Bill Overview
Title: Geospatial Support for Atrocity Accountability Act
Description: This bill requires the Department of State to ensure that information and intelligence related to war crimes and atrocities are shared within the State Department and with certain other entities. For example, the State Department's Atrocity Warning Task Force must provide unclassified commercial geospatial imagery to domestic and international courts prosecuting persons responsible for crimes against humanity, if such imagery may provide evidence of such crimes.
Sponsors: Rep. Stefanik, Elise M. [R-NY-21]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals potentially affected by or involved in atrocities, globally
Estimated Size: 5000000
- The bill focuses on war crimes and atrocities, implying a significant impact on individuals and groups involved in these events.
- International courts prosecuting individuals for crimes against humanity will benefit from increased access to geospatial data as evidence.
- The availability of geospatial data could affect populations currently experiencing war crimes, as it helps bring perpetrators to justice.
- The bill will impact the global community by possibly reducing the prevalence of unchecked atrocities due to heightened accountability.
- Populations under regimes or in regions where atrocities occur may be affected as global scrutiny and responses intensify.
Reasoning
- The target group among the U.S. population is mainly government and legal professionals dealing with international human rights and atrocities.
- Average citizens may be indirectly affected through their role in upholding human rights standards but will not experience a noticeable change in daily life and wellbeing.
- The policy will require the use of allocated budget efficiently to make substantial impacts; focusing on relevant professionals allows targeting of effectiveness without overspending.
- The size of the budget allows for moderate investment in technology and sharing resources, so direct impact on well-being metrics for professionals is limited but existent.
- Including viewpoints of those not directly impacted ensures understanding of the broader perception of such policies.
Simulated Interviews
International human rights attorney (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The availability of geospatial imagery as evidence significantly improves our ability to prosecute war crimes.
- It enhances the credibility of cases and may speed up the judicial process.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
International relations analyst (New York, NY)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy highlights international commitment to human rights, a positive shift.
- Intelligence sharing with courts aids in accountability and may deter potential atrocities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Professor of international law (Chicago, IL)
Age: 56 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The act of sharing evidence internationally is a progressive step in international law.
- There's potential for improved coordination and preparedness in responding to atrocities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Data scientist (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy incentivizes technological development in geospatial analytics.
- Although indirectly, it improves job security and opportunities in my field.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Former military officer, currently a policy advisor (Dallas, TX)
Age: 40 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy strengthens international cooperation against war crimes.
- It encourages adherence to international human rights standards.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Journalist (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I admire the commitment to justice, the impact on day-to-day life in America is minimal.
- However, raising awareness about such policies is crucial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
NGO worker (Boston, MA)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The increased access to evidence aids advocacy work drastically.
- This policy boosts credibility in our campaigns and may improve funding opportunities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Software engineer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy may create more demand for tech solutions involving large data sets.
- Though this is detached from my personal life, it could enhance job stability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Federal government employee (Seattle, WA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy alignment with international human rights standards is crucial.
- Direct impact may not be recognizable, but it highlights U.S. global responsibility.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
College student (Houston, TX)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a student, observing the application of such policies is educational.
- It boosts motivation to pursue a career in human rights.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $30000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $45000000)
Year 2: $31000000 (Low: $26000000, High: $46000000)
Year 3: $32000000 (Low: $27000000, High: $47000000)
Year 5: $34000000 (Low: $28000000, High: $49000000)
Year 10: $36000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $51000000)
Year 100: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $80000000)
Key Considerations
- Difficulty in predicting how often and extensively geospatial data will need to be procured or analyzed, affecting cost variability.
- Potential security and privacy concerns related to sharing sensitive geospatial information.
- The global perception of the U.S. role in international justice systems and its influence on bill implementation costs and benefits.