NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, so, im assuming that im going to get screamed at for doing this, and may even be bogarting Iron Felix's ideas AND IN THAT CASE I WILL GLADLY LET HIM SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING PROPOSALS, or a co authorship, or whatever. They are listed individually currently, for the purpose of allowing every aspect an up/down vote. If you think they shouldnt be, feel free to write that. If you think im an ass for doing this, dont bother, i already know im an ass. This thread and these proposals are intended to foster discussion toward adding teeth to the current proposal (and it obviously will pass, i mean come on, who except me is going to vote against orphans?).

MODS, if ye decree that a repealing of the current proposal is necessary, feel free to completely delete this thread and telegram me this.

......................................................................................

The United Nations,

Noting the spirit of resolution #237, to protect a nation's most vulnerable,

Defining a Child as a Human under the age of 18,

Hereby Mandates Member nations to fund the construction and staffing of orphanages and shelters for homeless children as the situation in their nation merits.

...............................................................................................

The United Nations,

Noting the spirit of resolution #237, to protect a nation's most vulnerable,

Defining a Child as a Human under the age of 18,

Mandates Member nations to establish appropriate child welfare agencies to oversee the well-being of homeless children and to manage the distribution of aid. These agencies are further mandated to share information to facilitate intranational and international adoptions.

.............................................................................................

The United Nations,

Noting the spirit of resolution #237, to protect a nation's most vulnerable,

Defining a Child as a Human under the age of 18,

Mandates member nations to provide its aid to orphans in a no-threat environment with full confidentiality, but with the goal of eventually placing homeless children in an officially recognized shelter, orphanage or foster home, or if possible, returning them to their parents or an acceptable guardian.

........................................................................................

The United Nations,

Noting the spirit of resolution #237, to protect a nation's most vulnerable,

Defining a Child as a Human under the age of 18,

Mandates member nations, under no circumstances to involuntarily place homeless children in different officially recognized shelter, orphanage or foster homes than their siblings.

...............................................................................................

oh, and since half of this is stolen text, i may as well add this

"This is a fairly straightforward and easy to understand text. I have no intention of responding to idiocy of any kind, nor am I likely to respond to persons who have obviously not taken the time to read the text. Fair warning."

OOC:
In a lot of nations, their laws state that a child is under a different age than what your proposal says. I think in one, it says a child is below the age of 30 or so. So passing something to pre-define an age for all UN Nations wouldn't work for those nations.

so the problem is, yes, nations define it differently, but by defining adult at age 0 makes the act worthless......

OHHH!!!! im an idiot. ill change it to 'child unless adult, adult holds the full rights of a citizen'! (or so) thank you!

I'd pretty much rule that this fails the House of Cards test, or qualifies as an amendment. And given that it amends a proposal that hasn't yet passed, I'd delete it if it were posted before #237 passes anyway.

Shazbotdom's statement is a long-accepted RP convention of this body, and this stands little chance of passage based on that alone. I'd drop this if I were you.

Defining a Child as a Human under the age of 18,


Defining a Child as a Human under the age of 18,

Defining a Child as a Human under the age of 18,


Defining a Child as a Human under the age of 18,

We are not HUMAN and set the age to become citizens at 12 on competion of the required training and schooling as set by national laws for all children to gain before they have earned full citizenship rights.

Perhaps it would be better for you to take this and continue modifying it as need be based off the suggestions you receive, but to also wait for now and focus on getting the resolution that is undoubtedly going to pass soon repealed. Repeal first, then replace. Keep this on the back burner, so to speak.

As for the legislation itself, we propose striking the definition of child out, replacing it with something to the effect of "whatever a child is defined in each member nation" (in a more elegant manner of speech, of course).

Vokhuz Kon
Unkerlantum UN Executive Delegate

Repeal/Replace is just going to waste time when there may be methods that can just grant the UNCPA more power (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13452371&postcount=46), which is what you want. Plus, there is no guarrante this first resolution is actually going to pass, I'm betting it will fail by a close margin, actually.

If the UNCPA is granted the power to seize orphans, then they will know what is a child and what is an adult, and then will easily distingush between the two. No need to add definitions then.

But for what you want, you just want to add more protection for orphans. So we just need to come up with another title for it about "orphan protection", but you better tread carefully, as you don't want a HoC violation. At all.
---Dr. Bob

ok. first off im drunk, and so it is disrespectful to this body to be posting. that said, i thank you all for not calling me an ass. I figured that I would be screamed at for plagarism and violently thrown out of the UN.

in response to the comment of Cavirra, yeah, sweet. Decapodians are lobsters whose parents die after sex. this is why the resolution shouldnt apply to nations like us, because orphan doesnt mean anything to us. the problem would be nailing down a set definition of child (other than having attained the full rights of a citizen) i actually posted this right after the original post, so you obviously didnt read that, and so probably wont read this, so im wasting my breath.....

I'd pretty much rule that this fails the House of Cards test, or qualifies as an amendment. And given that it amends a proposal that hasn't yet passed, I'd delete it if it were posted before #237 passes anyway.

Shazbotdom's statement is a long-accepted RP convention of this body, and this stands little chance of passage based on that alone. I'd drop this if I were you.

thank you. finally a straight message from a MOD. if youve seen glorious hack's fighting with me on other shit, you know how pleasant this is to me. the premise of this resolution is that i believe it will pass ($5 on it passing any takeres?) and i have true problems with passing legislation that does no positive good (oh, and if it doesnt pass, ill basicly rewrite the whole damn thing to be different and effective). i would be wildly interested in your opinion of Silent Scopes roundabout of HoC.

Silent Scope, i take it that you have similar reservations to the proposal. thank you for suggesting a roundabout, and that would be reflected in a new draft of the proposal if i werent so friggin drunk. oh, and i can just invent a new committtee to do this, if that would work.

thank yall.

OOC: You'd also need to consider the fact that there are some nations in which not all people who are legally defined as adults possess "the full rights of a citizen".

yeah..... still trying to figure out how to define child......... i could let a committee define it.......

Look, this is not going to work, no matter how you try to get around it. Even if you could bypass HoC, you still can't amend passed resolutions. Ceo tried something (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=508426)* very similar to this last year, to devastating effects. He was so hounded and criticized and thrashed for wanking that he hasn't really been seen much since. And he was one of the most active players in the game.

If you don't like the passed resolution, repeal it and write a replacement. That's your only viable option.

* For context, Fair Sentencing Act says nations can use the death penalty; Ceo's proposal tried in effect to amend FSA so that nations couldn't use it.

He isn't really wanting to amend it, nor is he trying to defeat the entire purpose of the resolution. He wants to stregthen the Commitee, as Iron Felix himself said that can be done. Giving more power to the database, after all.

Decapod Ten, just let a Commitee decide. I think they'll do it quite fine. I'll also assist in drafting a new resolution as well, if you think you need it.

He wants to stregthen the Commitee, as Iron Felix himself said that can be done.Which, unless you can craft a proposal with an entirely different scope than the original, is just an amendment to previous resolution, and hence illegal. If you were to write a completely separate proposal on, say, child trafficking or human trafficking, and -- instead of making an entirely new committee -- simply tasked UNCPA with implementing some of the proposal's goals, that would probably be legal. As this proposal currently reads, it is clear its only purpose is amending a passed resolution, so it's not.

And, speaking as someone with experience dealing with this body, your suggestion that the UNCPA be empowered to "seize" orphans hasn't a prayer of passage by the GA. It's unbearably intrusive.

Which, unless you can craft a proposal with an entirely different scope than the original, is just an amendment to previous resolution, and hence illegal. If you were to write a completely separate proposal on, say, child trafficking or human trafficking, and -- instead of making an entirely new committee -- simply tasked UNCPA with implementing some of the proposal's goals, that would probably be legal. As this proposal currently reads, it is clear its only purpose is amending a passed resolution, so it's not.

It will be hard, but I am not saying it's not doable. I want to see what Decapod Ten has to say, before I can comment on it being illegal. It will need to be phrased carefully, and, maybe having a new focus. As of now, it is pretty disjointed as written. (EDIT: And after trying for a while, if I find it is impossible, I abandon it. Still, thanks for the advice.)

And, speaking as someone with experience dealing with this body, your suggestion that the UNCPA be empowered to "seize" orphans hasn't a prayer of passage by the GA. It's unbearably intrusive.

I never said I was to support it nor would the rest of the NSUN, just that it could be done, as a way of countering those who argue the resolution is too weak.

All i'm confused about is why the hell the UN thinks they can tell me what to do in my country...and i feel that my policies on Orphans is a good one

All i'm confused about is why the hell the UN thinks they can tell me what to do in my country

because that is the purpose of the UN. what else would it do?

As this proposal currently reads, it is clear its only purpose is amending a passed resolution, so it's not.

agreed. as it is currently written it is illegal. working on a new draft, should be out soon.

simply tasked UNCPA with implementing some of the proposal's goals[/QUOTE

excellent suggestion..... i will probably do that.

[QUOTE]your suggestion that the UNCPA be empowered to "seize" orphans hasn't a prayer of passage by the GA. It's unbearably intrusive.

also agreed. the abduction of citizens of a nation by the UN is pretty damn intrusive, but i doubt that is actually what was intended.

I'll also assist in drafting a new resolution as well, if you think you need it.

perhaps, ill wait until the reaction once draft 2 is out.

The United Nations

Noting the spirit of resolution #237, to protect a nation's most vulnerable,
[Probably more preamble blah blah blah]

Hereby:

Mandates Member Nations fund the construction and operation of orphanages and shelters for homeless children as the situation in their nation merits.

Tasks the UNCPA with assessing Member Nations’ efforts to fund the construction and operation of orphanages and shelters for homeless children, and reporting to the international community the sufficiency of those efforts.

Allows Member States to impose sanctions on individual states whose efforts are deemed insufficient by the UNCPA.

………………………………………………

The United Nations
[preamble]
Hereby:

Mandates Member nations to establish appropriate child welfare agencies to oversee the well-being of homeless children and to manage the distribution of aid. These agencies are further mandated to share information to facilitate intranational and international adoptions.

Tasks the UNCPA with assessing Member Nations’ efforts to establish appropriate child welfare agencies to oversee the well-being of homeless children and to manage the distribution of aid, and reporting to the international community the sufficiency of those efforts.

Allows Member States to impose sanctions on individual states whose efforts are deemed insufficient by the UNCPA.

………………………………………………………

The United Nations
[preamble]
Hereby:

Mandates member nations to provide its aid to orphans in a no-threat environment with full confidentiality, but with the goal of eventually placing homeless children in an officially recognized shelter, orphanage or foster home, or if possible, returning them to their parent(s) or an acceptable guardian(s).

Tasks the UNCPA with assessing Member Nations’ efforts to establish a no-threat environment with full confidentiality, and reporting to the international community the sufficiency of those efforts.

Allows Member States to impose sanctions on individual states whose efforts are deemed insufficient by the UNCPA.

…………………………………………………………

The United Nations
[preamble]
Hereby:

Forbids member nations, under no circumstances, to involuntarily place homeless children in different officially recognized shelter, orphanage or foster homes than their siblings.

.............................................................

now, i did find that in the POA the UNCPA makes a database of "all known homeless or orphaned children" and thus it is established in that resolution that the UNCPA defines a child.

I also did only give additional power to the committee, yet it still feels like an amendment.

(at this point during writing this i submitted a proposal to repeal)

I left the proposals as four distinct entities, and reasoned that the fourth needs no enforcement clause.

comments?

Egad. You can't pass all the resolutions. That'll take far too longer, and too piecemeal. I'm going to see if I can combine them all into one resolution, and then evaulate later.

<lovely preamble>

1. Mandates Member Nations to do the following:
(a)Fund the construction and operation of orphanages and shelters for homeless children as the situation in their nation merits.
(b)Establish appropriate child welfare agencies to oversee the well-being of homeless children and to manage the distribution of aid. These agencies are further mandated to share information to facilitate intranational and international adoptions.
(c)Provide its aid to orphans in a no-threat environment with full confidentiality, but with the goal of eventually placing homeless children in an officially recognized shelter, orphanage or foster home, or if possible, returning them to their parent(s) or an acceptable guardian(s).

2. Forbids member nations, under no circumstances, to involuntarily place homeless children in different officially recognized shelter, orphanage or foster homes than their siblings.

3. Tasks the UNCPA with assessing to see if Clause 1 and Clause 2 are followed by memberstates, and reporting to the international community the sufficiency of those efforts.

4. Allows Member States to impose sanctions on individual states whose efforts are deemed insufficient by the UNCPA.

Erm. I do dislike it as it is written, and yeah, it does feel a bit amendmenty. Not only that, but now I realize why Iron Felix didn't want to make his resolution stronger, my god, that's too expensive. Maybe now I am leaning towards OMGTKK about this. Especially if we can't come up with a good reason why to do this. (Now I am reminded of the "End Slavery" resolution debalce as well...)

Erm. The first thing that comes to mind is this: "Why not let the UN pay for all this stuff? Why should us nations do it?"

Look, this is not going to work, no matter how you try to get around it. Even if you could bypass HoC, you still can't amend passed resolutions. Ceo tried something (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=508426)* very similar to this last year, to devastating effects.Oh man... we haven't had a debate like that in awhile.

Resolution #237 encourages nations to look after their orphans: This would mandate that they do so the same thing... Seems like a pretty obvious case of amendment to me...

first, i agree that its amendmenty (i like that word) that's why yesterday i submitted a repeal that mysteriously disappeared(still looking for a reason why)

secondly, one of my first questions was whether or not to submit peacemeal, and give nations the abillity to adopt what portions they want. nobody had answered before now.

Why not let the UN pay for all this stuff? Why should us nations do it

hell, the UN could fund it. why not?