NationStates Jolt Archive

All,

This is a rough draft of what is designed to replace UNR 80: "Rights of Minorities and Women." I'm still missing portions of the document: the problem identification statement is still undergoing revision; the solution statement is still something I'm thinking about as well.

When reviewing this document, I'd like peer reviewers to consider whether or not this proposed document is proposal-worthy: does this document address the ambiguities of UNR 80? Is the language logical, consistent and clear?

Because the problem identification statement and solution statements are missing, a few questions cannot be answered, such as "does this document stay on topic," or "is the document goal possible?"

Thank you,

Eustace James-Nelly
Trafaalgar International Affairs, Millitary and Trade (TIAMAT) Attache
sent c/o Sarien Palth
Trafaalgar Communications Attache
Protectorate of Trafaalgar

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

Specification 0: Working Synoptic Title (Draft - v 0.0.1ß)
Crafter: Regional Liason Corps, The Protectorate of Trafaalgar
Peer Review: Solicited

Members of the United Nations (henceforth known as “the Members”) and the United Nations (henceforth known as “the UN”) establish and enforce the following policies.

Doctrine of Plurality - The UN establishes that no one race, culture, gender, religious practice or belief, political practice or belief, sexual orientation or ethnicity is superior, preferable, or of any greater value than any other. The UN recognizes that all humans, regardless of ethnicity, race, sex, sexual orientation, political practice or belief or religious practice or belief are of equal value to global society and culture.

Doctrine of Equality - The UN and the Members are dedicated to improving and protecting the rights of human beings. Within this document are orders aligned with the scope and spirit of this document:

Order 0. The UN may not craft policy that contradicts the Doctrine of Plurality.

Order Ia. The Members may not prohibit, deny, revoke or restrict access to government resources that would normally be granted by Member law to any human being if the evaluation process by which the access was prohibited, denied, revoked or restricted or the end result would contradict the Doctrine of Plurality.

Order Ib. The Members may not prohibit, deny, revoke or restrict utilization of government resources that would normally be granted by Member law to any human being if the evaluation process by which the utilization was prohibited, denied, revoked or restricted or end result would contradict the Doctrine of Plurality

Order IIa. The Members may not prohibit, deny, revoke or restrict a citizen’s ability to participate in the Member’s government to the fullest extent allowed by Member law if the the evaluation process by which the participation would be prohibited, denied, revoked or restricted end result would contradict the Doctrine of Plurality.

Order IIb. The Members may not prohibit, deny, revoke or restrict citizenship that would normally be granted by Member law in the Member’s country if the evaluation process by which the access was prohibited, denied, revoked or restricted or the end result would contradict the Doctrine of Plurality.

Order IIIa. The Members may not craft policy, execute mandate or create legislation whose end result would contradict the Doctrine of Plurality.

Order IIIb. The Members may not craft policy, execute mandate or create legislation whose end result would support contradiction of the Doctrine of Plurality.

Doctrine of Plurality - political practice or belief, This may be illegal as it stops nations from taking on a selected government over another to work by. Since they can't by this choose one...

The UN establishes that no one race, culture, gender, religious practice or belief, political practice or belief, sexual orientation or ethnicity is superior, preferable, or of any greater value than any other.

This may be illegal as it stops nations from taking on a selected government over another to work by. Since they can't by this choose one...

Can you provide an example of text that would be used to replace this? Can you also give a more elaborate example of the problem you see? Your phrasing isn't quite clear and I don't want to misinterpret it.

Does anyone else see the same problem?

Thanks for your feedback, Cavirra. I look forward to your clarifications.

Best Regards,

Eustace James-Nelly
Trafaalgar International Affairs, Millitary and Trade (TIAMAT) Attache
sent c/o Sarien Palth
Trafaalgar Communications Attache
Protectorate of Trafaalgar

We have only briefly analysed this brave legislative attempt, and sadly forsee a number of problems with its practical enforcement. It is also somewhat repetitious, presumably in an effort at clarity, which did rather dissuade us from taking in all the details quickly.

We think Order 0 is likely illegal, putting restrictions on future UN law-making in a manner that isn't a consequence of the effects on member nations. It is the job of the rest of the proposal to be sufficiently robust that Order 0 is simply the case.

Order 1 we have no issue with.

Order 2 has some hidden traps within it, particularly for nations where circumstances of birth or religious belief are determining factors in government. We are not at all convinced that the phrase "to the fullest extent allowed by Member law" is sufficient to permit theocracies, aristocracies, or even our own monarchic democracy to flourish, since one must obviously be a believer to participate in a theocratic government for example. We very much appreciate the principle of inclusion that is being sought, but care must be taken not to outlaw some forms of government in this way. We regret that we do not have a form of words to suggest to rectify this situation.

Order 3, except where it encompasses Order 2, would seem to us to have been the entire point of the original legislation were it not for an infelicity of word choice of the original.