NationStates Jolt Archive

Would any UN Member/Delegate be willing to submit a repeal for UN resolution #14 Child Labor?
Perhaps some of you know that I have written a new and improved Child Labor Resolution but i need the original #14 struck out and rendered null and void.
just asking, could do it myself though:rolleyes:
any help or support? please show a draft copy if you are willing to help.

I refuse to even consider a repeal of the Child Labor resolution without seeing a thorough replacement on the table, and an explanation of why the replacement would be better. Put your money where your mouth is.

Sebastian Ennuk,
UN Rep for Emen Un

i do have a thorough one, do not under estimate me comrade.

Right now you haven't given him anything to underestimate you about. Or estimate you, either. It's usual, when asking for help with a proposal,repeal,whatever, to post what you've done so far. To give us the idea that you're willing to take some trouble over it.

At the moment, it reads like, "I've got this brilliant idea for a castle, would you lot mind clearing the site?"

I need to see your new proposal before that I make my decision. If your new proposal is really better than the #14, I will probably support you.

i do have a thorough one, do not under estimate me comrade.

Care to post it then?

i do have a thorough one, do not under estimate me comrade.

Really? Then prove it.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Like others here, I will not even countenance supporting a repeal of #14 until I see the proposed replacement and if it really is better.

There are some things I am unwilling to take on faith.

Like others here, I will not even countenance supporting a repeal of #14 until I see the proposed replacement and if it really is better.

There are some things I am unwilling to take on faith.

OOC: Cart before horse, mate. We haven't even seen the repeal proposal yet.

OOC: Cart before horse, mate. We haven't even seen the repeal proposal yet.I think this is one instance where the proven existence of a high quality replacement is required for most of us to even consider a vote for a repeal... regardless of how well the repeal is written.

I think this is one instance where the proven existence of a high quality replacement is required for most of us to even consider a vote for a repeal... regardless of how well the repeal is written.

OOC: My point is that we haven't even seen the repeal, yet people are already crying for text of the replacement. Bloody silly.

That would be because the repeal argument has already been made: 'I want to submit a replacement'. Indeed, the OP asked if anyone else would be willing to repeal it. So it's not surprising everyone's keen to see the replacement, because the repeal argument would be dependent on it (much as the repeal of UN Biological Weapons Ban was only drafted after the UN Bio Agent Convention was written, and doing so seemed bloody sensible).

That would be because the repeal argument has already been made: 'I want to submit a replacement'. Indeed, the OP asked if anyone else would be willing to repeal it. So it's not surprising everyone's keen to see the replacement, because the repeal argument would be dependent on it (much as the repeal of UN Biological Weapons Ban was only drafted after the UN Bio Agent Convention was written, and doing so seemed bloody sensible).

Right on the money, George. In this case, I want to see if Reussia's representative has the goods, or is simply trying to sell us a bill of goods.

Thomas Lynniston, KCB, KCMG
Ambassador to the United Nations
Commonwealth of Schwarzchild

Children should have the right to work. This resolution is dangerous to economies that rely on child labor. End the oppression of the United Nations NOW! :mp5: -children must fight for their right to work!

aite, here it is:
CHILD LABOR

The General Assembly,

KEEPING IN MIND that the issue of child labor can be related to any region in the world,

NOTING that child labor and child work are different,

DEFINING child work as children's participation in economic activities that do not interfere with schoolwork, and work that does not violate a nation's minimum age law for laborers,

KEEPING IN MIND that child labor can be found in various types of occupations such as agriculture, and the worst of them being prostitution/sexual exploitation, child trafficking, and illicit activities, all of which violate Human Rights laws,

NOTING that the main causes of child labor are poverty, lack of access to education, and limited prohibitions of inspectors and media,

CONCERNED with the continuing socioeconomic problems child labor has brought to nations,

NOTING WITH CONCERN that the continuation of child labor will result in a never ending cycle of poverty in some nations,

1. ENCOURAGES nation states to set up schemes to prevent the practice of child labor from becoming necessary for the survival of individual households such as:

a. Providing all households containing active child laborers with a complementary income approximately equal to the child's or children's daily income under the condition that the child or children concerned consistently attend school instead of working full time and participate in all classes and compulsory extra class activities from that point onwards,

b. Supplying families already following practices mentioned in clause 1 subclause a with staple foodstuffs when the following conditions are present in addition to the children of the family attending compulsory education:

I. Any members of the family are undernourished and this is not judged to be due to neglect but rather to lack of food to supply them with,

II. The family's primary or sole expenditure consists of either the purchase of staple foods or of the purchase of goods necessary to the continuation of subsistence level income and food,

III. The family is unable to procure the staples supplied themselves on any regular basis, either for reasons of cost or lack of local availability,

2. ENSURING that primary and secondary education is available for all children up to the minimum local school leaving age and that these facilities be easily accessible from all inhabited localities,

3. STRONGLY ENCOURAGES governments to step up the actions being taken to combat the more serious forms of child labor such as child prostitution and hazardous work in mines or other environments by:

a. Holding unscheduled inspections of industries suspected of exploiting children.

4. STRONGLY RECOMMENDS all nations to create and implement domestic laws that restrict children from working if they are below the the legal working age,

That would be because the repeal argument has already been made: 'I want to submit a replacement'. Indeed, the OP asked if anyone else would be willing to repeal it. So it's not surprising everyone's keen to see the replacement, because the repeal argument would be dependent on it (much as the repeal of UN Biological Weapons Ban was only drafted after the UN Bio Agent Convention was written, and doing so seemed bloody sensible).

That's hardly a reason to repeal, Mr. Madison. Reasons for repeal should be flaws in the existing resolution, not just "I've got a nifty replacement."

And this replacement? Well, it just ain't nifty.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Children should have the right to work. This resolution is dangerous to economies that rely on child labor. End the oppression of the United Nations NOW! :mp5: -children must fight for their right to work!

OOC: Hmmm...second thread in which I've said this now: Run along, troll.

That's hardly a reason to repeal, Mr. Madison. Reasons for repeal should be flaws in the existing resolution, not just "I've got a nifty replacement."

And this replacement? Well, it just ain't nifty.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

While my preliminary overview of the claimed replacement would lead me to agree with you about this particular proposal, a replacement that enlightens us on possible holes that should be filled or can demonstrate reasonable argument to replace is worth considering. If the replacement did, indeed, contain something worth enshrining into the UN legal structure, it would be worth pursuing - whether it be a repeal, replace or just plain rework the proposal into a standalone resolution.

1. ENCOURAGES nation states to set up schemes to prevent the practice of child labor from becoming necessary for the survival of individual households such as:

a. Providing all households containing active child laborers with a complementary income approximately equal to the child's or children's daily income under the condition that the child or children concerned consistently attend school instead of working full time and participate in all classes and compulsory extra class activities from that point onwards,

My problem is the bolded part. Firstly, it is not morally correct to give to those that which was not earned. If an employer valued the work of this child so much, he would pay him more. No money should come unearned. In addition, were this to be implemented, you should clarify at what rate this "complementary income" is given at.

b. Supplying families already following practices mentioned in clause 1 subclause a with staple foodstuffs when the following conditions are present in addition to the children of the family attending compulsory education:

I. Any members of the family are undernourished and this is not judged to be due to neglect but rather to lack of food to supply them with,

Who shall judge them? Surely there are not enough officials to judge each starving family?
Furthermore, let me pull the essence of your words:
You wish to feed families that cannot earn the food. In such a system, people will see that they do not have to work to earn food, that they only have to need it and the government will be obligated to deliver to them. The amount of needy people will soon swell and as one with a high income (good job) cannot possibly be judged to be in need, the number of those in the occupation of high, medium, or upper-low (lol) -paying jobs will decrease. In time, your nation would not be producing enough to feed the masses of people that have suddenly sprouted. People will have no drive to reach higher, as they can be completely content doing nothing.

II. The family's primary or sole expenditure consists of either the purchase of staple foods or of the purchase of goods necessary to the continuation of subsistence level income and food,

This only continues my idea above. What if they have no income at all? The government, as you describe it, will have to provide everything for them. How soon before....(see above).

III. The family is unable to procure the staples supplied themselves on any regular basis, either for reasons of cost or lack of local availability,

Eventually, under the effects I described above, even markets will go out of business--why sell things when you can sit at home without a job and be fed? Surely, this will be slotted under "lack of local availability." Then you'll have to feed that entire area. How many areas will this happen to?

2. ENSURING that primary and secondary education is available for all children up to the minimum local school leaving age and that these facilities be easily accessible from all inhabited localities,

I disagree with your offering of secondary education for free (as the quote implies). Im not even sure whether I would want primary education to be free. Especially under the system described above: sure, your children will go to school yay then...go home, sit in a sofa, and rot while the government supplies him.

3. STRONGLY ENCOURAGES governments to step up the actions being taken to combat the more serious forms of child labor such as child prostitution and hazardous work in mines or other environments by:

a. Holding unscheduled inspections of industries suspected of exploiting children.

Define exploiting children.

4. STRONGLY RECOMMENDS all nations to create and implement domestic laws that restrict children from working if they are below the the legal working age,

Shall you put forth a legal working age for the nations, which undoubtedly have different working ages?

The replacement seems fairly excellent to me, but it's a lot milder than the original, and it doesn't actually ban child labour. That means most people wont' support it as a replacement.

A lot of this can be submitted as a proposal without any need for a repeal. In particular, 1a and 3a seem like they could be used in a good and realistic effort to combat child labour.

The part I don't like is 4: it's lowering to a recommendation what already exists as a mandate through Resolution #14.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

And isn't the clause about education illegal, for contradiction of an existing resolution, anyway?

That's hardly a reason to repeal, Mr. Madison. Reasons for repeal should be flaws in the existing resolution, not just "I've got a nifty replacement."

As a member of the Region of the Continent of Niftyonia. I must agree.
http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o18/tzor/Nifty.gif
We decree, "Thou art not Nifty!"

The issue of child labour is a touchy one.

My opinion is that the proposed replacement is not strong enough to warrant a repeal of #14. It does not have the proper resolution strength and wanders into territory better addressed elsewhere.

Frankly, I don't care for industry or nations taking even a small step towards abusive child labour practices, and IF the repeal is enacted and this thing put up as a replacement, that might very well be the case.

Any replacement will have to be far superior to #14, not just slightly better in some spots and weaker in others.

Thou art not nifty, indeed.

Regards,

Thomas B. Lynniston; KCB, KCMG
Ambassador to the UN
Commonwealth of Schwarzchild

thankyou for all the feedback you delegates and UN members have put forth. I really appreciate it. especially Dagnus Reardinius, i will take in what you said and edit my proposal. perhaps this proposal being a follow up to #14 could be possible, previously said by Quintessence of Dust, but the proposal has to be edited. thankyou

thankyou for all the feedback you delegates and UN members have put forth. I really appreciate it. especially Dagnus Reardinius, i will take in what you said and edit my proposal. perhaps this proposal being a follow up to #14 could be possible, previously said by Quintessence of Dust, but the proposal has to be edited. thankyou

Would you be kind enough as to explain your reasoning behind the need to replace UNR #14. While you can certainly supplement the resolution without repealing it, is there anything in UNR #14 itself that is problematic?

Don't get me wrong: I'm completely against the exploitation of children in any way. With that said...

I mean, children under 14 can get an actual job with a paper route, am I not correct? This is because A paper route is a job that a) the child has the capability of performing, and b) does not interfere with the more important aspects of the child's development; namely, the child's involvement at school.

All that to say - there are definitely more jobs out there that meet the above-mentioned requirements, and yet younger children are looked over, simply because "they're kids". And frankly, I don't agree with that - it gives kids a heck of a lot less credit than they deserve.

I mean, if a child wants to earn some money, and has the appropriate skill set for a given job, and demonstrates competence, why shouldn't the child be allowed to work, say, part-time? It wouldn't interfere with school, and it would be useful in developing job skills and more maturity in the child, as opposed to them being babied until they're 30 and still living at home with mom and dad. With the current child-labour laws in place, while I do understand that they are there to protect children from exploitation, I also agree with the statement that child-labour and child-work are two completely different and separate ideas. I think the current laws short-change children who would otherwise be contributing to their own bank accounts as well as society out of their own free will.

Saucy Jack
Sexiest Man Alive
High Sultan of Pathetic Romantics

Would you be kind enough as to explain your reasoning behind the need to replace UNR #14. While you can certainly supplement the resolution without repealing it, is there anything in UNR #14 itself that is problematic?

will not be repealing anymore

1. ENCOURAGES nation states to set up schemes to prevent the practice of child labor from becoming necessary for the survival of individual households such as:

a. Providing all households containing active child laborers with a complementary income approximately equal to the child's or children's daily income under the condition that the child or children concerned consistently attend school instead of working full time and participate in all classes and compulsory extra class activities from that point onwards,

b. Supplying families already following practices mentioned in clause 1 subclause a with staple foodstuffs when the following conditions are present in addition to the children of the family attending compulsory education:

I. Any members of the family are undernourished and this is not judged to be due to neglect but rather to lack of food to supply them with,

II. The family's primary or sole expenditure consists of either the purchase of staple foods or of the purchase of goods necessary to the continuation of subsistence level income and food,

III. The family is unable to procure the staples supplied themselves on any regular basis, either for reasons of cost or lack of local availability,

You could replace this by simply propose that each family receives an allowance for each child as a little help from the gorvenment.


4. STRONGLY RECOMMENDS all nations to create and implement domestic laws that restrict children from working if they are below the the legal working age,[/QUOTE]

You should put an age.

4. STRONGLY RECOMMENDS all nations to create and implement domestic laws that restrict children from working if they are below the the legal working age,

You should put an age.

Having looked into this matter very carefully over recent months we are strongly of the opinion that the proposer should describe an age in such a manner as to prevent likely abuse (a difficult task indeed), but should under no circumstances put any actual number into a resolution. Absolute numbers inevitably fall foul of the considerable non-human presence in the UN, something which most delegates, ourself included, fail to take into account in our early efforts at drafting proposals. Additionally, we would not wish to be overly intrusive into national law in any case.

We disagree with this bit here:

Saucy Jack
Sexiest Man Alive

As we all know, that title belongs to my assistant, Mr. Tarquin Fin-tim-lim-bim-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Ole-Biscuitbarrel (http://www.montypython.art.pl/obrazki/lcmp19-15.jpg).

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

My sincerest apologies at both you and your assistant's sorrowful delusions. Get well soon.


Although, now that I think about it, I imagine he can be taken as quite handsome if the lighting's just right.
As in, pitch blackness.

Saucy Jack
Sexiest Man Alive
High Sultan of Pathetic Romantics

All this talk of repeal and replace...mutter...those chimney's won't sweep themselves...

Clearly you have never met a self-sweeping chimney. Expensive and occasionally somewhat over-enthusiastic, but so very worth it.

I like this resolution, however, I don't think we should repeal the original just yet. I'll give my reasons soon.

I like this replacement because:

The minimum work age for each country is mentioned (although some countries may lower their minimum working age to below 12; you will need to cover that base)
It notes some of the economic factors that result in child labor
It gives governments greater power of the elimination of child labor
It also has a greater range of indutries upon which this will be affected


However, there are a few evident problems:

Sections 1a and 2 are already covered by the UN Educational Aid Act, and section 3 by the Child Protection Act et al
Explain to me, in great detail, how child work and child labor are different. (Don't just say, it's in the resolution; what's there is a very shallow definition)
What about if the child labor has been generated by government force?

If you can answer these questions for me, I might consider supporting and even assisting in the writing of the repeal.

Horgen Dush
UN Representative, The Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

(although some countries may lower their minimum working age to below 12; you will need to cover that base)And what about those species who live for less than 12 years?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

And what about those species who live for less than 12 years?Or those of us who view twelve years as a blink of an eye.


Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Explain to me, in great detail, how child work and child labor are different. (Don't just say, it's in the resolution; what's there is a very shallow definition)

child work is legit. you are over the legal age limit, it doesn't interfere with school and its legit.
child labor on the other hand really aint legit mayne. its harmful, certainly illegal for hiring underage children, blocking access of education because of poverty.

an example of child labor would be a child prostitue or a child soldier.
an example of child work would be a a part time job at walmart (being over the age limit)

kinda rough

child work is legit. you are over the legal age limit, it doesn't interfere with school and its legit.
child labor on the other hand really aint legit mayne. its harmful, certainly illegal for hiring underage children, blocking access of education because of poverty.

With respect to the honoured ambassador, "it's legit" is not a legally useful definition. We sympathise somewhat with your intent, but suggest that you attempt to define what it is that makes child work legitimate, or what it is that makes child labour illegitimate. We caution against trying to define both, since anomalous cases will inevitably appear that fall between the cracks.

indeed, Reussia apologizes for its misuse of language.
Yes, there is no actual accepted definition of "Child Labor". Child work is as I have written above.

indeed, Reussia apologizes for its misuse of language.
Yes, there is no actual accepted definition of "Child Labor". Child work is as I have written above.
I apologize for my confusion, but I see no difference. Please clarify (perhaps in more...understandable language).

The Dominion

I apologize for my confusion, but I see no difference. Please clarify (perhaps in more...understandable language).

Child Labor is illegal. Child work is not. Child Labor would be hiring underage children to work in hazardous places such as mines or factories for long periods of time. Child Labor is usually caused by poverty and no access to education. Thus children end up working illegally because they really have no choice or because they are forced to work. Child Labor also deals with children being beaten and treated very badly. An example of Child labor would be a child soldier or child prostitute. In both of these cases, the child is owned and forced to work. Child soldiers are brainwashed at a young age to think like the guerillas that kidnap them.

Child work is legal. It is everywhere. Teens ober the age limit have part time jobs working at Taco Bell, Wallmart, Target etc. Children are allowed to work if they: are above the age limit, if the work does not interfer with the childs school life. Children are NOT forced to work, nor are they beaten or exploited.

Child Labor is illegal. Child work is not.

This is a bad start, and we fear that once again you have continued on to provide examples, not definitions. When law-making, this is an unwise practice.

Allow me to excuse myself; I must leave the room for some fresh air. I am afraid there has been a gas leak in here.

Respectfully,
The Dominion

Allow me to excuse myself; I must leave the room for some fresh air. I am afraid there has been a gas leak in here.

Respectfully,
The Dominion

Ooops, sorry. Guess I shouldn't have had those beans at lunch.

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA

Honorable delegate, there is no accepted definition for child labor. Thus I need to give some examples and show as best as I can what it is. As for the definition of Child work, check the proposal.

Honorable delegate, there is no accepted definition for child labor. Thus I need to give some examples and show as best as I can what it is. As for the definition of Child work, check the proposal.
I have returned from my short break. What is this? Do you not know that the definition of child labor is defined as "The full-time employment of children under a minimum age"?* You are attempting to create a new category, Ambassador; there is no such thing as "child work." Child labor covers it. Now with that in mind, would you like to either majorly rework your proposal or demolish it altogether?

The Dominion

OOC: *As defined by the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Ed. Four

Honorable Delegate, there is no universal accepted definition of Child Labor. Did you not know that? Definitions differ. There is such a thing called child work. The proposal will be edited.


Thread finished.

Honorable Delegate, there is no universal accepted definition of Child Labor. Did you not know that? Definitions differ. There is such a thing called child work. The proposal will be edited.

Thread finished.
If there is no universally accepted definition of anything, the world would be in chaos. Fortunately, there are.

In other news, the Dominion looks forward to commenting on your next proposal.

The Dominion

If there is no universally accepted definition of anything, the world would be in chaos. Fortunately, there are.

Unforunately, a quick check outside the windows of the UN (OOC: in the II forums) show that the world is indeed in chaos.

Your point being?

Unforunately, a quick check outside the windows of the UN (OOC: in the II forums) show that the world is indeed in chaos.

Your point being?
The Dominion declines to reply to such an obvious attempt to provoke us. In any case, this topic is closed at the moment until such a time that a new resolution is propose.

The Dominion

You are attempting to create a new category, Ambassador; there is no such thing as "child work."

(I will have to go both OOC and RW here, as Ardchoille's President has other things on her mind.)

The International Labour Organisation, in a study (http://www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/ipec/publ/download/2003_12_investingchild.pdf) dealing with children in the underdeveloped or transitional nations only, " ... identified all economically active children below the age of 12, all children ages 12 to 14 working more than 14 hours per week, and all children below age 18 in the worst forms of child labour as 'child labourers'."

The term "child work", as a specific definition different from "child labour", is possibly so recent that it may not yet be in all dictionaries, but it is used in industrial relations commentary. It refers to work performed for a legally restricted number of hours by people under the age of legal majority without adverse effects on their education or their health.

So the babies on the babyfood ads are "child workers" in the entertainment industry; in many countries, they are usually employed under strict conditions protecting their health, their welfare, their income and their education. Similarly, the 15-year-old at the pizza parlour could be described as performing "child work".

In some circumstances "child work" is seen as beneficial, giving the young person the independence of an assured, if minor, income and the responsibility of meeting work standards. For example, the ILO study again: 'It is possible that some child work, when it entails suitable hours and activities, may even generate positive health effects'.

That study has loads of statistics on the economic costs and effects of ending child labour in the countries studied. It seems to boil down to an argument that the economic benefit of better education is greater than the economic cost of ending child labour.

However, since none of it applies in NS, I'm not going to quote it at you. I just wanted to clear up that definition.

Oh! Thank you, Ambassador, for clearing that up. I see now. That was certainly what I was looking for and certainly much more lucid of an explanation than others provided before.

Most Respectfully,
The Dominion