NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a basic resolution to cover the laws that all countries should have, but often don't.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant/Strong
RECALLING United Nations resolution #26, (The Universal Bill of Rights) wherein all UN citizens are given rights to safety and peace,
BELIEVING that all people everywhere deserve freedom from physical and mental harm wrought upon them by other human beings,
RECOGNISING the need for a universal legal system to ensure that all people may be protected wherever they go within the UN,

THESE UNITED NATIONS HEREBY DECLARE:

DEFINING ‘harm’ as any injury or infection of a person, except where used as medical treatment,
DEFINING ‘damage’ as any alteration to an object that leaves it less able to carry out its function, lessened in value (be it monetary, sentimental or aesthetic), or with some other alteration undesirable to its owner,

1. [1] No person may carry out an action with the intention of harming another person, [2] nor remain inactive with the intention of allowing a person to come to harm.
2. No person may carry out an action with the intention of damaging any property that they do not own, without the full, explicit, informed, uncoerced consent of the owner of said property.
3. Under section 1, clause 2, those forced to cause harm in order to protect themselves or others are hereby exempted form section 1, clause 1 and section 2, provided that:
[1] the harm or damage they cause is outweighed by the harm they prevent
[2] the harm or damage they cause is the absolute minimum necessary
[3] they cause harm or damage only where absolutely necessary

Right to Self-Protection (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8303729&postcount=95).

I think that covers a persons right to protect themselves and others sufficiently.

I don't believe a person should be forced by law to put themselves in danger of harm or death to defend someone else, especially as every situation is different (for example, a large man attacking a small woman, the only other person present is another small woman, who do you think is more likely to walk away?).

Right to Self-Protection (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8303729&postcount=95).

I think that covers a persons right to protect themselves and others sufficiently.

I don't believe a person should be forced by law to put themselves in danger of harm or death to defend someone else, especially as every situation is different (for example, a large man attacking a small woman, the only other person present is another small woman, who do you think is more likely to walk away?).
That's why I worded it the way I did. This resolution does not make it compulsory for people to defend others. It makes it illegal to deliberately let them be harmed. This means that is is ok to remain inactive if you are unable to help, like in your example, but it is not ok to remain inactive because you want the person to get hurt.

Section 3b has been removed because a number of people pointed out that it was already covered by section 3a [1].

While I think my colleague from Pontinia did a good job with this proposal and I agree with the sentiments expressed within it, I'm opposed to it as it stands for the usual national sovereignty reasons. If the DECLARES were to be changed to URGES then I would inclined to support it.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

The Dominion sees this resolution as a good moral code instead of a law - whilst it agrees with it's ethos, there are no exceptions made for the laws of UN nations. Some may have capital punishments (however deplorable) for example which they wouldn't want infringed... although between abiders of the law this is mostly fine, there are several points that are apparently overlooked.

-First, the aforementioned question of laws involving punishment of criminals, penal systems and any legal possession acquisition this may contradict.

-Secondly, as much as I like the fact that this could eliminate "regime changes" in eliminating violence completely, the more militaristic RPing nations that are in the UN will probably not be pleased by this.

-Finally, if these were regarded as being covered by the cussive clause "absolutely necessary", perhaps they should be expressly stated as being included/excluded. It seems with UN resolutions the more pedantic demand longer things and the dominion apologises if this appears as a generically spurious and pedantic inconvenience.

Regards,
TDFP.

Punishments are covered by this resolution. It is necessary to punish criminals to prevent them from re-offending, therefore punishments are classed as 'harm caused to prvent a greater harm', and so are allowed under section 3, clause 1.

I'm troubled by the statement that the UN requires a 'universal legal system' and (like Mr Jones, if I undertand his statement correctly) would prefer to this expressed as more of a statement of principle rather than a binding legal agreement. In addition, the exceptions bring up the troubling issue of measurement, though this is not in itself a strong enough reason for us to oppose. Actually, I wonder if these exceptions are strong enough to preserve the right to revolt? if not, then we will not support.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

The 'right to revolt', as you put it, is preserved, because a revolution is where you remove or replace the government for the greater good (eg, to remove a dictator). If, however, there is a revolution and you end up with a dictator afterwards who has people tortured and stuff, then the revolution has caused harm and those who orchestrated it could be brought to justice.

(This proposal has been re-submitted)

The thing about compulsory defense of others is inconclusive as how would one determine whether or not the person stood aside to deliberately harm someone? I doubt they'd admit it.

With reference to revolutions, these events usually create anarchic periods in which no law rules at all, so this proposal would be completely ignored. I believe we ought to encourage citizens from all nations to protest without making use of violence, which makes us as vile as the government we are seeking to overthrown.
I also think that this is more of a moral code than law, though I completely agree with it.

1) Comine 3.2 and 3.3
2) I don't like it. Between it and Right of Self Protection, there is a wiggle room of zero for nations - unless they disregard Right to Self Protection ('cause I believe it's a recommendation resolution) - which I would oppose.

Regardless, you will see opposition on the following points:
- Capital Punishment. I know you claim 3.1 covers it, but most people will fail to see it. You could add a section to clause 3 where a nation orders you to do such (which also addresses things like....war).
- Gun activists (oh god, prepare for hell on that one) - as a lot of them believe it is their right to remove scum that mug them from the face of the planet - or blast someone through their door for trespassing, etc. There's a reason why no gun bans of any sort have made it to the floor
- Concerns about the police's right to use force (particularly, lethal force). Again, something that probably would be covered under 3.1, but you will see opposition to it anyways

Some may have capital punishments (however deplorable) for example which they wouldn't want infringed

I currently have a resolution to remove the death penalty in the queue of resolutions awaiting a quorum to be reached. If you could help me pass that this point will basically go away.

RECALLING United Nations resolution #26, (The Universal Bill of Rights) wherein all UN citizens are given rights to safety and peace,
Dont! If res 26 is repealed you have no base for your resolution.
BELIEVING that all people everywhere deserve freedom from physical and mental harm wrought upon them by other human beings,
No problems here.
RECOGNISING the need for a universal legal system to ensure that all people may be protected wherever they go within the UN,
The UN do not have an army or police force. This is not something that can be enforced by the UN. Also in my opinion this point is a National Matter.

THESE UNITED NATIONS HEREBY DECLARE:

DEFINING ‘harm’ as any injury or infection of a person, except where used as medical treatment,
Bad governments could theoretically use the Medical part of your proposal to sanction the harm to its people stating it was nessessary medical procedures.
DEFINING ‘damage’ as any alteration to an object that leaves it less able to carry out its function, lessened in value (be it monetary, sentimental or aesthetic), or with some other alteration undesirable to its owner,
Do we really need to define what damage is? it can be readily found in any english dictionary.

1. [1] No person may carry out an action with the intention of harming another person,ok. [2] nor remain inactive with the intention of allowing a person to come to harm.what does this mean??
2. No person may carry out an action with the intention of damaging any property that they do not own, without the full, explicit, informed, uncoerced consent of the owner of said property.Again not a UN Matter. This is a matter for National government
3. Under section 1, clause 2, those forced to cause harm in order to protect themselves or others are hereby exempted form section 1, clause 1 and section 2, provided that:
[1] the harm or damage they cause is outweighed by the harm they prevent
[2] the harm or damage they cause is the absolute minimum necessary
[3] they cause harm or damage only where absolutely necessary
A self defence get out loophole!

Dont! If res 26 is repealed you have no base for your resolution.

It's only a justification of why this resolution should be passed. No component of it applies here as a basis. This resolution will stand on its own

No problems here.

The UN do not have an army or police force. This is not something that can be enforced by the UN. Also in my opinion this point is a National Matter.

Bad governments could theoretically use the Medical part of your proposal to sanction the harm to its people stating it was nessessary medical procedures.

Heh - "he was mentally unstable - as was proven by his refusal to follow the state's orders. We felt that since he wasn't right in the head, we had to 'fix' his head"

Do we really need to define what damage is? it can be readily found in any english dictionary.

ok. what does this mean??

It's basically saying "if you have the power to stop a crime, you need to take the action to stop it" - well, it applies to violence in this case. Frankly, I'm opposed to the entire concept of the "generous bystander" or whatever it's called and I will likely vote against this resolution on those grounds alone

Again not a UN Matter. This is a matter for National government

A self defence get out loophole!