NationStates Jolt Archive

Category: Human Rights
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Aligned Planets

The representatives of the people of the United Nations, organized through the UN Delegates, believing that the ignorance, neglect, or contempt of the rights of people are the sole cause of public calamities and of the corruption of governments, have determined to set forth in a solemn declaration the natural, unalienable, and sacred rights of all people, in order that this declaration, being constantly before all the members of the United Nations, shall remind them continually of their rights and duties; in order that the acts of the legislative power, as well as those of the executive power, may be compared at any moment with the objects and purposes of all political institutions and may thus be more respected, and, lastly, in order that the grievances of the citizens, based hereafter upon simple and incontestable principles, shall tend to the maintenance of the Articles of the United Nations and redound to the happiness of all. Therefore the United Nations and associated Delegates recognizes and proclaims, in the presence and under the auspices of the codes of common law, the following rights of the citizenry:

Articles


People are born and remain free and equal in rights. The law must in all cases respect this principle.
The aim of all government is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of people. These rights are liberty, property, security, conscience, expression, initimate association and resistance to oppression.
The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. No body nor individual may exercise any authority which does not proceed directly from the nation.
Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each citizen has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights.
Law can only prohibit such actions as are demonstrably and objectively hurtful to society. Nothing may be prevented which is not forbidden by law, and no one may be forced to do anything not provided for by law.
Law is the expression of the general will. Every citizen has a right to participate personally, or through his representative, in its foundation. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes. All citizens, being equal in the eyes of the law, are equally eligible to all dignities and to all public positions and occupations, according to their abilities, and without distinction except that of their virtues and talents. The law may not designate any group of citizens and deny them equal benefits, standing, priviledges or protections based solely upon their membership in said designated group.
No person shall be accused, arrested, or imprisoned except in the cases and according to the forms prescribed by law. Any one soliciting, transmitting, executing, or causing to be executed, any arbitrary order, shall be punished. But any citizen summoned or arrested in virtue of the law shall submit without delay, as resistance constitutes an offense. Under no circumstances may any person be compelled to provide evidence or testimony against themselves.
The law shall provide for such punishments only as are strictly and obviously necessary, and no one shall suffer punishment except it be legally inflicted in virtue of a law passed and promulgated before the commission of the offense.
As all persons are held innocent until they shall have been proven guilty, if arrest shall be deemed indispensable, all harshness not essential to the securing of the prisoner's person shall be severely repressed by law.
No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, including his religious views, provided their manifestation does not infringe upon the rights of others.
The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of people. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.
The security of the rights of people and of the citizen requires public military forces. These forces are, therefore, established for the good of all and not for the personal advantage of those to whom they shall be entrusted.
All of the citizens have a right to decide, either personally or by their representatives, as to the necessity of the public contribution; to grant this freely; to know to what uses it is put; and to fix the proportion, the mode of assessment and of collection and the duration of the taxes.
Society has the right to require of every public agent an account of their administration.
Since property is an inviolable and sacred right, no one shall be deprived thereof except where public necessity, legally determined, shall clearly demand it, and then only on condition that the owner shall have been previously and equitably indemnified.

I like the idea, and I agree human rights need to be protected. Can you really have universal humna rights? Not all cultures value the samethings.

Also, there seems to be no way to ensure nations follow these human rights and make sure there citizens have them. You can't just hope all nations will follow these. There has to be a clear way to implment and enforce what it is you are saying.

I thought there was a resolutiuon passed on this already.

I like the idea, and I agree human rights need to be protected. Can you really have universal humna rights? Not all cultures value the samethings.

Also, there seems to be no way to ensure nations follow these human rights and make sure there citizens have them. You can't just hope all nations will follow these. There has to be a clear way to implment and enforce what it is you are saying.

I thought there was a resolutiuon passed on this already.

These Human Rights aren't all that specific, they can be easily applied to any Nation - basically, it's just about upholding your rights infront of the Law (of each Nation).

And the UN is not there to Police Nations...

And this is merely further clarification of existing Resolutions

Then do we really need this?

So, basically you are saying hey nations I feel this rights should be protected, but there is no way to make sure you will actually do this or not. If thats the case this seems sort of pointless. Sorry of this sounds mean.

I would support this then if you put in a section related to implemenetation and enforcing this proposal.

I believe the UN does in part police other nations, and should have the right to do so.

let's see here...
Category: Human Rights
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Aligned Planets

The representatives of the people of the United Nations, organized through the UN Delegates, believing that the ignorance, neglect, or contempt of the rights of people are the sole cause of public calamities and of the corruption of governments, have determined to set forth in a solemn declaration the natural, unalienable, and sacred rights of all people, in order that this declaration, being constantly before all the members of the United Nations, shall remind them continually of their rights and duties; in order that the acts of the legislative power, as well as those of the executive power, may be compared at any moment with the objects and purposes of all political institutions and may thus be more respected, and, lastly, in order that the grievances of the citizens, based hereafter upon simple and incontestable principles, shall tend to the maintenance of the Articles of the United Nations and redound to the happiness of all. Therefore the United Nations and associated Delegates recognizes and proclaims, in the presence and under the auspices of the codes of common law, the following rights of the citizenry:
Not too bad, how about these articles.

Articles


People are born and remain free and equal in rights. The law must in all cases respect this principle.
Surely this is already covered in End Slavery and the Universal Bill of Rights?
The aim of all government is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of people. These rights are liberty, property, security, conscience, expression, initimate association and resistance to oppression.
Many would argue with you over whether that is the aim of all government. Some would regard security as being the only point of a government, everything else should be done by private citizens.
The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. No body nor individual may exercise any authority which does not proceed directly from the nation.
This could conflict with many UN resolutions, as they impose laws on a nation which the nation itself is not in favour of.
Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each citizen has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights.
This is alright, but I really get the feeling it's been said before.
Law can only prohibit such actions as are demonstrably and objectively hurtful to society. Nothing may be prevented which is not forbidden by law, and no one may be forced to do anything not provided for by law.
Nothing may be prevented? What, so if suicide is legal in your nation, you can't prevent someone trying to kill themselves? Please clarify.
Law is the expression of the general will. Every citizen has a right to participate personally, or through his representative, in its foundation. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes. All citizens, being equal in the eyes of the law, are equally eligible to all dignities and to all public positions and occupations, according to their abilities, and without distinction except that of their virtues and talents. The law may not designate any group of citizens and deny them equal benefits, standing, priviledges or protections based solely upon their membership in said designated group.
I like this as a person, but speaking ICly I could not accept it. You'll get in trouble with any nation in which there is a ruling class, whether that is a monarch, an aristocracy, an oligarchy, a political party or anything else. Dictatorships in particular will be opposed.
No person shall be accused, arrested, or imprisoned except in the cases and according to the forms prescribed by law. Any one soliciting, transmitting, executing, or causing to be executed, any arbitrary order, shall be punished. But any citizen summoned or arrested in virtue of the law shall submit without delay, as resistance constitutes an offense. Under no circumstances may any person be compelled to provide evidence or testimony against themselves.
I believe this is already covered by the Definition of 'Fair Trial' resolution.
The law shall provide for such punishments only as are strictly and obviously necessary, and no one shall suffer punishment except it be legally inflicted in virtue of a law passed and promulgated before the commission of the offense.
See above.
As all persons are held innocent until they shall have been proven guilty, if arrest shall be deemed indispensable, all harshness not essential to the securing of the prisoner's person shall be severely repressed by law.
Ditto.
No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, including his religious views, provided their manifestation does not infringe upon the rights of others.
See the Universal Bill of Rights and the Religious Tolerance resolutions.
The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of people. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.
Freedom of Speech? Article 2 of the Universal Bill of Rights.
The security of the rights of people and of the citizen requires public military forces. These forces are, therefore, established for the good of all and not for the personal advantage of those to whom they shall be entrusted.
The libertarians will be up in arms about this. So will all the nations that simply don't have a military (like my own). Why must we have a public military?
All of the citizens have a right to decide, either personally or by their representatives, as to the necessity of the public contribution; to grant this freely; to know to what uses it is put; and to fix the proportion, the mode of assessment and of collection and the duration of the taxes.
This reads that you want people to be able to decide whether to pay there taxes. Please clarify.
Society has the right to require of every public agent an account of their administration.
This actually looks pretty good! I don't think we have anything like this, so please check the list of passed resolutions, but if nothing else of this survives, you could turn this article into a proposal.
Since property is an inviolable and sacred right, no one shall be deprived thereof except where public necessity, legally determined, shall clearly demand it, and then only on condition that the owner shall have been previously and equitably indemnified. So the government can't just seize things? That's pretty good, but again, many nations will oppose it on principle.

All in all, I don't see it as much of a clarificationof previous resolutions, but instead just restating what has already been said. The one exception would be the article about public agents giving accounts of their administration - that could become something.

The representatives of the people of the United Nations, organized through the UN Delegates, believing that the ignorance, neglect, or contempt of the rights of people are the sole cause of public calamities and of the corruption of governments, have determined to set forth in a solemn declaration the natural, unalienable, and sacred rights of all people, in order that this declaration, being constantly before all the members of the United Nations, shall remind them continually of their rights and duties; in order that the acts of the legislative power, as well as those of the executive power, may be compared at any moment with the objects and purposes of all political institutions and may thus be more respected, and, lastly, in order that the grievances of the citizens, based hereafter upon simple and incontestable principles, shall tend to the maintenance of the Articles of the United Nations and redound to the happiness of all. Therefore the United Nations and associated Delegates recognizes and proclaims, in the presence and under the auspices of the codes of common law, the following rights of the citizenry:

You do realize that the only thing that is truly natural, unalienable, and sacred is death, right? The rest, including life, can easily be taken away.

Articles

People are born and remain free and equal in rights. The law must in all cases respect this principle.

So I can't arrest people for committing crimes?

The aim of all government is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of people. These rights are liberty, property, security, conscience, expression, initimate association and resistance to oppression.

All of which can be taken away and few of which are actually present in large quantities in nature. That means they are not natural. The very fact you are making this resolution also means they are the opposite of "not derived from, or dependent on, external authority; self-evidencing; obvious." After all, it's imprescripible that they can be easily taken away.

The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. No body nor individual may exercise any authority which does not proceed directly from the nation.

Many a dictator has found this arguement beneficial.

Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each citizen has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights.

Guess what? Everything you do either directly or indirectly injures someone else. Thus, I can use this as a justification for giving my citizens no rights.

Law can only prohibit such actions as are demonstrably and objectively hurtful to society. Nothing may be prevented which is not forbidden by law, and no one may be forced to do anything not provided for by law.

You can't enforce this without a totalitarian dictatorship. Someone, somewhere is going to force someone to do something.

Law is the expression of the general will. Every citizen has a right to participate personally, or through his representative, in its foundation. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes. All citizens, being equal in the eyes of the law, are equally eligible to all dignities and to all public positions and occupations, according to their abilities, and without distinction except that of their virtues and talents. The law may not designate any group of citizens and deny them equal benefits, standing, priviledges or protections based solely upon their membership in said designated group.

Already covered somewhere else. Also, not all UN nations have representatives in their government.

No person shall be accused, arrested, or imprisoned except in the cases and according to the forms prescribed by law. Any one soliciting, transmitting, executing, or causing to be executed, any arbitrary order, shall be punished. But any citizen summoned or arrested in virtue of the law shall submit without delay, as resistance constitutes an offense. Under no circumstances may any person be compelled to provide evidence or testimony against themselves.

Already covered.

The law shall provide for such punishments only as are strictly and obviously necessary, and no one shall suffer punishment except it be legally inflicted in virtue of a law passed and promulgated before the commission of the offense.

Wait, so I can go back in time before murder was legal and just walk around stabbing people to death? Don't forget temporal tech also exists in the UN. One of my allies uses it.

As all persons are held innocent until they shall have been proven guilty, if arrest shall be deemed indispensable, all harshness not essential to the securing of the prisoner's person shall be severely repressed by law.

Already covered.

No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, including his religious views, provided their manifestation does not infringe upon the rights of others.

Already covered.

The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of people. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.

Already covered.

The security of the rights of people and of the citizen requires public military forces. These forces are, therefore, established for the good of all and not for the personal advantage of those to whom they shall be entrusted.

Self-contradicting. Having a military force is a personal advantage to a nation and all in it. And the "good of all" arguement falls apart the moment you see real combat.

All of the citizens have a right to decide, either personally or by their representatives, as to the necessity of the public contribution; to grant this freely; to know to what uses it is put; and to fix the proportion, the mode of assessment and of collection and the duration of the taxes.

1) See way above about representatives.

2) In some nations the citizens explicitly trust the government to do the right job on its own.

3) As worded, this sounds like an arguement for attempting tax evasion.

Society has the right to require of every public agent an account of their administration.

There are many things governments deal with that it is best the general populous don't know about. This provides a security hole in all nations the size of Andromeda.

Since property is an inviolable and sacred right, no one shall be deprived thereof except where public necessity, legally determined, shall clearly demand it, and then only on condition that the owner shall have been previously and equitably indemnified.

Your proposal would fair better if you used more common language.

Also, isn't this already covered?

I cannot support this on the basis that most of this is already covered.

Ah ok - fair enough :)

I may infact think of something else to propose. There are too many things that are already covered. I knew that they were, but this is just further clarification.