NationStates Jolt Archive

Rights of an Individual
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Rotovia-

Description: UNDERSTANDING: That the fundemental duty of the United Nations is to the people of the nations of which it's members number.

RECOGNISING: That certain states may exploit their governed.

DECLARING: That there are certain rights which shall not be, and cannot be removed from a person and are entitled to them by birth alone.

LET THE FOLLOWING BE DECLARED FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS:

ARTICLE ONE: Whilst a person is born with certain biological advantages and disadvantages, there shall exist no law which discriminates against a person based upon race, religion, gender or creed.

ARTICLE TWO: It is the duty of a government to protect those in it's care, and a special care is required for those less advantaged by life or by birth.

ARTICLE THREE: There should exist no law that forces one person to carry inside their own body the life of another, without their explicit consent.

ARTICLE FOUR:

(i) It is the right of all persons to pursue happiness, freedom and love. There shall exist no law that impedes upon this.

(ii) No person shall use their Rights of Happiness, Freedom and Love to impede upon the rights of another to Peace, Security and Dignity.


ARTICLE FIVE:

(i) The ownership of land by lawful means is the right of every person, the State shall not remove this right without just cause.


(ii) Where in a genuine interest for the welfare of the governed a government chooses to collect by peaceful means the lands belonging to it's governed and share them equally and/or communally. Then it shall be deemed as just cause.


ARTICLE SIX: The State shall respect the Rights of Privacy of it's governed, and shall not trespass upon them, unless to preserve the peace by lawful means where prior cause is shown.

(i) The Rights to Privacy are to be defined as Freedom from unessacary searches, intrusion, surveillance or entrance into private property, as well as all matters which are necessary for the peaceful enjoyment of life.

(ii) Prior cause is to be defined as Habeas Corpus.

ARTICLE SEVEN: Before the law, all persons shall be equal. Courts and Parliaments are treat all persons with fairness and equality, with consideration and compassion to those disadvantaged by birth or by life.

ARTICLE EIGHT: All persons shall be granted freedom to dissent against of the State, if the action of the State does not represent the will of the people.

ARTICLE NINE: The religion, sexuality and beliefs of all people are to be respected by individual and state.

ARTICLE TEN: Whilst this Resolution shall neither Amend nor Repeal previous Rulings by the General Assembly, it shall enforce and support them.

GENERAL DECLARATION: "The duty of a government is to serve and protect the governed"





================Below This Line is the Original Draft=============
Rights of an Individual
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Rotovia-

Description: UNDERSTANDING: That the fundemental duty of the United Nations is to the people of the nations of which it's member number.

RECOGNISING: That certain states may exploit their governed.

DECLARING: That their are certain rights which shall not be, and cannot be removed from a person and are entitled to them by birth alone.

LET THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS BE PASSED INTO LAW:

ARTICLE ONE: Whilst a person is born with certain biological advantages and disatages, there shall excist no law which descriminates against a person based upon race, religion, gender or creed.

ARTICLE TWO: It is the duty of a government to protect those in it's care, a special care is required for less advantaged by life or by birth.

ARTICLE THREE: There should excist no law that forces one person to carry inside their own body the life of another, without their explicit concent.

ARTICLE FOUR: It is the right of all persons to pursue happiness, freedom and love. There shall excist no law that impeeds upon this.

ARTICLE FIVE: The owenership of land by lawfull means is the right of every person, the State shall not remove this right without just cause.

ARTICLE SIX: The State shall respect the Rights of Privacy of it's governed, and shall not trespass upon them, unless to preserve the peace by lawful means where prior cause is shown.

ARTICLE SEVEN: Before the law, all person shall be equal. Courts and Parliaments are treat all persons with fairness and equality.

ARTICLE EIGHT: All person shall be granted freedom to desent against of the State, if the action of the State does not represent the will of the people.

ARTICLE NINE: The religion, sexuality and beliefs of all people are to be respected by individual and state.

ARTICLE TEN: The United Nations shall not seek to pass law restricted the freedoms in this Resolution granted.

GENERAL DECLARATION: "The duty of a government is to serve and protect the governed"

I can't support this while Article 5 is in place, unless you amend it to explicitly acknowledge common ownership, otherwise you create enormous problems for many, many left-wing nations, both libertarian (eg Ecopoeia) and authoritarian.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

You certainly had admirable goals for your proposal, but the fundamental flaw with the proposed bit of natural law is that people are not exactly equal.
The only issue I have with your writing is that you shouldn't treat everyone EQUALLY. Equitably, yes, but treating a man with no legs the same as one with no arms (or one with all limbs intact) presents a few problems.
If you were to say that all people should be treated with absolute respect and given equal opportunity in life (including compensations that might put people on an equal footing with others [pardon the pun on my example]), I could support your proposal.
You can't make everyone equal by treating them exactly the same.

Other than that, it's great!


:D (I know that I'm not a UN Delegate, but I have an opinion, as well!)

ARTICLE THREE: There should excist no law that forces one person to carry inside their own body the life of another, without their explicit concent.
This will be what the third resolution with an article about this in it. You have to first repeal a resolution before you can add or edit it.

ARTICLE FOUR: It is the right of all persons to pursue happiness, freedom and love. There shall excist no law that impeeds upon this.
You need to re-write this!

Why because what if KILLING people is the only thing that gives me "happiness" or what if I "LOVE" little 10 year old kids?

It is the right of "all persons" to do so and "there shall excist no law that impeeds upon" it.

ARTICLE TEN: The United Nations shall not seek to pass law restricted the freedoms in this Resolution granted.

You don't really need this because they can't without killing this first.

I can't support this while Article 5 is in place, unless you amend it to explicitly acknowledge common ownership, otherwise you create enormous problems for many, many left-wing nations, both libertarian (eg Ecopoeia) and authoritarian.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN
I don't see the need. I created the clause for the just removal of title with exemptions like this case in mind.

You certainly had admirable goals for your proposal, but the fundamental flaw with the proposed bit of natural law is that people are not exactly equal.
The only issue I have with your writing is that you shouldn't treat everyone EQUALLY. Equitably, yes, but treating a man with no legs the same as one with no arms (or one with all limbs intact) presents a few problems.
If you were to say that all people should be treated with absolute respect and given equal opportunity in life (including compensations that might put people on an equal footing with others [pardon the pun on my example]), I could support your proposal.
You can't make everyone equal by treating them exactly the same.

Other than that, it's great!


:D (I know that I'm not a UN Delegate, but I have an opinion, as well!)
Good point, however it falls in the face of actually being addressed... twice

ARTICLE ONE: Whilst a person is born with certain biological advantages and disatages, there shall excist no law which descriminates against a person based upon race, religion, gender or creed.

ARTICLE TWO: It is the duty of a government to protect those in it's care, a special care is required for less advantaged by life or by birth.

The Proposal acknowledges advantages and disadvantages that make up all of us, then goes on to require the disadvantaged be protected.

Rights of an Individual
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Rotovia-

Description: UNDERSTANDING: That the fundemental duty of the United Nations is to the people of the nations of which it's member number.

RECOGNISING: That certain states may exploit their governed.

DECLARING: That their are certain rights which shall not be, and cannot be removed from a person and are entitled to them by birth alone.

LET THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS BE PASSED INTO LAW:

*cringes* This is going to get ugly


ARTICLE ONE: Whilst a person is born with certain biological advantages and disatages, there shall excist no law which descriminates against a person based upon race, religion, gender or creed.

Redundant by lie three other resolutions. Cannot do the same thing as what is already done by past resolution.

ARTICLE TWO: It is the duty of a government to protect those in it's care, a special care is required for less advantaged by life or by birth.

I believe this is dealt with by Rights for the disabled (someone correct my if I'm wrong - and please give me the number and correct name)

ARTICLE THREE: There should excist no law that forces one person to carry inside their own body the life of another, without their explicit concent.

Resolution 61 - Legalize Abortion. Lots of debate about it lately. Duplication

ARTICLE FOUR: It is the right of all persons to pursue happiness, freedom and love. There shall excist no law that impeeds upon this.

I shall disagree with Xenoland - you have the right to pursue it, but not act on it if it infringes upon someone else's rights.

ARTICLE FIVE: The owenership of land by lawfull means is the right of every person, the State shall not remove this right without just cause.

Discriminates against communist states. Perhaps the statement should be that no one shall be denied this right if any other person has it. Perhaps also allow (as Ecopedia suggested) for communal and joint ownership

ARTICLE SIX: The State shall respect the Rights of Privacy of it's governed, and shall not trespass upon them, unless to preserve the peace by lawful means where prior cause is shown.

What are these "Rights of Privacy" you speak of? Might wish to explain those - careful not to use House of Cards (which is the closest thing to an argument at this point)

ARTICLE SEVEN: Before the law, all person shall be equal. Courts and Parliaments are treat all persons with fairness and equality.

Dealt with by previous resolutions IIRC (17 and 21 combo?)

ARTICLE EIGHT: All person shall be granted freedom to desent against of the State, if the action of the State does not represent the will of the people.

Resolution 115 - Freedom of Conscious. Just passed by these glorious United Nations

ARTICLE NINE: The religion, sexuality and beliefs of all people are to be respected by individual and state.

Dealt with by (to name a few) Gay Rights (can't remember num), Resolution 19 (Religious freedom), freedom of Conscious, I'm sure there are various others...

ARTICLE TEN: The United Nations shall not seek to pass law restricted the freedoms in this Resolution granted.

Hmm.... I have a thought: change your Lead-in line: "Let the following provisions be passed into law" and change that to "Let the following be declared Fundamental Human Rights". Then set Article Ten apart (So replace "Article Ten:" with "Mandates") and you'll probably get past the duplications. Get a mod ruling on that one, though.

GENERAL DECLARATION: "The duty of a government is to serve and protect the governed"

Well said.

So - if you make that change I just suggested, modified #5, and explained Rights of Privacy (maybe instead work around "states shall respect this right to property and shall not trespass upon a person's property without just cause or consent), I think you'll have a sound resolution.

[snip]This will be what the third resolution with an article about this in it. You have to first repeal a resolution before you can add or edit it.
This Proposal is merely setting out a series of basic rights, it doesn't conflict with previous rulings. But it does support them. Neither does it seek to amend them.


[snip]You need to re-write this!

Why because what if KILLING people is the only thing that gives me "happiness" or what if I "LOVE" little 10 year old kids?

It is the right of "all persons" to do so and "there shall excist no law that impeeds upon" it.That would impeed upon the happiness of the person you killed. As for the love of kids, I'm sure no sane person would assume that is what the Proposal intended.


You don't really need this because they can't without killing this first.I'm aware of this, but I still want the Proposal to carry a certain weight. To be a kind of dogma for the UN. Which is why this Articla was included.

*cringes* This is going to get ugly



Redundant by lie three other resolutions. Cannot do the same thing as what is already done by past resolution.



I believe this is dealt with by Rights for the disabled (someone correct my if I'm wrong - and please give me the number and correct name)



Resolution 61 - Legalize Abortion. Lots of debate about it lately. Duplication



I shall disagree with Xenoland - you have the right to pursue it, but not act on it if it infringes upon someone else's rights.



Discriminates against communist states. Perhaps the statement should be that no one shall be denied this right if any other person has it. Perhaps also allow (as Ecopedia suggested) for communal and joint ownership



What are these "Rights of Privacy" you speak of? Might wish to explain those - careful not to use House of Cards (which is the closest thing to an argument at this point)



Dealt with by previous resolutions IIRC (17 and 21 combo?)



Resolution 115 - Freedom of Conscious. Just passed by these glorious United Nations



Dealt with by (to name a few) Gay Rights (can't remember num), Resolution 19 (Religious freedom), freedom of Conscious, I'm sure there are various others...



Hmm.... I have a thought: change your Lead-in line: "Let the following provisions be passed into law" and change that to "Let the following be declared Fundamental Human Rights". Then set Article Ten apart (So replace "Article Ten:" with "Mandates") and you'll probably get past the duplications. Get a mod ruling on that one, though.



Well said.

So - if you make that change I just suggested, modified #5, and explained Rights of Privacy (maybe instead work around "states shall respect this right to property and shall not trespass upon a person's property without just cause or consent), I think you'll have a sound resolution.
I don't think I can disagree with you here, I conceed to amend the Proposal and resubmit it.

Almost all of the points here are already covered under other resolutions. I could mention them all but the list would be a bit long :).

The most obvious ones are...

Stop privacy intrusion (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029598&postcount=11)
The Universal Bill of Rights (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029642&postcount=27)
Abortion Rights (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030173&postcount=62)

There are a few others that also cover one or more of the points metioned in this proposal. I'm not an expert on proposal legality, but in my opinion you would have to repeal a few (at least) existing resolutions before this one would be unique and not covering whats already UN law.

First Amedned Edition Reposted 4/8/05

Article 6.2 is illegal: House of Cards.....

Ok - I shall take the comment about Universal Bill of Rights seriously and bring it to our attention (the rest are dealt with by the modification I noted)

Recalling the many egregious infringements of human rights,

Recognizing the need to protect basic human rights,

Deploring any acts by government at the sake of human rights,

Determined to put an end to the violation of human rights,

The United Nations shall endorse what will be called the Universal Bill of Rights, the articles of which are as follows:

Yeah, that definately sounds like it's pushing your own list.... I personally would say that so far it doesn't conflict with your own bill (as this one "Endorses" these human rights and therefore guaranteed rights by state, while yours states that they ARE human rights and shall never be refuted by the International community - thin line..... - definate mod ruling required)

Article 1 -- All human beings have the right to choose worship any faith, and to change their religious beliefs at any time without punishment on the part of the state.

Article 2 -- All human beings have the right to express themselves through speech and through the media without any interference.

Article 3 -- All human beings have the right to peacefully assemble.

Article 4 -- All human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation.

Article 5 -- All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment.

Article 6 -- No human beings will be subjected to arrest or exile without an explicit list of their offenses.

Article 7 -- Any arrested person must be assumed innocent until proven guilty.

Article 8 -- A human beings family members cannot be held accountable for the crimes of their relative.

I think you've got two of those - maybe three.

Article 9 -- Any persons who violate any of these articles shall be held accountable by the law.

This is where I feel the major distinction comes in

Article 10 -- The Universal Bill of Rights does not override the existing Bill of Rights of United Nations members. If any of these stated rights do not exist in a member nation, they are herby protected. If any nation has rights that go beyond these universal rights, the Universal Bill of Rights will not remove those rights.

Irrelevant to this list.

I have one idea for possible inclusion after remembering an opponant of the resolution just passed announcing they would exile dissidents after stripping them of their citizenship. I don't think any existing resolution mentions this.

The right to citizenship of the nation of birth. No government should have the right to take a persons citizenship away from them for any reason.

You don't have to include it, its just a suggestion :).

I have one idea for possible inclusion after remembering an opponant of the resolution just passed announcing they would exile dissidents after stripping them of their citizenship. I don't think any existing resolution mentions this.

The right to citizenship of the nation of birth. No government should have the right to take a persons citizenship away from them for any reason.

You don't have to include it, its just a suggestion :).

What if that nation ceases to exist?

It was just a suggestion and came out of a spur of the moment thought. If all bases of that sentence were to be covered, it would prob grow into a proposal of its own....hmm, now thats an idea ;):).

I was thinking about the fact that this resolution has no teeth, and I came up with a possible solution:

"Encourages (or Mandates, depending on how strong you wish to make it) nations to pass laws protecting these rights should these rights not already be protected by previously passed and unrepealed resolutions." Again, you'll want a mod ruling because I'm nervous about duplication here (might have to pull the "unrepealed" part). Thank you to TH and the UNSA for the idea.

I have one idea for possible inclusion after remembering an opponant of the resolution just passed announcing they would exile dissidents after stripping them of their citizenship. I don't think any existing resolution mentions this.

The right to citizenship of the nation of birth. No government should have the right to take a persons citizenship away from them for any reason.

You don't have to include it, its just a suggestion :).
OOC: I like this idea, especially as, with Forgottenlands' comments in mind, it can be neatly tailored to cater specifically for the NSverse (what with nations ceasing to exist, etc).