This resolution will be up for vote until Friday, October 8th. As usual I will cast my votes based on the outcome of this poll.

Remember, only nations that reside in Canada may vote, and may only vote once, regardless of how many nations they have in the region or how many offsite accounts they have.


-----
Description:
The NationStates United Nations,

RECALLING its resolution, the IRCO, adopted Sep. 1, 2003, which established the voluntary funded International Red Cross Organization (IRCO) for United Nations members in order to be “the first response team to natural disasters, terrorist attacks, and any other events which threaten the lives of citizens”;

OBSERVING that in addition to medical and law enforcement personnel, that these first response teams include technical and engineering professionals who in many non-emergency situations may be highly regulated by domestic liability laws;

CONCERNED that international disaster assistance programs like the IRCO as well as volunteer disaster assistance teams sent by other nations are limited in their effectiveness to quickly respond to disasters and emergency situations due to the lack of pre-existing disaster assistance arrangements, such as arrangements concerning the liabilities associated with volunteer response and recovery teams carrying out emergency aid;

1. AFFIRMS the right of nations responding to offers of disaster assistance to decide which offers to accept and which offers to refuse;

2. PROCLAIMS that nations responding to offers of disaster assistance also have the right to refuse assistance from specific individuals and / or types of aid;

3. CALLS UPON all nations to develop domestic “Good Samaritan” laws granting volunteer based first responder teams, including technical and engineering professionals, some immunity to civil liability associated with work and professional judgments made while rendering disaster assistance provided that they do not act with reckless or intentional disregard of known dangers; and

4. DECLARES that the immunity to liability associated with rendering aid applies only to work associated in disaster or emergency assistance, and that all other normal domestic laws should apply to these individuals.

No for very simple reasons.

Why is it always with CONCERNED, PROCLAIMS, AFFIRMS, etc? Can't these people write a straight factual document? Are they so reliant on bullet pointed documents from visually orientated information sources that they have forgotten how to communicate clearly, effectively, and concisely?

I also disagree with the proposal believing that this hsould be optional rather than mandatory and definately not the responsibility of the UN to enforce.

lol thats what I say! Down with the lazies! Up with literary art!

Question from a simpleton;

Isnt this proposal just protecting those who wish to involve themselves in disaster response? I understood that participation in first response teams was voluntary, not enforced by this proposal.

And agreed Carb, flowery-worded bullet points are nothing but distracting fluff. Up with literary art! Here-here!

3. CALLS UPON all nations to develop domestic “Good Samaritan” laws granting volunteer based first responder teams, including technical and engineering professionals, some immunity to civil liability associated with work and professional judgments made while rendering disaster assistance provided that they do not act with reckless or intentional disregard of known dangers;

Essentially, it is asking all nations to modify the law of negligence for "Good Samaritan" causes. I don't think that is the UN's call to make. The law of negligence varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and for good reason. Some have compulsary No-fault tort insurance systems (New Zealand), others have negligence trials by jury (US), others have common law negligence laws modfied by statute for contributory negligence, some have a mix of no-fault and non-no-fault sytems. Some nations, like France, have laws compelling people to intervene in cases where people's lives or safety are at risk.

The law of negligence is complex, and is ruled by cultural values. Such values will vary from place to place, and the UN, in my reason, has no valid overriding to suggest that any nation conform to this narrow "good samaritan" paradigm.

I'm not familiar with the term "Law of Negligence" or any specifics therein. However it seems to me that the examples you cited, bweezy, already have measures in place to protect volunteers from liability. Which is what I understood the "Good Samaritan" is supposed to ensure.

I do agree that the UN should not have any authority in dictating the specifics of individual nations current law. I just didnt see this proposal doing that, only ensuring that nations did have these protections in place.

Thanks for your help in understanding. But for this proposal I think I shall stay neutral, until I develope a better grasp of international politics. A vote on my part would not reflect a fully educated decision.

Cheers!

So if you accept aid, you have to agree not to sue? Otherwise , you're SOL?

It would appear so... :wall:

The UN resolution, Good Samaritan Laws, was passed 10,303 votes to 3,990. I voted against this resolution based on this poll.

Thanks for voting :)