NationStates Jolt Archive


SUBMITTED - "Legally Human" Resolution

12-03-2004, 09:31
EDIT 5: As there were no further suggestions, I submitted the Legally Human proposal. In part, I would like to see how well it fares, but if possible I would like to see it pass, or at least be voted on by the General Assembly. To find the proposal, simply search for "legally human"... also note that two clauses were added to Article V, subsection 2 in order to prevent single-nation domination of the cabinet. Unfortunately, I had to trim the first two lines to fit in the character length...

OOC: Thanks, those of you who gave me your insight and support! You all were a huge help!


The Holy Empire of Gethamane firstly would like to acknowledge specifically the work of Hooglastahn, but also the input of Mikitivity, in at least one original version of this proposal.
In essence, this proposal is intended to standardize some definitions. However, instead of tackling the fine line between "legitimate concern" and "filibustering," this resolution would simply address some oversights our Ministry of International Affairs: Legal Bureau have noted in previous resolutions.
Note that this is a first draft, and so has not been submitted as a proposal... Yet.
Concerning the "Category/Strength," I would appreciate input if someone has a differing opinion.
I see you all have your copies of the draft, and so I will now open the floor to comments!


Category/Strength: Human Rights/Mild
The United Nations is not an omniscient organization, and is capable of error. Unfortunately, our powers are limited when it comes to repairing the oversights of the past. This proposal is an effort at making reparations for those Member-States which contain non-human citizens by inferring upon them all the rights, responsibilities, and privileges of the human Member-States.

Observing that the United Nations contains Member-States which are composed, in whole or part, of non-human species;

Noting with regret that many United Nations Resolutions confer their benefits and responsibilities solely on humans;

Believing that all sapient creatures have the same inherent rights as humans;

Noting further that effort must be made to include these non-human species in United Nations Resolutions;

Having considered that the aforementioned United Nations Resolutions cannot be directly changed;

Fully aware that the United Nations cannot predict the future;

Section I: Definitions
Article I:
1. Affirms that, for purposes of this Resolution and not necessarily extending beyond, a “sapient species” shall be defined as any species which is capable of being a citizen in a Member-State of the United Nations, including any species which is capable of ruling aforementioned Member-State except as noted in subsection 2 of this article.


Article II:
1. Declares that, for purposes of this Resolution and not necessarily extending beyond, a “person” shall be defined as any individual of a sapient species as recognized by Article I.

2. Authorizes that, at the sole discretion of any sovereign nation, any “person” as defined in Article II may be exempt from inclusion as a “sapient species” as defined in Article I subsection 1 if the following criteria are met:
a) Aforementioned “person” is related to a “person” as defined in Article II who has the power to determine citizenship;
b) The relation is based a legally binding union (as, marriage) to a third party;
c) Relation can be defined as “in-laws”;

Section II: Reparations

Article III:
1. Proclaims that henceforth, all previous instances of the following that occur within a United Nations Resolution be read as including all sapient species: “human,” “human being,” or “human rights;” any other phrase indicative of a specific sapient species; phrases which, by grammar or intent, exclude certain sapient species; phrases which, lacking any explicit definition of terms, could be construed as to exclude sapient species.

Article IV:
1. Declares accordingly that any future instance of such a phrase indicated in Article III which occurs within a United Nations Resolution proposal be read as including all sapient species except as noted in subsection 2 of this Article.
2. Confirms that an exemption can be made to subsection 1 if the exemption is explicitly noted within the proposal for the aforementioned United Nations Resolution.

Section III: The Differences between Species

Article V:
1. Recommends that any “sapient species” possessing a biological maturity radically different than human present their case to the cabinet defined in subsection 2 of this article.
2. Calls upon all United Nations Member-States to volunteer a portion of their scientific and medical communities to a democratic cabinet which will have the sole purpose of reviewing and passing judgment on cases presented by a “sapient species.”



OOC: This is my first time... be gentle? :shock:
And if I carelessly didn't acknowledge you because I'm a clod, then please let me know (presuming I should have acknowledged you in the first place...) ;)

EDIT: It has come to my attention that I am, in fact, a moron and I can look at the Category stuff... Reflected in the post :P Also changed the title of the thread so the whole thing fits.
Enn
12-03-2004, 11:16
Well, we cannot see any problems upon first reading, so at least for now it has our stamp of approval.
The Black New World
12-03-2004, 11:46
Sounds great but I’d ask our wonderful mod if it is okay.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Komokom
12-03-2004, 12:09
* Yes, its The Rep of Komokom with his frying pan, but more to the point his Big Rubber Stamp.

BANG-I-T-Y BANG - BANG

{ SEEMS O-KAY 4 NOW ! }

- The Rep of Komokom, having given the thing a quick once over, and a lolly-pop for being good. :wink:
12-03-2004, 18:05
Hazatak is a human society, open for anyone from any other species that can add something to our country. Treating them as equals is a great step for the world.
Bahgum
12-03-2004, 18:34
Bahgum will steadfastly object to any proposals which could possibly class our glorious leaders mother in law as an equal being. We implore the Hooglahstan to specifically exclude such creatures. Our way of life is at risk.....
Mikitivity
12-03-2004, 19:15
Note that this is a first draft, and so has not been submitted as a proposal... Yet.



Section I: Definitions
Article I:
1. Affirms that, for purposes of this Resolution and not necessarily extending beyond, a “sapient species” shall be defined as any species which is capable of being a citizen in a Member-State of the United Nations, including any species which is capable of ruling aforementioned Member-State.

Article II:
1. Declares that, for purposes of this Resolution and not necessarily extending beyond, a “person” shall be defined as any sapient species capable of being a citizen in a Member-State of the United Nations, including any species which is capable of ruling aforementioned Member-State.




For a first time crack a writing a proposal you did a bang-up job! *clapping*

Your justification and preambulatory clauses are great!

Second, please telegram our UN mod, because on any issue like this getting an opinion about game mechanics first would be wise. We don't want to lose a nation that is a valued member of the international community.

Third, I do have a suggest for Article II. I'd suggest the following rewrite:


Declares that, for purposes of this Resolution and not necessarily extending beyond, a “person” shall be defined as any individual of a sapient species as recognized by Article I.


As the author of this proposal, I encourage you to see how others feel about my nation's suggestion and naturally you may do with as you please.

In a few days time, if we agree, I'd like to take your proposal before my regional group and see how they feel. Their advice is always extremely helpful.

But after my first review, I can say with certainity that the Confederation of Mikitivity would speak in favour of such a proposal.

10kMichael
13-03-2004, 01:01
The Holy Empire of Gethamane appreciates your compliments and input!

Bahgum: If your country can prevent your leader's mother-in-law from obtaining citizenship, then this proposal certainly wouldn't include her...

However, our Legal Bureau is now considering an amendment to Section 1, which would add a subsection to Article I clarifying that, based on a sovereign nation's sole decision, any "in-law" relative can be exempt from "sapient species." This change is in response to your leader's concerns, as well as our Viceroy's Monster... er.. mother-in-law's recent arrival.

Mikitivity: Our Legal Bureau finds your rewrite to be an improvement, and barring reasonable disagreement from another Member-State, it will be implemented on the next draft. Also, as soon as the draft is updated, the typo in your name will be fixed ;)

Very shortly, we will be telegramming our UN Mod for input regarding game mechanics. Which is part of the reason that this has not been submitted as a proposal yet. ;)

Edit: Reply to Bahgum :P
Mikitivity
13-03-2004, 01:48
Mikitivity: Our Legal Bureau finds your rewrite to be an improvement, and barring reasonable disagreement from another Member-State, it will be implemented on the next draft. Also, as soon as the draft is updated, the typo in your name will be fixed ;)


I noticed the typo, but frankly, my government (as well as myself) make the same mistake ourselves. Ecopoeian wine kinda does that to a "person". And by person, I naturally mean as defined above in your draft proposal. ;)

10kMichael
13-03-2004, 05:13
Seems all good to me. Although I can't shake the impression that someone's got a proposal like this in the queue already.
RomeW
13-03-2004, 06:10
Article II needs some clarification- do you mean that all "sapient species" count as "humans" under previous resolutions? If so, I think you need to state that directly. I got it, but only after re-reading it a couple of times. It's just a little confusing in the wording, that's all. Otherwise, good job.
13-03-2004, 06:13
In actuality, Hooglastahn submitted a proposal similar to this. This is an expansion of Article II of that proposal, and covers a little extra ground. Hooglastahn's proposal is more of a "Weights and Measures" proposal, whereas this specifically relates to the rights of our Member-States which have a non-human population.

However, a few of us felt that the second Article of Hooglastahn's proposal needed it's own proposal. And so here it is ;)
13-03-2004, 06:54
Ah. That explains my strange sense of deja vu.
Sophista
13-03-2004, 09:23
This is most certainly the longest resolution establishing a definition that I have ever seen. Well, if you feel we must. There are no disadvantages, therefor, we support.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs
13-03-2004, 10:21
There should probably be an article about the differing rates at which different species come of age.

We suggest scaling it to sexual maturity for species which reproduce sexually, and national standards for species which do not.

After all, if it turns out that mole people become old and decrepit at 12, I'm sure they's be pretty torqued off to learn that UN resolutions ban all but their most ancient and feeble from fighting on the battlefield.

Note that humans generally reach sexual maturity (in the biological sense of being able to have children at all - not in the personal or social sense of being able to do so without ruing their own lives) at the age of 12. So the age of 16 should probably be scaled to 4/3 the age of sexual maturity for a species.

Which would still be a pretty big blow to any ciqueda people we happen to have - but if it really bothers them, I'm sure they can finagle an exception somehow (some species only become sexually mature for an extremely short period at the end of their lives, but I don't know if any of these species are currently recognized by this council).

Good night, everyone.
Rehochipe
13-03-2004, 12:55
My impression is that a number like 4/3 is probably going to cause problems; it'd make more sense to instate a UN committee to investigate and set basic rates on a species-by-species basis, leaving individual nations some freedom to alter this (after all, different states have different ages for humans). Note also that adult responsibility isn't always going to be tied to sexual maturity.
Otherwise there's always going to be some exceptions who will feel blatantly prejudiced against by this.
14-03-2004, 03:15
The Holy Empire of Gethamane hadn't previously considered the "age of maturity" to be within the scope of this proposal. However, we can see how it would fit. However, Rep. Rehochipe makes a strong point, and Gethamane supports the formation of a UN Committee for any cases when a "sapient species" matures at a different rate than standard (not genetically modified/cloned/etc) humans.

Our Legal Bureau is spending a weekend in the "Happy Camp" at Mountain View State Hospital, and won't be returning to work for a couple days. Which means that I can use all the help I can get. ;)
Mikitivity
14-03-2004, 04:18
The Holy Empire of Gethamane hadn't previously considered the "age of maturity" to be within the scope of this proposal. However, we can see how it would fit. However, Rep. Rehochipe makes a strong point, and Gethamane supports the formation of a UN Committee for any cases when a "sapient species" matures at a different rate than standard (not genetically modified/cloned/etc) humans.

Our Legal Bureau is spending a weekend in the "Happy Camp" at Mountain View State Hospital, and won't be returning to work for a couple days. Which means that I can use all the help I can get. ;)

I like the idea of a committee of biologists, socialists, and medical doctors making this decision.

You really can't measure one species "childhood" as a direct porportion relative to human development. Take the crab people (not to be confused with the crabby UN representatives) as an example: they come out of their eggs already knowing how to swim. A human child can't even crawl after birth.

In this case, I'd suggest we as politicians and diplomats turn to the experts on these things.

10kMichael
14-03-2004, 04:36
Take the crab people (not to be confused with the crabby UN representatives) as an example: they come out of their eggs already knowing how to swim. A human child can't even crawl after birth.

Although ironically - they can swim. You can take a newborn human and drop it into a tub of water and it will swim around just like it was a golden retriever. That particular instinct gets lost pretty quickly, so this is definately some fun that has a built-in expiration date.

I never get tired of doing that.

Don't make me come over there.
16-03-2004, 09:51
** Wakes up early in the morning, and slips a new draft (3) of his proposal onto the top of everyone's in-box **

OOC: **Bump** ;)
... Make sure you read Section III, as it's the only thing different from draft 2.
18-03-2004, 08:07
OOC: One last bump...
19-03-2004, 10:52
Bump after submission... Wish me luck :)