The World Assembly

Legacy General Assembly Resolution #41 “Access to Life-Saving Drugs” (Category: Social Justice; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The Assembly of Worlds,

Recognizing GA#41's intention in attempting to navigate global health crises in an often profit-driven world;

Concerned about the amount of power that the target resolution gives to pharmaceutical manufacturers over the governments of member nations and their ability to promptly respond to a world health crisis;

Alarmed by GA#41's strict requirements for the suspension of patent rights to life-saving drugs, which are allowed "only in the most extraordinary of situations" such as "imminent or unfolding public health catastrophes", a legal roadblock when faced with a crisis requiring more immediate response, especially since such patent waivers are only to be granted after “every other venue of… negotiations… have been exhausted”;

Arguing that such requirements are an undue restriction of the actions of national and international health services, and that these requirements, rather than providing access to life-saving medication, restrict access to it, by granting pharmaceutical companies or other patent-holding entities the rights to potentially restrict access to life-saving drugs in less dire circumstances, such as by making such drugs prohibitively expensive, and that it is in the best interest of member nations to retain the power to suspend patent rights as such to protect their own citizens;

Outraged that even in the event such patent rights can be waived, Clause 3 requires that the patent holders be compensated for their losses, and directly from the General Assembly’s funds as specified by 3a, a waste of the Assembly’s funds that allows predatory pharmaceutical companies to profit off of emergency patent waivers designed to combat catastrophic health crises, made all the more serious by the prohibition of private donations to help cover the costs of such compensation;

Abrogates GA#41 “Access to Life-saving Drugs”

Legacy General Assembly Resolution #213 “Privacy Protection Act” (Category: Civil Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The General Assembly has made robust efforts to protect critical rights ranging from assembly to expression. GA 213, however, falls flat in its attempt to protect its eponymous right to privacy and is riddled with enough holes to watch a burlesque show through.

This body identifies the following critical flaws:

1. Clause 1 is vague arguably to the point of unenforceability, particularly when it comes to figuring out whether "a subjective expectation of privacy and a reasonable, or objective, expectation of privacy exist."

2. Clause 3 waives the resolution's privacy protection "with regard to unlawful actions (or matters) and actions that occur within public view," even if such things would fall under attorney-client or physician-patient privilege.

3. Section 4 "affirms the legality of the following under the law of this Assembly as not infringing on the right to privacy," most of which is absurdly broad and abusable. It's also phrased as an affirmative provision rather than an exception, thereby kneecapping stronger national efforts to protect the right to privacy.

   1. "Conducting or attempting to conduct a legal arrest or pursuing a criminal suspect" encompasses all manner of blatant privacy violations under the umbrella of "pursuing a criminal suspect."

   2. "Monitoring or conducting legal surveillance of a criminal suspect or an associate" allows for trampling privacy underfoot under the ridiculously broad specter of "monitoring" or "conducting legal surveillance." It allows repressive governments to legislate away privacy by simply making surveillance legal and exploiting the broadness of "criminal suspect" and especially "associate."

   3. "Requiring that a person testify about something that is private when violations of the law are suspected or during the course of a lawful trial" similarly enables rampant abuse due to its use of "suspected."

4. Adding insult to injury, the target's sixth clause "[clarifies] that reasonable, or objective, expectations of privacy might vary regarding similar actions, places, or other matters in different jurisdictions because of differences in culture and so forth." Rather than belatedly patch up the first clause, this further muddies the waters.

These crippling problems aside, there's a more fundamental issue. Other explicitly protected rights scarcely make sense without an implicit right to privacy, and privacy violations are explicitly or implicitly covered under resolutions protecting those rights.

1. GA 537 forbids member states from taking "punitive or discriminatory action against any individual for planning, assisting, or participating in non-violent assembly or association for the purpose of articulating or advocating any belief or ambition" and member states and private entities from taking "action to prevent or hinder the planning or holding of non-violent assembly or association for the purpose of articulating or advocating any belief or ambition," with many potential privacy violations falling under "punitive or discriminatory action" or "action to prevent or hinder."

2. GA 436 protects "the ability to outwardly demonstrate, articulate, or otherwise express a political, cultural, social, moral, religious, ideological or other belief without fear of state punishment or reprisal," with many potential privacy violations falling under "state punishment or reprisal."

3. A litany of other resolutions as varied as GAs 340, 534, 643, and 561 include many potential privacy violations under their protections against reprisal, interference, discouragement, coercion, punishment, or similar.

The target is not only riddled with flaws, but arguably unnecessary due to the nature of the right it aims to protect. In accordance with the Final Ride initiative, a resolution this poorly written cannot stay on the books, much less one so flimsy that calling it insubstantial would be an insult to cotton candy.

Therefore, the General Assembly repeals GA 213.

Legacy General Assembly Resolution #39 “The Right to a Lawful Divorce” (Category: Civil Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The General Assembly,

Recognizing the diversity of domestic legal traditions through which member states regulate and administer family law,

Concerned that the target resolution allows divorce "without let or hindrance," a broad standard that may limit member states ability, to design their own systems of law to provide reasonable procedural protections,

Noting that the resolution establishes binding requirements regarding access to divorce without clearly defining the limits of permissible regulation, thereby creating uncertainty as to what measures may ultimately be deemed non-compliant,

Confused further that, despite providing a broad definition of divorce, the resolution offers little insight into how its standards are intended to function within the current legal frameworks of member states that regulate custody, property division, and marital status,

Alarmed that the resolution's clause stating that "No penalty of any kind shall be imposed" could possibly protect abusive or dishonest behavior from the proper legal penalties in member states,

Hereby Repeals GA#39.

Legacy General Assembly Resolution #330 “Nuclear Testing Protocol” (Category: International Security; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The World Assembly,

Concerned that GA#330, while harboring constructive intentions, contains several critical ambiguities, contradictions, and flaws which undermine its overall efficacy in regulating nuclear testing;

Absolutely repulsed by the absurd demand that “all information and materials related to nuclear testing” must be classified as state secrets, as it effectively prohibits the dissemination of any such material for informational and educational purposes including museum exhibits and school curricula, and may pose an insurmountable obstacle to reconciliation with communities affected by irresponsible nuclear testing;

Considering such a mandate to be a blatant violation of the sovereignty of World Assembly members, trusting that it is within their interests to follow a reasonable and secure policy regarding such information without requiring WA intervention;

Alarmed that several key definitions fail to provide specific, quantifiable standards with which to assess compliance for this resolution, including:

• Clause 1's “lead to the excessive harmful contamination” giving no concrete indication of how much harmful contamination is “excessive”;

• Clause 4's “high probability of creating artificial radiation belts around a planetary body” not specifying the magnitude of such artificial radiation belts or what constitutes a “high probability”, thereby potentially restricting nuclear tests with little to no negative impact;

• Clause 6's “all necessary security precautions to prevent unauthorized access to nuclear testing sites, materials or confidential data” once again leaving no quantifiable threshold for how many resources must be invested into protecting against a threat which may be realized regardless;

• Clause 8's “a reasonable probability of producing a nuclear yield” leaving both the probability and yield totally ambiguous seeing that “nuclear yield” may fall well within the yield range of conventional explosives;

Flabbergasted by how trivially member nations can evade compliance with clause 8’s mandates for the World Health Authority (WHA) to be empowered to demand presence at all tests, as the WHA is not required to be authorized to access confidential materials and therefore need not be informed in the first place about nuclear tests;

Hereby repeals GA#330 “Nuclear Testing Protocol”.

Legacy General Assembly Resolution #655 “Combating International Piracy” (Category: International Security; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Ahoy! The World Assembly;

Sees that this council has maintained a code against piracy for most all its history, now governed by GA#655;

Wary of the ambiguity in the term "malicious intent" in clause 1 and failure to exclude pirate vessels from the definition of a "ship";

Poses an example where a matey plunders a ship carrying booty intended for use in immoral acts, including genocide or slavery; then it not be clear whether this act is an example of "malicious intent" when it may be a form of resistance against those dastardly acts;

Argues that this ambiguity poses a great obstacle to proper self-defence against pirate ships, as well as collecting bounties on the many great seadogs and buccaneers, as interpretation of "malicious intent" is left to authorities;

Concerned that clause 1(d) may also have those equipping civilian ships with arms for self-defence sent to walk the plank;

Aghast that clause 1 imposes its scurvy standard throughout all the seven seas, overriding local pirate codes and international agreements outside World Assembly waters;

Invoking parley to discuss how mad it be that member states can prosecute a matey for crimes committed with no relation to them or to the World Assembly under clause 3(b);

Commited to flying the jolly roger across the whole seven seas, savvy?

Yarr! Banishes GA#655 to the bottom of Davy Jones' Locker!