draft proposal: “Right to Divorce” [Archive]

Love and esterel

14-11-2005, 19:09

Here is the current submitted proposition (the first post of this thread is down)

---------------------------------------------------
Right to Divorce

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Love and esterel

Description: The United Nations,

A – NOTING the positive effects of marriage and the happiness it procures in both those within the marriage and those around the married.

B – NOTING that not all marriages are happy

C – NOTING that many couples in this case have difficulty maintaining a healthy relationship over short periods of time, let alone a life-long relationship.

D – CONCERNED about the health and welfare of both the couple and any children the couple are responsible for

E – ACKNOWLEDGING the potential issues that could result from a possible divorce

F – DEFINING for the purposes of this document a divorce to be the contractual ending of any marriage or equivalent Civil Union recognized by any state

G – DEFINING for the purposes of this document a prenuptial agreement to be any contract signed by both partners before a marriage agreeing to certain terms pertaining to their marriage and/or potential divorce.

H – DEFINING for the purposes of this document a Civil Union to be a legal union between any two people given equal status within the union and granted certain rights by any government.

-1- DECLARES that a marriage or civil union may be ended by divorce in the following cases:
-1.1- Both partners ask for divorce, after 3 month of marriage or civil union
-1.2- One partner request a divorce and it is accepted by the other partner, after 3 month of marriage or civil union
-1.3- One partner requests the divorce due to proven domestic violence issues from the other partner
-1.4- One partner requests the divorce after 1 year of being officially separated
-1.5- One partner repeats a request for a divorce 3 months, or later, after the initial request
-1.6- Any additional scenarios that have been chosen by a more local government as grounds for divorce

-2- DECLARES that each party has the right to employ a lawyer for the divorce proceedings

-3- DECLARES that both parents have the right to continue to regularly see their children after a divorce, except for cases where the divorce was over proven domestic violence or sexual abuse, or if such actions are taken upon either the other parent or any of the shared children after the divorce has taken place

-4- PERMITS parents who have lost the right to see their children for issues listed in [3] be allowed to have this right returned if a court of law feels that said parent is no longer a threat to the child or other parent.

-5- URGES Nations to ensure that their legislation protects both partners and their children in divorce cases by granting financial help for one partner, when a fair solution, in accordance to the prenuptial agreement, can be found in order both partners and children can live with a reasonable financial situation - except in cases where the divorce was over proven domestic violence,

-6- ENCOURAGES all Nations to support organisations/associations providing help to married/divorced persons/couples by anonymous meeting, phone call, internet contact or any other medium that can be arranged

Co-authored by Forgottenlands UN
----------------------------------------------------

The Colony of Forgottenlands UN and The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel would like to introduce a new draft proposal: “Right to Divorce”.

Please, let us know about every ideas, suggestions and critics. We will submit it next week for a first round without campaigning.

Here is the draft:
--------------------------------------------------
Right to Divorce

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed By: Love and esterel

The United Nations,

-A- NOTING the good effects of marriage and the happiness it procures for many people

-B- NOTING that some married people make mistakes in selecting of a partner

-C- NOTING that some married couples have difficulty staying together for extended periods of time - let alone for the rest of their lives

-D- CONCERNED by the futures of children of married couples that do not wish to stay together

-E- CONCERNED about the financial situation of the individuals in the union and the children of that union

-1- DECLARES that the marriage may be ended by divorce in the following cases:
-1.1- Both partners ask for divorce
-1.2- One partner request a divorce and it is accepted by the other partner
-1.3- One partner requests the divorce due to domestic violence issues from the other partner
-1.4- One partner requests the divorce after 1 years of being officially separated
-1.5- One partner repeats a request for a divorce 3 months after the initial request

-2- DECLARES that each party has the right to employ a lawyer for the divorce case

-3- DECLARES that both parents have the right to continue to regularly see their children after a divorce, except for cases where the divorce was over domestic violence

-4- URGES Nations to ensure that their legislation protects both partners and their children in divorce cases by granting financial help for one partner at the expense of the other one, when a fair solution can be found in order both partners and children can live with a reasonable financial situation - except in cases where the divorce was over domestic violence,

-5- ENCOURAGES all Nations to support organisations/associations providing help to married/divorced persons/couples by anonymous meeting, phone call, or internet contact.

Co-authored by Forgottenlands UN
--------------------------------------------------------

Gruenberg

14-11-2005, 19:12

Clause 1 is woefully unclear. What is 'the marriage'? Are the cases exclusive?

Forgottenlands

14-11-2005, 19:31

Clause 1 is woefully unclear. What is 'the marriage'? Are the cases exclusive?

Defining marriage would be....rough. Definition of marriage already has a definition for marriage so to try and define it risks contradicting that definition - and that definition has its flaws that are not necessarily the best to duplicate

Gruenberg

14-11-2005, 19:36

Defining marriage would be....rough. Definition of marriage already has a definition for marriage so to try and define it risks contradicting that definition - and that definition has its flaws that are not necessarily the best to duplicate

Yah, I get that. But you refer to 'the marriage'. Why use the definitive article? Surely 'marriages' or simply 'marriage' would be simpler? With 'the marriage', it implies a prior definition.

Compadria

14-11-2005, 20:28

The Colony of Forgottenlands UN and The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel would like to introduce a new draft proposal: “Right to Divorce”.

Please, let us know about every ideas, suggestions and critics. We will submit it next week for a first round without campaigning.

Here is the draft:
--------------------------------------------------
Right to Divorce

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed By: Love and esterel

The United Nations,

-A- NOTING the good effects of marriage and the happiness it procures for many people

-B- NOTING that some married people make mistakes in selecting of a partner

-C- NOTING that some married couples have difficulty staying together for extended periods of time - let alone for the rest of their lives

-D- CONCERNED by the futures of children of married couples that do not wish to stay together

-E- CONCERNED about the financial situation of the individuals in the union and the children of that union

-1- DECLARES that the marriage may be ended by divorce in the following cases:
-1.1- Both partners ask for divorce
-1.2- One partner request a divorce and it is accepted by the other partner
-1.3- One partner requests the divorce due to domestic violence issues from the other partner
-1.4- One partner requests the divorce after 1 years of being officially separated
-1.5- One partner repeats a request for a divorce 3 months after the initial request

-2- DECLARES that each party has the right to employ a lawyer for the divorce case

-3- DECLARES that both parents have the right to continue to regularly see their children after a divorce, except for cases where the divorce was over domestic violence

-4- URGES Nations to ensure that their legislation protects both partners and their children in divorce cases by granting financial help for one partner at the expense of the other one, when a fair solution can be found in order both partners and children can live with a reasonable financial situation - except in cases where the divorce was over domestic violence,

-5- ENCOURAGES all Nations to support organisations/associations providing help to married/divorced persons/couples by anonymous meeting, phone call, or internet contact.

Co-authored by Forgottenlands UN
--------------------------------------------------------

We do have several concerns about this resolution, in particular the aspects relating to the definition, or lack of it rather, of the term marriage. Equally, what about civil unions? or common law marriages?

We are also concerned about allowing domestic violence as the sole reason for denying access. Surely each case should be judged on a case by case basis? Also, what about other forms of behaviour, i.e. sexual abuse, theft of family assets, etc, would be permitted for blocking access?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Forgottenlands

14-11-2005, 20:41

Gruenburg - that would actually be a mistake, not an intention. Thank you for the comment

We do have several concerns about this resolution, in particular the aspects relating to the definition, or lack of it rather, of the term marriage. Equally, what about civil unions? or common law marriages?

Considering that the jurisdiction of the UN is over governments, not religions, only common law marriages would be affect. Civil unions is a difficult one to address due to the fact that I don't know the limitations of the term civil union.....and how it applies beyond what is traditionally known as a civil union. If you care to advise, it shall be appreciated.

We shall not attempt to define a marriage (for reasons mentioned above), but we may expand the areas that this right is guaranteed to.

We are also concerned about allowing domestic violence as the sole reason for denying access. Surely each case should be judged on a case by case basis? Also, what about other forms of behaviour, i.e. sexual abuse, theft of family assets, etc, would be permitted for blocking access?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

I would actually be tempted to say no to the family assets, and I consider the sexual abuse incident to be a component of violence (though we can explicitly state such a section). Just because that parent has right to see the child doesn't mean that parent has the right to enter the child's permanent residence. Circumstances might be built so that they are only allowed to meet in a public place or that the child spends an afternoon or so a week.

On a side note....perhaps we should append something along the lines of "or makes any intentional attempts (successful or otherwise) to harm any shared child physically, mentally or emotionally."

Pallatium

14-11-2005, 21:06

I would actually be tempted to say no to the family assets, and I consider the sexual abuse incident to be a component of violence (though we can explicitly state such a section). Just because that parent has right to see the child doesn't mean that parent has the right to enter the child's permanent residence. Circumstances might be built so that they are only allowed to meet in a public place or that the child spends an afternoon or so a week.

I would put sexual abuse in specifically - because there are those parents who would argue that violence only extends to hitting people (etc), and not to molesting them, especially if they can get the kid to say that he/she wanted it (I know it's unlikley, but it's not beyond reason)

And honestly, I would argue if a parent sexually abuses their kid, they don't have the right to see them again, ever, until the kid is legally old enough to make that decision for themselves.

But - that's just me. I have no objection to laws that allow other access, as long as I can enforce laws that forbid it totally and utterly.

On a side note....perhaps we should append something along the lines of "or makes any intentional attempts (successful or otherwise) to harm any shared child physically, mentally or emotionally."

By who's definition? The first parent might argue that the second parent refused to give the kid a pony, and that cause the kid really wanted a pony it's tantamount to inflicting emotional damage on the child.

Forgottenlands

14-11-2005, 22:43

I would put sexual abuse in specifically - because there are those parents who would argue that violence only extends to hitting people (etc), and not to molesting them, especially if they can get the kid to say that he/she wanted it (I know it's unlikley, but it's not beyond reason)

Fair enough

And honestly, I would argue if a parent sexually abuses their kid, they don't have the right to see them again, ever, until the kid is legally old enough to make that decision for themselves.

....On a human rights resolution, I'm not going to put a clause where absolutely a right is removed. I've seen proposals deleted for that before, plus I'm not a fan of Moral Decency clauses or proposals at an international level.....in most cases (Common Sense II I somewhat support, with my issue being the quality of the resolution and the limitations it gives itself).

But - that's just me. I have no objection to laws that allow other access, as long as I can enforce laws that forbid it totally and utterly.

Shall be done

By who's definition? The first parent might argue that the second parent refused to give the kid a pony, and that cause the kid really wanted a pony it's tantamount to inflicting emotional damage on the child.

This is true, and I'm having difficulty trying to figure a good scenario for it. My major concern was for issues of abuse AFTER the divorce.

The Lynx Alliance

14-11-2005, 22:54

first question: is this an issue for the UN? i would generally call NS on this, except surrounding one point: violent relationships. if you could re-write it so that it guarenteed for those in a voilent and abusive relationship, there for a harmful situation, can be guarenteed a safeguard thru having a divorce, whilst leaving the amicable style (we dont want to be together) divorces to the discretion, it would be better. i am not a Fundi nation, but thats how they would see it, and i believe it would be better that way

Pallatium

14-11-2005, 23:02

....On a human rights resolution, I'm not going to put a clause where absolutely a right is removed. I've seen proposals deleted for that before, plus I'm not a fan of Moral Decency clauses or proposals at an international level.....in most cases (Common Sense II I somewhat support, with my issue being the quality of the resolution and the limitations it gives itself).

That's fair enough - but if you leave it open to abuse, I can promise you someone (probably me) will say "so the father can force sex on the daughter every night, and still force the courts to give him access? How can you justify that under 'human rights'?"

This is true, and I'm having difficulty trying to figure a good scenario for it. My major concern was for issues of abuse AFTER the divorce.

Fair enough - I obviously missed that :}

Forgottenlands

14-11-2005, 23:16

That's fair enough - but if you leave it open to abuse, I can promise you someone (probably me) will say "so the father can force sex on the daughter every night, and still force the courts to give him access? How can you justify that under 'human rights'?"

Human rights from the UN resolution category perspective (AKA: mechanics) is about governmental impedence of one's rights. As such, that point is moot in terms of scope of the UN. How can I justify that as just? It isn't, and in my nation, I certainly would prevent it.

Forgottenlands

14-11-2005, 23:24

first question: is this an issue for the UN?

Yes. To some extent, I see permanent marriage as having the potential equivelence to slavery - and certainly, there are nations where the slaves have more rights than the women. Add on that currently, arranged marriages are legal in the UN (nor would I try to work against it), this adds to the question of slavery.

i would generally call NS on this,

Not going to change the resolution to deal with NatSov - unless there is an extreme case I'm missing.

except surrounding one point: violent relationships. if you could re-write it so that it guarenteed for those in a voilent and abusive relationship, there for a harmful situation, can be guarenteed a safeguard thru having a divorce, whilst leaving the amicable style (we dont want to be together) divorces to the discretion, it would be better.

As I said before, I don't WANT to put in a moral decency clause into a human rights resolution, but I MIGHT be able to word in a clause that works.

i am not a Fundi nation, but thats how they would see it, and i believe it would be better that way

Believe whatever you want, I don't believe in NatSov, so.....

The Lynx Alliance

14-11-2005, 23:38

whilst we would agree and adopt this resolution, we also respect the cultural and religious laws in other nations. in fact, it could cut straight against UBR

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

in some religions, divorce is not allowed, and some countries base their laws on the religions. unless you take that into account, you will get some stiff opposition. that is why i suggested allowing it for situations where the person is in danger in any way, and leave the amicable splits to be nation governments descion

Forgottenlands

14-11-2005, 23:44

whilst we would agree and adopt this resolution, we also respect the cultural and religious laws in other nations. in fact, it could cut straight against UBR

It doesn't contradict UBR

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

Every citizen is allowed to believe and practice any worship of any faith that they so choose to. They also have the right NOT to practice that belief (hence the change their religious beliefs on the part of the state). The GOVERNMENT has no right to force one religious belief or another on those people. If two people believe in such a religion that does not allow divorce, they still have the full right to choose NOT to have a divorce. THEY, the people, decide and have the right to follow their beliefs, not the government.

in some religions, divorce is not allowed, and some countries base their laws on the religions. unless you take that into account, you will get some stiff opposition. that is why i suggested allowing it for situations where the person is in danger in any way, and leave the amicable splits to be nation governments descion

I'm well aware of that, but it doesn't change my position. In fact, to some degree, it affirms my position. If I see it as a right that should be guaranteed, I don't care what they base their laws on.

(Waits for TEK's voice of dissent)

Pallatium

15-11-2005, 00:00

Human rights from the UN resolution category perspective (AKA: mechanics) is about governmental impedence of one's rights. As such, that point is moot in terms of scope of the UN. How can I justify that as just? It isn't, and in my nation, I certainly would prevent it.

Sorry - you have totally lost me now.

What can't *you* justify?

Forgottenlands

15-11-2005, 00:25

Sorry - you have totally lost me now.

What can't *you* justify?

Letting the father maintain a right of access to the daughter he sexually abused

Pallatium

15-11-2005, 00:39

Letting the father maintain a right of access to the daughter he sexually abused

Oh. That's okay then :} (I thought you were aruging you couldn't justify stopping the father seeing the daughter)

The Eternal Kawaii

15-11-2005, 01:26

Ausserland

15-11-2005, 02:43

We're not entirely convinced that this is a matter on which the NSUN should be legislating, but it's worth serious consideration.

We have serious reservations about the provision on post-divorce access. We believe that the decision on this matter should not be based on the grounds for the divorce. There may be other issues, not involved in obtaining the divorce, which should be considered. We suggest considering something along these lines:

DECLARES that both parents have the right to continue to regularly see their children after a divorce unless the authority granting the divorce determines that this would not be in the best interests of the children.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

Forgottenlands

15-11-2005, 02:52

Forgottenlands

15-11-2005, 02:53

The Lynx Alliance

15-11-2005, 03:53

we agree with the sentiments of The Eternal Kawaii. this does seem to appear as a moral proposal masquerading as a human rights one, and as such we will not support it

Powerhungry Chipmunks

15-11-2005, 14:44

As I said before, I don't WANT to put in a moral decency clause into a human rights resolution, but I MIGHT be able to word in a clause that works.
Just a note, the studies of resolutions I've witnessed actually indicate more of an affinity between human rights resolutions and moral decency resolutions than a binary opposition. I've concluded that the game's distinctions between international security and global disarmament, as well as between human rights and moral decency, are pretty arbitrary--it just depending on how one argues them. So, I'm thinking you might full well be able to "word in a" moral decency clause.

I just think that you should know that I for one see the line between human rights and moral decency as a little more fuzzy than not.

Love and esterel

15-11-2005, 18:59

Just a note, the studies of resolutions I've witnessed actually indicate more of an affinity between human rights resolutions and moral decency resolutions than a binary opposition. I've concluded that the game's distinctions between international security and global disarmament, as well as between human rights and moral decency, are pretty arbitrary--it just depending on how one argues them.

Thanks for your post, I said several times exactly the same thing in this forum, and I’m very happy we share the same point of view on this matter.
My position goes even further as I really think these categories are obsolete and are damaging UN credibility. (as it can be interpreted as the UN thinking, our NS world is a non-complex and blackORwhite world were every issue can be easily categrized, and where issues dealing with Human right have nothing to do with moral decency!)

i fail to see where is a problem for the propostion to be:

-human rights AND moral decency
-global disarmamant AND international security
-human rights AND recreational drugs use AND moral decency
-free trade AND social justice

and so on ...

So, I'm thinking you might full well be able to "word in a" moral decency clause.

We will do what mods tell us in any case; but i really think it's more human right. Divorce is very restricted in some countries, and very often these restrictions violates the basic human rights of women, in real life the nations of Iran or Saudi-Arabia are good examples - i hope nobody will be offended by this

I will take anther example; a friend of mine will marry next month. She and her future husband are faithful Roman Catholics. He was already married and divorced (he and her past wife both asked for divorce), but the Vatican didn't recognize his divorce and the procedure will take a lot of time.
Then he and my friend will be able to get a civil marriage, but they will have to wait few years for their religious marriage (after the recognition of divorce by the Vatican).
I have absolutely nothing against the Vatican in this case; i think it's important that every religion can manage divorce their way. But i think it's also an important human right for people to be able to divorce and marry someone else both on a civil level.

Gruenberg

15-11-2005, 19:33

Right, I know how much time you put into these, but I frankly don't give a shit. If you're going to waste our time on this, you're going to have to justify it fucking well. Not sure the extent to which some of these have been ruled out already, but I'll carry on:
The United Nations,

-1- DECLARES that the marriage may be ended by divorce in the following cases:

You don't define marriage. I know you don't want to, and you don't need to. But if Definition of Marriage is repealed - and, whilst I don't think it will be next week, there's pretty much a repeal in line on this every other day - then you have no basis on which to define it. In any case, you still need to make at least a token stab at it: are you setting down these guidelines for state-recognised marriages, for religion-recognised marriages...what?

You don't define divorce. Yeah, I know it sounds silly. But what constitutes a divorce? For you to waste our time on this, you must be assuming the existence of states where divorce doesn't exist/isn't equitable. In their language of law, then, the very concept may be foreign.

You don't define 'may be ended'. Does this mean the requesting party has the automatic right to divorce? Or that these are the only circumstances where divorce may even be considered by the courts? If it's the latter, then you're making the majority of divorce cases wait a whole year, assuming they can afford to separate. Whatever that means.

-1.1- Both partners ask for divorce

How are you ascertaining this? Given that you haven't bothered to define divorce, what is 'asking for'? You make a distinction between separation and divorce later on...yet at this stage you're not clear on what the request actually entails. And how do we know there is no coercion? I know it appears I'm being pedantic...I'm not. I'm just being a wanker.

-1.2- One partner request a divorce and it is accepted by the other partner

"John, I want a divorce."

"Ok."

"And I get to keep the car."

"Ah..."

What is accepted? The offer of a divorce, or the explicit terms? The latter is almost never going to happen. And again, if you're not defining divorce, not too sure how you can determine the acceptance of a request.

-1.3- One partner requests the divorce due to domestic violence issues from the other partner

Understandable. Is there a burden of proof as to the extent/existence of the violence? And I'm not sure it should be 'from', but 'with'. In fact, I dislike the whole phrase: maybe simply 'owing to abuse'.

-1.4- One partner requests the divorce after 1 years of being officially separated

...once more. You haven't defined separation, yet you afford it the title of 'official'. What? And why '1 years'...'1 year'? Shurely shome mishtake.

-1.5- One partner repeats a request for a divorce 3 months after the initial request

So you're giving a UN-sponsored mandate to waste our court's time. Thanks for that.

-2- DECLARES that each party has the right to employ a lawyer for the divorce case

Fine. However, you may not want to term it 'case', but rather 'proceedings'. The court case itself is often just a fairly small of (very) long divorce proceedings.

-3- DECLARES that both parents have the right to continue to regularly see their children after a divorce, except for cases where the divorce was over domestic violence

Again, I'm not complaining. But aren't you giving states a right to deny both parents access? It would seem better to phrase it specifically such it's clear that the violent parent is denied access, what happens when both parents are violent, and if there's any chance of a reprise (if the parent shows anti-violent progress, for example).

-4- URGES Nations to ensure that their legislation protects both partners and their children in divorce cases by granting financial help for one partner at the expense of the other one, when a fair solution can be found in order both partners and children can live with a reasonable financial situation - except in cases where the divorce was over domestic violence,

I'm sure this section is fine, but it seems to be poorly worded. 'At the expense of' seems unnecessarily harsh. Why include it at all? Of course, if states are required to give financial help, they'll likely take it from the other party: that's just common sense. And what's 'a reasonable financial situation'? Surely you're not suggesting that states which do not have welfare mechanisms should introduce them just for people who can't make a marriage work?

-5- ENCOURAGES all Nations to support organisations/associations providing help to married/divorced persons/couples by anonymous meeting, phone call, or internet contact.

Fair enough.

Just a thought: polygamy isn't banned under UN law, is it? (Guess where it's legal.)

Love and esterel

15-11-2005, 21:24

The Eternal Kawaii

16-11-2005, 02:26

I have absolutely nothing against the Vatican in this case; i think it's important that every religion can manage divorce their way. But i think it's also an important human right for people to be able to divorce and marry someone else both on a civil level.

And here we see where this proposal tramples on national sovereignity. The HOCEK has no distinction between a "religious" marriage and a "civil" one, for the simple reason that We do not distinguish between "religious" and "civil" law. This proposed resolution seeks to subvert the established laws of Our nation, and to what purpose? To "improve" Our peoples' lives?

Are we as a body of NationStates content to let the UN dictate the ways our various peoples marry? Why should we cater to the prejudices of a few?

Forgottenlands

16-11-2005, 05:45

Right, I know how much time you put into these, but I frankly don't give a shit. If you're going to waste our time on this, you're going to have to justify it fucking well.

1) Calm down
2) The more we debate this proposal and discuss it to the nth degree, the better it'll be

Not sure the extent to which some of these have been ruled out already, but I'll carry on:
The United Nations,

Don't think so. Nothing has yet been shown as a contradiction

You don't define marriage. I know you don't want to, and you don't need to. But if Definition of Marriage is repealed - and, whilst I don't think it will be next week, there's pretty much a repeal in line on this every other day - then you have no basis on which to define it. In any case, you still need to make at least a token stab at it: are you setting down these guidelines for state-recognised marriages, for religion-recognised marriages...what?

Whatever the government recognizes as being a "marriage". At this point and time, that recognition is a Internationally defined one. However, after 81 is repealed, the national governments will still have a definition of marriage should they continue to recognize marriages. Certainly, looking into expanding this proposal to cover Civil Unions would be preferable - though it brings its own complexities to the debate.

You don't define divorce. Yeah, I know it sounds silly. But what constitutes a divorce? For you to waste our time on this, you must be assuming the existence of states where divorce doesn't exist/isn't equitable. In their language of law, then, the very concept may be foreign.

The actual wording of the clause you listed says explicitly that the right is to have divorce "end marriage". As such, if a divorce does something other than end marriage, it doesn't grant a guaranteed right to such. However, I shall look into a definition for that (like I said, the longer we debate this, the better it'll be)

You don't define 'may be ended'. Does this mean the requesting party has the automatic right to divorce? Or that these are the only circumstances where divorce may even be considered by the courts? If it's the latter, then you're making the majority of divorce cases wait a whole year, assuming they can afford to separate. Whatever that means.

I'll address the latter later (LAE and I agreed that we're going to allow nations to expand the circumstances upon which to allow divorce beyond this - so this should act more as a baseline rather than anything else. Certainly, there are nations that do believe in forcing couples to attempt to work out their differences for one year before giving up - but that doesn't mean this limitation should be forced upon other nations and it was an oversight on our part).

How are you ascertaining this? Given that you haven't bothered to define divorce, what is 'asking for'? You make a distinction between separation and divorce later on...yet at this stage you're not clear on what the request actually entails. And how do we know there is no coercion? I know it appears I'm being pedantic...I'm not. I'm just being a wanker.

I was here when DLE was still haunting these forums. Yeah this is being a wanker.

Ok - lets put it this way. Marriage is a civil contract - one that is registered with the government. A divorce is the ending of that contract (yes, the latter is undefined). As such, the request must be made to the government by both parties, and obviously the only way to track this is through the bureaucratic process - AKA, 5000 pounds of paperwork. EVERYTHING is in the eyes of the government, so the request must also be in the eyes of the government.

"John, I want a divorce."

"Ok."

"And I get to keep the car."

"Ah..."

Again, eyes of the government, and we do not make mention of how property, etc, is to be divied up. We'll probably leave taht to individual nations to address.

What is accepted? The offer of a divorce, or the explicit terms? The latter is almost never going to happen. And again, if you're not defining divorce, not too sure how you can determine the acceptance of a request.

How do you accept the ending of a contract? By signing a contract that ends the other contract! Again, what's the eyes of the government?

Understandable. Is there a burden of proof as to the extent/existence of the violence? And I'm not sure it should be 'from', but 'with'. In fact, I dislike the whole phrase: maybe simply 'owing to abuse'.

Without question, several levels of editing still need to be done - but thanks for pointing it out (keep 'em coming).

Burden of proof: what is accepted as proof by the government. If you have a better way of giving governments a guideline, that would be great. If not, I'm probably going to leave as-is.

...once more. You haven't defined separation, yet you afford it the title of 'official'. What? And why '1 years'...'1 year'? Shurely shome mishtake.

1 year is actually fairly standard for those that have such a limitation. Others don't even have that limitation.

Anyways, official of course means in the eyes of the government. Defining it should be on the agenda.

So you're giving a UN-sponsored mandate to waste our court's time. Thanks for that.

You're welcome.

Fine. However, you may not want to term it 'case', but rather 'proceedings'. The court case itself is often just a fairly small of (very) long divorce proceedings.

THANK YOU. I was looking for that word

Again, I'm not complaining. But aren't you giving states a right to deny both parents access? It would seem better to phrase it specifically such it's clear that the violent parent is denied access, what happens when both parents are violent, and if there's any chance of a reprise (if the parent shows anti-violent progress, for example).

To the former.....a part of me is thinking "good". If both parents are violent, it might be best for the child not to be raised by either. To the latter, I shall consider that.

I'm sure this section is fine, but it seems to be poorly worded. 'At the expense of' seems unnecessarily harsh. Why include it at all? Of course, if states are required to give financial help, they'll likely take it from the other party: that's just common sense.

Not necessarily, though thinking about it, if the state is going to pay for those expenses instead of the citizen.....might be another "let 'em" clause.

And what's 'a reasonable financial situation'? Surely you're not suggesting that states which do not have welfare mechanisms should introduce them just for people who can't make a marriage work?

It isn't necessarily a welfare mechanism. The concept in reality is more of a "you were expected to be a provider while the other had a different role (often taking care of the children) and it would put an undue burden to automatically tell the person with the different role to be expected to care for his/herself automatically after the divorce". Add on that this is an urged clause, not a mandated clause and your point is moot.

Reasonable is to be decided by the two partners and the courts, and will likely depend on various factors from kids to societal living standards to financial situation of the couple before the divorce etc.

Fair enough.

Just a thought: polygamy isn't banned under UN law, is it? (Guess where it's legal.)

Still the ending of a marriage, but we'll deal with that when we deal with issues of defining divorce.

Forgottenlands

16-11-2005, 05:47

Flibbleites

16-11-2005, 06:02

Forgottenlands

16-11-2005, 06:08

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites cannot support this proposal simply because we cannot guarantee our citizens the right to get a divorce, when we are not involved with marriages in any way, shape or form.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Considering that this has no effect upon non-civil marriages, we encourage you to abstain as it should not have an effect upon your people.

Love and esterel

16-11-2005, 16:07

[The HOCEK NSUN Nuncio approaches the podium, a frown on his normally cheerful face. He fumbles with a few sheets of paper, and begins addressing the assembly.]

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii (may the Cute One be praised.)

Esteemed delegates and representatives: It is with sadness that We once again appear before you to denounce the forces of bigotry that defame this valued institution. We refer to this so-called "human rights" proposal, which is in fact nothing more than a bare-faced attempt to impose the morals of a particular NationState upon us all. Once again Our nation finds its laws and customs under attack, without cause or justification.

For the benefit of those who were not present during the last time the issue of family law was addressed here (and by this We mean the recently passed Adoption Rights resolution) We state again that Our nation has a well-defined and established law regarding marriage and divorce. Unique yes, but fitted for the needs of Our nation's culture and society.

Under the HOCEK family law, marriage in Our nation is not defined as a private, contractural union between individuals as is assumed under this proposal. Rather, it is a public contract between those individuals, their respective families, and Kawaiian society at large. This proposal, however, by ignoring the public nature of the HOCEK marriage contract, would do away with that just and fair arrangement, and replace it with an arrangement based solely on the prejudices of the proposing nation.

Ladies, gentlemen, representatives and delegates all--We ask: By what moral right does the proposing nation have to force Our people to accept their morals, their attitudes about the most central feature of Our society?

We urge you all--if you value your nation's way of life, please vote down this misbegotten proposal.

[Vigdís Tirfinnbogadót had been interested by the unique social specificities of The Eternal Kawaii, as soon as she first hear of the HOCEK, when the UN was debating the “Sex Education Act”. She had a PhD in philosophy and before being a politician, she was a philosophy teacher at a well-known university. It was her who appointed an ambassador in HOCEK and who asked him to write the now famous “Eternal Kawaii Stunning Social Life Weekly Report”.

She had also worked with Pazu-Lenny Nero and the Forgottenlands UN Ambassador on the draft of “Right to divorce”.

She was in her garden with her very young children when she received the transcripted speech of the nuncio to the UN of the Eternal Kawaii, forwarded by the ambassador; then she answered the Nuncio by e-mail using her BlackBerry 8700c Wireless Handheld.]

Cute people of HOCEK,
Cute Nuncio to the UN of the Holy Otaku Church of the Eternal Kawaii,

I read your last speech about our “Right to Divorce” draft proposal.
And once again I want to say that I’m somehow disturbed. You know my profound interest in HOCEK special social life and also how much I value Love, compation, family and marriage which are essential value in the teaching of HOCEK.

Even if divorce is maybe not needed in the Eternal kawaii, due to your progressive education; sadly, in many countries the restrictions on divorce mean human right are restricted as many women (but not only) are oppressed by their partner. Sometimes also both partners will be able to live a more happy life if they can marry someone else, as everyday life in our world is not always easy and once again sadly the human brain is not run 100% by love and compation.

I’m almost pretty sure that due to the progressive education in the Eternal Kawaii, the number of divorce in HOCEK will be very low even if our proposition passes. So maybe it’s a good opportunity for HOCEK to show the world that the low rate of divorce in HOCEK is not the consequence of its interdiction but the consequence of your progressive education.

Then I will be pleased you approve our proposition and help us to write it in a better way, in order to help all of these persons in despair outside of the Eternal Kawaii, seeking for an impossible divorce.

I also hope you noticed our paragraph -5- which encourages association helping persons and couples who feel difficulties about their marriage and want to speak to someone anonymously in order to give more chance to their marriage

Thank you for your time.

Kisses
Vigdís Tirfinnbogadót: Vice-President and co-founder of the Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel

New Poitiers

16-11-2005, 17:30

The Colony of Forgottenlands UN and The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel would like to introduce a new draft proposal: “Right to Divorce”.

Please, let us know about every ideas, suggestions and critics. We will submit it next week for a first round without campaigning.

Here is the draft:
--------------------------------------------------
Right to Divorce

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed By: Love and esterel

The United Nations,

-A- NOTING the good effects of marriage and the happiness it procures for many people

-B- NOTING that some married people make mistakes in selecting of a partner

-C- NOTING that some married couples have difficulty staying together for extended periods of time - let alone for the rest of their lives

-D- CONCERNED by the futures of children of married couples that do not wish to stay together

-E- CONCERNED about the financial situation of the individuals in the union and the children of that union

-1- DECLARES that the marriage may be ended by divorce in the following cases:
-1.1- Both partners ask for divorce
-1.2- One partner request a divorce and it is accepted by the other partner
-1.3- One partner requests the divorce due to domestic violence issues from the other partner
-1.4- One partner requests the divorce after 1 years of being officially separated
-1.5- One partner repeats a request for a divorce 3 months after the initial request

-2- DECLARES that each party has the right to employ a lawyer for the divorce case

-3- DECLARES that both parents have the right to continue to regularly see their children after a divorce, except for cases where the divorce was over domestic violence

-4- URGES Nations to ensure that their legislation protects both partners and their children in divorce cases by granting financial help for one partner at the expense of the other one, when a fair solution can be found in order both partners and children can live with a reasonable financial situation - except in cases where the divorce was over domestic violence,

-5- ENCOURAGES all Nations to support organisations/associations providing help to married/divorced persons/couples by anonymous meeting, phone call, or internet contact.

Co-authored by Forgottenlands UN
--------------------------------------------------------

Ah, marriage and divorce. Such a hotbed of discussion in our parliaments.

Our current divorce rate stands at an all-time low of around 6%, as we encourage a stand of one-marriage beliefs (i.e you find a person, and when you marry them, you stay with them no matter what). However, there are still a few thousand divorces each year in New Poitiers. The problem is that with our divorce rate being so low, any resolution passed in that people have a right to divorce, may cause a slight rise in the divorce rate. However, as this has no direct effect on our economy, and would further increase the civil rights of the people of New Poitiers, we hereby would support this resolution if it were to reach the voting stage.

Just one thing though: although there are no laws in our country surrounding divorce (a reason why the rate is so low) surely this could be dealt with on a national level as opposed to an international level? Otherwise a good proposal:D

Gruenberg

17-11-2005, 22:15

Forgottenlord is too many letters. Hope you don't object.

Whatever the government recognizes as being a "marriage". At this point and time, that recognition is a Internationally defined one. However, after 81 is repealed, the national governments will still have a definition of marriage should they continue to recognize marriages. Certainly, looking into expanding this proposal to cover Civil Unions would be preferable - though it brings its own complexities to the debate.

Ok. However, Definition of Marriage isn't explicit enough to be the basis for marriage law. It must be incorporated into it...but the individual legal bodies still have to do a lot of work on it. That means that any proposal based on marriage needs to be explicit about what it is covering. I'm not asking you to define marriage for the purposes of marriage, but I am asking you to draw the line over where your proposal starts and stops. As you seem to be arguing, this simply covers marriage as a legal contract; as such, do you need to make explicit that religions are not required to recognise divorces?

I'll address the latter later (LAE and I agreed that we're going to allow nations to expand the circumstances upon which to allow divorce beyond this - so this should act more as a baseline rather than anything else. Certainly, there are nations that do believe in forcing couples to attempt to work out their differences for one year before giving up - but that doesn't mean this limitation should be forced upon other nations and it was an oversight on our part).

(and previous point, which I just deleted by accident)

Ok. But a legal contract is usually quite complex, especially when one introduces ideas like pre-nups. "Ending the contract" may involve being compensation for violated terms. And some pre-nups have stipulations about the marriage lasting, say, 5 years, often when gold-diggers marry old men, to avoid problems of grab-and-run divorces. Because your proposal is introducing the means for such a divorce, it seems as though the potential for abuse is creeping in.

These probably aren't problems, so long as you leave it explicitly and solely to national judiciaries, though.

Ok - lets put it this way. Marriage is a civil contract - one that is registered with the government. A divorce is the ending of that contract (yes, the latter is undefined). As such, the request must be made to the government by both parties, and obviously the only way to track this is through the bureaucratic process - AKA, 5000 pounds of paperwork. EVERYTHING is in the eyes of the government, so the request must also be in the eyes of the government.

Right, but you start off talking about marriage as involving 'love'. This implies this extends to purely 'love marriages', which may not necessarily be state-recognised. But, I guess that doesn't matter. More a problem is how one lodges one's request. Let's say a woman is subject to domestic violence. She could get a divorce. But she's barely allowed out of the house, she's illiterate, has few friends or close relatives, and no understanding of how government works. Throw in a tradition of obedience, add a little dash of Stockholm Syndrome, and however fucking terrified she is, she is almost certainly not going to get a divorce. Now, I know you'll argue that you're at least giving her the right...but you're basing that right on a false premise, which is that domestic violence sufferers will automatically report and request.

Again, eyes of the government, and we do not make mention of how property, etc, is to be divied up. We'll probably leave taht to individual nations to address.

Good.

How do you accept the ending of a contract? By signing a contract that ends the other contract! Again, what's the eyes of the government?

As I've stated, ending a contract can be hard, especially when there are various parts to it. You are not, I assume, giving a blank sheet to allow partners to renege on pre-nuptial agreements.

Burden of proof: what is accepted as proof by the government. If you have a better way of giving governments a guideline, that would be great. If not, I'm probably going to leave as-is.

No, I suppose I don't. You're better leaving it as it is.

1 year is actually fairly standard for those that have such a limitation. Others don't even have that limitation.

I think you missed my point. I wasn't criticising...I was pointing out the grammatical error. "1 years."

Anyways, official of course means in the eyes of the government. Defining it should be on the agenda.

Yes. Particularly given I don't see you wanting to force religions/other bodies to recognise it.

You're welcome.

I'm serious. There has to be some check to people's ability to continually reapply.

To the former.....a part of me is thinking "good". If both parents are violent, it might be best for the child not to be raised by either. To the latter, I shall consider that.

Please do. I'm not sure you should deny lifetime access to a child to someone who is capable of showing rehabilitation.

Not necessarily, though thinking about it, if the state is going to pay for those expenses instead of the citizen.....might be another "let 'em" clause.

That was my point. If a government wants to (in my opinion) waste its money on this, it should probably be able to.

It isn't necessarily a welfare mechanism. The concept in reality is more of a "you were expected to be a provider while the other had a different role (often taking care of the children) and it would put an undue burden to automatically tell the person with the different role to be expected to care for his/herself automatically after the divorce". Add on that this is an urged clause, not a mandated clause and your point is moot.

Reasonable is to be decided by the two partners and the courts, and will likely depend on various factors from kids to societal living standards to financial situation of the couple before the divorce etc.

Ok, I hadn't noticed the optionality. Sorry.

Still the ending of a marriage, but we'll deal with that when we deal with issues of defining divorce.

Ok.

----

I'm coming round to the idea of this in one way: I think Ecopoeia said something along the lines of "as we do have a Definition of Marriage, we could do with a definition of divorce". Of course, I'd prefer a repeal-replacement...but that's a big job. And, I appreciate it's annoying for me to whine about definitions without offering any. But I do feel that the means for ending marriages, the affect on pre-nuptials, and the mechanics of the idea, are important, and at present, I'm not sure it's clear enough.

Intellect and the Arts

18-11-2005, 01:12

Why don't we just avoid all the gobbledeegook by saying that the term "divorce" shall be defined by each nation as they see fit? Those nations that currently allow divorce will already have a definition in place, and they should be allowed to retain those definitions, especially since various religions also have their own definitions of divorce. All nations not currently posessing a definition of divorce will have the opportunity to do so in their own way. In this manner, we keep ourselves from appearing to be too intrusive into the rights of those whose beliefs and/or values may be unintentionally infringed upon if we were to come up with a definition of our own.

Republisheepia

18-11-2005, 03:42

The problem with this, and almost every other UN resolution in this game, is that this is an issue for a federal level. The UN doesn't mandate micromanagement that's supposed to be up to other countries, or at least it shouldn't.

The Eternal Kawaii

18-11-2005, 05:45

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii (may the Cute One be praised)

To Vigdís Tirfinnbogadót,
Vice-President and co-founder of the Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel

Most Esteemed Vice-President:

We have received your missive on the issue of the draft proposal, "Right to Divorce". We gratefully acknowledge your request for the HOCEK Conclave of Friendship's assistance in refining this draft. Since the issue of marriage and divorce is one of canon law, we forwarded your request to the HOCEK Conclave of Wisdom for their ruling on the constitutionality of such cooperation.

Sadly, the Conclave of Friendship must decline your request. The Conclave of Wisdom's ruling on this matter was unambiguous: cooperative discussion with a foreign power on legislation that would modify HOCEK canon law is considered heresy.

With regret, we must conclude that this draft resolution is an unsalvagable attack upon the sovereign right of nations to regulate the institution of marriage within their borders. We thus urge you as a matter of good relations to abandon this proposal.

Your humble servants,
Commission of VIP Affairs,
Conclave of Friendship,
HOCEK (mtCObp)

Forgottenlands

18-11-2005, 20:50

Ok, I'm going to be doing a redraft this weekend - Gruen, I'll add prenups (sorta) and rehabilitation to the list of things to fix.

James_xenoland

19-11-2005, 19:37

Ok, I'm going to be doing a redraft this weekend - Gruen, I'll add prenups (sorta) and rehabilitation to the list of things to fix.
Not that we agree with this proposal or anything but we have to ask. What about infidelity as a reason for divorce?

The nation of James_xenoland's divorce laws couldn't really be called easy, but even we have such laws when it comes to infidelity and divorce.

Forgottenlands

19-11-2005, 19:46

Not that we agree with this proposal or anything but we have to ask. What about infidelity as a reason for divorce?

The nation of James_xenoland's divorce laws couldn't really be called easy, but even we have such laws when it comes to infidelity and divorce.

I am not sure about this one. Certainly, the next draft will allow nations to have wider ranging reasons for divorce (including infidelity), but I can certainly think of a few reasons why a nation may NOT wish to choose such a position over, say, the 3 month/1 year clause.

Forgottenlands

25-11-2005, 00:55

Draft 2:

Right to divorce
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

The United Nations,

A – NOTING that/those? positive effects of marriage and the happiness it procures in both those within the marriage and those around the married.

B – NOTING that not all marriages are happy

C – NOTING that many couples in this case have difficulty maintaining a healthy relationship over short periods of time, let alone a life-long relationship.

D – CONCERNED about the health and welfare of both the couple and any children the couple are responsible for

E – ACKNOWLEDGING the potential issues that could result from a possible divorce

F – DEFINING for the purposes of this document a divorce to be the contractual ending of any marriage or equivalent Civil Union recognized by any state

G – DEFINING for the purposes of this document a prenuptial agreement to be any contract signed by both partners before a marriage agreeing to certain terms pertaining to their marriage and/or potential divorce.

H – DEFINING for the purposes of this document a Civil Union to be a legal union between any two people given equal status within the union and granted certain rights by any government.

-1- DECLARES that a marriage or civil union may be ended by divorce in the following cases:
-1.1- Both partners ask for divorce, after 3 month of marriage of civil union
-1.2- One partner request a divorce and it is accepted by the other partner, after 3 month of marriage of civil union
-1.3- One partner requests the divorce due to domestic violence issues from the other partner
-1.4- One partner requests the divorce after 1 year of being officially separated
-1.5- One partner repeats a request for a divorce 3 months after the initial request
-1.6- Any additional scenarios that have been chosen by a more local government as grounds for divorce

-2- DECLARES that each party has the right to employ a lawyer for the divorce proceedings

-3- DECLARES that both parents have the right to continue to regularly see their children after a divorce, except for cases where the divorce was over domestic violence or sexual abuse, or if such actions are taken upon either the other parent or any of the shared children after the divorce has taken place

-4- PERMITS parents who have lost the right to see their children for issues listed in [3] be allowed to have this right returned if a court of law feels that said parent is no longer a threat to the child or other parent.

-5- URGES Nations to ensure that their legislation protects both partners and their children in divorce cases by granting financial help for one partner, when a fair solution, in accordance to the prenuptial agreement, can be found in order both partners and children can live with a reasonable financial situation - except in cases where the divorce was over domestic violence,

-6- ENCOURAGES all Nations to support organisations/associations providing help to married/divorced persons/couples by anonymous meeting, phone call, or internet contact.

Co-authored by Forgottenlands UN / Love and esterel

---------------------------------
We decided not to have prenups have overriding ability. LAE was concerned about it and when I thought about it, I realized it was a stupid idea. If there's a gold-digger issue, have the prenup say that any divorce within 5 years means she's entitled to nothing.

Pallatium

25-11-2005, 01:10

I entirely approve (except I am not a delegate, so it doesn't really matter all that much)

Optischer

26-11-2005, 00:01

Divorce should be allowed, but maybe less restrictive conditions must be taken. I advise the Author to revise, edit and rewrite the proposition, so as to represent popular and unpopular ideas.

Yelda

26-11-2005, 00:05

I advise the Author to revise, edit and rewrite the proposition, so as to represent popular and unpopular ideas.
Would you elaborate on what these "popular & unpopular ideas" might be?

Optischer

26-11-2005, 00:10

The popular and unpopular ideas are those what the people do not like and do like in majorities.
Optischer
P.s. Yelda, check your telegrams. Ileft a little something for you.

Yelda

26-11-2005, 00:23

The popular and unpopular ideas are those what the people do not like and do like in majorities.
Optischer
I was expecting something a bit more detailed than that.
P.s. Yelda, check your telegrams. Ileft a little something for you.
I responded.

Love and esterel

26-11-2005, 00:26

Divorce should be allowed, but maybe less restrictive conditions must be taken. I advise the Author to revise, edit and rewrite the proposition, so as to represent popular and unpopular ideas.

Thanks for your post, we tried to declare what seemed to us basic/essential conditions for divorce and let nations have more if they want in 1.6:

-1.6- Any additional scenarios that have been chosen by a more local government as grounds for divorce

We could have said only: -1- DECLARES that a marriage or civil union may be ended by divorce when one partner request it.

We will listen to all critics, and will make some change if it appears that 1.1 to 1.5 are useless but it's not our intention to transform 30 000 nations into Las Vegas

in 1.1 and 1.2: the 3 months (even if not a lot) can be better than nothing for nations whith immigration concerns about arranged marriages

our thought in 1.5 was for concerns about people asking divorce on impulse and eventually regretting it latter

So of course 1.1, 1.2 and 1.5 are resrictions, but we are thinking they are very reasonable, don't violate human rights; and furthermore they are not mandatory for nations

Kirisubo

26-11-2005, 00:32

Love and esterel

26-11-2005, 00:41

a nation has the right to create its own laws and to defend them.

It's the eternal debate, i think nation have also the right to grant their people human rights. natsovVSpeoplesov ;)

a compromise could be a 'civil separation' clause that would allow a couple to separate, have custody of children etc in the same way as a divorce would work if their nation had banned divorces.

Thanks it's a good idea, but i will use again a RL example i already used in this thread to answer you:

a friend of mine will marry next month. She and her future husband are faithful Roman Catholics. He was already married and divorced (he and her past wife both asked for divorce), but the Vatican didn't recognize his divorce and the procedure will take a lot of time.
Then he and my friend will be able to get a civil marriage, but they will have to wait few years for their religious marriage (after the recognition of divorce by the Vatican).
I have absolutely nothing against the Vatican in this case; i think it's important that every religion can manage divorce their way. But i think it's also an important human right for people to be able to divorce and marry someone else both on a civil level.

Hotlicks Wobblespot

26-11-2005, 01:11

So the basis of this resolution is to create a way for the NSUN to control marriages and divorces. Whether I agree or not with other country's methods of marriage or divorce, the UN has no place there.

This is obviously an attack against those governments that are religious in nature and do not recognise divorce or make it more difficult to divorce.

I must agree with the nation of The Eternal Kawaii, there is no need for the UN to be involved here in the state's method of marriage and divorce.

Perhaps it is time for some of our illustrious members to focus more on what is happening in their own country then trying to force others to change.

Love and esterel

26-11-2005, 01:25

This is obviously an attack against those governments that are religious in nature and do not recognise divorce or make it more difficult to divorce.

Are you sure that's it's not those governments laws which are attacks against peoplesov, in case of domestic violence, non-happy marriage or difficulty of maintaining a healthy relationship

Hotlicks Wobblespot

26-11-2005, 05:07

Are you sure that's it's not those governments laws which are attacks against peoplesov, in case of domestic violence, non-happy marriage or difficulty of maintaining a healthy relationship

It may well be, it is just that you have to understand a law like this will not only affect the countries that are like that, but also countries like mine. We do not have the same rules for marriages or divorces that other countries have, yet we would be forced to abide by these silly rules.

Let's face it, it is the proposer's way of forcing the legitimacy of their way of life on others. That is morally and socially wrong.

Gruenberg

26-11-2005, 13:33

It may well be, it is just that you have to understand a law like this will not only affect the countries that are like that, but also countries like mine. We do not have the same rules for marriages or divorces that other countries have, yet we would be forced to abide by these silly rules.

Let's face it, it is the proposer's way of forcing the legitimacy of their way of life on others. That is morally and socially wrong.

Welcome to the UN.

Hotlicks Wobblespot

26-11-2005, 18:56

Welcome to the UN.

So tell me this, why is the UN so fascinated with imposing traditional judeo-christian morals on the rest of the world?

This divorce resolution, the request to ban drugs, these are both blatant attempts to foist their beliefs on the rest of the world.

What I really want to know, is if this is passed, why would I want to make it tougher to get a divorce?

Please don't tell me there already is a resolution determining how marriages are arranged.

Love and esterel

26-11-2005, 19:37

So tell me this, why is the UN so fascinated with imposing traditional judeo-christian morals on the rest of the world?

This divorce resolution, the request to ban drugs, these are both blatant attempts to foist their beliefs on the rest of the world.

What I really want to know, is if this is passed, why would I want to make it tougher to get a divorce?

Please don't tell me there already is a resolution determining how marriages are arranged.

No sure of what you mean and what you reproach to the text of the proposition.
if you find our text to much restrctive, your nation will not have to, because of-1.6-

For your information, our text is close to RL legislation in Sweden and Finland where -1.5- = 6 months.

Forgottenlands

26-11-2005, 21:36

Divorce should be allowed, but maybe less restrictive conditions must be taken. I advise the Author to revise, edit and rewrite the proposition, so as to represent popular and unpopular ideas.

If any nation wishes to grant the right to divorce under ALL cases where either partner asks, or any other arbitrary situation ("The heavens openned their hearts and thus you are permitted to request a divorce"), that nation is permitted to. Those 5 listed are the BARE MINIMUM situations that must be permitted as grounds for divorce by any nation within the UN (should this resolution pass).

Hotlicks Wobblespot

26-11-2005, 21:50

No sure of what you mean and what you reproach to the text of the proposition.
if you find our text to much restrctive, your nation will not have to, because of-1.6-

For your information, our text is close to RL legislation in Sweden and Finland where -1.5- = 6 months.

I will make it simple, why is the UN getting involved in divorces?

Why is the UN trying to force me to spend money in importing or training lawyers (we don't allow lawyers in Hotlicks Wobblepsot)?

Why is the UN so bothered about what happens in the marriages of individuals? Are the people in other countries so lacking in responsibility that the UN must legislate how a divorce occurs?

Maybe it is time to cut loose the apron strings and let individuals take some responsibility for their actions.

I look around and see wars erupting between countries and the UN is pre-occupying itself with this?

I see the UN is currently trying to make the world a socialist paradise, and I see no need for it.

Sorry, I was getting a bit preachy there

OOC
Sweden and Finland are NOT the models I want to use for the UN, or my own country.

Forgottenlands

26-11-2005, 21:57

i can agree with most of this proposal.

With arranged marriages very common in my own country, the right to a divorce has been around for a long time. its seen as a practical neccesity since all mariages don't end up as happy ever after stories.

in fact this issue stopped Christianity from really taking root in Kirisubo.

however not all nations share our viewpoint.

in a nation where its ruled by a religiously minded government or one religion has a strong hold over the people this proposal would go down like a lead balloon. in most cases these nations would look dimly on a UN proposal trying to set up divorce laws.

looking at the flip side of this, if a proposal was put forward that tried to ban divorce wouldn't most nations want to stop it in its tracks. quite rightly they would want to defend their national rights.

the same goes for this proposal. a nation has the right to create its own laws and to defend them.

a compromise could be a 'civil separation' clause that would allow a couple to separate, have custody of children etc in the same way as a divorce would work if their nation had banned divorces.

I believe that no nation has any more right to create or control its own laws than a province/state/county/city/etc has a right to create and control its own laws. Nor shall I compromise on the issue in the manner you suggested.

To tie one to a marriage that they cannot leave I would consider akin to tieing a slave to a master that they cannot leave. I do not believe anything should be made without the ability to repair a past mistake in the future. If you have a "civil separation" as the compromise, if the nation does not permit more than one marriage, than a mistake in marrying the wrong person the first time means that this person may never marry the right person.

In addition, most marriages come with them a set of rights that are founded in the trust of one's partner (eg: the right to make decisions for the other if the other is otherwise incapacitated) - but if you have lost trust in that person, to not be able to end the marriage means that you can never reclaim those rights.

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

So the basis of this resolution is to create a way for the NSUN to control marriages and divorces. Whether I agree or not with other country's methods of marriage or divorce, the UN has no place there.

We control nothing. The decisions pertaining to marriage and divorce and what rights they entail, what procedures are required, what documentation is necessary, what must be agreed upon, and many other aspects are left to the individual nations. In addition, we are not dealing with marriage in this resolution, merely divorce. Several other resolutions (12 and 81 amongst others) deal with marriage.

This is obviously an attack against those governments that are religious in nature and do not recognise divorce or make it more difficult to divorce.

It is not our intention to attack them, but I admit they will probably have the greatest change in their laws from this resolution. This is a belief that these rights should be granted to every living citizen of every nation - whether the government believes in them or not is irrelevant. If the citizen believes in it, I DO NOT BELIEVE the government has ANY RIGHT to tell them otherwise

I must agree with the nation of The Eternal Kawaii, there is no need for the UN to be involved here in the state's method of marriage and divorce.

Perhaps it is time for some of our illustrious members to focus more on what is happening in their own country then trying to force others to change.

Every person within my nation has their own duties. There are those who's responsibility it is to run the country and attend to its issues. As ambassador to the United Nations for the Region of Aberdeen, it is my duty to attend to the issues of the International community and promote the beliefs of both my nation and my region to this International Body. Perhaps it is time for your own nation to send forth its own ambassador to do such for your nation and/or region.

Let's face it, it is the proposer's way of forcing the legitimacy of their way of life on others. That is morally and socially wrong.

Granting rights to one does not force them to act on those rights. We are giving these rights to citizens that may believe differently than their own governments. We are PROTECTING these people from having the "legitamacy" of the way of life that their government believes in being FORCED upon them. We are PROTECTING the people from a tyranny that they do not believe in.

What I really want to know, is if this is passed, why would I want to make it tougher to get a divorce?

As LAE said, 1.6 says that you CAN HAVE SITUATIONS AND SCENARIOS BEYOND THOSE LISTED to grant divorce. You shall be fully able to grant the right of divorce, no matter what the reason should your nation believe in that. 1.1-1.5 is the bare minimum guideline of what you must grant your citizens as grounds for divorce. If you wish to have grounds taht go above and beyond those clauses, 1.6 allows you to.

Pallatium

27-11-2005, 00:14

So tell me this, why is the UN so fascinated with imposing traditional judeo-christian morals on the rest of the world?

The right to gay marriage? The right to polygomy? The right to complete and total sexual freedom in your own home?

How is this imposing judeo-christian morality on people?

The UN is pretty much all about overruling all religions and turning the world in to a huge secular one-world nation. It is not a religious crusade in disguise.

Forgottenlands

27-11-2005, 00:55

I will make it simple, why is the UN getting involved in divorces?

Because we believe that this right should be guaranteed for every citizen within the UN

Why is the UN trying to force me to spend money in importing or training lawyers (we don't allow lawyers in Hotlicks Wobblepsot)?

You don't have to. As long as they have the right to hire those lawyers, it doesn't matter. You don't have to let the lawyers into the country and the clients can converse and hire online or long distance or whatever. As long as the right is preserved.

Why is the UN so bothered about what happens in the marriages of individuals? Are the people in other countries so lacking in responsibility that the UN must legislate how a divorce occurs?

YES! You, yourself, have suggested as much in previous posts

Maybe it is time to cut loose the apron strings and let individuals take some responsibility for their actions.

*groans*

I look around and see wars erupting between countries and the UN is pre-occupying itself with this?

It is not in the UN's jurisdiction to interfere in wars between countries. The UN has no standing army nor are we permitted to create one. As such, we cannot interfere beyond providing diplomatic services - and those are very much at a personal, not a resolution, level. The mere fact that you have suggested such shows your utter failure to understand what the UN is capable of and what it is permitted to do. I suggest you read some of the stickies.

Regardless, the simple argument that any proposal is the waste of the UN's time is ludicrous. Certainly, there are some things that are not in the UN's perview and can be removed from consideration as such, but they are few. This is not on that list. The UN is not backlogged in proposals and has never been so seriously backlogged that it was unable to function. I have never seen more than 4 proposals in queue at any time. The fact that we deal with nearly 2 dozen issues on a daily basis here (certainly, some of them are carryovers, but that doesn't change the fact) and there are several dozen proposals submitted every day and we remain fully functional and not backlogged shows that the UN isn't worried about wasting its time or preoccupying itself. These are the halls of the legislators, this is our purview. We are simply doing our job.

I see the UN is currently trying to make the world a socialist paradise, and I see no need for it.

This is far from a socialist policy.

Sorry, I was getting a bit preachy there

OOC
Sweden and Finland are NOT the models I want to use for the UN, or my own country.

Nor do you have to nor does this resolution actually require you to.

The Eternal Kawaii

27-11-2005, 16:01

Granting rights to one does not force them to act on those rights. We are giving these rights to citizens that may believe differently than their own governments. We are PROTECTING these people from having the "legitamacy" of the way of life that their government believes in being FORCED upon them. We are PROTECTING the people from a tyranny that they do not believe in.

With all due respect to the esteemed representative of the Forgottenlands, the people of the Eternal Kawaii do not need the NSUN's help in "protecting" them from a "tyranny that they do not believe in."

Membership in the Holy Otaku Church of the Eternal Kawaii is a necessary and sufficient condition for citizenship in Our nation. BY DEFINITION, there is no difference between what Our people believe in and what Our government believes in. Thus, the issue of "natsov vs. peoplesov" is for Us a moot point. This proposal tramples upon national sovereignity, therefore it tramples upon Our peoples' sovereignity.

Love and esterel

27-11-2005, 16:50

With all due respect to the esteemed representative of the Forgottenlands, the people of the Eternal Kawaii do not need the NSUN's help in "protecting" them from a "tyranny that they do not believe in."

Membership in the Holy Otaku Church of the Eternal Kawaii is a necessary and sufficient condition for citizenship in Our nation. BY DEFINITION, there is no difference between what Our people believe in and what Our government believes in. Thus, the issue of "natsov vs. peoplesov" is for Us a moot point. This proposal tramples upon national sovereignity, therefore it tramples upon Our peoples' sovereignity.

HOCEK is definitely an interesting Nation, where everybody thinks the same. And so we suppose that there will never be any divorce in Eternal Kawaii either forbidden or legalized.
We don’t really know how that happens, but maybe people HOCEK had developed new astonishing skills as “group mind” or “group brain” using a sort of telepathy which allow them to reach easily national consensus.

LAE will be very pleased if HOCEK will agree to teach us these skills

The Conclave of Friendship is then fully aware that divorce will never happen in HOCEK, and we hope they have noted that, as others nations have not joined HOCEK “group mind” yet, right of divorce is needed in those nations.

Therefore, as the “Right to Divorce” proposition doesn’t trample upon HOCEK natsov, we hope the Eternal Kawaii will support our move to uphold peoplesov in others nations.

SLI Sector

27-11-2005, 16:57

HOCEK is definitely an interesting Nation, where everybody thinks the same. And so we suppose that there will never be any divorce in Eternal Kawaii either forbidden or legalized.
We don’t really know how that happens, but maybe people HOCEK had developed new astonishing skills as “group mind” or “group brain” using a sort of telepathy which allow them to reach easily national consensus.

That, or they're lying.

I'd bet the latter. Even succesful our experiments in brainwashing has only converted 94.13%. Dissent is still part of our nation, though we wish to stomp it out. If it is true, I would like to pay $10 million credits for the technogly HOCEK has.

The law does not apply to us, because our nation have already outlawed marraige. Therefore, there is no need for a divorce. We still support it, however, so other nations can decide.

Gruenberg

27-11-2005, 17:11

The definitions are fine by me.

-1- DECLARES that a marriage or civil union may be ended by divorce in the following cases:
-1.1- Both partners ask for divorce, after 3 month of marriage of civil union
-1.2- One partner request a divorce and it is accepted by the other partner, after 3 month of marriage of civil union
-1.3- One partner requests the divorce due to domestic violence issues from the other partner
-1.4- One partner requests the divorce after 1 year of being officially separated
-1.5- One partner repeats a request for a divorce 3 months after the initial request
-1.6- Any additional scenarios that have been chosen by a more local government as grounds for divorce

Again, I have concerns.
1. The domestic violence issue. I appreciate you leaving this to the courts to decide, but there must be some burden of proof. Surely it should be 'if evidence of domestic violence can be shown'? I'm uneasy about allowing people simply to say that domestic violence occurs, and have that be that.
2. Again, isn't there an issue with someone just automatically rerequesting a divorce? I seriously don't want to waste court time with those sort of requests. There has to be some burden of legitimacy to the repeat request.

-2- DECLARES that each party has the right to employ a lawyer for the divorce proceedings

Good.

-3- DECLARES that both parents have the right to continue to regularly see their children after a divorce, except for cases where the divorce was over domestic violence or sexual abuse, or if such actions are taken upon either the other parent or any of the shared children after the divorce has taken place

Fine.

-4- PERMITS parents who have lost the right to see their children for issues listed in [3] be allowed to have this right returned if a court of law feels that said parent is no longer a threat to the child or other parent.

Fine.

-5- URGES Nations to ensure that their legislation protects both partners and their children in divorce cases by granting financial help for one partner, when a fair solution, in accordance to the prenuptial agreement, can be found in order both partners and children can live with a reasonable financial situation - except in cases where the divorce was over domestic violence,

Ok.

-6- ENCOURAGES all Nations to support organisations/associations providing help to married/divorced persons/couples by anonymous meeting, phone call, or internet contact.

Maybe 'all media', or something? For example, written contact (in pre-internet nations).

Yeah, I guess this is fine. I'm torn, actually: on the one hand, it feels like micromanagement; on the other, if it's going to be micromanagement, then it feels a little thin. Divorce law is very complex and wrapped in precedent, and I don't pretend to know much about it. There are notable exceptions to your proposal though, including any explicit system of alimony. If that won't present a problem - and I'm leaning towards agreeing it doesn't - then I can see no major problem with this.

Co-authored by Forgottenlands UN / Love and esterel

---------------------------------
We decided not to have prenups have overriding ability. LAE was concerned about it and when I thought about it, I realized it was a stupid idea. If there's a gold-digger issue, have the prenup say that any divorce within 5 years means she's entitled to nothing.[/QUOTE]

Love and esterel

27-11-2005, 17:38

1. The domestic violence issue. I appreciate you leaving this to the courts to decide, but there must be some burden of proof. Surely it should be 'if evidence of domestic violence can be shown'? I'm uneasy about allowing people simply to say that domestic violence occurs, and have that be that.

Thanks, interesting, maybe there is a way to write it a better way, i will think about it, awaiting for Forgottenlands thoughts about it

2. Again, isn't there an issue with someone just automatically rerequesting a divorce? I seriously don't want to waste court time with those sort of requests. There has to be some burden of legitimacy to the repeat request.

Many nation in RL, have condtions as one partner having to proove infidelity of the others or to proove the others partner failing to his/her duties.... instead of -1.5-

We absolutly don't want that, as absence of clause similar or more liberal to -1.5- encourage partners to exagerate the defaults of the other one, and as we think it's really important not to encourages partners to engage in more disputes; in many RL nations these clause have been dramatic for children, we prefer divorce to happen peacefully

Maybe 'all media', or something? For example, written contact (in pre-internet nations).

good idea, thanks

what about:

-6- ENCOURAGES all Nations to support organisations/associations providing help to married/divorced persons/couples by anonymous meeting, phone call, internet contact or use of others media.

Forgottenlands

28-11-2005, 00:02

Gruen, I'll address your comments sometime tonight

With all due respect to the esteemed representative of the Forgottenlands, the people of the Eternal Kawaii do not need the NSUN's help in "protecting" them from a "tyranny that they do not believe in."

Membership in the Holy Otaku Church of the Eternal Kawaii is a necessary and sufficient condition for citizenship in Our nation. BY DEFINITION, there is no difference between what Our people believe in and what Our government believes in. Thus, the issue of "natsov vs. peoplesov" is for Us a moot point. This proposal tramples upon national sovereignity, therefore it tramples upon Our peoples' sovereignity.

If your citizens truly believe fully in the Holy Otaku Church, then they will not actually use this right. However, if ANY single one of your citizens has the slightest deviation from that belief, I want them to have the full right to have a divorce and I do not believe that your government has ANY right to stop them. I am not forcing your citizens to have divorces. I'm making sure that you can't force them to not have one.

Forgottenlands

28-11-2005, 01:30

The definitions are fine by me.

Again, I have concerns.
1. The domestic violence issue. I appreciate you leaving this to the courts to decide, but there must be some burden of proof. Surely it should be 'if evidence of domestic violence can be shown'? I'm uneasy about allowing people simply to say that domestic violence occurs, and have that be that.

Addition of word "proven" should deal with that. Determination of HOW to prove Domestic Violence shall be left to the individual governments.

2. Again, isn't there an issue with someone just automatically rerequesting a divorce? I seriously don't want to waste court time with those sort of requests. There has to be some burden of legitimacy to the repeat request.

I'm uncertain. How I see it is the first request is an attempt to activate 1.2. When that fails (because the partner rejects), the initiator can request a second time 3 months later. I'm not putting any grounds on it, and if there's an issue of courts - I'd say have it so that should the initiator use this, they get a blind signing of the divorce, but the division of the property goes solely to the partner (thus meaning "I am asking for a divorce, and these court documents show I asked 3 months ago. Very well, does your partner accept the terms? No your honor. Alright, he has full possession of all shared property, you are divorced, case dismissed" Elapsed time: 10 minutes). I honestly don't see an issue.

Good.

Fine.

Fine.

Ok.

-6-

Maybe 'all media', or something? For example, written contact (in pre-internet nations).

LAE's addendum changed to "or any other medium that can be arranged"

Yeah, I guess this is fine. I'm torn, actually: on the one hand, it feels like micromanagement; on the other, if it's going to be micromanagement, then it feels a little thin. Divorce law is very complex and wrapped in precedent, and I don't pretend to know much about it. There are notable exceptions to your proposal though, including any explicit system of alimony. If that won't present a problem - and I'm leaning towards agreeing it doesn't - then I can see no major problem with this.

Co-authored by Forgottenlands UN / Love and esterel

---------------------------------
We decided not to have prenups have overriding ability. LAE was concerned about it and when I thought about it, I realized it was a stupid idea. If there's a gold-digger issue, have the prenup say that any divorce within 5 years means she's entitled to nothing.[/QUOTE]

Great.

Love and esterel

28-11-2005, 10:59

Addition of word "proven" should deal with that. Determination of HOW to prove Domestic Violence shall be left to the individual governments.

ok, so we have:

-1.3- One partner requests the divorce due to proven domestic violence issues from the other partner

LAE's addendum changed to "or any other medium that can be arranged"

ok so we have:

-6- ENCOURAGES all Nations to support organisations/associations providing help to married/divorced persons/couples by anonymous meeting, phone call, internet contact or any other medium that can be arranged

Love and esterel

29-11-2005, 12:50

We have submitted the proposal "Right to divorce" today:
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=divorce

Right to Divorce
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Love and esterel

Description: The United Nations,

A – NOTING the positive effects of marriage and the happiness it procures in both those within the marriage and those around the married.

B – NOTING that not all marriages are happy

C – NOTING that many couples in this case have difficulty maintaining a healthy relationship over short periods of time, let alone a life-long relationship.

D – CONCERNED about the health and welfare of both the couple and any children the couple are responsible for

E – ACKNOWLEDGING the potential issues that could result from a possible divorce

F – DEFINING for the purposes of this document a divorce to be the contractual ending of any marriage or equivalent Civil Union recognized by any state

G – DEFINING for the purposes of this document a prenuptial agreement to be any contract signed by both partners before a marriage agreeing to certain terms pertaining to their marriage and/or potential divorce.

H – DEFINING for the purposes of this document a Civil Union to be a legal union between any two people given equal status within the union and granted certain rights by any government.

-1- DECLARES that a marriage or civil union may be ended by divorce in the following cases:
-1.1- Both partners ask for divorce, after 3 month of marriage or civil union
-1.2- One partner request a divorce and it is accepted by the other partner, after 3 month of marriage or civil union
-1.3- One partner requests the divorce due to proven domestic violence issues from the other partner
-1.4- One partner requests the divorce after 1 year of being officially separated
-1.5- One partner repeats a request for a divorce 3 months, or later, after the initial request
-1.6- Any additional scenarios that have been chosen by a more local government as grounds for divorce

-2- DECLARES that each party has the right to employ a lawyer for the divorce proceedings

-3- DECLARES that both parents have the right to continue to regularly see their children after a divorce, except for cases where the divorce was over proven domestic violence or sexual abuse, or if such actions are taken upon either the other parent or any of the shared children after the divorce has taken place

-4- PERMITS parents who have lost the right to see their children for issues listed in [3] be allowed to have this right returned if a court of law feels that said parent is no longer a threat to the child or other parent.

-5- URGES Nations to ensure that their legislation protects both partners and their children in divorce cases by granting financial help for one partner, when a fair solution, in accordance to the prenuptial agreement, can be found in order both partners and children can live with a reasonable financial situation - except in cases where the divorce was over proven domestic violence,

-6- ENCOURAGES all Nations to support organisations/associations providing help to married/divorced persons/couples by anonymous meeting, phone call, internet contact or any other medium that can be arranged

Co-authored by Forgottenlands UN

James_xenoland

30-11-2005, 04:15

This is far from a socialist policy.
I think he/she means as a whole. Which I would then have to agree with.

Mikitivity

30-11-2005, 07:43

With all due respect to the esteemed representative of the Forgottenlands, the people of the Eternal Kawaii do not need the NSUN's help in "protecting" them from a "tyranny that they do not believe in."

Membership in the Holy Otaku Church of the Eternal Kawaii is a necessary and sufficient condition for citizenship in Our nation. BY DEFINITION, there is no difference between what Our people believe in and what Our government believes in. Thus, the issue of "natsov vs. peoplesov" is for Us a moot point. This proposal tramples upon national sovereignity, therefore it tramples upon Our peoples' sovereignity.

The ambassador from Mikitivity wakes up upon hearing this.

"Interesting, it is rare that the idea of national sovereignty versus personal sovereignty is addressed in this body, however, my government subscribes to the legal opinion that in most cases discussions of sovereignty in an international law framework, speak to the sovereignty of a nation of people. Sovereignty itself comes from a contract between the people and the government they create. In other words, I believe that the point being raised here is a valid position. If the government of the people's will is being in some way limited by other governments or people, then the people's sovereignty is not being respected. Bearing this in mind, my government recognizes the objection raised by the people from Eternal Kawaii."

Love and esterel

30-11-2005, 10:07

it is rare that the idea of national sovereignty versus personal sovereignty is addressed in this body,

Thanks for posting in this thread.
LAE would like 1st to notice that discussions about Natsov VS Peoplesov are not rare, UN members discuss it almost everyday in many topics:p

however, my government subscribes to the legal opinion that in most cases discussions of sovereignty in an international law framework, speak to the sovereignty of a nation of people.

If the government of the people's will is being in some way limited by other governments or people, then the people's sovereignty is not being respected.

Not all Governments of UN members are chosen democratically, (ie: chosen by the people), that means: it can happen that governments are not “the people’s will’”, so obviously I’m sorry that you cannot say:

“If the government of the people's will is being in some way limited by other governments or people, then the people's sovereignty is not being respected”

Furthermore if you state the previous sentence, then what about the following?:

“If the people’s will is being in some way limited by the governments or other people, then the people's sovereignty is not being respected”

You also said:

Sovereignty itself comes from a contract between the people and the government they create.

So the question is: What UN legislation is?

“Un legislation itself comes from a contract between the government and the General Assembly they create”
and the UN process is democratic:)

Powerhungry Chipmunks

30-11-2005, 17:00

Not all Governments of UN members are chosen democratically, (ie: chosen by the people), that means: it can happen that governments are not “the people’s will’”, so obviously I’m sorry that you cannot say:

“If the government of the people's will is being in some way limited by other governments or people, then the people's sovereignty is not being respected”But that's not what the argument is. The argument isn't that every UN nation is democratic, it's that those that are democratic might be unable to execute the will of the people if other nations (in this case L&E, and/or Forgottenlands) impose restrictions upon their governments.

So the question is: What UN legislation is?

“Un legislation itself comes from a contract between the government and the General Assembly they create”
and the UN process is democratic:)
Well, it's democratic with respect to individual nations, but I think it isn't democratic with respect to individuals within a nation.

First, Each nation votes on UN resolutions and the majority opinions rule. The people of nation x is voting with relation to X situation (say, the people of The Eternal Kawaii are voting with relation to it's cultural situation regarding marriage). The people of nation y are voting with relation to situation Y, where x =/ y. In nation y, there are a bajillion SM marriages, which the culture embraces.

If nation y is in the majority, the resolution is voted For by, in part, the situation of a bajillion SM marriages, which is not the situation in Nation x. Nation x has no ability to represent its own situation in the face of a majority of nations with different situations. The vote is not of nation x and situation X, and the people of nation x's legislation is decided by foreign powers ignorant to situation X. Therefore, I would say that the people of nation x are disenfranchised f representiung their situation, and that the UN is not a democracy with regards to those individual citizens.

Also, let's say, for the sake of argument that each nation had a referendum vote among its population whether to vote For Abstain or vote Against a resolution at vote. Let's say that the UN is made up of ten 10 billion population nations and eleven 100 million population nations. The eleven 100 milllion nations have 51 million in their bounds that vote For, so they all vote For. The ten 10 billion nations have 5.1 billion that vote Against, so they all vote against. The majority of nation votes is in the For column, whereas the majority of people in the whole of the UN voted against (49.539 billion Against : 0.561 billion For). The individual is not represented in the UN, but the nation is.

Not that that's an argument For or Against this proposal. Just my considered conclusion on the UN's ability to democratically represent individuals.

Anyway, about the proposal (which I'm sorry for not raising this earlier), what about those that give up their right to divorce? What if I want to sign a contract that says I'll remain married to x person for y years? I'm not sure I'm allowed to do that under this proposal (though I may full well be missing something). I'm not sure this is something to stop the presses/telegram campaign for, but if it doesn't reach quorum this go around, could it be discussed?

Gruenberg

30-11-2005, 17:38

I'm going to come out in agreement with this one. I fully expect to be the only NSO-member to do so, and I admit it is distinctly out of character.

Marriage is not a big thing in Gruenberg, and it is primarily a legal contract. This is why, despite some accusations of discrimination in some areas, we never opposed gay marriage: we did not acknowledge any relationship with the ability to put pen to paper with the desire to put penis in bottom.

We would rather the proposal had concerned itself with contract law as a whole, but we recognise that would have caused added complexities. As it stands, so long as some greater consideration of the effect of legal pre-nuptial agreements is taken into account, we see no reason to oppose the right of people to end contracts. We accept, for once, that this is a basic right.

Omigodtheykilledkenny

30-11-2005, 17:41

Also, let's say, for the sake of argument that each nation had a referendum vote among its population whether to vote For Abstain or vote Against a resolution at vote. Let's say that the UN is made up of ten 10 billion population nations and eleven 100 million population nations. The eleven 100 milllion nations have 51 million in their bounds that vote For, so they all vote For. The ten 10 billion nations have 5.1 billion that vote Against, so they all vote against. The majority of nation votes is in the For column, whereas the majority of people in the whole of the UN voted against (49.539 billion Against : 0.561 billion For). The individual is not represented in the UN, but the nation is.I tried running those numbers myself, including both "for" and "against" populations in each nation, and came up with 49.561 billion "for" and 51.539 billion "against." But the resolution passed 11-10.

Mikitivity

30-11-2005, 18:01

Thanks for posting in this thread.
LAE would like 1st to notice that discussions about Natsov VS Peoplesov are not rare, UN members discuss it almost everyday in many topics:p

Not all Governments of UN members are chosen democratically, (ie: chosen by the people), that means: it can happen that governments are not “the people’s will’”, so obviously I’m sorry that you cannot say:

“If the government of the people's will is being in some way limited by other governments or people, then the people's sovereignty is not being respected”

Furthermore if you state the previous sentence, then what about the following?:

“If the people’s will is being in some way limited by the governments or other people, then the people's sovereignty is not being respected”

You also said:

So the question is: What UN legislation is?

“Un legislation itself comes from a contract between the government and the General Assembly they create”
and the UN process is democratic:)

Katzman patiently listens with interest to the ambassador from Love and esterel's reply, but pauses a minute before replying.

"I fear I was not completely clear in my earlier statement. While a number of resolutions, in particular those focusing on human rights, are often justified as protecting personal sovereignty, my government believes that legally speaking that as an international law making body, the point raised by the Eternal Kawaii, is the valid point from which all discussions of sovereignty should be based.

While the UN is a democratic process, nations have and will in the future choose to ignore or even conditionally implement various UN resolutions. There is no enforcement arm of the UN when it comes to compliance with UN issues.

My favorite example is with respect to my nation's growing cancer epidemic. More and more Mikitivitians die each year due to cancer (I suspect this is a global problem of course, but my government hasn't really considered studying cancer outside of Mikitivity). For some patients the pain associated with terminal cancer is so great that they've requested euthanasia ... a right which long ago was affirmed by this assmebly -- in fact it was nearly two years ago with the adoption of resolution #43 "Legalise Euthanasia". However, the Mikitivity Council of Mayors frequently is requested to overturn this practice.

Now, my government's Office of Intelligence has information that sometimes similar issues have come before the legislatures (OOC: via the Cancer Suffering daily issue) of other UN members and that these UN members have enacted domestic policies contary to resolution #43 (OOC: you can see UN members who's game text is in conflict with this resolution). There have been no cases in which the UN Secretariat have ejected these nations from the UN for non-compliance (OOC: read the moderators don't care ... they are moderators, not police).

This should illustrate that the true nature of the United Nations is to make recommendations and statements, but that ultimately the true power to legislate remains with people and the only government that is truely responsible to protecting them.

While my government has been a strong proponent of many human rights measures (and will be again), the idea that the United Nations is telling governments how to run themselves is a violation of sovereignty. Justifying this sort of action based on a concept of personal "sovereignty" is really the wrong analogy, because when we are talking about fundamental human rights, a better term that could be used (specifically to avoid this sort of misunderstanding) would be "personal freedoms".

Now the ambassador from Love and esterel is correct. Many governments are not democratically elected, but the UN Secretariat have affirmed time and time again, that UN resolutions can not target specific forms of government. Proposals designed to make communism illegal are regularly deleted and an official UN warning is placed on the offending nation's UN Secretariat record.

This suggests that there are in fact some limits to how we can influence UN members. While it is my opinion that human rights resolutions which encourage nations to better protect their citizens have standing in the UN, I still believe that the resolutions should bear in mind that there will be objections raised ... and we have to treat the governments that raise these objections as the voice of the people whom they represent, or else they might leave the UN!

Yelda

30-11-2005, 18:14

I'm going to come out in agreement with this one. I fully expect to be the only NSO-member to do so,
Yelda supports this as well, and has approved it. So you're not the only one. No person should be forced to remain in a marraige that they no longer want to be a part of. It (marriage) is only a contract, one should be able to end it.

Gruenberg

30-11-2005, 18:24

Yelda supports this as well, and has approved it. So you're not the only one. No person should be forced to remain in a marraige that they no longer want to be a part of. It (marriage) is only a contract, one should be able to end it.

Ok, I was hedging my bets.

Forgottenlands

30-11-2005, 20:13

Mikitivity

30-11-2005, 20:47

Mik - you are addressing an RP issue beyond the scope of any resolution that we could hope to address in this thread. My understanding is that TEK generally roleplays closer to the belief that resolutions are mandatory to implement and you can't just overturn them internally or not. Certainly, I roleplay at that level (believing in the psychic Gnomes), and my arguments relating to TEK flow from that belief. Please, address the matter of whether we should be passing this or not, rather than whether it can be roleplayed to not-comply or not.

OOC: Those posts are IC, and you've only read part of the statements -- and really missed what Katzman is doing. Essentially he is just reaffirming the Eternal Kawaii's *right* to state that national sovereignty is all that matters for *their* opinion! Katzman has not agreed with their opinion, but he (and I) believes it isn't anybody's place to downplay national sovereignty in this case. In fact, it is the only appropriate context for the term sovereignty in a simulated international body. :)

Personal sovereignty is an artifical construct (that can only exist in democracies) and should be described using other terms.

In the modern English language the word "sovereignty" applies to nations -- not individual people. So when Kawaii claims to be the voice of the people, we've got two choices: (1) they are and we recognize this, or (2) we feel they aren't, and should say "hey you treat your citizens horribly". But be warned, #2 can be thrown right back at you ...

IC:
I'll assume that instead of addressing me personally, that you are simply using the standard international abbreviation for my nation Mikitivity, MIK. ;)

While my government is neutral on all marriage related legislation (due to the fact that we have seen no demonstration of international need for such attention to this topic), we support any government that would like to point out that until there is a burden of evidence that *that* government is not acting in good faith upon the social contract between it and its citizens that the rest of our governments need to recognize it as the legitimate voice of its people.

Given that my government has enjoyed peaceful relations with the people from the Eternal Kawaii, my statements are intended to affirm our recognition of their ambassador's statements and belief that they are valid opinions.

Dablaires

30-11-2005, 21:14

I think you should include something about Gay's and maybe to bypass a few thousand divorces. Couple should have to live together for 1 and a half years to see if it really was going to work out.

Forgottenlands

30-11-2005, 23:07

You responded to an obviously completely OOC post with both IC and OOC comments? Sheesh.

I think you should include something about Gay's and maybe to bypass a few thousand divorces. Couple should have to live together for 1 and a half years to see if it really was going to work out.

What do you mean? Gays have had the right to marry since resolution 7 in every single UN country so I see no reason to take any exception to explicitly give them any more or less rights with this resolution. Even if this weren't the case, I deal with anything regarding civil contracts - so that would include any civil unions, etc, where the couple is gay. If they signed the contract, then it exists and I'm protecting the right to end that contract.

Love and esterel

01-12-2005, 01:54

This suggests that there are in fact some limits to how we can influence UN members. While it is my opinion that human rights resolutions which encourage nations to better protect their citizens have standing in the UN, I still believe that the resolutions should bear in mind that there will be objections raised ... and we have to treat the governments that raise these objections as the voice of the people whom they represent, or else they might leave the UN!

i agree with you, furthermore it had happen i loose my nerve in this forum, but i think i had been always fair in my answers to HOCEK (let me know if i havent). As HOCEk told us in this forum, everybody in HOCEK is thinking in the same manner that their government, at least on that matter, i supposed that forbidden or legalized divorce will then not occur in HOCEK and then we proposed the Nuncio to help us in the redaction of the draft, they refused politely, no pb about it.

About UN legislation enforcement and gnomes, i don't know much how it's working, it's why i think the "declares" we use in this proposition is adequate, in most cases.

While my government is neutral on all marriage related legislation (due to the fact that we have seen no demonstration of international need for such attention to this topic), we support any government that would like to point out that until there is a burden of evidence that *that* government is not acting in good faith upon the social contract between it and its citizens that the rest of our governments need to recognize it as the legitimate voice of its people.

We think "right to divorce" is an international need for 2 reasons:
- it's essantial human right (in case of domestic violence and non happy marriage), and the UN as you said has a strong record on human right, it's one of his main focus
- marriages and civil unions don't always happen between partners with the same nationality, so in case of international marriage, we think it's important to grant partners right to divorce and to continue to see their children after the divorce

Then, about natsov, i have nothing against when it's used as Dan Yeoman, it's his philosophy and he is logical about it, that means he will not support a resolution he likes when this resolution mandates something (unles it's important human rights) and will not use the natsov argument against a resolution mandating nothing, i admire him on these points

I have also nothing against the natsov argument, when it's argumented, but one cannot use the natsov argument, when in the same time approving another resolution mandating something.

Mikitivity

01-12-2005, 01:58

I have also nothing against the natsov argument, when it's argumented, but one cannot use the natsov argument, when in the same time approving another resolution mandating something.

You've hit exactly the complaint I personally have with a great many nations ... they are inconsistent in their use of "national sovereignty". They often ignore what sovereignty is when it is something that they like, and then hide behind it if it difficult.

-Howie Katzman

Love and esterel

01-12-2005, 02:24

Not that that's an argument For or Against this proposal. Just my considered conclusion on the UN's ability to democratically represent individuals.

I agree with you here, the UN's ability to democratically represent individuals is to be considered in the same manner as national government ability.

Anyway, about the proposal (which I'm sorry for not raising this earlier), what about those that give up their right to divorce? What if I want to sign a contract that says I'll remain married to x person for y years? I'm not sure I'm allowed to do that under this proposal (though I may full well be missing something). I'm not sure this is something to stop the presses/telegram campaign for, but if it doesn't reach quorum this go around, could it be discussed?

I think divorce is an inalienable right and that this right cannot be sold or give up.
We are dealing with human here, not with stocks, as in the stockmarket where you can buy sometimes shares of a company for a discounted price, while giving up your vote right.

So it's true that sometimes people marry for money, our proposal deal with that. i would like to thanks Gruenberg here for his input. Partners can have a deal about finance in prenuptial agreement, for example the agreement can state that the others partners will get some of his/her money in case of divorce only after 10 years of marriage, or state that the other partner will get nothing.

We think these kinds of agreement can be only financial.

Further more would like to say, that when people marry, most things are great and happy (it’s not a critic about marriage but a compliment) but the downside of this is it’s dangerous to give up one right, at one of the moment where everything is idealistic.

Even if it’s sad, divorce is a reality, and we think the greater danger is to close ours eyes to this reality, to close ours eyes over the consequence on families of divorce’s restrictions. This is why we didn’t want at all some various faults as conditions of divorce (we keep domestic violence as it can be a immediate danger), we don’t want partners to dispute evn more.

It can be strange to HOCEK and many, but our propositions, sex ed, adoption+ivf and now right to divorce are written with pro-family aims.

Love and esterel

01-12-2005, 03:22

what about those that give up their right to divorce?

oooops, forget to say something in my previous answer:
for me, marriage is about LOVE
and i'm not sure about where LOVE is when a partner ASK or even ACCEPT the other to give up his right to divorce

The Eternal Kawaii

01-12-2005, 03:49

i agree with you, furthermore it had happen i loose my nerve in this forum, but i think i had been always fair in my answers to HOCEK (let me know if i havent). As HOCEk told us in this forum, everybody in HOCEK is thinking in the same manner that their government, at least on that matter, i supposed that forbidden or legalized divorce will then not occur in HOCEK and then we proposed the Nuncio to help us in the redaction of the draft, they refused politely, no pb about it.

As the esteemed representative from Love and Esterel noted, Our people and Our government hold similar views on moral issues such as what constitutes legal marriage. These are based on ancient customs and codified in the Marriage & Family sections of Our Canon Law, part of Our peoples' faith. They're simply not something that can be changed with the stroke of a pen on some NSUN bureaucrat's desk.

That regulations sit on Our books thanks to NSUN resolutions, doesn't alter the fact that Our immutable Canon Law exists as well. Unfortunately, these new regulations force Our government to take measures to prevent situations where the two codes conflict. We would prefer not to do this--it is unseemly and a waste of government resources. That is why We so vigorously oppose resolutions like this one.

Venerable libertarians

01-12-2005, 04:03

Lady Sophia stands to address the UN General Assembly.

We of the Venerable Libertarians believe that Marriage is the building block for family. It gives stable and safe environment for the children of our nation. We can agree that when marriage does not work that measures should be taken to the amicable separation of the married partners. We have but one shot at this life and we must do the very best we can to ensure we all get the very best from the experience. This however can’t be at the expense of those who rely on us for their comfort and succour.

Thinking of the Children we review the document....

Right to Divorce

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed By: Love and Esterel

The United Nations,

-A- NOTING the good effects of marriage and the happiness it procures for many people let this be noted.

-B- NOTING that some married people make mistakes in selecting of a partner Mistakes? No I disagree. Perhaps with the passing of time some become bored or miss the wilder freer times from before they were married. To simply state "OOPS we made a Booboo is not good enough.

-C- NOTING that some married couples have difficulty staying together for extended periods of time - let alone for the rest of their lives This is an ambiguous statement Couples in VL must live together for five years before they are granted a marriage licence Marriage is not taken lightly by our people.

-D- CONCERNED by the futures of children of married couples that do not wish to stay together Can you say with authority children of Divorced couples have a better quality of life? I would hasten to say divorce can be more traumatic.

-E- CONCERNED about the financial situation of the individuals in the union and the children of that union this also goes back to my earlier point in D. Divorce finances can often bankrupt a Married couple leaving both parties unable to fend for themselves never mind the children in their charge. With out doubt Divorce will leave both parties with a lower income as they need to house and feed and live separately which as everyone knows is more expensive than when a family are living together.

-1- DECLARES that the marriage may be ended by divorce in the following cases:
-1.1- Both partners ask for divorce Agreed, with the caveat that they have pursued all avenues in an effort to stay together.
-1.2- One partner request a divorce and it is accepted by the other partner this is rather silly as it means the exact same thing as 1.1
-1.3- One partner requests the divorce due to domestic violence issues from the other partner Not an Issue in VL as there is severe penalties where Domestic Violence is concerned that are tantamount to divorce. The State annuls Marriage on Conviction of Domestic Violence and grants all deeds and monies of both Partners to the Victim of same.
-1.4- One partner requests the divorce after 1 year of being officially separated Again we would agree in principle to this with the previously mentioned Caveat.
-1.5- One partner repeats a request for a divorce 3 months after the initial request this is moot by adoption of 1.4 is it not?

-2- DECLARES that each party has the right to employ a lawyer for the divorce case as is the Right of all parties in cases of legality. We would add that if a party cant afford representation that it be granted and paid for by the state.

-3- DECLARES that both parents have the right to continue to regularly see their children after a divorce, except for cases where the divorce was over domestic violence this is the crux of the matter as it is vague. Is one Partner allowed to leave the state with the children etc? Has it to be an equal custodial share of the children? Rewarding sole custody is by its nature in the best interests of the children as their schooling and their quality of life would suffer as a result of the commuting and upheaval from one party to the other.

-4- URGES Nations to ensure that their legislation protects both partners and their children in divorce cases by granting financial help for one partner at the expense of the other one, when a fair solution can be found in order both partners and children can live with a reasonable financial situation - except in cases where the divorce was over domestic violence, And in an Ideal world .......

-5- ENCOURAGES all Nations to support organisations/associations providing help to married/divorced persons/couples by anonymous meeting, phone call, or internet contact. This we have no problem with as divorced persons will need all the support they can get.

Co-authored by Forgottenlands UN = FUN! :D

This we contend is not a matter for The UN to legislate on as the nations UN legislature serves, is far too varied for a Just and fair Divorce Bill to cover.

Thank you all for listening to my points.

Lady Sophia Grey sat again trembling after her first address to the UN in a diplomatic issue.

Powerhungry Chipmunks

01-12-2005, 04:26

I tried running those numbers myself, including both "for" and "against" populations in each nation, and came up with 49.561 billion "for" and 51.539 billion "against." But the resolution passed 11-10.
Yeah, that's my fault. I really screwed it up (I blame lack of sleep, lack of stimulant-dealing drug dealers in my neighborhood, and, of course, Mr. Hankey)

What I meant to say was more along the lines of "what if 100% of the citizens in ten 10 billion nations voted Against, and 100% of the citizens in eleven 100 million nations voted For--it'd be 100 billion Against and 1.1 billion For, but the motion would carry, 11-10."

The problem was I then got tied up in the unlikeness of 100% of any citizenry voting For or Against within a country and put in the 49%s and 51%s. Then, when I came back to do the math, I was thinking back to what I originally meant to out in (the 100% thing), and threw numbers together to make it look like that.

It's a sort of mixed metaphor in my math.

Powerhungry Chipmunks

01-12-2005, 04:31

I think divorce is an inalienable right and that this right cannot be sold or give up.
We are dealing with human here, not with stocks, as in the stockmarket where you can buy sometimes shares of a company for a discounted price, while giving up your vote right.
Yes, I think it's original to a person involved in a relationship (or inalienable as one might say), but I'm not sure there is good reason to stop someone from giving those rights up under contract. I mean, in the US, for example (apologies for the RL ref.), an arrestee can give up his or her right to legal counsel and talk to the police right off the bat. That he or she has the right to an attorney doesn't mean he or she must use an attorney. I mean, I think it'd be really stupid for a person to give up his or her right to divorce. But, I don't see any reason my government should stop them from doing it--we're simply not in the business in stopping people from doing what we feel is stupid.

Forgottenlands

01-12-2005, 05:51

It looks like the battles are starting to deteriorate around me, but I feel I have time to address this one.

*Forgottenlord stands to respond to Lady Sophia

Lady Sophia stands to address the UN General Assembly.

We of the Venerable Libertarians believe that Marriage is the building block for family. It gives stable and safe environment for the children of our nation. We can agree that when marriage does not work that measures should be taken to the amicable separation of the married partners. We have but one shot at this life and we must do the very best we can to ensure we all get the very best from the experience. This however can’t be at the expense of those who rely on us for their comfort and succour.

Thinking of the Children we review the document....

let this be noted.

Mistakes? No I disagree. Perhaps with the passing of time some become bored or miss the wilder freer times from before they were married. To simply state "OOPS we made a Booboo is not good enough.

Just because to claim that calling it a mistake does not exact effective levels of...for lack of a better word, punishment does not make it any less of a mistake. I am not claiming it to be an excuse, and these people - as you kindly point out below - may find other consequences from their errors and failings. Mistakes are made, no matter how you look at it, and some of those mistakes truly do come from marriage. Whether or not that is worthy of justification for divorce, I feel we'll get to this argument later.

This is an ambiguous statement Couples in VL must live together for five years before they are granted a marriage licence Marriage is not taken lightly by our people.

The issue is not a matter of "have they never been able to live together for long periods of time", but rather "can they, right now, live together for extended periods of time". My personal experience has shown that people can be truly in love, but over time, some of the nuances become more prevelent in their relationship. It doesn't effect the amount of love they have for each other, but it can make it so they have more difficulty living together. I can easily see (and sadly, may soon witness) a situation where the love likewise falls apart shortly after due to the same reason. 5 years may limit the number of incidents that this is true for, but it does not remove it.

Can you say with authority children of Divorced couples have a better quality of life? I would hasten to say divorce can be more traumatic.

In cases of 1.3, I can assure you that it would be far less traumatic - but I feel we probably agree on this point. However, there are far more ways to find unhappy families where the frustration of the parents boils off in front of the kids - or is evident to the kids. In situations like these, I'm sure you can imagine that there is a certain level of.....trauma that the children experience. I'm sure you've heard of those couples - the ones where one of the partners falls for another and jealousy ensues, the ones where the partners merely can't stand each other and bicker continuously, thousands of other possibilities and combinations. You cannot claim you've weeded them all out with a simple 5 year policy. You'd need to be able to read the minds and genetic code of both partners in every relationship to determine whether their code is able to coexist for a lifetime. While I do not doubt that some nations have this capability and perhaps even do, the vast majority do not.

this also goes back to my earlier point in D. Divorce finances can often bankrupt a Married couple leaving both parties unable to fend for themselves never mind the children in their charge. With out doubt Divorce will leave both parties with a lower income as they need to house and feed and live separately which as everyone knows is more expensive than when a family are living together.

Perhaps, perhaps not. However, there are many other ways to address this. If you find this is a problem in your nation should this resolution pass, I will be more than happy to provide some advice on possible solutions. In fact, Gruenburg and myself already discussed a potential solution to such a problem in this thread already (inadvertantly). Regardless, I am of the belief that even families with lower income may be better off than higher income families that are, undoubtedly, unstable. However, I suppose this is more of a matter of opinion.

Agreed, with the caveat that they have pursued all avenues in an effort to stay together.

Denied. I shall not give you or any other nation the right to produce an arbitrary list of requirements and attempts that each couple must meet before they'd be considered for divorce. Nations like TEK over there would undoubtedly make that list impossible to complete.

this is rather silly as it means the exact same thing as 1.1

It is more of a jargon issue than anything. Some are too proud to admit they asked for a divorce, but willing to admit they accepted such a request.

Not an Issue in VL as there is severe penalties where Domestic Violence is concerned that are tantamount to divorce. The State annuls Marriage on Conviction of Domestic Violence and grants all deeds and monies of both Partners to the Victim of same.

Then we have no issues. You should not see a problem on this front - however I want to make sure that other nations that don't have such a progressive program are guaranteeing this right to them.

Again we would agree in principle to this with the previously mentioned Caveat.

Again, denied. For the same reason

this is moot by adoption of 1.4 is it not?

Nay. The intention is that if they are seperated but do not make a first request, it is indicative of attempts to stay together that have failed. As such, their first request after that year is immediately accepted. 1.5 is for those that want to attempt a quick "get out" but are denied by their partner and do not wish - for various reasons - to have to spend a year of seperation to get such a divorce.

as is the Right of all parties in cases of legality. We would add that if a party cant afford representation that it be granted and paid for by the state.

There is no guaranteed for such a clause in any passed UN resolution, I shall not set a precedent here. However, any nation that has this policy for other cases is encouraged to adopt a similar policy regarding divorce cases.

this is the crux of the matter as it is vague. Is one Partner allowed to leave the state with the children etc? Has it to be an equal custodial share of the children? Rewarding sole custody is by its nature in the best interests of the children as their schooling and their quality of life would suffer as a result of the commuting and upheaval from one party to the other.

This is not custody and should not be seen as such. It is visitation rights. The restrictions upon such rights is up to the nation that awards the divorce - especially depending on the circumstances. Perhaps if the father leaves the city, the state shall choose that whenever the father is in the city, he shall have the full right to see the children, but they shall not be expected to travel to visit the father.

And in an Ideal world .......

It occurs to me you are not reading the final draft. LAE - could you modify the first post please?

This we have no problem with as divorced persons will need all the support they can get.

Good to hear

= FUN! :D

It shall be.

This we contend is not a matter for The UN to legislate on as the nations UN legislature serves, is far too varied for a Just and fair Divorce Bill to cover.

I fully disagree. The UN has legislated countless times on the issue of marriage and protected the rights of many to be married. We have guaranteed that people can enter into contracts of marriage, but there is no guarantee of the ending of these contracts. As long as this is a fact, there shall be cases where people are in or have been forced into contracts that they cannot leave until the day they die. To me, this is akin to slavery - another concept this body has legislated against and I feel continues to uphold the belief of. This is entirely a matter that the UN not only should legislate on, it MUST legislate on.

Thank you all for listening to my points.

Lady Sophia Grey sat again trembling after her first address to the UN in a diplomatic issue.

Thank you for bringing them to the floor. I look foreward to further dealings with you, and hope that you prove to be as worthy of a debater as your predecessor. Judging from your first address, I can only imagine what your true ability is.

Forgottenlands

01-12-2005, 05:55

As the esteemed representative from Love and Esterel noted, Our people and Our government hold similar views on moral issues such as what constitutes legal marriage. These are based on ancient customs and codified in the Marriage & Family sections of Our Canon Law, part of Our peoples' faith. They're simply not something that can be changed with the stroke of a pen on some NSUN bureaucrat's desk.

That regulations sit on Our books thanks to NSUN resolutions, doesn't alter the fact that Our immutable Canon Law exists as well. Unfortunately, these new regulations force Our government to take measures to prevent situations where the two codes conflict. We would prefer not to do this--it is unseemly and a waste of government resources. That is why We so vigorously oppose resolutions like this one.

If your people are truly followers of your gods and truly hold the same moral views as your government, then you shall see absolutely no change in the number of divorces that occur within your nation. However, if this is not the case, it throws the entire validity of your previous statement into question. As such, you either should have no issue with this resolution, or you are afraid that your statements shall be proven as false when this resolution is passed.

Which one is it?

Love and esterel

01-12-2005, 11:53

Yes, I think it's original to a person involved in a relationship (or inalienable as one might say), but I'm not sure there is good reason to stop someone from giving those rights up under contract. I mean, in the US, for example (apologies for the RL ref.), an arrestee can give up his or her right to legal counsel and talk to the police right off the bat. That he or she has the right to an attorney doesn't mean he or she must use an attorney. I mean, I think it'd be really stupid for a person to give up his or her right to divorce. But, I don't see any reason my government should stop them from doing it--we're simply not in the business in stopping people from doing what we feel is stupid.

I think you're RL example is very good, because, there, the arrestee don't give up his right, he just don't use it.
The same about divorce, our propositon grant the right to divorce, but it doesn't prevent anyone from not using this right.

Love and esterel

01-12-2005, 19:05

We would like to thanks the 100 delegates who approved it, in particular Pope John Paul III for his benediction:)

Forgottenlands

01-12-2005, 20:47

We would like to thanks the 100 delegates who approved it, in particular Pope John Paul III for his benediction:)

Can you update the first post on the thread with the current draft please?

Love and esterel

01-12-2005, 21:04

Can you update the first post on the thread with the current draft please?

it's done:)

Forgottenlands

01-12-2005, 21:08

it's done:)

Yeah - just read your TG.....

Love and esterel

02-12-2005, 18:20

Quorum reached:)
Thanks to the delegates who approved it, to everyone who posted in this thread, and to Forgottenlands who authored the resolution as me;)

I suppose the vote will begin wednesday

Mikitivity

02-12-2005, 18:26

Quorum reached:)
Thanks to the delegates who approved it, to everyone who posted in this thread, and to Forgottenlands who authored the resolution as me;)

I suppose the vote will begin wednesday

Sounds like time for a well deserved break for a few days then. :)

Love and esterel

02-12-2005, 18:35

Sounds like time for a well deserved break for a few days then. :)

:) thanks

we were lucky, our campaign was 240 TG, all sent on tuesday
and we get:
-66 approvals tuesday
-24 " wednesday
-39 " thursday

Usually, the 3rd day is lower than the second (without more TG sent) , but i suppose Wolfish didn't campaign a lot for its 1st to 3rd day, but had a heavy campaign yesterday (on his 4th day), as he begin his 4th day with around 75-80 approvals and finished with more than 160

and obvisously "right to divorce" attracted some delegates approving both neutral states and '"right to divorce" in a raw;)

Forgottenlands

02-12-2005, 20:06

I need the delay till Wed as classes end that day - meaning I might be a tad drunk on the first night but I can probably make up for it - plus it'll work perfectly with my first exam (the following Monday - which I don't intend to study for due to the nature of the course and my personal abilities in it).

Love and esterel

02-12-2005, 20:57

just another stat, donno if someone interested in:D :
from the 133 approvals:
-79 (59%) received our TG (=33% of delegates who received one)
-54 (41%) approved it without our TG

The Eternal Kawaii

03-12-2005, 01:23

If your people are truly followers of your gods and truly hold the same moral views as your government, then you shall see absolutely no change in the number of divorces that occur within your nation. However, if this is not the case, it throws the entire validity of your previous statement into question. As such, you either should have no issue with this resolution, or you are afraid that your statements shall be proven as false when this resolution is passed.

Which one is it?

The issue We have with this resolution is that it serves no useful purpose for Our people, since We already have well-established laws on the subject of marriage and divorce. A secondary set imposed by the NSUN would serve only to confuse Our people, and risks being used by malicious folk to cast doubt on the legitimacy of Our Canon Law. The Holy Otaku Church of the Eternal Kawaii did not join the NSUN to have the truth of Our teachings be obscured by alien, potentially hostile influences.

Forgottenlands

03-12-2005, 04:55

The issue We have with this resolution is that it serves no useful purpose for Our people, since We already have well-established laws on the subject of marriage and divorce. A secondary set imposed by the NSUN would serve only to confuse Our people, and risks being used by malicious folk to cast doubt on the legitimacy of Our Canon Law. The Holy Otaku Church of the Eternal Kawaii did not join the NSUN to have the truth of Our teachings be obscured by alien, potentially hostile influences.

I am certain that the highly intelligent leaders of Eternal Kawaii will have little difficulty indicating the disagreement your church has with the laws held by the NSUN. I doubt it will take much to state to every single person that to actually use one's right to divorce is seen as a major sin by the church. Heck, you could make it mandatory that before the divorce is finalized, they must be told that to take such a step is to go counter to the church. If your people STILL choose to request a divorce beyond all this when I think they have been given MANY chances to be informed that they are going counter to the religion, I sincerely doubt there is truly any confusion at all. If there is, I would claim that the fault does not lie in the double standard but in the failing of the administration - either because if failed to properly inform its citizens or because it failed to realize that some of its citizens do not follow its teachings.

If the case is the former, you cannot possibly blame the UN for your own faults. If the case is the latter, I say that my mission was accomplished, and proves your very arguments here to be false. Thus, no matter how you do it, if you come to the UN with proof that people are having divorces in your nation, then you discredit your own church for its failings. I have NO sympathy for your church and shall fight you to the bitter end to make sure you cannot remove this right from your people so long as you are a member of this United Nations.

(Just so we're clear, I mean here on the floor, not in combat).

NationStates Jolt Archive

draft proposal: “Right to Divorce”