NationStates Jolt Archive

This large and sweeping proposal is currently in the back pages of the proposal list, and frankly they've got a lot of good ideas. So many, in fact, that I suspect there is a lot of crossover with prior resolutions. The question that leaves is "does that crossover invalidate this as a legal proposal, and why?"

Have a look at this with a couple things in mind, please. Does past International Law cover most or all of this, and does all of this legitimately fall under the banner of Human Rights? Your opinions may help shape a moderation decision on this one, and at worst may spark some ideas for using portions of this in other, less grandiose proposals.
International Bill of Rights
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Svenstenberg

Description: RECOGNIZING the need for certain, comprehensive human rights to be governed by international law;

Further RECOGNIZING the right of each member nation to determine its own civil structure based on its national culture;

CONSIDERING the limits of the United Nations' jurisdiction, that it does not extend into matters of civil law, but must concern itself only with international (that is, universal) principles of human dignity;

The United Nations hereby ESTABLISHES this INTERNATIONAL BILL OF RIGHTS, to which all member nations agree on good faith to adhere.

1. All people have the right to the recognition of their own humanity. No government shall seek to define any human being as a non-person. No person shall be deprived of his or her humanity or identity for any reason.

2. No person shall be deprived of his or her nationality, nor shall any govvernment seek to define the national character of any person without his or her consent.

3. No person shall be deprived of his or her citizenship in a member nation without significant reason. Neither shall any person be deprived of his or her citizenship in one member nation without repatriation elsewhere, such that said person would have no civic identity.

4. No people shall be subject to persecution within their own state based upon their ethnicity, nationality, religious beliefs or other unifying characteristics. The members of the United Nations shall provide refuge for those facing persecution, oppression or genocide around the world.

5. Every person has sole ownership of his or her own body, and no government may lay claim to it or to its functions.

6. Every person has the right to pursue his or her own life path, including occupation, religion, beliefs and lifestyle. No government shall attempt to enforce a religion, belief or lifestyle upon any of its citizens. Nor shall any government prescribe any person an occupation without his or her consent. Slavery is expressly forbidden.

7. Likewise, every person has the right to marry whomever he or she may choose. No person or government shall determine the marriage of any two or more persons by coercion or force, and no government shall recognize any marriage performed without the consent of both parties.

8. Torture, as defined by common understanding, shall be categorically forbidden in all member nations. No government shall employ inhumane practices in the treatment of any person.

9. No government shall deprive any parent of his or her child, or any child of his or her parent, without sufficient reason.

10. No non-combatant person shall be deliberately targeted in time of war, nor shall citizens be taken as prisoners of war without cause. No government shall force a non-soldier to take up arms in time of war. No government shall employ inhumane tactics of war, or any tactic that endangers innocent persons, such as the deprival of food or water, the destruction of homes or fields, or the deliberate introduction of disease.

11. No person shall have his or her mobility restricted within his or her own state without cause.

12. No person shall be deliberately denied a basic education or literacy for any reason.

Voting Ends: Sat May 28 2005

Greetings.

In our recent researches, we have come across the following which may be of some use posted here for the convenient access of those who wish to make a comparison. A similar organisation to this august assembly has presented their Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html) for global inspection.

I am of the opinion that a lot of this is covered by other Resolutions. However i also recon that this blows the pants off them. I would be for a repeal of the others in favour of a tweaked version of this being a replacement.
It would be a shame to see this kicked due to the repeal first rule however it would have to be in My opinion.

I have Approved this in the Proposals area pending a mod decision.

International Bill of Rights
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Svenstenberg

Description: RECOGNIZING the need for certain, comprehensive human rights to be governed by international law;

Further RECOGNIZING the right of each member nation to determine its own civil structure based on its national culture;

CONSIDERING the limits of the United Nations' jurisdiction, that it does not extend into matters of civil law, but must concern itself only with international (that is, universal) principles of human dignity;

The United Nations hereby ESTABLISHES this INTERNATIONAL BILL OF RIGHTS, to which all member nations agree on good faith to adhere.

1. All people have the right to the recognition of their own humanity. No government shall seek to define any human being as a non-person. No person shall be deprived of his or her humanity or identity for any reason.What about those people out there who are most definitly not human?

2. No person shall be deprived of his or her nationality, nor shall any govvernment seek to define the national character of any person without his or her consent.Don't have a problem with this one.

3. No person shall be deprived of his or her citizenship in a member nation without significant reason. Neither shall any person be deprived of his or her citizenship in one member nation without repatriation elsewhere, such that said person would have no civic identity.I'm not sure about the second part of this one, maybe because I'm still trying to wrap my head around what it's saying.

4. No people shall be subject to persecution within their own state based upon their ethnicity, nationality, religious beliefs or other unifying characteristics. The members of the United Nations shall provide refuge for those facing persecution, oppression or genocide around the world.I'm sorry but if a person's religious beliefs involve human sacrifice they will be prosecuted for murder, I don't care what the UN says. The rest of it I have no problem with.

5. Every person has sole ownership of his or her own body, and no government may lay claim to it or to its functions.No opnion.

6. Every person has the right to pursue his or her own life path, including occupation, religion, beliefs and lifestyle. No government shall attempt to enforce a religion, belief or lifestyle upon any of its citizens. Nor shall any government prescribe any person an occupation without his or her consent. Slavery is expressly forbidden.The last sentece is definitly redundant as the UN has already outlawed slavery (of course, since when has redundancy ever stopped the UN ;)) as for the rest I have no problem unless a person's choices violate any of my nation's laws.

7. Likewise, every person has the right to marry whomever he or she may choose. No person or government shall determine the marriage of any two or more persons by coercion or force, and no government shall recognize any marriage performed without the consent of both parties.Great, the UN is trying to interfere in marriage laws again.

8. Torture, as defined by common understanding, shall be categorically forbidden in all member nations. No government shall employ inhumane practices in the treatment of any person.Possibly redundant under "END BARBARIC PUNISHMENTS."

9. No government shall deprive any parent of his or her child, or any child of his or her parent, without sufficient reason.I have no problems with this clause.

10. No non-combatant person shall be deliberately targeted in time of war, nor shall citizens be taken as prisoners of war without cause. No government shall force a non-soldier to take up arms in time of war. No government shall employ inhumane tactics of war, or any tactic that endangers innocent persons, such as the deprival of food or water, the destruction of homes or fields, or the deliberate introduction of disease.Possibly illegal as it seems to be an attempt to control forum activity and I remember that there was a resolution that was yanked in quorum because it required forum activity.

11. No person shall have his or her mobility restricted within his or her own state without cause.No problems here.

12. No person shall be deliberately denied a basic education or literacy for any reason.What if a person deliberately denies themself a basic education?

Greetings.

We suggest that this proposal be rewritten slightly. In view of the diificulty of balancing the laws of repeal against the obvious value of the matter before us, the following might be of some use:

1. Amend the document to be species-generic, in view of the unique circumstances of the NSUN.

2. Amend the document so that it reads "... to which all member nations agree in good faith to adopt as a standard defining the basic rights of sapient beings, such that in all other discussions of this august assembly, reference to the rights of said beings should refer to this standard."

In our opinion, something of this nature would allow the proposal to be fielded and adopted. As a further note in response to queries said and unsaid, these basic rights need not be accepted by individuals within a state; they are free to reject the rights on offer. However, it should be the ideal that all states offer such rights to their citizens, and that states which do not would be considered less respectful of universal rights than those which do.

3. No person shall be deprived of his or her citizenship in a member nation without significant reason. Neither shall any person be deprived of his or her citizenship in one member nation without repatriation elsewhere, such that said person would have no civic identity.
This makes sense, i like this one.

4. No people shall be subject to persecution within their own state based upon their ethnicity, nationality, religious beliefs or other unifying characteristics. The members of the United Nations shall provide refuge for those facing persecution, oppression or genocide around the world.
This has been done before has it not?

5. Every person has sole ownership of his or her own body, and no government may lay claim to it or to its functions.
What about vaccinations? Can we not force vaccinations in the interest of national security?

6. Every person has the right to pursue his or her own life path, including occupation, religion, beliefs and lifestyle. No government shall attempt to enforce a religion, belief or lifestyle upon any of its citizens. Nor shall any government prescribe any person an occupation without his or her consent. Slavery is expressly forbidden.
Sorry but no, their lifestyle may be to try and blow up other people, or their beliefs may be that all women should die, nope ain't gonna happen.

7. Likewise, every person has the right to marry whomever he or she may choose. No person or government shall determine the marriage of any two or more persons by coercion or force, and no government shall recognize any marriage performed without the consent of both parties.
I do not like this section, interfering with marriage laws again. Allows polygamy i think, i dont think its needed either, stated in other resolutions

8. Torture, as defined by common understanding, shall be categorically forbidden in all member nations. No government shall employ inhumane practices in the treatment of any person.
I am pretty sure this has been done before

9. No government shall deprive any parent of his or her child, or any child of his or her parent, without sufficient reason.
Thats a good one

11. No person shall have his or her mobility restricted within his or her own state without cause.
This does not define cause, i'm not sure a clause like this is needed.
12. No person shall be deliberately denied a basic education or literacy for any reason.
Isn't this already provided for in other resolutions?

This large and sweeping proposal is currently in the back pages of the proposal list, and frankly they've got a lot of good ideas. So many, in fact, that I suspect there is a lot of crossover with prior resolutions. The question that leaves is "does that crossover invalidate this as a legal proposal, and why?"

Does past International Law cover most or all of this, and does all of this legitimately fall under the banner of Human Rights?
[emphasis added]

My answers to these questions:

Does past International Law cover most or all of this,
I believe the following sections may already be covered by international law

4. No people shall be subject to persecution within their own state based upon their ethnicity, nationality, religious beliefs or other unifying characteristics. The members of the United Nations shall provide refuge for those facing persecution, oppression or genocide around the world.
"Discrimination Accord", "Rights of Minorities and Women", (perhaps a couple of others--not "Gay Rights" which does nothing), and perhaps the "Refugee Protection Act"
Every person has sole ownership of his or her own body, and no government may lay claim to it or to its functions.
Possibly covered by "Sex Industry Worker Act" and "Abortion Rights". But, then again, there isn't really a precedent (in my mind) whether blanket bans such as this--stopping gov't from all say over the citizens' bodies--needs to take into account the piece-meal bans of yesteryear. I'd need to think about this.

6. Every person has the right to pursue his or her own life path, including occupation, religion, beliefs and lifestyle. No government shall attempt to enforce a religion, belief or lifestyle upon any of its citizens. Nor shall any government prescribe any person an occupation without his or her consent. Slavery is expressly forbidden.
Slavery, and religion are already legislated upon. Slavery is entirely banned by "End Slavery". I think the religious section of this would need to at least acknowledge the previous legislation before just coating over religion as if it hadn't been covered before. I'd also have to review "Religious Tolerance" before really considering the overlap this clause has with it.
7. Likewise, every person has the right to marry whomever he or she may choose. No person or government shall determine the marriage of any two or more persons by coercion or force, and no government shall recognize any marriage performed without the consent of both parties.
In the "governments must recognize marriages and can't force citizens into them" parts, this is new. But the last phrase seems to overlap with "Definition of Marriage", which already gives certain parameters (is consent one of them?) for the government definition of marriage in member nations.

8. Torture, as defined by common understanding, shall be categorically forbidden in all member nations. No government shall employ inhumane practices in the treatment of any person.
"Universal Bill of Rights", and "End Barbaric Punishment" state that we can't treat people inhumanely. Given that precedent, I'd need to see more specifics on how this isn't overlapping with those two.

9. No government shall deprive any parent of his or her child, or any child of his or her parent, without sufficient reason.
I'd need to re-read "Child Protection Act", but I believe custody is covered somewhat in that. If not, though, here, there is not overlap.

10. No non-combatant person shall be deliberately targeted in time of war, nor shall citizens be taken as prisoners of war without cause. No government shall force a non-soldier to take up arms in time of war. No government shall employ inhumane tactics of war, or any tactic that endangers innocent persons, such as the deprival of food or water, the destruction of homes or fields, or the deliberate introduction of disease.
I'm not sure what the UN policy is towards including war-regulations in resolutions. Judging be "Humanitarian Intervention" I imagine it's okay. I don't think there's an overlap with any particular resolution, unless it were overlapped by the "Wolfish Conventions" or whatever it's called.

12. No person shall be deliberately denied a basic education or literacy for any reason."Reformed Literacy Initiative", "Free Education", and "UNEC" (which operates on the premise of public education) seem to already cover this. This adds nothing new. So it is definitely a goner, even if expansions of previous rights are allowed (such as the earlier rights over their bodies and such expanding abortion and prostitution rights).



and does all of this legitimately fall under the banner of Human Rights?
I believe it is all pretty well focused upon human rights. Section 12 is questionable, as it might require a social justice-like solution (providing funds for poorer citizens to attend school)--but it's phrased as a human rights issue, which is what matters to me.



[edit]In the end, I say this gets the deat. Even if we're allowed to cover over piece-meal resolutions with blanket clauses (such as abortions rights and prostitution being covered by a blanket I have right to my own body clause), Section 12 kills it. 12 is a flat-out regergetation of previous resolutions, nothing new or over-arching added.

I am of the opinion that a lot of this is covered by other Resolutions. However i also recon that this blows the pants off them. I would be for a repeal of the others in favour of a tweaked version of this being a replacement.
It would be a shame to see this kicked due to the repeal first rule however it would have to be in My opinion.

I have Approved this in the Proposals area pending a mod decision.

Actually, the redundancy is not really an issue in my book, and I don't see why it would be elsewhere. The fact that this resolution enumerates all of these rights as part of a fundamental bill guaranteed to all means that even if those rights are already guaranteed, this resolution is doing something new. In addition, it doesn't interfere with these other resolutions jurisdiction as a result of the "good faith" clause, which puts it a step lower on the list (I can't say as I really want it to be that close to optional, but this will still actually give the U.N. something to point to as an example of precedence, and nations that are in the U.N. for will be obliged to follow it nonetheless). In other words, this bill doesn't override other resolutions, and as a result it doesn't create one of the primary problems with redundancy. And finally, it creates new rights, rather than just extending old ones.

Just because this proposal amalgamates many of the things we've accomplished doesn't mean that it should not be considered, as it neither overrides nor changes those basic rights. Approved.

My concerns about this have already been expressed by others. My basic reaction to the proposal is "pretty good, but not good enough". I don't see any compelling reason to remove it from the proposals list, but I certainly wouldn't vote for it.

What about those people out there who are most definitly not human?

OOC: Are there rules on proposals having to cater for some of the more bizarre nations in the game? Or can resolutions assume the the NationStates world is relatively similar to ours (but without any of our laws)?

Safalra, a large number of the regulars who post on this forum are "bizarre nations." Hell, I'm the one who used to be the most vocal about it.

To deal with this in a rights by right basis...

1. All people have the right to the recognition of their own humanity. No government shall seek to define any human being as a non-person. No person shall be deprived of his or her humanity or identity for any reason.

I do think some other resolution ellude to this. However, I think this takes specification to new levels. Regarding personhood, very similar to amendments the Constitutional Republic enacted to protect the rights of "persons" regardless of species.


2. No person shall be deprived of his or her nationality, nor shall any govvernment seek to define the national character of any person without his or her consent.

The first clause is definitely handed in previous resolution. The second, however is unique. And I'm not sure if I agree with it. The term "national character" is not defined.


3. No person shall be deprived of his or her citizenship in a member nation without significant reason. Neither shall any person be deprived of his or her citizenship in one member nation without repatriation elsewhere, such that said person would have no civic identity.

DEprived of citizenship, is something that does occur, as far as I'm aware, even in the Constitutional Republic (banishment as a penalty)... Which has sometimes been used as an alternative to "Death" for matters of Capital Crimes against the people of the state/dominions of this Republic (Treason), by the courts. Generally it is in practice to find or work with a state sypathetic to the views of the traitor (in these cases) to allow for repatriation.Not sure, to what effect, this would have on this alternative to Capital Punishment in this case.


4. No people shall be subject to persecution within their own state based upon their ethnicity, nationality, religious beliefs or other unifying characteristics. The members of the United Nations shall provide refuge for those facing persecution, oppression or genocide around the world.

As far as I can tell, this is totally convered through multiple past resolutions (including the Refugee Protection, UBR, and so forth Resolutions).


5. Every person has sole ownership of his or her own body, and no government may lay claim to it or to its functions.

These seems to be a generalization to the Sex Workers, and Abortion Rights acts....


6. Every person has the right to pursue his or her own life path, including occupation, religion, beliefs and lifestyle. No government shall attempt to enforce a religion, belief or lifestyle upon any of its citizens. Nor shall any government prescribe any person an occupation without his or her consent. Slavery is expressly forbidden.

The primary seem to be previouslt covered. The secondary seems to be an affront to Socialist/Communist states.


7. Likewise, every person has the right to marry whomever he or she may choose. No person or government shall determine the marriage of any two or more persons by coercion or force, and no government shall recognize any marriage performed without the consent of both parties.

DOM covered this.


8. Torture, as defined by common understanding, shall be categorically forbidden in all member nations. No government shall employ inhumane practices in the treatment of any person.

Also covered, as far as I'm aware.


9. No government shall deprive any parent of his or her child, or any child of his or her parent, without sufficient reason.

This one is new. Though vague. Which, I suppose, is a good thing.


10. No non-combatant person shall be deliberately targeted in time of war, nor shall citizens be taken as prisoners of war without cause. No government shall force a non-soldier to take up arms in time of war. No government shall employ inhumane tactics of war, or any tactic that endangers innocent persons, such as the deprival of food or water, the destruction of homes or fields, or the deliberate introduction of disease.

Also covered by multiple past resolutions.


11. No person shall have his or her mobility restricted within his or her own state without cause.

As far as I'm aware, this is covered through international resolutions within the realm of jurisprudence (Fair Trial, Def of Fair Trial, Habeus Corpus, etc.)


12. No person shall be deliberately denied a basic education or literacy for any reason.

Covered by past resolution as well.

This proposal takes away the rights of all nations to freely govern themselves, as they see fit. I cannot, possibly, believe that any member nation is willing to give their right to govern away so easily. Darkumbria will not support this, hopefully, fruitless effort. This proposal plays against everything that Darkumbria stand for.

This proposal takes away the rights of all nations to freely govern themselves, as they see fit. I cannot, possibly, believe that any member nation is willing to give their right to govern away so easily. Darkumbria will not support this, hopefully, fruitless effort. This proposal plays against everything that Darkumbria stand for.

"Universal Bill of Rights"
"End Slavery"
"Sexual Freedom"
"Stop Privacy Intrustion"
"Gay Rights"
"CHILD LABOR"
"Religious Tollerance"
"Fair Trial"
"Child Protection Act"
"Due Process"
"No Embagoes on Medicine"
"Rights of LAbor Unions"
"End Barbaric Punishments"
"Legalize Euthanasia"
"Fair Treatment of Mentally-Ill"
"Definition of Fair Trial"
"Children in War"
"Universal Freedom of Choice"
"BioRights Declaration"
"Abortion Rights"
"Freedom of Press"
"Refugee Protection Act"
"Ban Trafficking in Persons"
"The Sexes Rights Law"
"Habeus Corpus"
"Rights of Minorities and Women"
"Defiition of Marriage"
"Fairness and Equality"
"Rights of Indigenous Peoples"
"The Sex Workers Industry Act"
"Discrimination Accord"

Just a few of the resolutions which impact how you are allowed to govern yourselves.... Most of which cover topics already present in this proposal.