NationStates Jolt Archive

UPDATE - 3rd March 2004 - :this proposal has now been submitted with a summary, also referring to the detailed proposal.
Run a search under genome to find this proposal - it is scheduled to end on Saturday 6th March 2004

copy of the proposal notes follows....
Emphasising that no nation or corporation should claim ownership of genetic material;
Determined that the cloning or modification of Individuals genetic material is expressly forbidden without prior consent from the induvidual within all member nations;
Recognizing that research on the human genome and the resulting applications open up vast prospects for progress in improving the health of individuals and of humankind as a whole;
Affirms everyone has a right to respect for their human dignity, fundamental freedoms and for their rights regardless of their genetic characteristics;
Calls upon Benefits from advances in biology, genetics and medicine, concerning the human genome, shall be made available to all Member States, with due regard for the dignity and human rights of each individual;
Calls upon Member States to take appropriate measures to ensure that research results are not used for non-peaceful purposes;
Urges member states to review the complete proposal at http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2767912#2767912

UPDATE - 2nd March 2004 - this proposal has now been moved into the final draft stage. The detailed proposal is in the next post, but the concept is outlined below.

The DSH looking for feedback regarding the following resolution, which have been redrawn up in line with the excellent suggestions from fellow member states.

We would urge nations to positively suggest ammendments to the proposal as neccessary.

Concept

No member nation can claim ownership of an induviduals genetic rights without prior consent from the induvidual.
The cloning or modification of an induviduals genetic material is expressly forbidden without prior consent from the induvidual within all member nations.
No member nation can coerce consent from the induvidual.

The concept being that cloning should not be permitted by a member state without the prior consent of the induvidual.

Detailed preamble and policy posted soon....

_________________________
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/hirota.jpgThe Democratic States of Hirota (DSH) (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=hirota)

The treatment of the human genome

Category : Human rights
Strength: Significant
__________________________________
Preamble

1. Emphasizing its attachment to the universal principles of human rights, affirmed in particular in the Universal Bill of Rights resolution of Aug 8 2003;

2. Bearing in mind the End slavery resolution of Jan 21 2003, and emphasizing the outlawing of the selling or purchasing of people;

3. Convined that the human genome underlies the fundamental unity of all members of the human family, and thus all humanity has a special responsibility to protect the human genome;

4. Bearing in mind the international and regional instruments, national laws, regulations and ethical texts relating to the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms and to respect for human dignity as regards the collection, processing, use and storage of scientific data, as well as of medical data and personal data,

5. Recognizing that genetic information is part of the overall spectrum of medical data and that the information content of any medical data, including genetic data and proteomic data, are highly contextual and dependent on the particular circumstances

6. Also recognizing that human genetic data have a special status on account of their sensitive nature since they can be predictive of genetic predispositions concerning individuals and that the power of predictability can be stronger than assessed at the time of deriving the data; they may have a significant impact on the family, including offspring, extending over generations, and in some instances on the whole group; they may contain information the significance of which is not necessarily known at the time of the collection of biological samples; and they may have cultural significance for persons or groups,

7. Emphasizing that all medical data, including genetic data and proteomic data, regardless of their apparent information content, should be treated with the same high standards of confidentiality,

8. Noting the increasing importance of human genetic data for economic and commercial purposes,

9. Having regard to the special needs and vulnerabilities of developing countries and the need to reinforce international cooperation in the field of human genetics,

10. Recognizing that research on the human genome and the resulting applications open up vast prospects for progress in improving the health of individuals and of humankind as a whole

11. Emphasizing that such research should fully respect human dignity, freedom and human rights, as well as the prohibition of all forms of discrimination based on genetic characteristics.

12. Proclaims the principles that follow and adopts the present Declaration:
___________________
Declaration

1. Affirms everyone has a right to respect for their human dignity, fundamental freedoms and for their rights regardless of their genetic characteristics.

2. Further affirms that dignity makes it imperative not to reduce individuals to their genetic characteristics and to respect their uniqueness and diversity.

3. Affirms the genome or material derived from the genome shall not be subject to copyright or patent rights, and that the result of research into the genome is expressly for the benefit of all of humanity, and should be available for all with due regard for the dignity and human rights of each individual.

4. Urges that Research, treatment or diagnosis affecting an individual’s genome shall be undertaken only after rigorous and prior assessment of the potential risks and benefits pertaining thereto and in accordance with any other requirement of international and national law.

5. Emphasizes that in all cases, the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned shall be obtained. If the latter is not in a position to consent, consent or authorization shall be obtained in the manner prescribed by international and national law, guided by the person’s best interest.

6. Affirms the right of each individual to decide whether or not to be informed of the results of genetic examination and the resulting consequences should be respected.

7. Recommends that if according to the law a person does not have the capacity to consent, research affecting his or her genome may only be carried out for his or her direct health benefit, subject to the authorization and the protective conditions prescribed by law. Research which does not have an expected direct health benefit may only be undertaken by way of exception, with the utmost restraint, exposing the person only to a minimal risk and minimal burden and if the research is intended to contribute to the health benefit of other persons in the same age category or with the same genetic condition, subject to the conditions prescribed by international and national law, and provided such research is compatible with the protection of the individual’s human rights.

8. Accepts that No one shall be subjected to discrimination based on genetic characteristics that is intended to infringe or has the effect of infringing human rights, fundamental freedoms and human dignity.

9. Recommends that Genetic data associated with an identifiable person and stored or processed for the purposes of research or any other purpose must be held confidential in the conditions set by international and national law.

10. Solemnly affirms that every individual shall have the right, in accordance with international and national law, to just reparation for any damage sustained as a direct and determining result of an intervention affecting his or her genome.

11. Accepts that In order to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms, limitations to the principles of consent and confidentiality may only be prescribed by international and national law, for compelling reasons within the bounds of public international law and the international law of human rights.

12. Solemnly affirms that No research or research applications concerning the human genome, in particular in the fields of biology, genetics and medicine, should prevail over respect for the human rights, fundamental freedoms and human dignity of individuals or, where applicable, of groups of people.

13. Notes that Practices which are contrary to human dignity, fundamental freedoms and human rights, such as the reproductive cloning of human beings, shall not be permitted, without the individuals express consent as outlined in Article 3.

14. Calls upon Benefits from advances in biology, genetics and medicine, concerning the human genome, shall be made available to all Member States, with due regard for the dignity and human rights of each individual.

15. Accepts that Freedom of research, which is necessary for the progress of knowledge, is part of freedom of thought. The applications of research, including applications in biology, genetics and medicine, concerning the human genome, shall seek to improve the health of individuals and humankind as a whole.

16. Calls upon Member States to take appropriate measures to foster the intellectual and material conditions favourable to freedom in the conduct of research on the human genome and to consider the ethical, legal, social and economic implications of such research, on the basis of the principles set out in this Proposal.

17. Calls upon Member States to take appropriate measures to ensure that research results are not used for non-peaceful purposes.

18. Encourages Member States to take appropriate measures to encourage other forms of research, training and information dissemination conducive to raising the awareness of society and all of its members of their responsibilities regarding the fundamental issues relating to the defence of human dignity which may be raised by research in biology, in genetics and in medicine, and its applications.

19. Trusts Member States to make every effort to promote the principles set out in this Proposal and should promote their implementation.

20. Noting that Nothing in this Proposal may be interpreted as implying for any Member State, group or person any claim to engage in any activity or to perform any act contrary to human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the principles set out in this Proposal, or any other previous declarations.
_________________________
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/hirota.jpgThe Democratic States of Hirota (DSH) (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=hirota)

Edited on Febuary 20 2004 to reflect suggestions from member states.

Edited on Feburary 26 2004 to reflect suggestions for article 3 of the resolution from member states.

I support this version of the resolution.I envision a time when this resolution pulls through.It does not affect the economy of my country negatively and puts the corporation on a tight leash.

Trust me to give this a vote.

The DSH thanks the representitive from Ilham for their support.

All human DNA can be argued to be realted. Therefore a very strict definition is mandatory for your proposal. Depending of the definition... His Holiness Pope Liam, Founder of Shambhala and Holy Ruler of all Psychotropics might consider backing it.

Bishop Leary, Minister of chemistry for all Psychotropics

The DSH thanks Bishop Leary for his comments. We would welcome your suggestions for such a definition, in the meantime we will work to provide one of our own.

How about as a preamble"Convined that the human genome underlies the fundamental unity of all members of the human family, as well as the recognition of an inherent dignity and diversity and thus all humanity has a special responsibility to protect the human genome"

The DSH thanks Bishop Leary for his comments. We would welcome your suggestions for such a definition, in the meantime we will work to provide one of our own.

After consulting with H.H. Pope Liam of Psychotropics and his Various Ministers.... we, the Curch of Psychotropics, are willing to offer a definition which we could endorse. If the DNA is 99.9% accurate, then we would give it our blessing.

We thank the noble Hirota for bringing this issue to the floor.

Bishop Leary, Minister of Chemestry for all Psychotropics
Bishop McKenna, Minister of Ethno-Botany for all Psychotropics

The DSH looking for feedback regarding the following resolution, which have been redrawn up in line with the excellent suggestions from fellow member states.

We would urge nations to positively suggest ammendments to the proposal as neccessary.

Concept

No member nation can claim ownership of an induviduals genetic rights without prior consent from the induvidual.
The cloning or modification of an induviduals genetic material is expressly forbidden without prior consent from the induvidual within all member nations.
No member nation can coerce consent from the induvidual.

The concept being that cloning should not be permitted by a member state without the prior consent of the induvidual.

Detailed preamble and policy posted soon....



This concept is consistent with our Super Soldier Program and Psi Corps, though I personally would prefer to see this proposal be written in the style recommended (stickied) form. I feel we could support this.

10kMichael

as far as we can tell, it has followed the outlines already in the second post on this topic? :?:

as far as we can tell, it has followed the outlines already in the second post on this topic? :?:

Flipping up a page ... you are correct! =)

Though a minor point (and not something that would hold my support back) is that I personally find it easier to number activating clauses. This helps to separate the preambulatory clauses from the action the UN is to take. At the same time, I like to capitalize the first word of each sentence segement and separate preambulatory clauses by a comma and activing clauses by semi-colons. The concept in my mind is that a resolution is one huge run-on sentence. But again, this is just a matter of taste.

Now that I see there is a great deal to review, I'll spend my free moments today looking over the entire proposal.

10kMichael

Likewise, aside from the numbering issue, Sophista has no problems with this resolution. That's a lot of heavy reading, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. I would also agree that a preamble would help clear up the proposal, as I can imagine some of our less-dedicated members don't want to sift through every clause to see what the main arguments are.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

Emphasizing its attachment to the universal principles of human rights, affirmed in particular in the Universal Bill of Rights of Aug 8 2003

Bearing in mind the End slavery resolution of Jan 21 2003, and emphasizing the outlawing of the selling or purchasing of people.

Convined that the human genome underlies the fundamental unity of all members of the human family, as well as the recognition of an inherent dignity and diversity and thus all humanity has a special responsibility to protect the human genome

Bearing in mind the international and regional instruments, national laws, regulations and ethical texts relating to the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms and to respect for human dignity as regards the collection, processing, use and storage of scientific data, as well as of medical data and personal data,

Recognizing that genetic information is part of the overall spectrum of medical data and that the information content of any medical data, including genetic data and proteomic data, is highly contextual and dependent on the particular circumstances,

Also recognizing that human genetic data have a special status on account of their sensitive nature since they can be predictive of genetic predispositions concerning individuals and that the power of predictability can be stronger than assessed at the time of deriving the data; they may have a significant impact on the family, including offspring, extending over generations, and in some instances on the whole group; they may contain information the significance of which is not necessarily known at the time of the collection of biological samples; and they may have cultural significance for persons or groups,

OK, first let me say that I've now had the chance to read the entire preamble to this fine resolution, my nation completely stands behind the principle of this topic and draft proposal.

Though I have a question about the intent behind the clause that begins with ALSO RECOGNIZING that human genetic data .... It is fairly long, and though I'm certain this section deserves a second review on my part, would it be possible to just explain in simple terms what we should take this passage to mean?

The clause above that, which starts with RECOGNIZING that genetic information probably should be reworded such that data is plural, i.e. just change is highly contextual to are highly contextual.

Commas should be added to the end of the first three clauses, and the Universal Bill of Rights and End Slavery resolutions might stand out more if italized.

Finally my last comment on the preamble is that the thrid clause was a bit wordy with the inclusion of the phrase as well as the recognition of an inherent dignity and diversity. Again, it could be fine, but with the goal that the entire preamble should be read as one very long run-on sentence, that portion of that clause didn't flow as nicely when I silently read the preamble.

Again, I'm just nitpicking here, but this is an excellent example of a preamble. The need for international concern is clearly documented and specific genetic language is used (I had to research what proteomic means).

Good job! :D

10kMichael

Again, I'm just nitpicking here
No, it's no problem, it might as well be done correctly...that's why it was put out for consideration in the first place :)

I did actually number my first draft of this sometime ago....But removed that deliberately. However, it's no problems to edit it. I'll work on that after I've made replies to the other points you have raised

Though I have a question about the intent behind the clause that begins with ALSO RECOGNIZING that human genetic data .... It is fairly long, and though I'm certain this section deserves a second review on my part, would it be possible to just explain in simple terms what we should take this passage to mean?

The intention behind this paragraph was to recognise that the sampling of genetic data may have significant impacts (or perhaps that should read benefits?) on families, or entire groups of humans, that might not be known at this time; that it may recognise potential inherited conditions, for example, or information on parentage and ancestry.

(OOC For example, can you imagine what happened if the PM is Isreal discovered he was related to Arafat thanks to genetic testing?)

Of course, if it is saying something else to other member states, then it will obviously need editing. Feedback on this section is especially welcome.

The clause above that, which starts with RECOGNIZING that genetic information probably should be reworded such that data is plural, i.e. just change is highly contextual to are highly contextual.

Depends how you read it....can see the need for it now you've mentioned it though, and it will be changed.

Commas should be added to the end of the first three clauses, and the Universal Bill of Rights and End Slavery resolutions might stand out more if italized.

Ok :)

Finally my last comment on the preamble is that the thrid clause was a bit wordy with the inclusion of the phrase as well as the recognition of an inherent dignity and diversity. Again, it could be fine, but with the goal that the entire preamble should be read as one very long run-on sentence, that portion of that clause didn't flow as nicely when I silently read the preamble.

I will have another look at that as well...

Thanks to the nations of Sophista and Mikitivity for their feedback on this issue, it is most appreciated.

Changes made to the proposal in line with the excellent advice from member states thus far.

We are very impressed with this proposal and sincerely hope it becomes enshrined in UN law. Thank you for all your hard work.

Ursula Kohl
Speaker for Health & Medical Affairs

Though I have a question about the intent behind the clause that begins with ALSO RECOGNIZING that human genetic data .... It is fairly long, and though I'm certain this section deserves a second review on my part, would it be possible to just explain in simple terms what we should take this passage to mean?

The intention behind this paragraph was to recognise that the sampling of genetic data may have significant impacts (or perhaps that should read benefits?) on families, or entire groups of humans, that might not be known at this time; that it may recognise potential inherited conditions, for example, or information on parentage and ancestry.


Thanks to the nations of Sophista and Mikitivity for their feedback on this issue, it is most appreciated.

You're welcome, of course I'm not finished yet. :wink:

Second, I would hope that other nations would take the time to give you feedback now. Sadly, frequently it is the case that many delegates complain and complain about how people aren't doing things the way they want them, but they seldom take any initiative.

Maybe we can convince them otherwise.

That said, I think I mispoke in my earlier comments. I personally don't like preambulatory clauses numbered, just the activing. This is totally a stylistic issue, and certainly not something that would cause my nation to not support your resolution.

I also think that you are dealing with two linked, but unique subjects in your 6th preambulatory clause (the one you describe above). Please consider breaking it into two parts. One that talks about genetic / lineage benefits (and feel free to expand a bit, as if I asked what the benefit is, I'm guessing somebody else may in the future as well). The second part can talk about screening for medical conditions. I believe this is what you were doing.

Unfortunately I left my hard copy (yes, when a resolution / proposal is long, I'm forced to print a hard copy out to work from) at my office, but I have gone through half of your activing clauses. There was one that I had a question about. Let me dig that up for you again.

Ah here it is ... I'm a bit worried by this clause:


14. CALLS UPON Benefits from advances in biology, genetics and medicine, concerning the human genome, shall be made available to all Member States, with due regard for the dignity and human rights of each individual;


Please note that I changed the style a bit, but the words and content are the same.

Anyway, my nation's concern is that this clause sounds like if my nation's Super Soldier program should find a serum that can enhance the genetic and physical prowess of say one of our soldiers (with his consent naturally), that my government would have to share its research.

While I can assure you that my government would be happy to share knowledge that can advance the treatment of the ill or injured, we do have reservations about handing over what essentially is the blueprints to a defensive weapon.

Our own Dr. Banner, assured me that within months the serum should be finished, but with the rise in global conflict, our Sentinel of Liberty, is still honestly a military project. In other words, instead of building weapons of mass destruction, we've poured millions of grams of Spice into the project. We can't be asked to just give every nation their own Sentinel of Liberty!
Is there a way that this exchange could be limited to non-military advances? My government certainly would support that and would be happy to freely provide access to our medical records to other governments that adhere to the guidelines of this proposal.

10kMichael

Ah here it is ... I'm a bit worried by this clause:

[quote]
14. CALLS UPON Benefits from advances in biology, genetics and medicine, concerning the human genome, shall be made available to all Member States, with due regard for the dignity and human rights of each individual;


Please note that I changed the style a bit, but the words and content are the same.

Is there a way that this exchange could be limited to non-military advances?

It has already been forbidden non-peaceful purposes, as outlines in article 17: "Calls upon Member States to take appropriate measures to ensure that research results are not used for non-peaceful purposes. "

But it is a hefty document as you mentioned, so you can easily have missed that article. :)
_________________________
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/hirota.jpg

And this is coming from someone who has been complaining a lot about stupid resolutions. Good job!

It has already been forbidden non-peaceful purposes, as outlines in article 17: "Calls upon Member States to take appropriate measures to ensure that research results are not used for non-peaceful purposes. "

But it is a hefty document as you mentioned, so you can easily have missed that article. :)

Thank you for finding that.

Unfortunately, my nation is researching genetic enhancements of our law enforcement and military personel.

How is this any different than other nations giving their military personel performance enhancing drugs or using psychological conditioning of troops?

In fact, how is a human that has been modified worse than a gun, a warship, a bomber, etc?

I can assure you that my nation has only the most peaceful plans for these defenders.

Should these clauses remain, years of military spending would be flushed down the drain with no traditional weapons of mass destruction or other killing machines that are so frequently developed by UN member states.

I suggest that the proposal allow defensive programs.

10kMichael

Affirms the human genome in its natural state shall not give rise to financial gains.

While the nation of Rehochipe fully supports the spirit of this clause, it is so broadly worded as to be prohibitive. The human genome in its natural state is (obviously) necessary for virtually all genetics research. According to your wording, any result of human genetic research not involving a direct modification to the human genome (such as gene therapy, drugs designed on the basis of genetic research, and so forth) could not be produced at profit.
While Rehochipe is vehemently opposed to the genetic exploitation of humans, it must be acknowledged that most genetics research is partly or wholly funded by industry. Such a restrictive proposal would discourage industry investment and greatly slow the rate of genetics research. Being more precise as to what this meant would offset this.

On a related note, I assume that a central motive of this proposal would be to outlaw patent or copyright on any modified or unmodified gene or genes. Though cognizant of the effect on industry, Rehochipe fully endorses this.

Kamquin Dakar
Ministry of Trade and Industry

While Rehochipe is vehemently opposed to the genetic exploitation of humans, it must be acknowledged that most genetics research is partly or wholly funded by industry. Such a restrictive proposal would discourage industry investment and greatly slow the rate of genetics research. Being more precise as to what this meant would offset this.


My government fears that too restrictive of a proposal would discourage legal research, and promote illegal research.

The day is dawning of modified humans. I think it would stand in the interest of the human race that responsible governments, not corporations or gene-splicing pirates, continue to set the standards.

With that in mind, my government shares the Rehochipe sentiment that the exploitation of the human genome is upsetting. On the whole, this really is a well thought out proposal, as it clearly safeguards human rights.

But our questions are now picking on a few minor points in order to strengthen the long-term protection of these rights.

Thank you for finding that.

Unfortunately, my nation is researching genetic enhancements of our law enforcement and military personel.

First of all I cannot see any problems with law enforcement personel being enhanced going against this proposal.

Military personnel are more difficult to argue for, but I'll get back to that issue shortly.

The draft proposal has made no effort to legislate genetic enhancement. Indeed, article 14 was included to ban weapons tailored to a specific genetic group...Weapons could theoretically be developed which affect particular versions of genes clustered in specific ethnic or family groups.

(OOC: indeed in the "real world," Genetic information is already being used to "improve" elements of biological weapons, for example by increasing their antibiotic resistance. These developments raise the spectre of highly targeted biological weapons being used on the battlefield.)

As such there is nothing specifically targeted against genetic enhancement of law enforcement officers, military personnel or members of the public.

In effect you are querying the proposal in areas that go beyond it's intended mandate. However, if you do want to suggest that this propsal should extend into this area, then I'm happy enough for it to do so if some sort of quorum can be established on what additions should be made to the proposal.

However, I am aware of the ethical "can of worms" that could easily be opened up on this issue and I am highly dubious that some sort of agreement could be reached in the immediate future.

Genetic enhancement raises a host of ethical, legal and social questions. What is meant by normal? When is a genetic intervention "enhancing" or "therapeutic?" How should the benefit from a genetic enhancement be calculated in comparing its risks and benefits? Would people who have been genetically enhanced enjoy an unfair advantage in competing for scarce resources? That is, will genetic enhancement be available to all or only to the few who can afford to purchase it using their personal finances? These questions relate to the two major concerns presented by genetic enhancement: the undermining of the principle of social equality and the problem of creating an unfair advantage that would be enjoyed by enhanced individuals.

It could be argued that genetic enhancement might affect human evolution. Philosophical and religious objections also have been raised, based on the belief that to intervene in such fundamental biological processes is "playing God" or attempting to place us above God. People from various perspectives believe that any interference with the random offerings of nature is inherently wrong and question our right to toy with the product of years of natural selection.

In general, however, ethical and social concerns center not so much on the improvement of traits for alleviation of deficiencies or on the reduction of disease risk, but on the augmentation of functions that without intervention would be considered entirely normal. For some individuals, technologies that can enhance traits are even more attractive than those that would merely duplicate them (e.g., cloning). And, although the distinctions between cure and enhancement might be obvious to some, they can lose meaning in medical practice or in formulating health policy. For example, interventions that begin in an effort to cure could slide quickly toward interventions that enhance.

Re: Rehochipe

I acknowledge your concerns, and would ask if you could provide some sort of solution to this problem?

in the meantime, our experts are crawling over this particular issue in detail and will get back to me soon.

We would submit that, instead of banning profit on the results of genetic research, copyright and patent should explicitly be banned on genetic material. This would enable some profit to be made without producing excessively lucrative monopolies. Rights could still be held to technologies and drugs arising from genetics research.

We considered limiting this to solely human genetic material, or material 'derived from the human genome' and consider this worth consideration, but are wary to accept it. Genetics is extraordinarily fluid cross-species and we feel this would be an invitation to abuse.

While I haven't yet had the chance to go over this resolution closely, I plan to support this resolution based on my cursory reading and my reading of the comments and corrections Hirota has considered and implemented. Thank you for an intelligent, well-thought out, and well-written proposal.

Carmen Coatl
Minister of Foreign Affairs

Re: Rehochipe

We accept your suggestion, and will be making ammendments to the relevant article as per your suggestion... I will post the ammendment and credit it to yourself.

Re: Ixtli

Thank you for your strong support of this proposal, and the DSH are grateful.
_________________________
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/hirota.jpgThe Democratic States of Hirota (DSH) (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=hirota)
http://www.nationstates.net/images/un_member.gif For the region of cm4rums (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/32808/page=display_region/region=cm4rums)

Credited to Rehochipe and their continuing contribution.

original article:
3. Affirms the human genome in its natural state shall not give rise to financial gains.

updated artilce
3. Affirms the genome or material derived from the genome shall not be subject to copyright or patent rights, and that the result of research into the genome is expressly for the benefit of all of humanity, and should be available for all with due regard for the dignity and human rights of each individual.

This ammendement will be made to the draft proposal.
_________________________
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/hirota.jpgThe Democratic States of Hirota (DSH) (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=hirota)
http://www.nationstates.net/images/un_member.gif For the region of cm4rums (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/32808/page=display_region/region=cm4rums)

The Commonwealth of the Logarchy applauds this well-written, fully thought-out, and highly necessary resolution, and would like to extend its admiration and thanks to the proposal's author. The Commonwealth of the Logarchy throws its full support behind this resolution and looks forward to the day it is passed in the full U.N. assembly.

We thank The Commonwealth of the Logarchy for it's support for this resolution, and will endeavour to keep their delegate aware of when this draft will be ready for submission.
_________________________
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/hirota.jpgThe Democratic States of Hirota (DSH) (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=hirota)
http://www.nationstates.net/images/un_member.gif For the region of cm4rums (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/32808/page=display_region/region=cm4rums)

In its present form, we would vote for this proposal should it reach quorum, and encourage our delegate to approve it.

thank you Rehochipe for your support :)
_________________________
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/hirota.jpgThe Democratic States of Hirota (DSH) (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=hirota)
http://www.nationstates.net/images/un_member.gif For the region of cm4rums (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/32808/page=display_region/region=cm4rums)

It is the position of the Emperor that he owns the persons and genomes of all citizens of the Empire, and that the imperial oath of citizenship sworn by each citizen constitutes a waiver of any and all claim to ownership of the individual's person and genome. The Emperor resents any attempt by the UN to interfere with his property rights and therefore cannot support this proposal.

It is the position of the Emperor that he owns the persons and genomes of all citizens of the Empire, and that the imperial oath of citizenship sworn by each citizen constitutes a waiver of any and all claim to ownership of the individual's person and genome. The Emperor resents any attempt by the UN to interfere with his property rights and therefore cannot support this proposal.

in which case you are violating the resolution End slavery since you don't have the choice if you are following the resolution or not (apart from not being a member of the UN), you are obviously incorrect, and your nation is following all resolutions correctly.

That or your too dumb to realise this, but our delegate is wary to make such assumptions.
_________________________
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/hirota.jpgThe Democratic States of Hirota (DSH) (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=hirota)
http://www.nationstates.net/images/un_member.gif For the region of cm4rums (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/32808/page=display_region/region=cm4rums)

This resolution has been passed to the final draft. IN particular we are looking for contributions for summaries for this proposal in order to fit inside the character limit.
_________________________
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/hirota.jpgThe Democratic States of Hirota (DSH) (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=hirota)
http://www.nationstates.net/images/un_member.gif For the region of cm4rums (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/32808/page=display_region/region=cm4rums)

We support this proposal fully, and will urge our regional delegate to also support it. Summarising, however, is not our forte. Sorry about that.

in which case you are violating the resolution End slavery since you don't have the choice if you are following the resolution or not (apart from not being a member of the UN), you are obviously incorrect, and your nation is following all resolutions correctly.


The Emperor sees no provision in the "End Slavery" resolution that says he may not own people. It merely states that he may not buy or sell people. Since the transfer of possession from the new citizen to the Emperor is a gift given of the citizen's free will, no sale is involved and thus the resolution is not violated.

Technically speaking, you're allowed to revoke any right you like if it's done voluntarily. Something tells me our imperial friend has a bizarre version of 'voluntary', however.

Technically speaking, you're allowed to revoke any right you like if it's done voluntarily. Something tells me our imperial friend has a bizarre version of 'voluntary', however.

I'm not sure what the problem is then, since Smaptania will get their citizens to "volunteer" to submit to such treatment...

At any rate, slavery is a area which we have identified as needing improved legislation in the future, so the DSH will be lobbying for improvement in the future (after we have sorted out this proposal, and the two or three others in the pipeline).
_________________________
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/hirota.jpgThe Democratic States of Hirota (DSH) (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=hirota)
http://www.nationstates.net/images/un_member.gif For the region of cm4rums (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/32808/page=display_region/region=cm4rums)

this proposal has now been submitted with a summary, also referring to the detailed proposal.

Run a search under genome to find this proposal - it is scheduled to end on Saturday 6th March 2004