NationStates Jolt Archive

The General Assembly of The United Nations,

RECOGNIZING that torture and cruel & unusual punishment is both barbaric and deplorable,

LAUDING the attempted efforts of the UN Resolution #41 "END BARBARIC PUNISHMENTS" for denouncing and outlawing barbaric punishments,

CRITICIZING the ambiguity of Resolution #41's language and the failure to clarlify the definitions of torture and cruel & unusual punishment,

ALSO CRITICIZING of the bill's inability to define or even outline the language of "a substantial fine,"

REJECTING the idea that Resolution #41 only claims protection from barbaric abuses for witnesses, suspects, and criminals,

RECALLING that UN Resolution #26 "The Universal Bill of Rights" already protects ALL humans from torture and cruel & unusual punishment as stated in Articles 4 & 5,

ALSO RECALLING that the same rights granted by Resolution # 41 are secondarily protected by Resolutions #27 ("Due Process") & #31 ("Wolfish Convention on POWs),

DECLARING that Resolution #41 "END BARBARIC PUNISHMENTS" is redundant, unnecessary, and does nothing to further promote human rights,

REPEALS UN Resolution #41 "END BARBARIC PUNISHMENTS."

Ok, this was the original repeal that I submitted a few weeks back, although I have made some spelling corrections (I havent resubmitted this yet...). I would like everyone's input on this repeal: changes, additions, or is it even worth it at all? Im a big supporter in getting rid of useless and redundant UN legislation and I definitely feel this falls under that category. Thanks. :cool:

Oh yeah and this is my first proposal/repeal since becoming a UN delegate.

Something about this argument: you criticise #41 for not defining torture and punishment well enough, but at the same time you reference resolutions that provide significantly less definition in their prohibitions. That doesn't rub very well.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

Something about this argument: you criticise #41 for not defining torture and punishment well enough, but at the same time you reference resolutions that provide significantly less definition in their prohibitions. That doesn't rub very well.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

True. Fortunately, there's no rubbing required for the passage of a resolution. I'll certainly support the draft as-is, though I'll agree that the clauses about the lack of definitions don't need to be there. Congratulations to the representative from Olverica on a good repeal text.

And Rono, speaking of rubbing, do you know where Dahlia is? She rubs very well indeed. Scratches pretty good too.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

True. Fortunately, there's no rubbing required for the passage of a resolution.
No argument is required over any other for a resolution to pass: some are obviously more effective than others, though.

And Rono, speaking of rubbing, do you know where Dahlia is? She rubs very well indeed. Scratches pretty good too.
I was on the verge of wetting myself with laughter at that! But then I realized it'd probably be better for you to shut up.

~Rono Pyandran
etc.

This is a bit of a concern for my government. With the passing of the fair sentencing act, nations may now issue sentences as they wish, not withstanding previous international law concerning punishment. If we were to repeal this resolution *now*, I'm not sure what would stop one of the multitude of dictatorships from restarting forms of punishment that this body might consider barbaric.

I think any repeal attempt would be better off surveying existing national laws on sentencing before this issue reaches the floor.

OOC: Perhaps we could conduct some NS surveys to collect info on what national sentencing laws have been like in nations.

Given that my nation considers the death penalty barbaric, and given that the Fair Sentencing Act makes that penalty possible for UN nations that choose to impose it, we'd be reluctant, too, to see this smidgen of protection go.

At least, that's what I thought until we let our lawyers out long enough for them to hunt it up. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029871&postcount=42) It's pretty barbaric itself.

Nonetheless, we share the concern of the government of Mikitivity about the response of governments to recent changes. Flawed though it is, #41 refers specifically to the punishment of criminals. It could well be the last line of appeal for criminals in death penalty nations and we would not take that away from them.

Looks good, I was going to propose this myself.

"Yay! We can torture peo-- *smack* OW!"
-- Czardaniel i Starfire, Czardaian Co-Ambassador to the UN and Professional Madman

Ceorana won't support this as long as FSA in on the books.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

Before the passage of the "Fair Sentencing Act", we would have supported a repeal of the resolution in question in hope that a better, more effective replacement might be forthcoming. Now though, we must oppose the repeal, since any replacement is blocked.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large