NationStates Jolt Archive

I currently submitted a resolution to the United Nations, and am waiting for it to reach quorum. I ask all delegates to approve this proposal. The contents of the proposal are as follows:

Description: Many a times a republican government has been set up, and then cruelly mistreating the former ruling family there. This is will provide that no person of royalty may be harshly treated on account of their blood.

ARTICLE ONE
No royal or imperial family may be massacred or exiled for any reason pertaining to their blood.

ARTICLE TWO
No nation may strip any person of royal or noble blood of their titles.

ARTICLE THREE
No royal or aristocratic family may be exiled from their country (countries).

ARTICLE FOUR
No person may be forced to renounce his or her identity on account of their royal or aristocratic heritage.

ARTICLE FIVE
No person may be denied their right to participate in their nation's government on account of the royal or aristocratic heritage.

ARTICLE SIX
The people of royal and aristocratic families may not be denied the right to peacefully protest for their return to the throne or their fairer treatment.

ARTICLE SEVEN
No person may be arrested or otherwise only because of their royal or aristocratic blood.

ARTICLE EIGHT
Royals and aristocrats are entitled to the same exact rights as put forth by the Universal Declaration of Rights.

You have my support.

Good luck with the rest of your campaign.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588) ~ What can the UN do and what can it do for me?
(http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=151465&highlight=)

You have the United Federations support

Admiral Alex

This is the biggest nonsense I've come accross so far.

Royalty should accept that their position is ancient and not suitable for a modern society. They have the same rights as anyone else, no less no more. Inhereting a thrown is outdated and rediculous.

As a resolution, this is something we can only laugh at.

Vrydom, this does not intend to protect royalty's right to rule, it merely seeks to prevent the abrogation of royals' human rights when they are overthrown.

Germanic Reichs, I like the idea and spirit, but there are quite a few things I'd like to nit-pick on the basis of wording. So here are some suggestions and constructive criticisms in case this doesn't reach quorum and you have to redraft.

Description: Many a times a republican government has been set up, and then cruelly mistreating the former ruling family there. This is will provide that no person of royalty may be harshly treated on account of their blood.

I think you mean mistreated not ing. Also, I'm not sure "blood" is a good, clear term to use in legislation. How about "genealogy"? That goes for any time "blood" is repeated.

ARTICLE ONE
No royal or imperial family may be massacred or exiled for any reason pertaining to their blood.

This would prevent the killing of large parts of the family, but doesn't offer protection to individual members, since one murder isn't a massacre. Perhaps it should be "No person may be massacred or exiled for any reason pertaining to their royal or imperial genealogy."

ARTICLE TWO
No nation may strip any person of royal or noble blood of their titles.

Ok, but it should be clear that they can strip them of their privileges, so that the titles are no longer anything but ornamental.

ARTICLE THREE
No royal or aristocratic family may be exiled from their country (countries).

Same problem as article 1, perhaps "No member of a royal or aristocratic family..." would be better.

ARTICLE FOUR
No person may be forced to renounce his or her identity on account of their royal or aristocratic heritage.

Ok.

ARTICLE FIVE
No person may be denied their right to participate in their nation's government on account of the royal or aristocratic heritage.

So as to make this workable in non-democracies, where normal people don't have the right to participate, and in nations where some things can remove normal people's right to participate, how about "Persons of royal and aristocratic genealogy shall have no less right to participate in their nation's government than any other normal citizen".

ARTICLE SIX
The people of royal and aristocratic families may not be denied the right to peacefully protest for their return to the throne or their fairer treatment.

Added to this after "families" should be "and their supporters".

ARTICLE SEVEN
No person may be arrested or otherwise only because of their royal or aristocratic blood.

For clarity, "only" should become "simply".

ARTICLE EIGHT
Royals and aristocrats are entitled to the same exact rights as put forth by the Universal Declaration of Rights.

After the revolution, these people will no longer be royals and aristocrats and so won't be protected - therefore "Royals and aristocrats" should become "those of royal or aristocratic genealogy".

Are they an endangered species?

Just kidding. :D

I'm not sure what to make of this proposal. If they are to be protected under TUDR, then isn't all of this moot? Aren't they technically protected anyway?

Well it makes the last clause moot, but a state could still legally make it a capital crime to be a member of a deposed royal family. This would stop that.

Why should we protect such a useless and élitist institution? I say who cares about some king.

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/bp_x_aokxa_sample1.gif
Kings are only good for defeating.

-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Royalty should accept that their position is ancient and not suitable for a modern society.

There is still at least one RL absolute monarchy in the world, so don't try to nail the coffin shut just yet.

As much as my nation is a free and democratic nation, we have several members in our region who are absolute monarchies. It is the founding belief of our region that there is a clause of non-interference in each others domestic affiars, and it applies to our international dealings as well. As much as it is deplorable to murder ancient rulers, it is up to each nation's government to reach this decision. I do not feel like we should interfere in a nation's internal affairs.

Why should we protect such a useless and élitist institution? I say who cares about some king.

This is nothing to do with protecting the institution, indeed it seems to be written with an expectation that said institution will be frequently overthrown. It simply stipulates that, as human(/sentient - I'm sure someone will be RPing an elvin royal) beings, the deposed aristocrats and royals should be given their human rights just like anybody else. If the monarch committed appalling acts during his reign, he can be tried and punished for those, but the others cannot be punished simply for being a member of the same family.

Nivag, don't we have a moral duty to prevent breaches of human rights wherever possible?

Are they an endangered species?

Just kidding. :D

I'm not sure what to make of this proposal. If they are to be protected under TUDR, then isn't all of this moot? Aren't they technically protected anyway?

As the royalty crosses the desert, it is savagly hunted by the smelly flesh monsters of Izrathia

If this is jsut to protect the inalienable human rights of said monarchs, Mattikistan lends this proposal its support, not that we have any power to do anything about it if it doesn't come to vote.

* feeling Lazy after a hard day of debates, Morgan Bishop says 3 words in response*


"what he said"