NationStates Jolt Archive

Here's a proposal I'm about to make.

Please Tell me what you think.


Please read reply #20 for the final draft!!!


FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT AND OCCUPATION ACT
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

The General Assembly,

ADOPTING the principle that all persons are born free,

RECOGNIZING the value of the human being and the sanctity of human life,

RECOGNIZING ALSO that human beings have different preferences as to where to live or visit and what professional goals to seek in life,

RECALLING UN resolution #26 (the universal bill of rights),

SEEKING TO ADVANCE both the basic human rights and the world market efficiency,

Does hereby Decide:

Article One: Freedom of Movement:
a. All persons shall be free to leave their nation state as they please.
b. Every citizen or permanent resident will have the right of entry into the nation state from abroad.
c. Every person shall have the right to move freely within the nation state's territory, subject to the Law of property.

Article Two: Freedom of Occupation:
a. Every citizen or permanent resident shall be free to engage in any occupation, profession or trade;
b. Where a license is required to engage in an occupation, the right to a license shall not be denied except by virtue of a Law and for reasons of public peace, health and safety or for reasons of the environment, and shall always be subject to judicial review by the nation state's courts.

Article Three:
All governmental authorities are bound to respect the rights under this act.

Article Four:
Prisoners and persons who might cause an immediate and illegal threat to the life, dignity, health or property of others, shall not be protected by this act, BUT only to an extent no greater than is required by the nature and character of the illegal threat or the legal punishment.

Article five:
There shall be no restriction of rights under this Act held by persons serving in the Armed Forces, the Police and other security organizations of the State, nor shall such rights be subject to conditions, except by virtue of a law and to an extent no greater than is required by the nature and character of the service.


Thank you.
Yoed H.
Prime Minister of the Free Land of Real Paradise
President and UN Delegate for the great region of Real Paradise.
Author of UN resolution #106 (protection of dolphins act)

Here's a proposal I'm about to make.

Tell me what you think. Also, please tell me if there are any English mistakes...

Color and bolding corrected.

FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT AND OCCUPATION ACT[/SIZE]
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Size corrected.

The General Assembly,

ADOPTING the principle that all persons are born free,

Okay, good.

RECOGNIZING the value of the human being and the sanctity of human life,

$23.45? Wait, that's the value of the human body is the elements inside are separated... Eh, close enough.

RECOGNIZING ALSO that human beings have different preferences as to where to live or visit and what professional goals to seek in life,

RECALLING UN resolution #26 (the universal bill of rights),

SEEKING TO ADVANCE both the basic human rights and the world market efficiency,

Hmm. Kinda lengthy for an opening, but I don't see the need to shorten it.

Does hereby Decide:

Article One: Freedom of Movement:
a. All persons shall be free to leave their nation state as they please.
b. Every citizen or permanent resident will have the right of entry into the nation state from abroad.
c. Every person shall have the right to move freely within the nation state's territory, subject to the Law of property.

Change "person" to "citizen."

Article Two: Freedom of Occupation:
a. Every citizen or permanent resident shall be free to engage in any occupation, profession or trade;
b. Where a license is required to engage in an occupation, the right to a license shall not be denied except by virtue of a Law and for reasons of public peace, health and safety or for reasons of the environment, and shall always be subject to judicial review by the nation state's courts.

Remove the review option. In the cases where abuse happens, ten to one the courts are a lower authority lacking the right to override anyway.

Article Three:
All governmental authorities are bound to respect the rights under this act.

The Right to Die and, um, wait, that's it. Oh, you mean the privilages the UN protects. Gotcha.

Article Four:
Prisoners and persons who might cause an immediate and illegal threat to the life, dignity, health or property of others, shall not be protected by this act, BUT only to an extent no greater than is required by the nature and character of the illegal threat or the legal punishment.

This one is kinda questionable, but I'll leave it up to someone else.

Article five:
There shall be no restriction of rights under this Act held by persons serving in the Armed Forces, the Police and other security organizations of the State, nor shall such rights be subject to conditions, except by virtue of a law and to an extent no greater than is required by the nature and character of the service.

Hmm. Not sure if this one is a good idea to include. But leave it.

I really appreciate your remarks, but let me explain some of the issues you made remarks on:

1. I think not only citizens should have the right to travel freely within a nation's territory. But, only citizens and residents have the right to get into the country without restrictions.

2. The "army personnel article" is meant to prevent fascist/communist nations from saying something like "this man was in the army 20 years ago and therefore cannot immigrate from our nation".

3. The prison article is necessary, since one cannot expect prisoners to have the right to free movement... nor can one expect giving such privileges to a person who threatens other people.

4. The judicial review clause is a necessity for several reasons: a. even one in ten is better than nothing... b. note that the license cannot be refused unless by virtue of law, and if so - courts will indeed have the power to overrule an administrative decision not to give someone a license because of some unreasonable reason.

Here's a proposal I'm about to make.

Please Tell me what you think.


Sounds like a plan


FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT AND OCCUPATION ACT
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

The General Assembly,

ADOPTING the principle that all persons are born free,


Dictatorships in the UN are going to LOVE that clause


RECOGNIZING the value of the human being and the sanctity of human life,

RECOGNIZING ALSO that human beings have different preferences as to where to live or visit and what professional goals to seek in life,

RECALLING UN resolution #26 (the universal bill of rights),

SEEKING TO ADVANCE both the basic human rights and the world market efficiency,

Does hereby Decide:


Not bad


Article One: Freedom of Movement:
a. All persons shall be free to leave their nation state as they please.


No issue


b. Every citizen or permanent resident will have the right of entry into the nation state from abroad.


No. I want to control my population growth. If Country B next door has its economy to collapse, I don't want a flood of people to enter my country flooding the job market. I don't want thousands of people to try and enter my country with no marketable skills, no education, and pretty much won't do anything but leech off my welfare program. The list goes on.

(OOC: this is true of just about every nation in RL - if not all....)


c. Every person shall have the right to move freely within the nation state's territory, subject to the Law of property.


Agreed


Article Two: Freedom of Occupation:
a. Every citizen or permanent resident shall be free to engage in any occupation, profession or trade;
b. Where a license is required to engage in an occupation, the right to a license shall not be denied except by virtue of a Law and for reasons of public peace, health and safety or for reasons of the environment, and shall always be subject to judicial review by the nation state's courts.


This feels like no one can be rejected from a job...no matter what sort of education or experience they might have (I don't want someone with an arts degree doing an Engineer's job) Other issues, don't have time right now

Sorry - lunch break just ended, I'll get the rest later.


Article Three:
All governmental authorities are bound to respect the rights under this act.

Article Four:
Prisoners and persons who might cause an immediate and illegal threat to the life, dignity, health or property of others, shall not be protected by this act, BUT only to an extent no greater than is required by the nature and character of the illegal threat or the legal punishment.

Article five:
There shall be no restriction of rights under this Act held by persons serving in the Armed Forces, the Police and other security organizations of the State, nor shall such rights be subject to conditions, except by virtue of a law and to an extent no greater than is required by the nature and character of the service.


Thank you.
Yoed H.
Prime Minister of the Free Land of Real Paradise
President and UN Delegate for the great region of Real Paradise.
Author of UN resolution #106 (protection of dolphins act)

I want to control my population growth. If Country B next door has its economy to collapse, I don't want a flood of people to enter my country flooding the job market. I don't want thousands of people to try and enter my country with no marketable skills, no education, and pretty much won't do anything but leech off my welfare program. The list goes on.

(OOC: this is true of just about every nation in RL - if not all....)



Thank you Forgottenland.

Please note, however, that ONLY CITIZENS AND PERMANENT RESIDENTS enjoy the unconditional right to enter the country. So, your concern is already met in the proposal itself.

What about if a DEFCON action of a nation decrees that no one shall leave the nation till the DEFCON is lifted (or raised to a higher level)?

Where a license is required to engage in an occupation, the right to a license shall not be denied except by virtue of a Law and for reasons of public peace, health and safety or for reasons of the environment, and shall always be subject to judicial review by the nation state's courts.What about licensure based on an understanding of the nation's laws (eg, stockbrokers or accountants) or competence where health and safety are not directly impacted (eg, barristers/solicitors/attorneys-at-law or [again] accountants)?

Every person shall have the right to move freely within the nation state's territory, subject to the Law of property (sic).What is the Law of Property? This in undefined under U.N. statute!

That either means that Nations may pass something called "The Law of property (sic)" and write huge loopholes into this law, or...


Absent any U.N. Resolution called "The Law of property (sic)", there are no limitations to movement.Non-violent parolees (eg, CEO's who embezzle funds or politicians who take bribes) will love this; it essentially nullifies the practice of parole, meaning that only fines, imprisonment, physical punishment, or execution can be applied as sanctions to an individual.

We abolished prisons in Allemande long ago. This is going to make our lives a whole lot harder.All governmental authorities are bound to respect the rights under this act.This is unnecessary. Game mechanics.

Prisoners and persons who might cause an immediate and illegal threat to the life, dignity, health or property of others, shall not be protected by this act, BUT only to an extent no greater than is required by the nature and character of the illegal threat or the legal punishment.So what of people who don't pose an "immediate" danger, like swindlers, embezzlers, etc.?

Should we dub this the "Legalize White Collar Crime Act?"There shall be no restriction of rights under this Act held by persons serving in the Armed Forces, the Police and other security organizations of the State, nor shall such rights be subject to conditions, except by virtue of a law and to an extent no greater than is required by the nature and character of the service.This either legalizes desertion or means nothing, since a nation can reasonably attach a lifetime reserve requirement to universal military service and invalidate the entire act.Author of UN resolution #106 (protection of dolphins act)Who'd have guessed?

...What about licensure based on an understanding of the nation's laws...

Good point. thanks, I'll add something about it.


...What is the Law of Property? This in undefined under U.N. statute!

Come on! You're going too far. "LAW" is also undefined. "WORK" is also undefines. "HUMAN" is also undefined... I think you get my point. "law of property is a common knowledge and needs not be defined.

...So what of people who don't pose an "immediate" danger, like swindlers, embezzlers, etc.?

Should we dub this the "Legalize White Collar Crime Act?"

Note the "AND" in "prisoners AND persons who might cause an immediate and illegal threat". Surely you don't suggest that after one has paid one's debt to society, one would be restricted from moving freely.

...a nation can reasonably attach a lifetime reserve requirement to universal military service and invalidate the entire act

No nation will ever go that far. it's not economically efficient. But I might add "to an extent no greater than is REASONABLY required ..."

...Quote:
Originally Posted by Real Paradise
Author of UN resolution #106 (protection of dolphins act)

Who'd have guessed?


"Who'd have guessed?" ???? Sorry, I do not quite follow you.

Come on! You're going too far. "LAW" is also undefined. "WORK" is also undefines. "HUMAN" is also undefined... I think you get my point. "law of property is a common knowledge and needs not be defined.Whose common law? English? French? Spanish? Chinese? Russian?

I don't believe there is a single globally recognized "Law of Property".

Whose common law? English? French? Spanish? Chinese? Russian?

It doesn't really matter. Every nation with it's own (If not, then there is no problem). The only thing that matters is that the right to free movement does not mean that one can move freely inside another's property (if the law of property of that land does not allow it. If it allows it - then, again, there is no problem).

Article One: Freedom of Movement:
a. All persons shall be free to leave their nation state as they please.
b. Every citizen or permanent resident will have the right of entry into the nation state from abroad.
c. Every person shall have the right to move freely within the nation state's territory, subject to the Law of property.

Quarentine issues here. There are times when restricting the 'right' to leave the country could be disasterous to the world at large. If a small villiage contracts a fatal, highly contagous disease, I don't think you want them traipsing across the world. Conversely, if they contract it in another country while on vacation, I don't much want them back. Nothing personal, but I'd rather not have The Dreaded Lamumbah Disease ravaging my nation.

Clause 'b' also needs to be clarified a little. When first read, it seems to imply that a nation can't refuse entry to citizens of other nations. Perhaps you could replace "the nation state" with "their own nationstate"? Just something to let people know that they don't have to accept the unwashed masses from other countries.

And, by "Law of property", I'm assuming that you mean I can't invoke this Act to steal my neighbor's house, or to shack up on a military base (say, in one of the tanks).

~ Chancellor Birdstuff

Quarentine issues here. There are times when restricting the 'right' to leave the country could be disasterous to the world at large. If a small villiage contracts a fatal, highly contagous disease, I don't think you want them traipsing across the world. Conversely, if they contract it in another country while on vacation, I don't much want them back...

Clause 'b' also needs to be clarified a little. When first read, it seems to imply that a nation can't refuse entry to citizens of other nations. Perhaps you could replace "the nation state" with "their own nationstate"? Just something to let people know that they don't have to accept the unwashed masses from other countries.

~ Chancellor Birdstuff



You wisely brought up some very important remarks.
I'll add them to my proposal.
Thank you very much, Chancellor Birdstuff.

Quarentine issues here. There are times when restricting the 'right' to leave the country could be disasterous to the world at large. If a small villiage contracts a fatal, highly contagous disease, I don't think you want them traipsing across the world. Conversely, if they contract it in another country while on vacation, I don't much want them back. Nothing personal, but I'd rather not have The Dreaded Lamumbah Disease ravaging my nation.


Hey, Real Paradise, I thought of this before. look at our regional forum.

Here's a proposal I'm about to make.

Please Tell me what you think.

Brave man.



FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT AND OCCUPATION ACT
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

The General Assembly,

boilerplate.



ADOPTING the principle that all persons are born free,

Alright.



RECOGNIZING the value of the human being and the sanctity of human life,

"None" and "Doesn't exist".



RECOGNIZING ALSO that human beings have different preferences as to where to live or visit and what professional goals to seek in life,

True.



RECALLING UN resolution #26 (the universal bill of rights),

SEEKING TO ADVANCE both the basic human rights and the world market efficiency,

Market efficiency? How?



Does hereby Decide:

Article One: Freedom of Movement:
a. All persons shall be free to leave their nation state as they please.

you just outlawed.... no you didn't, covered later, nevermind.



b. Every citizen or permanent resident will have the right of entry into the nation state from abroad.

How about "...right of entry into their native nation state..."



c. Every person shall have the right to move freely within the nation state's territory, subject to the Law of property.

In Vastiva, our Sultan owns controlling interest in everything, so this works very well in our favor.



Article Two: Freedom of Occupation:
a. Every citizen or permanent resident shall be free to engage in any occupation, profession or trade;

Tacitly, ok.



b. Where a license is required to engage in an occupation, the right to a license shall not be denied except by virtue of a Law and for reasons of public peace, health and safety or for reasons of the environment, and shall always be subject to judicial review by the nation state's courts.

How about "lack of education"? Or by virtue of many laws? and change that "and" between "Law" and "for reasons" to an "and/or" please.



Article Three:
All governmental authorities are bound to respect the rights under this act.

Unnecessary given the methods of the UN. Save characters - strike it.



Article Four:
Prisoners and persons who might cause an immediate and illegal threat to the life, dignity, health or property of others, shall not be protected by this act, BUT only to an extent no greater than is required by the nature and character of the illegal threat or the legal punishment.

Hmmmm.... strike my earlier comment about prisons. Again, please change from "immediate and illegal" to "immediate and/or illegal"



Article five:
There shall be no restriction of rights under this Act held by persons serving in the Armed Forces, the Police and other security organizations of the State, nor shall such rights be subject to conditions, except by virtue of a law and to an extent no greater than is required by the nature and character of the service.

Again, might be multiple laws, not just one.



Thank you.
Yoed H.
Prime Minister of the Free Land of Real Paradise
President and UN Delegate for the great region of Real Paradise.
Author of UN resolution #106 (protection of dolphins act)

Overall, not bad.

...a nation can reasonably attach a lifetime reserve requirement to universal military service and invalidate the entire act
No nation will ever go that far. it's not economically efficient. But I might add "to an extent no greater than is REASONABLY required ..."


*cough* We already have lifetime reserve requirements for our population, so lets not say "no nation will ever go that far". We also require service of our reservists on an annual basis, which is far from "not economically efficient". It appears to be working just fine.

However, we would not use that to invalidate this act. And stop laughing, we're serious.

I believe 'freedom of emigration' proposals have been around before, which is what this essentially is. I'd like to see one succeed.

Many good points have already been raised, but I wish to emphasise the following:

Every citizen or permanent resident shall be free to engage in any occupation, profession or trade
This is unworkable; I don't see any feasible way of retaining this clause.

Nonetheless, this is a big improvement on your 'dolphins' resolution and your desire to seek accord prior to submission is commendable.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

Market efficiency? How?

Well, if people travel, move and work freely, it is expected that they will work where their job is mostly appreciated (=where it is most needed). Of course, this is true only where there are only neglectable "transaction costs", but when it comes to the world work market, they mostly are (at least with serious jobs). The "Efficient Market Hypothesis" assumes that people are free to work where they like and freely choose their occupation. (this is not the place to discuss economic theory and its hidden (true or false) assumptions, but this is the general idea...)


I believe 'freedom of emigration' proposals have been around before, which is what this essentially is. I'd like to see one succeed.


Thank you for your optimism. Nonetheless, this is much more than "freedom of emmigration".



Quote: "Every citizen or permanent resident shall be free to engage in any occupation, profession or trade"

This is unworkable; I don't see any feasible way of retaining this clause.


I hate to make RL remarks, but freedom of occupation clauses has many implementations. This is more of a general principle. If adopted, courts can use it to expand review on government unreasonable actions. Of course, mad totalitarian nations will always find a way to bypass this (like any other civil rights) act, but if so, they face being expelled from the UN (e.g., after a citizen or opposition org. makes an official complaint).


this is a big improvement on your 'dolphins' resolution

I still like dolphins best. lol...
Seriously, since the protection of dolphins act passed quite smoothly, Your comment is a source for cautious optimism...

Thank you Forgottenland.

Please note, however, that ONLY CITIZENS AND PERMANENT RESIDENTS enjoy the unconditional right to enter the country. So, your concern is already met in the proposal itself.

I think I see what you're trying to get at now - but it doesn't read that way from what was actually written. Maybe "Citizens and permanent residents of any country may enter that country at any time of their choosing."

Also - with section 2, I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to accomplish with part b. I suspect removal of discrimination, but if it's other issues (such as governmental barring, etc) - I feel there are too many legitimate reasons (many of which have been brought up) that make it so this is not a plausible method. If it's discrimination - we've had WAAAAAY too many of those already.

Article Three:
All governmental authorities are bound to respect the rights under this act.


Good - and it is not unnecessary.....


Article Four:
Prisoners and persons who might cause an immediate and illegal threat to the life, dignity, health or property of others, shall not be protected by this act, BUT only to an extent no greater than is required by the nature and character of the illegal threat or the legal punishment.


Um......people on bail?


Article five:
There shall be no restriction of rights under this Act held by persons serving in the Armed Forces, the Police and other security organizations of the State, nor shall such rights be subject to conditions, except by virtue of a law and to an extent no greater than is required by the nature and character of the service.

I'm assuming that deals with defection issues.....

Thanks to all you good people for your excellent advice.

Here's the final draft:

FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT AND OCCUPATION ACT
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
(Strength: significant)

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY,

ADOPTING the principle that all persons are born free,

RECOGNIZING the value of the human being and the sanctity of human life,

RECOGNIZING ALSO that human beings have different preferences as to where to live or visit and what professional goals to seek in life,

RECALLING UN resolution #26 (the universal bill of rights),

SEEKING TO ADVANCE both the basic human rights and the world market efficiency,

DOES HEREBY DECIDE:

Article One: Freedom of Movement:
a. All persons shall be free to leave their nation state as they please.
b. Every citizen or permanent resident will have the right of entry into their own nation state from abroad.
c. Every person shall have the right to move freely within the nation state's territory, subject to the Law of property.
d. The rights under this article are subject to reasonable restrictions in cases of an immediate and serious health hazard, to an extent no greater than is required by the nature and character of the health hazard.

Article Two: Freedom of Occupation:
a. Every citizen or permanent resident shall be free to engage in any occupation, profession or trade;
b. Where a license is required to engage in an occupation, the right to a license shall not be denied except by virtue of a Law and for reasonable reasons of public peace, health and safety, lack of necessary education or for reasons of the environment, and shall always be subject to judicial review by the nation state's courts.

Article Three:
Prisoners and persons who might pose an immediate and illegal threat to the life, dignity, health or property of others, shall not be protected by this act, BUT only to an extent no greater than is required by the nature and character of the illegal threat or the legal imprisonment.

In this section, "prisoners" shall mean also people on bail or on parole.

Article four:
There shall be no restriction of rights under this Act held by persons serving in the Armed Forces, the Police and other security organizations of the State, nor shall such rights be subject to conditions, EXCEPT by virtue of a Law and to an extent no greater than is required by the nature and character of the service.

Article Five:
a. All governmental authorities shall respect the rights under this act.
b. In a civil litigation, the rights under this act can be reasonably balanced against other people's rights.


any comments?

It would appear that Real Paradise has ceased to exist.

It would appear that Real Paradise has ceased to exist.

How did that happen???

How did that happen???
Don't know. Do you remember what region they were in?

Oh dear, oh dear...

Seems he broke a few rules, including trying to game the UN Cheat Scan. Tsk. Tsk. Tsk. People never learn...

Every person shall have the right to move freely within the nation state's territory, subject to the Law of property.

What about those with property? We need crazy old men with shotguns keepin people off their territory.

:gundge: Oh dear, oh dear...

Seems he broke a few rules, including trying to game the UN Cheat Scan. Tsk. Tsk. Tsk. People never learn...

Knowing the man, I find it hard to believe.

He probably used the faculty computers, that assign the same IP address to all users ...

tough luck. :headbang:

Well, I got the windfall: I'm the new delegate for the "real paradise" region 'cause of that. ;)

The proposal is there anyway, and Rikodovia supports it wholeheartedly.