General Assembly Resolutions
Since the rise of the World Assembly from the ashes of its predecessor, the Bureaucracy That Cannot Be Named, WA member nations have worked tirelessly to improve the standard of the world. That, or tried to force other nations to be more like them. But that's just semantics.
Below is every World Assembly resolution ever passed.
View: All | Historical | General Assembly | Security Council
«12. . .116117118119120121. . .144145»
General Assembly Resolution # 590
LEO Force Restrictions
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Concerned that there currently exists no universal standard to regulate the use of force by law enforcement officers on duty in member states,
Recognising that no sapient right can be fully realised without the right to life, which is often infringed upon as a result of the excessive use of force by such officers, and
Believing that the introduction of such a standard will help protect individuals of all backgrounds (including members of vulnerable or historically marginalised groups) from unwarranted police brutality...
The General Assembly hereby:
defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
a "LEO" (law enforcement officer) as a person employed by law enforcement in a member state in the course of their employment as such, and
the use of "excessive force" by a LEO against a person as the use by that LEO of significantly more force than is necessary in the situation to restrain and subsequently detain that person,
orders all entities that employ LEOs to:
ensure, through education and in practice, that their LEOs do not use force against suspected criminals or any other person when the use of less forceful measures has not been ruled out (whether on the scene or in retrospect),
educate their LEOs on when the use of force constitutes excessive force, as well as on when the use of those items described in Article c(ii) is appropriate, and
regularly review incidents where the use of force was exercised by LEOs to ensure that such use did not constitute the use of excessive force,
mandates that LEOs:
not use excessive force against any person,
carry, in addition to any other class of weapon or item they are permitted by the nation they work in to carry, less-than-lethal items intended to help restrain or detain suspected criminals (such as batons, irritant spray and tasers) to that effect, and
wear body-worn cameras linked to any official vehicles they may be associated with which automatically turn on when those vehicles' lights or sirens activate; those cameras must neither be turned off unless their recording capacity is fully utilised nor have any of their recordings deleted unless they have been backed up in a secure third location,
requires that LEOs:
avoid causing death or life-changing injury to any person unless the life or bodily sovereignty of any person (including the LEO in question) is, or likely would be, placed in immediate danger by that person, and
ensure that people they have harmed under Article d(i) receive any basic first aid necessary for their survival,
compels member states to criminalise the use of force by LEOs that contradicts Articles b to d, and to punish any entities that continue to employ LEOs that have administered force in contradiction of such Articles, and
strongly recommends that entities that employ LEOs ensure that they are accompanied by at least one other LEO when on duty.
Co-authors: Greater Cesnica, Sanctaria
Passed: | |
For: | 11,403 | 75.8% |
Against: | 3,631 | 24.2% |
General Assembly Resolution # 591
Repeal: “Safety and Integrity in Conflict Journalism”
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.
General Assembly Resolution #554 “Safety and Integrity in Conflict Journalism” (Category: Education and Creativity; Area of Effect: Free Press) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.
The General Assembly,
Respecting the intent of GAR#554 Safety and Integrity in Conflict Journalism to protect journalists operating in conflict zones, but
Disappointed that the resolution contains several significant and easily exploitable loopholes, and in some cases blocks further legislation to resolve these issues, rendering it inadequate for continued enforcement by this august body,
Highlighting the loopholes present due to the substandard and flawed definition of a conflict journalist in Clause 1b, which:
by requiring that conflict journalists be employed in providing journalism in order to be included in the definition, can easily be interpreted as excluding journalists that do not engage in journalism due to an employment contract (for example, freelance or citizen journalists), thus failing to protect significant portions of journalists, and
includes the hazy requirement that a conflict journalist must [operate] independent of any belligerent faction in order to be included in the definition, which is vague enough that member-states can easily claim that journalists nominally dependent on a belligerent faction, such as non-government news organisations headquartered in a belligerent nation during an international war, are exempt from the protections in the resolution,
Alarmed that the definition of an "act of espionage" in Clause 1c excludes acts that should be considered espionage but where third parties, rather than "belligerents", benefit from these acts; clause 2b then forces member-states to allow conflict journalists to carry out "any journalism that is not an act of espionage from or near a conflict zone", thus blocking further regulation, whether national or within this institution, to prohibit espionage that does not fit into 2b's definition, if it is done via conflict journalism,
Bothered that Clause 3 fails to protect conflict journalists from entities that are not member-states or military entities, such as armed civilians, betraying that clause's intent by allowing such actors to carry out those acts which it prohibits member-states from perpetrating, and
Concluding that, while the intent of GAR#554 is meritorious and a topic undoubtedly deserving of attention by this institution, it contains several issues and loopholes that cause it to be too poor to remain in force,
Hereby Repeals GAR#554 Safety and Integrity in Conflict Journalism.
Passed: |
For: | 12,750 | 79.0% |
Against: | 3,380 | 21.0% |
General Assembly Resolution # 592
Repeal: “Assisted Suicide Act”
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.
General Assembly Resolution #285 “Assisted Suicide Act” (Category: Civil Rights; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.
This august World Assembly finds as follows:
People suffering from a chronic, insurable, and painful condition should have the right to end their own lives voluntarily in a painless manner. Nations should respect an individual's choice in this manner, insofar as that choice does not harm others directly.
GA 285 'Assisted Suicide Act' violates this duty by allowing some member nations to prohibit assisted suicide and euthanasia within their jurisdictions. And in consequence of the regulatory decisions that the Assembly permits, it makes member nations collectively complicit in forcing people to suffer unnecessarily.
While GA 285 'Assisted Suicide Act' allows people to travel to different jurisdictions, this creates a de facto prohibition on assisted suicide for people who lack funds needed for travel. As most people who seek euthanasia are also suffering from severe medical conditions that require specialised care, GA 285's travel rights also are far more restrictive than they appear on face: chartering a private air ambulance flight, transporting all the equipment necessary for the patient, and arrangement of medical services in a foreign nation without social insurance are all expensive transactions beyond the reach of, say, a terminal pensioner on a fixed income.
It is more than likely that GA 285's travel provisions cannot be exercised, due to massive financial barriers, except by those who are extremely wealthy. The Assembly has in the past acted to strike down domestic prohibitions designed to make certain procedures exorbitantly expensive or available only to those able to travel to foreign jurisdictions. It furthermore has taken decisive action to enable access to regionally-inaccessible medical procedures. This is no different.
Additionally, section 4 of GA 285, by prohibiting 'the use of World Assembly funds for assisted suicides and euthanasia procedures', stops the Assembly from providing funds to pay for or subsidise euthanasia procedures, blocking legislation intended to expand access to such procedures and ultimately keeping the option out of reach for many suffering patients. To take meaningful action on this topic, these blocking clauses must be repealed.
Only by passage of enabling legislation could the Assembly's duty to terminal patients who voluntarily seek euthanasia be fulfilled in the face of local particularists complicit in prolonging suffering (except for those socioeconomically privileged few who can pay their own way in foreign jurisdictions). This is no different from previous resolutions striking down policies that make certain procedures unaffordable and unaccessible to most people. The Assembly hopes that such enabling legislation be enacted forthwith.
Now, therefore, the World Assembly repeals GA 285 'Assisted Suicide Act'.
Passed: |
For: | 14,005 | 88.0% |
Against: | 1,918 | 12.0% |
General Assembly Resolution # 593
Access to Life-Ending Services
A resolution to modify universal standards of healthcare.
The General Assembly,
Believing that individuals should possess the right to end their life on their own terms if they are in unbearable agony from an incurable illness, and
Convinced that the supposed dangers of permitting access to assisted suicide do not outweigh the right to have a dignified and humane death,
Hereby enacts the following:
Let these terms be defined as follows within this resolution:
Assisted suicide is defined as the ending of the life of an individual where:
the procedure is quick and painless,
the procedure is in the privacy of the patient, such that the only individuals present are the medical professional performing the operation, any of their medical assistants, the patient, and any individuals that the patient has granted explicit permission to be present,
the procedure is performed by a medical professional trained in assisted suicide,
the recipient has an incurable serious physical illness that will directly result in their death in the foreseeable future or directly results in permanent unbearable agony, and
the recipient has provided verifiable, informed consent on their own free will to the procedure and method thereof (where they are fully aware of what they are consenting to, all significant consequences, and any possible alternatives); the individual in question must be permitted to withdraw this consent at any time.
An "eligible patient" is defined as an individual eligible to receive assisted suicide who has provided the necessary consent and is in a species that biologically can die.
Assisted suicide services shall be considered "locally accessible" if no substantial burden to quality of life, time, or finances to eligible patients in those areas is posed by the necessary travel to receive said assisted suicide services.
Member states must provide assisted suicide services to eligible patients within their jurisdiction. In areas where assisted suicide services are not locally accessible, member states must arrange for eligible patients in those areas to travel to the nearest clinic within World Assembly jurisdiction that provides safe assisted suicide services.
No member state may discriminate against any persons (or persons related thereof) for receiving, seeking, administering, or otherwise facilitating, assisted suicide, including but not limited to:
discriminating against said persons in tax by placing a higher burden of tax on them,
prosecuting individuals, or individuals related thereof, for receiving, seeking, administrating, or otherwise facilitating assisted suicide,
withholding any inheritance from the heirs of individuals, due to said individuals having died due to receiving assisted suicide, or
failing to provide equal protection before the law to said persons.
No person, group of persons, or member state may deliberately coerce or require an individual to seek or receive assisted suicide. Similarly, it is prohibited for any person, group of persons or member state to deliberately coerce or require an individual against seeking or receiving assisted suicide.
No member state may implement any policy that has a cognisable impact of burdening the ability of eligible patients to receive assisted suicide, unless that member state shows that the restriction furthers a clearly stated, compelling, and practical state interest, with narrowly tailored means that are the least restrictive necessary to achieve the stated interest.
Consent provided by an individual for assisted suicide in advance of meeting section 1a.iii requirements or their preferred timeframe for receiving assisted suicide shall count as consent for the purposes of 1av and 1b. However, assisted suicide may not be performed on that individual until all the other requirements in 1a are met and if applicable, the preferred timeframe to receive assisted suicide as provided by the consenting individual is met.
A medical professional that has publicly communicated a bona fide objection against performing assisted suicide may not be required to perform assisted suicide, as long as that professional directs patients seeking assisted suicide to easily, readily, and locally accessible assisted suicide services. No member state, person, or group of persons may deliberately coerce or require a medical professional to either provide or not provide such an objection.
Member states must fund all Section 2 services and travel such that they are free for the recipient, unless the individual receiving such travel or services can already otherwise afford such without posing a substantial burden to their finances. The World Assembly General Fund may also fund assisted suicide services if a member state is unable to do so without causing serious damage to their economy or finances.
Co-author: Imperium Anglorum
Passed: | |
For: | 12,074 | 76.5% |
Against: | 3,707 | 23.5% |
General Assembly Resolution # 594
Repeal: “On Scientific Cooperation”
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.
General Assembly Resolution #322 “On Scientific Cooperation” (Category: Education and Creativity; Area of Effect: Educational) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.
The General Assembly,
Recognizing the noble goal of GAR#322: On Scientific Cooperation to promote scientific cooperation among the august member states of the World Assembly;
Believing, however, that there are several flaws with this legislation,
Finds as follows:
Clause 1(a)s reference to any and all publicly available scientific literature, given the lack of constraint on the word scientific, raises a not unreasonable possibility that literature that fails to meet the standards of peer review and, given the lack of a catchment, pseudo-scientific literature published in journals with low evidentiary or replicability standards.
Clause 1(b)s collection of all data relevant to its mandate is so vague as to be unviable. The sheer amount of, wide variety of sources of, these data, presents a problem unavoidable given the lack of constraint on the literature collected in 1(a). Unscientific and pseudo-scientific data collection could find its way into the World Assembly Scientific Programme (WASP) archive as a result.
That this resolution fails to take into account the censorship of materials given clause 1(c)s notation that materials may not be disseminated if they are illegal under extant national or sub national law. States could make parts of scientific study illegal and thus prevent the dissemination of materials from the WASP regarding the scientific consensus. Thus, the failure to consider malicious states misrepresenting scientific data undermines the goals of this resolution.
There is no mechanism for WASP to make critical claims regarding settled scientific fact or propagate new ideas beyond sharing them for peer review as in 1(d). Additionally, the lack of blindness in the peer review process provided, since WASP disseminates the data to all member states, raises the possibility of biasa possibility which undermines the credibility of results obtained by WASP-facilitated peer review or data sharing.
Therefore, the General Assembly repeals GAR#322: On Scientific Cooperation.
Passed: |
For: | 13,829 | 87.5% |
Against: | 1,980 | 12.5% |