZES any national vessel within hailing distance of a humanitarian vessel to request, if there is sufficient cause, the humanitarian vessel to transmit their cargo manifest and prepare for boarding and inspection,

This doesn't drive the word count up too much. :) Does this help?

Humanitarian Transport Convention

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Mikitivity

Description:
The World Assembly,

CONCERNED about the absence of international standards governing the conduct of nations in international territory,

ACKNOWLEDGING that nations transport basic humanitarian supplies, including doctors and medical supplies as well as prisoners of war and other non-combatants through international territories,

CONCERNED that vessels moving humanitarian supplies or prisoners of war by land, air, sea, or space could also be used to move other cargo used in the conflict at the same time,

DEEPLY DISTURBED at the possibility that parties in a conflict could use prisoners of war or humanitarian supplies as shields for other military activities,

OBSERVING that no international standard has been established to make it easier for nations to identify and recognize other vessels used to transport prisoners, non-combatants, and humanitarian supplies,

1. CONSIDERS items and persons not being used to directly support combat operations, including prisoners of war, doctors and other medical experts, medical supplies, basic food and water supplies, sick and wounded combatants, and civilians to be humanitarian cargoes,

2. DISCOURAGES the practice of transporting humanitarian cargoes in the same vessel(s) or convoy as materials directly supporting combat operations,

3. RECOMMENDS that when possible, that exclusive vessels and convoys be used to transport humanitarian cargoes,

4. CALLS UPON nations to adopt a standard for identifying their humanitarian transports, such as painting the hull of dedicated humanitarian vessels completely white or flagging the vessels with an internationally recognized symbol associated with humanitarian aid,

5. URGES nations to follow this code of conduct and to inform the international community what standards they have adopted to identify their humanitarian transports,

6. DECLARES the right of humanitarian vessels to maintain defensive weapons and to have free and safe passage in international territories,

7. REQUIRES humanitarian vessels to not initiate hostilities with any other vessel or targets unless first attacked and to not actively support offensive campaigns,

8. AUTHORIZES any national vessel within hailing distance of a humanitarian vessel to request, if there is sufficient cause, the humanitarian vessel to transmit their cargo manifest and prepare for boarding and inspection,

9. FURTHER REQUIRES humanitarian vessels to present a cargo manifest and to submit to the above inspection,

10. MANDATES that any searches conducted on humanitarian vessels must not put those vessels or their passengers or crew in any danger,

11. AUTHORIZES parties searching humanitarian vessels to seize any non-humanitarian cargoes, as defined in clause 1, including items listed on the cargo manifest,

12. PROHIBITS searching vessels from firing upon any humanitarian vessel that has provided its cargo manifest, allowed a search, and surrendered any non-humanitarian cargoes,

13. REQUESTS nations develop separate agreements to strengthen the basic goal protecting humanitarian cargoes,

14. EXPRESSES ITS HOPE that as more nations agree to standards of practice making transporting humanitarian cargoes safer, more nations will provide humanitarian aid.

In 8, what is 'sufficient cause'? Wouldn't 'probable cause' be better, as it is a more commonly recognised legal term?

By the way, I wouldn't take the relative lack of common as a sign of opposition: I think it's that people don't have much to add because they basically like it.

I'm not sure whether clause 12 weakens the case that clause 6 protects the humanitarian vessel from being shot up. It makes a very strong statement about vessels that have gone through the whole search and seizure process, leaving nothing similarly strong about vessels that are going through the process or haven't even been asked to stop and be searched yet. I know I said this before, but it's still nagging at me.

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

I'm not sure whether clause 12 weakens the case that clause 6 protects the humanitarian vessel from being shot up. It makes a very strong statement about vessels that have gone through the whole search and seizure process, leaving nothing similarly strong about vessels that are going through the process or haven't even been asked to stop and be searched yet. I know I said this before, but it's still nagging at me.

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

Do you have some suggested ways (assuming I'm understanding you here) to strengthen clause 6? :)

My suggested expansion of clause 6 would be to add:

6. DECLARES the right of humanitarian vessels to maintain defensive weapons and to have free and safe passage in international territories by prohibiting nations from firing upon vessels that are only carrying humanitarian cargoes,

This really means nations have to challenge vessels, which puts the burden of proof on others.

QoD, as always your comments are GOLDEN! I'll make the change to plausible in the next draft.

G and GoD, you both have provided me great opinions. I'd be more than happy to list one of your at a co-author, as your interest is a strong motivation for getting this worked out. :)

A nitpick ...

8. AUTHORIZES any national vessel within hailing distance of a humanitarian vessel to request, if there is sufficient cause, the humanitarian vessel to transmit their cargo manifest and prepare for boarding and inspection,

11. AUTHORIZES parties searching humanitarian vessels to seize any non-humanitarian cargoes, as defined in clause 1, including items listed on the cargo manifest,

Both of these clauses start with authorizes. Personally, I like this, because it is a strong word. The clauses are numbered so debate can focus on the numbers.

Are others OK with this? (How) Should I change this? :)

Second, I'm sensing there is little opposition, and the comments thus far are coming as very constructive advice. I'd like to circulate this draft to a few regional and interregional forums. Are there recommendations on where draft proposals are welcomed?

I would also like to submit this perhaps tonight as a dry run in the proposal queue to start seeing what Delegate support this idea may have.

It'd perhaps be helpful if you clarified what the latest draft is, by editing it into the first post, or linking to it. Keep one post, into which all changes are added: that way we know what we're working from.

It'd perhaps be helpful if you clarified what the latest draft is, by editing it into the first post, or linking to it. Keep one post, into which all changes are added: that way we know what we're working from.

More solid advice! :)

I updated the first post to include what I see as the current draft and will continue to do so for future changes.

At present it is 3,288 characters w/ characters in MS Word.

I'll submit this draft in the next hour *assuming* it fits.

6. DECLARES the right of humanitarian vessels to maintain defensive weapons and to have free and safe passage in international territories by prohibiting nations from firing upon vessels that are only carrying humanitarian cargoes,

This really means nations have to challenge vessels, which puts the burden of proof on others.
Hmm. Now I'm not quite buying it the other way. I think it might work better to change 12 around instead, like this:

12. PROHIBITS searching vessels from firing upon any humanitarian vessel unless that vessel initiates hostilities, refuses to provide its cargo manifest on request, refuses to allow a search, or refuses to surrender any non-humanitarian cargoes,

I think this way round it requires both parties to play by the rules; the searcher has to ask, and the humanitarian has to refuse.

G and GoD, you both have provided me great opinions. I'd be more than happy to list one of your at a co-author, as your interest is a strong motivation for getting this worked out. :)
Hey, I've just asked a couple of questions without a very well defined idea of what I was getting at. I don't think I rate a co-author credit here!

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

Hmm. Now I'm not quite buying it the other way. I think it might work better to change 12 around instead, like this:

12. PROHIBITS searching vessels from firing upon any humanitarian vessel unless that vessel initiates hostilities, refuses to provide its cargo manifest on request, refuses to allow a search, or refuses to surrender any non-humanitarian cargoes,

I think this way round it requires both parties to play by the rules; the searcher has to ask, and the humanitarian has to refuse.


Hey, I've just asked a couple of questions without a very well defined idea of what I was getting at. I don't think I rate a co-author credit here!

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

Doh, good point.

Unfortunately I fired it off about 20 minutes ago.

By clause 7 humanitarian vessels already can not fire first ... the minute they do, they aren't "humanitarian" by the terms of this resolution. The other ships can rip 'em to shreds then. Searching vessels can already fire back without a longer clause 12. Not that it couldn't hurt to reiterate that point, but I'm approaching that magic 3,500 character limit. ;)

In the mean time we can play scenarios clause by clause to try and break the proposal. :)

The proposal failed to achieve quorum, so I've resubmitted it. It had between 40 and 50 endorsements on its first pass through the proposal queue.

Gobbannium, I wasn't sure if my previous reply addressed your nation's concern, so I have not yet made any changes. Unfortunately I will not have time this week to campaign, so there is still plenty of time to make minor tweaks. :)

Delegates who read this forum, would you like me to send you a thank you for endorsing telegram or not?

Gobbannium, I wasn't sure if my previous reply addressed your nation's concern, so I have not yet made any changes. Unfortunately I will not have time this week to campaign, so there is still plenty of time to make minor tweaks. :)

I think you made a good case for not including "initiating hostilities". If there's space, it would be good to have it there for completeness -- as you say, it doesn't hurt to reiterate the point (as long as we don't contradict ourselves!) -- but it's not essential.

--
Out of character, because my brain is fried.

It may be possible to make the addition, as there is room ... but already I still feel the lack of appeal is in part related to the length of the proposal.

At present, it is 12 endorsements shy of establishing quorum. Should it get those endorsements today, the current draft would be in queue for the World Assembly floor.

Fail or not, let's continue to work on a draft revision. However, with it being this close, should it fail again tonight, I'd like to immediately resubmit it so the Delegates currently searching the proposal queue can quickly re-endorse it.

Our proposal "Humanitarian Transport" peaked off at 100 endorsements, 7 shy prior to expiring. My government would like to thank all those nations who have voiced opinions and advice for the proposal in addition to those Delegates who endorsed it.

Believing that it is only a matter of slowly building political support for the idea, Mikitivity has resubmitted the proposal as shown in the first post of this discussion. However, we are still happy to talk about changes to the draft that we would consider for future revisions.

Danke,
Howie T. Katzman

Super cool proposal. I will endorse it until it gets there. it will certainly work with NS's 'ICRC' (Coordination of Aid, and no mentioning of Red Cross)

quorum. congrats good sir.

Approvals: 109 (Black Empire, Anglo-Arrius, Daehanguk, Intelligenstan, Decapod Ten, Alos, Quintessence of Dust, Cordova I, lost highlanders, Lucanian Shires, Charlotte Ryberg, Bibliotecia, Ventei, WZ Forums, Misplaced States, Sophieotisbear2, Eiga-Baka, New Hamilton, The Derrak Quadrant, Ives-Maxima, Slices Right, Ashmore, Wierd Anarchists, Augerthorne, Pagemaster, The Artic Republics, Illyriania, Shang Dang, Technoviking, Glenlogan, Kaelere, Perpetuating Liberty, Badass-Land, Aarbearica, Crisorbia, Chuck Norris Haters, SkillCrossbones, East Hylia, Iron Felix, Gallantaria, Ropa-Topia, Rubina, Leam Mark Farrar, Sensual delights, Great Atlantea, Ephidael, Vintage Blue, Selemantra, Jellydom, South Boston Irishmen, Dewachen, die Bueroarbeiteren, Jey, Exaequo, Rome of the Balkans, Rheingua, Imperial Aaronia, Atherha, Maryland and Virginia, Acherea, ka-Spel, Chazzistan, Ymmij Gnest, Engul, Starman Deluxe, Mengjiang, Sancte Michael, Kungpaomao, Suaria, Western Qin, Burninated, Wencee, Mautu, Clemens Maximus, Worldia555, JCJPM, The Crazy King, Nokvok, Alzonia, Lunar Destiny, Gina Toscano, Stephanephpolis, Lismire, Scientific Insight, Bhkistan, Greendem, Dominant Force, Colonial Timocria, The Clan of Gordon, Nanisivik, Death Notes, Saudi burmia, Iowannarock, Metz-Lorraine, Gilliganstan, Brunelian BG advocates, Slolvania, AlexDuncanland, Liberated Terra, Keydude, The Atreidond Islands, Amoneyy, The Altan Steppes, Scififanaticz, Tindera, Nova Nova Roma, Syracusia, Umco, Vacuus Verum)

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

quorum. congrats good sir.

Thanks to all! :)

It is cutting it so close to the line though, that I suspect it will be a very tight vote. I'll ask that the moderators lock this thread, so I can start a new debate thread and attach a poll to it.