Allemande
21-07-2005, 23:05
I am also posting this in the U.N. Forum. I know that it's going to tick a lot of people off, but most of these observations have arisen only in the last few hours.... 4. Though being infected is not illegal, if a proscribed agent is present in an infected individual they must undergo immediate isolation and treatment...No non-combatant will be prevented from leaving the conquered nation with any personal possessions they wish to take, however the invading nation is within its rights to prevent anyone entering said nation.... the following human rights (are to) be given to every peoples of this great world: ... The right to travel freely throughout their country.Habeas Corpus is the legal principle that gives a person the right to not be held without charge. A charge must be filed with the judicial authorities of the country in which the suspected crime is committed within 48 hours of the person being held by police, or any other body charged with the upholding of the nation's laws.What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes should not be the concern of the state unless it is neccesary to enquire about the afore mentioned activities for medical reasons (e.g. if the individuals wish to give blood etc.).Proposed Resolution #113 requires isolation of persons infected with “contagious biological viruses, bacteria or microbes with the effect of harming, incapacitating, or killing a person upon infection”.
Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 10th Edition defines “isolation” as “the condition of being isolated”; “isolate” means “to set apart from others; also : QUARANTINE”; “quarantine” is “a restraint upon the activities or communication of persons or the transport of goods designed to prevent the spread of disease or pests; a place in which those under quarantine are kept”, or “a state of enforced isolation”.
Reformentia claims that the two Resolutions (Proposed #113 and #111) do not conflict; however, it is hard to see how a person who is infected by “contagious biological viruses, bacteria or microbes with the effect of harming, incapacitating, or killing a person upon infection” (which would be almost any disease) could be permitted to “leav(e) the conquered nation” and yet still be kept in “a state of enforced isolation”, let alone “a place in which those under quarantine are kept”. Reformentia counters by saying that there is no mandate under Resolution #111 that release to permit emigration occur immediately or within any defined time interval, presumably including “forever” (the necessary term of “isolation” in the case of a person infected with AIDS). This seems Orwellian: “Yes, you have the right to leave, but not now.” “When?” “Someday, maybe.”
You either have the right to leave or you don't; either Resolution #111 is no longer binding on persons infected with “contagious” diseases, or else Resolution #113's proposed “isolation” is in fact no isolation at all.
A similar problem exists with respect to Resolution #6; people in “isolation” can not “travel freely throughout their country”. Either Resolution #113 invalidates Resolution #6's guarantee of free travel, or Resolution #113's quarantine requirement is illegal.
Finally, it should be noted that Resolution #113 envisions that people be held indefinitely without any criminal charges being filed against them; indeed, it declares that “being infected is not illegal”. If being infected is not illegal, then no charges can be levelled and no detention can therefore exceed the 48 hours stipulated in Resolution #73. Therefore either Resolution #113 must read in such a way as to limit its “isolation” period to 48 hours, or else Resolution #73 must be invalidated, at least in the case of “contagious” persons.
(Alternately, the nation detaining such persons could declare an indefinite national holiday, but that's not likely...)
Alternately, Reformentia claims that “isolation” could simply mean the imposition of any measures necessary to prevent the spread of the disease. Specifically, in the case of AIDS, Reformentia claims that infected individuals could be proscribed from having consensual sex. In truth, however, Resolution #7's ban on any governmental intrusion into the sexual activities of consenting adults other than asking about possible STD's they may have clearly prevents even this attempt at “isolation”; indeed, one can not, under Resolution #7, even demand that infected persons (or their partners) use condoms.
Either Resolution #7 is voided by Resolution #113, or #113's quarantine requirements can not be read as to allow governments to limit consensual sexual activity.1. The possession, production, trafficking or use (either directly or through proxy) of bioweapons as defined by this resolution is forbidden to all UN member nations... 2. Exception is made to Article 1 for trace amounts of no more than 250mg of any bioweapons required for the purpose of counter-agent research.... By ensuring that peaceful and responsible scientists can research by their own accord, and in any nation they please, technology will move forward, and trade will increase.Proposed Resolution #113 would proscribe the use of “contagious biological viruses, bacteria or microbes with the effect of harming, incapacitating, or killing a person upon infection” in scientific endeavours that were not undertaken “for the purpose of counter-agent research”; it would also prohibit any scientific enquiry, even “for the purpose of counter-agent research” where said enquiry would require “more than 250mg” of said material. Resolution #3 allows for no exceptions to the principle of Scientific Freedom.
UN member nations are proscribed from military partnerships of any kind with any nation known to be using, trafficking, producing or in possession of bioweapons which are proscribed as described by this resolution.CALLS for the introduction of a right of humanitarian intervention, defined as “the proportionate international use or threat of military force, undertaken by a multilateral force with UN authorisation, aimed only at ending tyranny or genocide or extreme cases of human rights abuses on a grand scale*, welcomed by the victims, and consistent with the doctrines of consequence, intention and proportionality”. (* e.g. genocide, ethnic cleansing or other extreme human rights violations.)... Article 10
ยง Every UN Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty.Resolution #92 empowers a Pretenama Panel to authorise military intervention on behalf of populations threatened with “tyranny or genocide or extreme cases of human rights abuses on a grand scale*, welcomed by the victims, and consistent with the doctrines of consequence, intention and proportionality”; in the course of the debate, however, it has been pointed out that intervention on behalf of a national government possessed of so-called “bio-weapons”, even for the purposes of preventing eradication of the citizens of said nation by a genocidal invader, would be forbidden unless both sides were attacked with equal ferocity - a form of intervention that would certainly not be “welcomed by the victims”. Thus, while not invalidating the power of Pretenama Panels to intervene to “ending tyranny or genocide or extreme cases of human rights abuses on a grand scale”, Proposed Resolution #113 effectively amends that power by conditioning it on the victims not being citizens of a government possessing “bio-weapons”, since intervention on behalf of such a government would most certainly be a de-facto “military partnership”.
Reformentia's counter-argument is that the passage of Proposed Resolution #113 would mean that no Pretenama Panel would ever authorise such intervention due to the crimes of the victims' government (i.e., the crime of dabbling in “bio-weapons” ); this nonetheless implies that either the criteria for judging whether genocide has occurred under Resolution #83 or the conditions under which an applicant's plea to intervene would be accepted under Resolution #92 must be effectively amended to always take into account whether one side or the other has so-called “bio-weapons”.
Resolution #49 requires NSUN Members to honour their “obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law”. Proposed Resolution #113 “proscribe(s) ... military partnerships of any kind with any nation known to be using, trafficking, producing or in possession of bioweapons which are proscribed as described by this resolution”. Since it is certain that NSUN Members currently are bound to non-NSUN states that possess such “proscribed” weapons, in formal regional alliances if not the informal ones that arise in II, the passage of Resolution #113 would force all involved Member nations to immediately break such “obligations” where they involved promises of military support. Unless these alliances have clauses permitting the unilateral withdrawal of nations so mandated (which can not be guaranteed), this would force the nations in question to violate Resolution #49, since one can not “carry out in good faith” such an obligation by breaking it.
Of particular note here is the assertion under Resolution #49 that, with respect to these alliance ties, a Member “may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty”. Clearly, a United Nations Resolution, once passed, becomes part of the laws of each and every Member nation; invoking such laws, therefore, as justification for the violation of outstanding military obligations would clearly and unambiguously violate the terms of Resolution #49.
We therefore call upon the parliamentarian (OOC: Mods) to rule that Proposed Resolution #113, the so-called “Biological Weapons Ban”, be ruled illegal and removed from the queue - or, if passed before action can be taken, be stricken from the body of United Nations Law.
Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 10th Edition defines “isolation” as “the condition of being isolated”; “isolate” means “to set apart from others; also : QUARANTINE”; “quarantine” is “a restraint upon the activities or communication of persons or the transport of goods designed to prevent the spread of disease or pests; a place in which those under quarantine are kept”, or “a state of enforced isolation”.
Reformentia claims that the two Resolutions (Proposed #113 and #111) do not conflict; however, it is hard to see how a person who is infected by “contagious biological viruses, bacteria or microbes with the effect of harming, incapacitating, or killing a person upon infection” (which would be almost any disease) could be permitted to “leav(e) the conquered nation” and yet still be kept in “a state of enforced isolation”, let alone “a place in which those under quarantine are kept”. Reformentia counters by saying that there is no mandate under Resolution #111 that release to permit emigration occur immediately or within any defined time interval, presumably including “forever” (the necessary term of “isolation” in the case of a person infected with AIDS). This seems Orwellian: “Yes, you have the right to leave, but not now.” “When?” “Someday, maybe.”
You either have the right to leave or you don't; either Resolution #111 is no longer binding on persons infected with “contagious” diseases, or else Resolution #113's proposed “isolation” is in fact no isolation at all.
A similar problem exists with respect to Resolution #6; people in “isolation” can not “travel freely throughout their country”. Either Resolution #113 invalidates Resolution #6's guarantee of free travel, or Resolution #113's quarantine requirement is illegal.
Finally, it should be noted that Resolution #113 envisions that people be held indefinitely without any criminal charges being filed against them; indeed, it declares that “being infected is not illegal”. If being infected is not illegal, then no charges can be levelled and no detention can therefore exceed the 48 hours stipulated in Resolution #73. Therefore either Resolution #113 must read in such a way as to limit its “isolation” period to 48 hours, or else Resolution #73 must be invalidated, at least in the case of “contagious” persons.
(Alternately, the nation detaining such persons could declare an indefinite national holiday, but that's not likely...)
Alternately, Reformentia claims that “isolation” could simply mean the imposition of any measures necessary to prevent the spread of the disease. Specifically, in the case of AIDS, Reformentia claims that infected individuals could be proscribed from having consensual sex. In truth, however, Resolution #7's ban on any governmental intrusion into the sexual activities of consenting adults other than asking about possible STD's they may have clearly prevents even this attempt at “isolation”; indeed, one can not, under Resolution #7, even demand that infected persons (or their partners) use condoms.
Either Resolution #7 is voided by Resolution #113, or #113's quarantine requirements can not be read as to allow governments to limit consensual sexual activity.1. The possession, production, trafficking or use (either directly or through proxy) of bioweapons as defined by this resolution is forbidden to all UN member nations... 2. Exception is made to Article 1 for trace amounts of no more than 250mg of any bioweapons required for the purpose of counter-agent research.... By ensuring that peaceful and responsible scientists can research by their own accord, and in any nation they please, technology will move forward, and trade will increase.Proposed Resolution #113 would proscribe the use of “contagious biological viruses, bacteria or microbes with the effect of harming, incapacitating, or killing a person upon infection” in scientific endeavours that were not undertaken “for the purpose of counter-agent research”; it would also prohibit any scientific enquiry, even “for the purpose of counter-agent research” where said enquiry would require “more than 250mg” of said material. Resolution #3 allows for no exceptions to the principle of Scientific Freedom.
UN member nations are proscribed from military partnerships of any kind with any nation known to be using, trafficking, producing or in possession of bioweapons which are proscribed as described by this resolution.CALLS for the introduction of a right of humanitarian intervention, defined as “the proportionate international use or threat of military force, undertaken by a multilateral force with UN authorisation, aimed only at ending tyranny or genocide or extreme cases of human rights abuses on a grand scale*, welcomed by the victims, and consistent with the doctrines of consequence, intention and proportionality”. (* e.g. genocide, ethnic cleansing or other extreme human rights violations.)... Article 10
ยง Every UN Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty.Resolution #92 empowers a Pretenama Panel to authorise military intervention on behalf of populations threatened with “tyranny or genocide or extreme cases of human rights abuses on a grand scale*, welcomed by the victims, and consistent with the doctrines of consequence, intention and proportionality”; in the course of the debate, however, it has been pointed out that intervention on behalf of a national government possessed of so-called “bio-weapons”, even for the purposes of preventing eradication of the citizens of said nation by a genocidal invader, would be forbidden unless both sides were attacked with equal ferocity - a form of intervention that would certainly not be “welcomed by the victims”. Thus, while not invalidating the power of Pretenama Panels to intervene to “ending tyranny or genocide or extreme cases of human rights abuses on a grand scale”, Proposed Resolution #113 effectively amends that power by conditioning it on the victims not being citizens of a government possessing “bio-weapons”, since intervention on behalf of such a government would most certainly be a de-facto “military partnership”.
Reformentia's counter-argument is that the passage of Proposed Resolution #113 would mean that no Pretenama Panel would ever authorise such intervention due to the crimes of the victims' government (i.e., the crime of dabbling in “bio-weapons” ); this nonetheless implies that either the criteria for judging whether genocide has occurred under Resolution #83 or the conditions under which an applicant's plea to intervene would be accepted under Resolution #92 must be effectively amended to always take into account whether one side or the other has so-called “bio-weapons”.
Resolution #49 requires NSUN Members to honour their “obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law”. Proposed Resolution #113 “proscribe(s) ... military partnerships of any kind with any nation known to be using, trafficking, producing or in possession of bioweapons which are proscribed as described by this resolution”. Since it is certain that NSUN Members currently are bound to non-NSUN states that possess such “proscribed” weapons, in formal regional alliances if not the informal ones that arise in II, the passage of Resolution #113 would force all involved Member nations to immediately break such “obligations” where they involved promises of military support. Unless these alliances have clauses permitting the unilateral withdrawal of nations so mandated (which can not be guaranteed), this would force the nations in question to violate Resolution #49, since one can not “carry out in good faith” such an obligation by breaking it.
Of particular note here is the assertion under Resolution #49 that, with respect to these alliance ties, a Member “may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty”. Clearly, a United Nations Resolution, once passed, becomes part of the laws of each and every Member nation; invoking such laws, therefore, as justification for the violation of outstanding military obligations would clearly and unambiguously violate the terms of Resolution #49.
We therefore call upon the parliamentarian (OOC: Mods) to rule that Proposed Resolution #113, the so-called “Biological Weapons Ban”, be ruled illegal and removed from the queue - or, if passed before action can be taken, be stricken from the body of United Nations Law.