NationStates Jolt Archive

I have written the following draft (subject to change as it is updated) in an attempt to solidify the protections afforded by other resolitions involving protection of minors. I welcome and encourage all parties to read it, comment, and propose any modifications they feel may be prudent. This proposal is in the draft stage, and has not yet been submitted for approval.

Thank you in advance for your input,
Zeke

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Minimum Age of Majority
Category: Moral Decency
Strength: mild

APPLAUDING past action on the part of the United Nations to protect minors from abuses,

ANTICIPATING the possibility of further international legislation making reference to minors, and

ACKNOWLEDGING that there is currently no universal restriction on what member nations may legally define as the age or other qualifications that must be attained for an individual to reach majority, leaving protective legislation past and future open to circumvention;

BE IT RESOLVED that each United Nations member state and organization must:

1. Nationally define the point at which majority is legally attained by citizens and residents within their jurisdiction, henceforth the age of majority.

2. Set the age of majority as one of the following for each gender and/or species group:
-a. The time at which each individual reaches puberty.
-b. The time at which legally-relevant rite(s) of passage is/are achieved by each individual, provided that the rite(s) of passage are achieved at or following puberty.
-c. Any definate age so long as it is achieved after puberty.
-d. Any definite age not younger than sixteen standard years.

3. Apply the age of majority universally to all areas within its jurisdiction.

4. Legally acknowledge "child," "juvenile," "minor," and all other equivalent terms to mean "younger than the age of majority" and apply this acknowledgement universally to all areas within its jurisdiction except in parts of legal code where an effective United Nations resolution specifically defines such terms otherwise.

5. Universally emancipate all individuals at or older than the age of majority from any legal obligation to obey the directives of equal citizens except where such individuals have agreed to obey such directives in limited or unlimited circumstances as allowed and enforcable by applicible international, national, or regional law.

How is something that restricts rights a "Human Rights" proposal?

Nice. I like it.

How is something that restricts rights a "Human Rights" proposal?
Ahh, you're right. Didn't catch that. :headbang:

How is something that restricts rights a "Human Rights" proposal?
Good question. My reasoning was that it helps to ensure protection for minors under existing laws; which seems very humanitarian. You're the moderator though, and I'd prefer not to submit this thing with an incorrect category. What would you suggest?

Okay, well, I'm going to go with Moral Decency. That's the only other one that seems to fit. Come on people, I need more input.

"Average age of puberty" is a very fluid concept, and is different for males and females. That should probably change.
(And there will undoubtedly be some non-human species on here that doesn't actually go through puberty...)

Originally posted by Stealthmunchkania "Average age of puberty" is a very fluid concept, and is different for males and females.

Also, few age restrictions correspond to the average biological age of puberty. It could be argued that while "average age of puberty" for humans could be anything between 13-15 years of age, most, but not all legal age restrictions are slightly higher.
The question here is of psychological, not biological maturity, which I would argue are related, in part, to social and cultural influences.

The good people of Discordinia support the spirit of the resolution, yet would not support this proposal in its current form.

As the esteemed delegates of Stealthmunchkania and Bernera have pointed out, "puberty" cannot really be defined in terms of a specific age, and perhaps more important is psychological maturity.

We certainly do not believe the NSUN can or should dictate an "age" of majority that all nations must adhere to, but do respect that minors must be afforded protection of laws.

Ergo, you might consider redrafting simply to ensure equal protection of laws for all citizens, regardless of age.

Whether or not that will fly is, of course, another matter.

Cookie I, El Jefe

Ergo, you might consider redrafting simply to ensure equal protection of laws for all citizens, regardless of age.

Now THAT I'd vote for (since it's already in place in Olwe anyway). Another thing: what about nations that don't have a set age, but a biological function that has to take place before a person becomes an adult (first erection, menstrual cycle, whatever)? Will nations like Olwe, where people as young as 10 are declared legal adults because they're pretty well fully developed, be in violation of this proposal?

Stealthmunchkania and Bernera: I know that the whole #2 part is vague, but I'm at a loss for how to make it include different genders and species' in different groups. If anyone could make a wording suggestion, it would be very helpful.

Discordinia: That would go against the point, however. We, too, believe in equal protection of laws, but children are still a special case. For example, U.N. laws exist specifically to prevent putting children to work in the industrial sector and to prevent sexual encounters between minors and those that have attained majority. Obviously, you would not want to forbid adults from working in industry or having sex.

Olwe: No, you will not be in violation. "Age" does not necessarily mean a certain number of years old, it just means the age at which a requirement (such as puberty) is met.

Stealthmunchkania and Bernera: I know that the whole #2 part is vague, but I'm at a loss for how to make it include different genders and species' in different groups. If anyone could make a wording suggestion, it would be very helpful.

I'll think on it -- nonhumans fork up a lot of laws in Olwe that aren't specifically worded to include them, so I might be able to help. *ponders*

Olwe: No, you will not be in violation. "Age" does not necessarily mean a certain number of years old, it just means the age at which a requirement (such as puberty) is met.

Okay. That's good to know. Thanks.

I have written the following draft (subject to change as it is updated) in an attempt to solidify the protections afforded by other resolitions involving protection of minors. I welcome and encourage all parties to read it, comment, and propose any modifications they feel may be prudent. This proposal is in the draft stage, and has not yet been submitted for approval.

Thank you in advance for your input,
Zeke

Shall be a pleasure

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Minimum Age of Majority
Category: Moral Decency
Strength: mild

Hmm.....strength is debatable, but it'll probably be a minor issue if it is an issue.

APPLAUDING past action on the part of the United Nations to protect minors from abuses,

ANTICIPATING the possibility of further international legislation making reference to minors, and

ACKNOWLEDGING that there is currently no universal restriction on what member nations may legally define as the age or other qualifications that must be attained for an individual to reach majority, leaving protective legislation past and future open to circumvention;

BE IT RESOLVED that each United Nations member state and organization must:

1. Nationally define the point at which majority is legally attained by citizens and residents within their jurisdiction, henceforth the age of majority.

2. Set the age of majority at the average age of puberty or older.

3. Apply the age of majority universally to all areas within its jurisdiction.

.....um......I suppose age of majority is vague enough that some areas that I want to grant rights to earlier could be done.

4. Legally acknowledge "child," "juvenile," "minor," and all other equivalent terms to mean "younger than the age of majority" and apply this acknowledgement universally to all areas within its jurisdiction.

*squints* This somewhat feels like an ammendment article.

Hmm.....strength is debatable, but it'll probably be a minor issue if it is an issue.


Terrrrrrrible pun. :p

Forgottenlands: I know it sort of has echoes of an amendment. However, I tried to word it to stay away from that and from making specific reference to other resolutions, since that is illegal by the U.N. rules.

What about nations that perfer to define minors based on psychological development? It seems rather arbitrary to set an age of majority based on averages. Definitions of minor based on age are restrictive whe trying to treat mature "minors" as adults (i.e. trying 17 year olds for murder as adults in the US) and immature "adults" as minors (should a individual who is biologically 30 but due to metal retardation has the mind of a 6 year old be allowed to vote? Do they have the competence to consent to sexual encounters?).

Yes, setting age as the standard is simpler, but I'd urge careful consideration of some alternatives, or simply allow member nations to set policy for themselves.

I've added some options to the second mandate and added a fifth mandate to try to prevent parental abuse of non-minors. IThe fifth one may be a mistake, so let me know what you all think, and keep the recommendations coming. I really appreciate your time.

The Frozen Chosen: I agree, but how do you set up a standard for what constitutes sufficient mental and emotional development? If you leave it up to individual governments, the entire purpose of the resolution is defeated. Anyway, examine the modified mandate number two, part b. It could allow such "maturity tests" as a rite of passage, so long as it isn't achieved before puberty. Does this address your concern?

Discordinia: That would go against the point, however. We, too, believe in equal protection of laws, but children are still a special case. For example, U.N. laws exist specifically to prevent putting children to work in the industrial sector and to prevent sexual encounters between minors and those that have attained majority. Obviously, you would not want to forbid adults from working in industry or having sex.

We understand the importance of protecting minors from being legally abused, but the proposal as worded does nothing whatsoever to protect minors (however defined) beyond existing legislation. Instead, the proposal would only require that the age of majority be set based on certain criteria and that all citizens at the age of majority be legally emancipated. How does that protect minors?

Perhaps we are mistaken as to the goal of this proposal?

In any case, a resolution affording minors (however defined) Equal Protection of laws would in no way restrict the existing rights of adults, and should not prohibit nations from passing laws aimed at protecting minors ... though, admittedly, such a resolution would have to be carefully worded. The good people of Discordinia would be more than happy to work with you on crafting such a resolution.

As it stands, the good people of Discordinia would not support this proposal, and are particularly concerned with the added 5th clause:

5. Universally emancipate all individuals at or older than the age of majority from any legal obligation to obey the directives of equal citizens except where such individuals have agreed to obey such directives in limited or unlimited circumstances as allowed and enforcable by law.

Though we believe the aim of this clause would be to ensure the right of contract between equal parties ... but suggest that this clause both simultaneously upholds and contradicts that right, but might also be interpreted by some nations/citizens to condone absolute lawlessness.

Keep trying, and let us know if you would like assistance with an Equal Protection for Minors proposal.

Discordinia: I believe equal protection of laws is already covered by existing U.N. legislation. The point of Minimum Age of Majority is not to add protections of minors; it is to ensure that resolutions that protect "children," "minors," "juviniles," etcetera are followed, and not circumvented by a nation declaring such terms to apply, say, to people under the age of five. The Child Protection Act only defines minority as "below the age of eighteen years unless, under the law applicable to the minor, majority is attained earlier." Outlaw Pedophilia does venture a "pre-pubescent" definition, but CHILD LABOR does not define "child" at all. It is this lack of definition that I seek to rectify.

The fifth mandate is simply designed to ensure that the termination of protection as a minor is not exceeded by a legal obligation to submit to the will of one's parents or other non-governmental authority; which guards against, say, a parent forcing someone who is technically an adult to marry a particular person or work in a situation they do not wish to. You are right though, "enforcable by law" should be changed to "enforcable by applicible international, national, or regional law." I will make that change.

We here in the Workers Paradise of Quman have manditory military service for all males 13 and up. Does this count for something?

Quman: Um... I don't think there's a U.N. resolution banning child military service, but don't take my word on that. Which isn't to say that I don't think there ought to be.

We here in the Workers Paradise of Quman have manditory military service for all males 13 and up.
No, you don't. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030111&postcount=52)
1. Bans the practise of conscripting or placing children under 16 years of age into national armed services;

Allow me to correct myself, Quman. I see now that you are not a UN member, so I suppose your armed forces can draft anyone they like. I can't imagine why you would want to draft 13 year olds, and certainly no civilized nation would do so.

Mandate four expanded to include exceptions for contradictions in U.N. code. Thanks to Yeldan UN Mission for, intentionally or otherwise, bringing the need for said exceptions up through its posts.

Here's the thing - by the time the girls of Pallatium reach 13, they are pretty much fully developed. They have had a complete education, are capable of having children and capable of thinking for themselves in every way that counts.

So we have an age of majority of 13 (though technically speaking I guess it is 13 + however long it takes to leave school as you are not considered an adult until you finish school) and it works just fine for our wonderful and glorious nation.

So why should we support a proposal that will raise it by three years?

every nation has a way that works for them.

in Kirisubo children pass through 'Gempeku' on their 15th birthday which marks them out as adults. A lot of people marry on their 16th birthdays as well.

Although early marriage is a tradition with us its not compulsory.

The existing resolution covers a rite of passage as the age of consent so lets keep this the way it is.

Pallatium and Kirisubo: The proposal supports both your national definitions of "age of majority;" Pallatium's in 2a/c, Kirisubo's in 2b.

2. Set the age of majority as one of the following for each gender and/or species group:
-a. The time at which each individual reaches puberty.
-b. The time at which legally-relevant rite(s) of passage is/are achieved by each individual, provided that the rite(s) of passage are achieved at or following puberty.
-c. Any definate age so long as it is achieved after puberty.
-d. Any definite age not younger than sixteen standard years.



Do I read this right or can we set the age as we select to so long as it 16 or higher?

In this case we would not support it as we set our ages for such below 16 thus this infringes on our national choice of when to allow a person to become a citizen of our nation.

Thus as a citizen having full Titles and Honors that might go with such. This age for us is 10 males and 12 females based on our national history dating back to the foundation of our nation. As by our history our nation would not be here as a free and stable nation had it not been for so called children rising to defend the nation. Thus we set such ages to honor those who proved in battle their ability to serve this nation...

Allow me to correct myself, Quman. I see now that you are not a UN member, so I suppose your armed forces can draft anyone they like. I can't imagine why you would want to draft 13 year olds, and certainly no civilized nation would do so.


Yes but what if history required so called children to take up arms to defend the nation thus should we not consider them able to hold Titles and Honors given citizens if they have proven they can defend the nation. Our national history shows that males age 10 fought to defend our nation in it's early years as did females at age 12 due to the loss of so called adults to do so. Thus we carry forward that as we grant citizenship to males at 10 and females at 12. Many do not start a family until age 16 but still have rights before that age to do so if they choose to. Our education system also starts at 5 with a basic education until 10 males and 12 females then they enter National Service until 16. This national service is actual entry into the work force in a training status to include military training of at least one year for all.

This setting the age at 16 or higher would put us in violation of it. As we do not force a person to enter military service we do not violate certain resolutions which prohibite that sort of action..

The resolution does not support the majority of sentients that have not reached puberty. We do not deny, nor do we apologize for that. It is the institution of what we see as reasonable standards that we seek to make the proposal at all.

Tşärls Lorĕns
Third Alphin of the Socialist Republic of Xanthal

The resolution does not support the majority of sentients that have not reached puberty. We do not deny, nor do we apologize for that. It is the institution of what we see as reasonable standards that we seek to make the proposal at all.

Tşärls Lorĕns
Third Alphin of the Socialist Republic of Xanthal

So - just to clarify.....

The women of my nation currently reach adulthood when they leave school, at which point they will be 13 years old (at least).

By that time they are capable of living as adults, and having children (past puberty, which generally occurs around 8 or 9) and consenting to be married and to commit to legal undertakings (etc).

So the age of majority, and of consent, in my nation is 13.

According to your proposal I would be able to keep at at that age, as it falls in to subsections (b) and (c), even though it voilates (a) and (d).

So - does the age of majority have to conform to all subsections (a) - (d), or just one of them?

i wouldn't think so.

at long as one point of section 2 is met that is enough since every nation is different.

Correct. As mandate two states, the age of majority must be set as "one of the following for each gender and/or species group."

i wouldn't think so.

at long as one point of section 2 is met that is enough since every nation is different.

That will make everyone in my nation very happy, including my daughter who turns 13 in two months :}

Correct. As mandate two states, the age of majority must be set as "one of the following for each gender and/or species group."

Then on a national basis I have no issue with this proposal - it will not interfere in the lives of my people at all. Plus we have only one gender, so it should make things easier.

However on an international basis, I am not convinced this should be put in to force. Since the UN is made up of a myriad of nations, all of the unique, I am not convinced that it is up to us to decide when adulthood should occur in each nation. The leaders of Hyrule are way better placed to jugde the development of their children than I am, since they live there and I don't.

So, despite the fact it would not impact my nation in a bad way, I can't support such a proposition. Sorry.

What is the point of having legislation that protects children when there is no legislation that says what a child is?

What is the point of having legislation that protects children when there is no legislation that says what a child is?

its a fair point and you have the makings of a sensible proposal. this would also build on the other child related resolutions already in force.

we all recognise that every nation has different customs and practices but i would agree that something is needed to define what a child is even in a general way.

What is the point of having legislation that protects children when there is no legislation that says what a child is?

Because the majority of nations will recognise that there are children, and there are adults, and that there is an age where one changes to the other.

But to enforce an arbitrary age on a nation is the mark of supposed moral superiority on behalf of the enforcee (that would be you in this case, but please don't take this as offence if possible) - that the enforcee believes they know better about when someone is mature than the people who live in that nation. Your morals dictate that it should be when children reach some biological function, with no comment on whether or not they are fully capable of accepting adulthood.

Secondly there are nations where the age of consent is a lot, lot higher than the age of majority. The nation of Hryule, for example, has an age of consent of 27, but an age of adulthood of 16. Children are considered adults when they are legally responsible for themselves, even though they are not permitted to have children or sex until they reach sexual maturity (something that doesn't happen until they are 25, 26).
Your proposal would over turn that and condem children to be children for another 11 years.
Is that acceptable?

Thirdly - this resolution is easy enough to bypass for one obvious reason - you haven't seen fit to define what puberty acutally is. If I wanted to, I could define puberty in my nation as the age when a child starts walking (around six months old).

Fourthly - By defining it at the age children reach puberty (even given a fixed definition) that can cover anywhere from eight or nine up to 17 or 18, and further more every child in the nation could become an adult at a different time. If my second youngest daughter hits puberty at six - bingo - she is an adult. But if she doesn't hit it until she is 29 then that's 16 years of extra childhood she is forced to endure.

Finally - every UN resolution already contains a minimum age or some other kind of "legal definition" of what it covers, so this law is (for want of a better phrase) pointless.


I get what you are trying to do, but it's morally wrong.

Puberty is defined by any dictionary as the age at which a creature is able to sexually reproduce. It does not require independent definition within the proposal.

Puberty is defined by any dictionary as the age at which a creature is able to sexually reproduce. It does not require independent definition within the proposal.

Puberty is defined by YOUR dictionary. Since I am absolute ruler of my nation, I can define puberty however the hell I like.

Puberty is defined by any dictionary as the age at which a creature is able to sexually reproduce. It does not require independent definition within the proposal.

And that's the only one of my points you could contradict?

Matters of percieved morality are not debatable. As for differences between the age of majority and the age of consent, they can be reconciled or, perhaps, divided within the proposal. And trusting nations to set a reasonable age to terminate the protections of childhood? If we believed it were so simple that we could go on faith alone we would not have proposed this resolution. This has no impact on us. We know our legal codes to be adequate and fair. It is out of concern for the citizens of precisely those few nations that would take advantage of this legal loophole to abuse their own citizens that we move for action. Though the effort may be doomed to failure; our morality demands that we try.

Yătzĭl Ämsi
First Alphin of the Socialist Republic of Xanthal

Matters of percieved morality are not debatable. As for differences between the age of majority and the age of consent, they can be reconciled or, perhaps, divided within the proposal. And trusting nations to set a reasonable age to terminate the protections of childhood? If we believed it were so simple that we could go on faith alone we would not have proposed this resolution. This has no impact on us. We know our legal codes to be adequate and fair. It is out of concern for the citizens of precisely those few nations that would take advantage of this legal loophole to abuse their own citizens that we move for action. Though the effort may be doomed to failure; our morality demands that we try.

Yătzĭl Ämsi
First Alphin of the Socialist Republic of Xanthal

And by the same arguement, we believe that we are only capable of governing ourselves. To try to enforce our beliefs on another nation - to say that we know better than they what age their children are capable of decision making and legal adulthood - would be contrary to everything we believe in. Nations are entitled to govern themselves, with in the confines of the UN resolutions, and if they wish to ignore them without breaking them (so to speak) that is their business, and not ours. To say otherwise would be to proclaim ourselves goddesses of the NSUN, which is something our morality dictates we would be foolsih to proclaim.

We disagree. The United Nations should serve and protect the people of its member nations as well as the nations themselves. To be a part of the universal society, some nations must change their legal codes. The Socialist Republic has been compelled to change by the United Nations in the past. It is something any U.N. member should be prepared to accept. Simply because a government wishes to declare its five-year-olds mature and ready for labor and marriage does not justify the action. We are generally libertarian on matters of U.N. legislation, but we feel strongly that young children do deserve and need protection from those that would abuse them, both on the individual and national level.

Yătzĭl Ämsi
First Alphin of the Socialist Republic of Xanthal

"Average age of puberty" is a very fluid concept, and is different for males and females. That should probably change.
(And there will undoubtedly be some non-human species on here that doesn't actually go through puberty...)

Correct, within the Planetary Dominions of the Constitutional Republic, the Pyretikos [read silicates] of Celestus, hatch from their "eggs" as effective "adults"; though the Pithekos [Humans of Thompsonia] and Tekaniou [Tekanians] do have similar concepts of development as you Terra bound humans. And the Kataskeusma [Constructs, or Artificial Intelligence] of course do not have any real normal "course" of development.

We disagree. The United Nations should serve and protect the people of its member nations as well as the nations themselves. To be a part of the universal society, some nations must change their legal codes. The Socialist Republic has been compelled to change by the United Nations in the past. It is something any U.N. member should be prepared to accept. Simply because a government wishes to declare its five-year-olds mature and ready for labor and marriage does not justify the action. We are generally libertarian on matters of U.N. legislation, but we feel strongly that young children do deserve and need protection from those that would abuse them, both on the individual and national level.

Yătzĭl Ämsi
First Alphin of the Socialist Republic of Xanthal

"but we feel strongly that young children do deserve and need protection from those that would abuse them, both on the individual and national level."

So do we. But the definition of young is remarkably subjective. If one race lives for only nine years, they may reach adulthood by the time they are two. Yet if a race lives 2000 years, they may not reach it until they are 50. And yet you want to enforce a standard age on all nations.

Only a minimum standard, and a fluid one at that. Whether through puberty, rite of passage or attainment of a certain age; the Minimum Age of Majority proposal leaves plenty of room for customization of laws to fit each and every species in a nation. Of course it is not perfect, but it is, we believe, the best system to ensure minimum abuse with maximum flexibility.

Yătzĭl Ämsi
First Alphin of the Socialist Republic of Xanthal

Only a minimum standard, and a fluid one at that. Whether through puberty, rite of passage or attainment of a certain age; the Minimum Age of Majority proposal leaves plenty of room for customization of laws to fit each and every species in a nation. Of course it is not perfect, but it is, we believe, the best system to ensure minimum abuse with maximum flexibility.

Yătzĭl Ämsi
First Alphin of the Socialist Republic of Xanthal

I understand your position, but I honestly believe moral judgements about other nations enshrined in UN law is not the right way to go about it.

On this matter we must disagree.

Yătzĭl Ämsi
First Alphin of the Socialist Republic of Xanthal

Bump for further review and commentary.