NationStates Jolt Archive

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Kiften

This Assembly,

DEFINING slavery as the state of one bound in servitude involuntarily or against their will to an individual or group of individuals through ownership, or by means in which a person is forced to work for said individual or group of individuals with no means of recourse, with the exception being where such is a judicial sentence administered as punishment for a criminal offence by a competent authority.

ACKNOWLEDGING that slavery is a moral injustice, and should be fought against at all costs;

DECLARES:

1) Citizens shall be given the right to terminate work status with their employer if a two-week notice of resignation is given, provided the terminating party has not signed a contract with employer agreeing to terms of employment . Either party may challenge the legality of a contract if they feel the other side has breached the terms of aforementioned contract, and all governments have the right to self-regulate contract disputes within their own boundaries, according to their legislature, but all parties to a contract dispute have the right to request arbitration by an independent source.

1a) This Assembly defines a contract as an agreement between two or more freely consenting parties, especially one that is written and enforceable by law. Furthermore, governments are hereby permitted to set a maximum amount of time that contracts may entail.

2) All citizens are allowed to keep possession of items which are to be considered of a 'personal' nature. Total items may not exceed a certain monetary amount, to be set by each individual government. Individual governments have the right to choose not to set a limit. We recognize that items may be a part of one's identity, and therefore grant individuals the right to maintain possession of these items.

3) The abolition of slavery, immediately upon approval and ratification of this resolution. This prohibits the owning, selling, or purchasing of slaves. No restitution or compensation for slaves or slaveowners will be paid out, excepting where governments take it upon themselves to compensate slaves or slaveowners.

4) Governments have the right to require prisoners to work in order to compensate for food and boarding. The hours should be commensurate to a normal workweek, and governments may not force any criminal to work excessive hours, or tasks that hold a high likelihood for injury.

5) Minors can not be considered to be a slave to their legal guardians. However, legal guardians must also abide by all UN and governmental laws regarding care of minors, and can not force children to work excessive hours, or perform tasks that hold a high likelihood for injury.

This Assembly

HOPING that providing clearer wording and more coherent laws will provide for greater understanding and greater compliance;

UNDERSTANDING that only by providing people their freedom can they contribute to the best of their abilities to our socieities;

DECLARING these laws to be necessary for the good of the UN, and for the development of its peoples; hereby

ENACTS this resolution into law

Firstly, this is very good. Some comments, though:

Resolution: #6
Right, I think you're misunderstanding how the category system works. For a repeal, it's repeal/resolution number. For a new resolution, it's category/strength. This one would be Human Rights, Significant.

This resolution calls for an abolition of slavery in all UN Nations.
The resolution will automatically generate the first line: it will say "to increase civil rights".

Argument: This Assembly,
There is no 'argument' line in a resolution: just the description.

So going with all that, just start with "This Assembly,"

DEFINING slavery as the state of one bound in servitude as the property of an individual or group of individuals, excepting for citizens imprisoned legally in order to compensate for their food and boarding;
I don't really understand this definition. I think it would be better to define slavery as the ownership of a person by another person, or the forced incarceration or forced labour of a person, except where such is a judicial sentence administered as punishment for a criminal offence by a competent authority.

ACKNOWLEDES that slavery is a moral injustice, and should be fought against at all costs;
Good.

DECLARES the following:
I would cut 'the following', and just have "DECLARES:"

1) Citizens shall be given the right to terminate work status with their employer if a two-week notice of resignation is given, provided the terminating party has not signed a contract with employer agreeing to terms of employment . Either party may challenge the legality of a contract if they feel the other side has breached the terms of aforementioned contract, and all governments have the right to self-regulate contract disputes within their own boundaries, according to their legislature.
Ok. The UN has never legislated contract law, so silly as it might sound, I think you need to include that the contract has to be i) legal and ii) signed with mutual consent of both parties. You might want to add something about independent arbitration for contract disputes, especially where government employees are concerned: after all, it's a bit unfair for the employer to regulate the dispute.

2) All citizens are allowed to keep possession of items which are to be considered of a 'personal' nature. Total items may not exceed a certain dollar amount, to be set by each individual government. We recognize that items may be a part of one's identity, and therefore grant individuals the right to maintain possession of these items.
Ok, I think this is fine. You could, I suppose, add an 'at least' to all of this, to make it clear you're not banning all other forms of property, if nations don't wish to do so. I would also avoid the word 'dollar': change instead to 'states may cap the value of such items at a certain level'.

3) The right to travel freely will be granted to all citizens, with exceptions consisting only of suspects in containment and convicted criminals. Furthermore, suspects in containment must be given right to a fair and speedy trial as defined by this body, or in the lack of a UN definition, the definition of fair trial provided by that nation's government.
The 'travel freely' clause always was a problem. Firstly, don't blanket exempt 'convicted criminals': this means governments would be able to prohibit the movement of anyone with a criminal record. Better to say 'those under legal incarceration'. Next, you should also include as exceptions 'where such breaches contract law', 'those being isolated for medical treatment', 'those being contained on a psychiatric or medical order'. Now, trespassing: you should say that this doesn't apply to private property, where the right of passage is to be dictated by the owner. I think that covers everything...

4) The abolition of slavery, immediately upon approval and ratification of this resolution. This would prevent the selling, purchasing or owning of slaves. No retribution for loss of slaves will be paid out, excepting where governments take it upon themselves to reimburse slaveowners.
Good. What about compensation of the slaves themselves? (I actually think that should remain a sovereign decision, but it's just a thought.)

5) Governments have the right to require prisoners to work in order to compensate for food and boarding. The hours should be commensurate to a normal workweek, and governments may not force any criminal to work excessive hours, or tasks that hold a high likelihood for injury.
Ok.

Conclusion: This Assembly

HOPING that providing clearer wording and more coherent laws will provide for greater understanding and greater compliance;

UNDERSTANDING that only by providing people their freedom can they contribute to the best of their abilities to our socieities;

DECLARING these laws to be necessary for the good of the UN, and for the development of its peoples; hereby

ENACTS this resolution into law
Very nice. Given you mentioned 'ratification earlier', you might want to put something about 'immediate ratification'.

Co-authored by the Protectorate of Kiften
Why are you putting this? You're the author...you can't be the co-author too! Also, you shouldn't use the pretitle: only put "Kiften".

1) There are certain jobs which handle valuable materials. The ability to leave after two weeks and disappear is problematic at best with this kind of situation. Armored truck operator. Bank guard. Diamond courier. Bank manager. This needs to be extended to a month in this case. These jobs are bonded meaning you are held accountable for the money you are handling. Something akin to slavery in a way. If the money disappears you go to jail whether you like it or not. There needs to be an accounting for bonded jobs.

2) Debt slavery should be taken into account for. For example a man earns 5 cents an hour for his work in some funky country, he works 8 hours a day, he is charged 30 cents for the food which the employer provides, and 20 cents to use the tools which the employer owns. He works to avoid starvation. His contract states he must work off his debt. If he tries to leave the employer has an agreement with the local police where the man is put in prison for failing to work off his debt.

3) Work with no pay. There is no clause for work with no pay. Work for me to be put in company housing and meal no pay. After 5 years we give you little money you go away.

The UN has never legislated contract law, so silly as it might sound, I think you need to include that the contract has to be i) legal and ii) signed with mutual consent of both parties.

I have always had a problem with this issue, so now is a good time to raise it. I believe the "contract without consent" loophole is actually an oxymoron, and semantic-wanking. A contract is an agreement; it is implied in the meaning of the word contract that all parties agree to the terms when signing. OK, you do need legal rules voiding contracts signed under coercion or whatever, but I don't see it as essential to state it in every proposal....

I have always had a problem with this issue, so now is a good time to raise it. I believe the "contract without consent" loophole is actually an oxymoron, and semantic-wanking. A contract is an agreement; it is implied in the meaning of the word contract that all parties agree to the terms when signing. OK, you do need legal rules voiding contracts signed under coercion or whatever, but I don't see it as essential to state it in every proposal....
Ok, not in every proposal, but this is just one proposal, and given it's about slavery, it seems a reasonable place to start. Indeed, if he defines a contract as requiring mutual competent assent in this one, then the issue is settled for all future proposals.

Gruenberg,

Some replies as follows.

The definition of slavery was taken straight out of the dictionary. I think being 'in slavery' relates to the one being bound. I will edit it a bit above, please let me know what you think.


As far as contract law, could I include a subset that states the definition of what a contract is? Good point about the independent arbitration.

The possessions law did need some tightening up, and I think I have done so now, with your ideas and some further review.

I will rework the travel freely ideas.

I do intend on making any slave compensation a natsov issue (as I really can't imagine any other way it would actually get through.)

Where do you think I should fit in the quote 'immediate ratification'? Not sure where you think it would fit best. Please enlighten me.

And the co-author part? Like you mentioned earlier, I'm new. I thought that when putting proposals you had to put it in that standard, or something like that. Also, it wasn't written only by myself, per se, but with the help of many good individuals like yourself.

Sincerely,

Nicodemus Larynger,
-Protectorate of Kiften-

1) There are certain jobs which handle valuable materials. The ability to leave after two weeks and disappear is problematic at best with this kind of situation. Armored truck operator. Bank guard. Diamond courier. Bank manager. This needs to be extended to a month in this case. These jobs are bonded meaning you are held accountable for the money you are handling. Something akin to slavery in a way. If the money disappears you go to jail whether you like it or not. There needs to be an accounting for bonded jobs.

These jobs, I feel, could be handled under contract law. For those willing to work under such circumstances, the employers could ask that their prospective hires sign a contract saying that they take responsibility for said items. If they choose not to have such responsibility, they do not have to take the job.

2) Debt slavery should be taken into account for. For example a man earns 5 cents an hour for his work in some funky country, he works 8 hours a day, he is charged 30 cents for the food which the employer provides, and 20 cents to use the tools which the employer owns. He works to avoid starvation. His contract states he must work off his debt. If he tries to leave the employer has an agreement with the local police where the man is put in prison for failing to work off his debt.

Common, I've discussed this with others. This is why the 'bound in servitude' is important. If one is bound in servitude, and can NOT or is not allowed to get another job, then he is bound in servitude (he can not escape). If it is a contract and it seems unfair, then it is something that can be mediated by an arbiter, or the local government.

No resolution though, can prevent corrupt dealings. If the police are in agreement with a local faction to ignore the law, said law will not prevent this from happening.

3) Work with no pay. There is no clause for work with no pay. Work for me to be put in company housing and meal no pay. After 5 years we give you little money you go away.

Not quite sure what you're getting at. Again, a contract detailing the terms of such employment coudl be written up and agreed to by both parties.

If I have misinterpreted any of your points, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Nicodemus Larynger,
-Protectorate of Kiften-

As it stands now, I see two possible problems here.

1) I most likely need a way to separate parenting from slavery. As it is now, it seems a parent could not force a child to do household chores or anything like that.

2) People would still be free to be 'voluntary' slaves. That's why I included the clause about governments being able to set 'term limits' for contracts...that's the best I could do, I think.

Do you think these are things I should worry about?

Also, do you tihnk that the 'right to travel freely' clause should be it's own resolution? Should I cut out the part of 'fair and speedy trial'? Trying to tighten this up as much as I can.

Thanks to all,

Nicodemus Larynger
-Protectorate of Kiften-

I'm not sure about the parenting thing. As for voluntary slavery...I don't see how you can legislate against that. It's voluntary. I'm going to go look through some of the ILO's conventions, to see if there are any relevant documents. I agree, though, that the issue of travelling freely could benefit from being left out: keep this proposal about slavery. The freedom of travel might be better suited to a different resolution, dealing with international as well as national travel. And bear in mind, the UN has already banned human trafficking (Resolution #68, I think).

So: yes, keep the proposal focussed on slavery, and possibly eliminate the parts about freedom of travel.

Gruenberg,

Thanks for helping me with the research, as it were. Slavery is a big enough issue by itself, after all. The freedom to travel thing can be put up next. I'll have to think of a clause for parenting.

How about something like specifically exempting actions undertaken where the party is acting in the capacity of legal guardian of a dependent?

Gruenberg,

The only possible problem I see with said exemption is that it doesn't prevent the legal guardian from overworking their dependents. Perhaps a clause set up like the 'prisoners' clause would work?

The only possible problem I see with said exemption is that it doesn't prevent the legal guardian from overworking their dependents. Perhaps a clause set up like the 'prisoners' clause would work?
Yes, that might be worth a try. The other possibility would be to go with the exemption, and then add a requirement for governments to prevent abuse.

Gruenberg,

Edited again to reflect changes.

1) I have a problem with the concept of contract in the slave situation. It should be written as if the person is illiterate and downtrodden, the case of the many abused slaves. It is specifically these people that slavery law needs most to protect. Two of the previous examples, work without pay for a roof is often the result of poverty and illiteracy, and debt slavery also. Presenting a contract in this case wouldn't work. It has to have direct protections in these cases. The law will be ineffective for a lot of people otherwise. Poverty and slavery often go hand in hand.

Common,

Yes, contracts can be unfair. But this is also why I have allowed for contract mediation with an independent arbiter. Perhaps I should add that contract mediation will be provided free of charge by the government?

Not sure how I could word this to prevent abuse.

Clause 3: You're still saying "retribution" rather than (the much more approrpriate) "restitution"...

St Edmund,

Thanks for catching that. I replaced it.