[At Vote] [ga] Repeal: “Standardised Passport Act”

[Astrobolt]

General Assembly Resolution

Repeal “Standardised Passport Act”

A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal

Resolution: GA#76

Proposed by: Simone Republic

General Assembly Resolution #76 “Standardised Passport Act” (Category: Political Stability; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.



The World Assembly (WA),



Noting that GAR 76, Standardised Passport Act, provided a basis for reasonably convenient travel between WA states;



Noting that, since the passing of this resolution, the WA has considerably expanded the rights for anyone below the age of majority (GAR 299), non-binary marriages (GAR 457), as well as the issuance of identity documents (GAR 686), dual citizenship (GAR 695) and consular protection (GAR 703);



Dismayed, however, that the target resolution explicitly states (in paragraph 3) that "foreign nationals, excluding diplomatic and consular officers, should abide by the laws of the nation in which they are present", creating the impression that diplomatic and consular officers do not need to abide by any laws and can go on criminal rampages at will;



Alarmed that the target resolution permits (in paragraph 6) "issuing nations to allow children under the age of majority, or a specific age that is lower than that of the age of majority, to travel on the passport of one or both of their parents", which creates the ambiguity of allowing children to either travel on or be included on a parent's passport, a practice that makes children more susceptible to abduction and trafficking if they are treated as merely an extension of an adult for purposes of passports;



Noting that the rights for diplomats to visit nationals overseas (in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the target resolution) when detained and other related rights have been expanded considerably by subsequent resolutions, including GA703 "Consular Protection Arrangements", making this resolution redundant in this aspect;



Looking forward to the WA approving an appropriate replacement for this resolution with regards to the standardization of passports;



Hereby repeals "Standardised Passport Act."


This is the discussion thread. To cast your vote, go HERE

[worlddefenseorg]

Children are indeed an issue, but it has nothing to do with passports. Passports only identify people and grant them access to various nations based on the visas they have. In this case, international security and cooperation between local city police and airports, should the need arise, should be facilitated with another resolution.
Consular and diplomat rights are under the assumption of "obvious legality" meaning that those protected individuals should be protected against minor infractions like traffic incidents and minor injuries accidentally caused by said person. However, if the crime is serious enough, I doubt the home nation would protect the person.
Therefore, I believe that this resolution need not pass.

[Pantso]

The text of the target resolution is here: www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolutions/council=1?start=75

The issue with children traveling on parents' passports seems very difficult to solve unless nations start issuing passports for minors; a burdensome regulation when a child's appearance, height, weight, etc. can change so rapidly. As for the criminal behavior of diplomatic staff, egregiously undignified behavior on the part of a visiting dignitary can result in ejection by the hosting state, and is an edge case regardless. This criticism of the target resolution, while valid, does not justify the repeal. Pantso will also recommend Against.

[Jabberwocky]

Dismayed, however, that the target resolution explicitly states (in paragraph 3) that "foreign nationals, excluding diplomatic and consular officers, should abide by the laws of the nation in which they are present", creating the impression that diplomatic and consular officers do not need to abide by any laws and can go on criminal rampages at will;

I don't accept that to be true.
AGAINST

[Pantso]

Feb 11, 2024 13:04:48 GMT -5 Jabberwocky said:

Dismayed, however, that the target resolution explicitly states (in paragraph 3) that "foreign nationals, excluding diplomatic and consular officers, should abide by the laws of the nation in which they are present", creating the impression that diplomatic and consular officers do not need to abide by any laws and can go on criminal rampages at will;

I don't accept that to be true.
AGAINST

They got the quote right but you have to squint and cock your head in just the right way to interpret it as implicit permission to start stealing candy from babies and talking in the theater.

[Astrobolt]

Feb 11, 2024 13:09:53 GMT -5 Pantso said:

Feb 11, 2024 13:04:48 GMT -5 Jabberwocky said:

Dismayed, however, that the target resolution explicitly states (in paragraph 3) that "foreign nationals, excluding diplomatic and consular officers, should abide by the laws of the nation in which they are present", creating the impression that diplomatic and consular officers do not need to abide by any laws and can go on criminal rampages at will;

I don't accept that to be true.
AGAINST

They got the quote right but you have to squint and cock your head in just the right way to interpret it as implicit permission to start stealing candy from babies and talking in the theater.

Pretty much my read on the arguments in the resolution. It seems hyperbolic.