NationStates Jolt Archive

Application of Law to All

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Blog Waters

Description: Recognizing that the nations of the World Assembly are composed of a wide variety of citizens from various origins; and

Whereas the World Assembly cannot predict the variety of citizenry that will inhabit future generations; and

Therefore, the World Assembly member nations shall recognize any self-aware individual that is intellectually capable of independently participating in government when given adequate access; and

As recognized individuals, those meeting this criteria will be granted the same rights, subject to the same oppression, and ruled by the same laws; and

Furthermore, the proposals passed by this organization shall be interpreted to apply equally to all individuals who meet this requirement, unless otherwise specified.

You have submitted a proposal at a very difficult time, but nevertheless we will endorse your proposal without dispute. Thank you.

The Unitedstates' policy is to support this proposal. We support equal treatment of all WA members and of equal and fair application of all WA resolutions to the entire membership.


James Dwight Howle III
US Secretary of State

OOC: sorry I couldn't put this in mine. But this one deals with how the WA relates to nations where as the ROSA (Rights Of Sentients Act) deals with how member nations deal with individuals on their territories.

No. Really bad idea. This appears to be trying to make residents of member nations into citizens of the WA. This is bad on so many levels, not least of which is that it's the nations who are members of the WA, not their inhabitants.

Also, "citizen" has a specific meaning in law for some nations. Usually nations which are trying to exclude whole categories of people from access to government, so they need a good clip round the ears anyway, but I'm surprised none of them have started howling about this yet.

Sorry, no. It's a Game Mechanics violation.

All proposals passed by this organization shall apply equally to all citizens.

They don't. It depends on a number of factors, but they don't. Doesn't work if you change "citizens" to "nations" either.

I missed both of those. I change my stance on this to opposed.

No. Really bad idea. This appears to be trying to make residents of member nations into citizens of the WA. This is bad on so many levels, not least of which is that it's the nations who are members of the WA, not their inhabitants.

Quite right: I was going to make the same point, but you beat me to it...

Also, "citizen" has a specific meaning in law for some nations. Usually nations which are trying to exclude whole categories of people from access to government, so they need a good clip round the ears anyway, but I'm surprised none of them have started howling about this yet.
As I said, you posted before I could find the time in which to do so...

Under the laws of St Edmund, and the laws of most of the Godwinnian Commonwealth's other members (one or another of which is likely to join the World Assembly fairly soon) too, the status whose name usually gets translated into English as 'citizenship' is not an inherent right but is instead a privilege that has to be actively acquired. Anybody who wants this status must _

A. Pass a written test on their knowledge of the country's history, constitution and laws, to show that they understand such matters well enough to make reasoned decisions when voting. (The test is actually easy enough that almost everybody should be capable of passing it at some grade, although the actual grade achieved would be made public knowledge if & when they ever ran for elective office; People with very low grades might be banned from running for some offices, but re-taking the test would normally be possible for them...)

B. Show their commitment to the nation by performing several years of 'national service' in the armed forces, or in one of a list of allowed alternative employments. (Anybody who takes the 'armed forces' option recieves provisional citizenship, with the right to vote but not as yet the right to run for office, once they've completed basic training...)

C. Refrain from commiting serious crimes of certain kinds (such as Treason), because forfeiture of citizenship is a specified part of the normal sentence for conviction on such charges.

Do you consider those limitations unreasonable?


Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
speaking for the government of
The Protectorate of The St Edmundan Antarctic.

Bah. The complaints against seem to be semantics; not opposition to the concept, right? The "Game Mechanics" interpretation is a result of my sloppy writing, methinks. I rushed to post it in my haste to get it in early...

How about the following? I will also edit my original post for ease of newcomers to this conversation.

Recognizing that the nations of the World Assembly are composed of a wide variety of citizens from various origins; and

Whereas the World Assembly cannot predict the variety of citizenry that will inhabit future generations; and

Therefore, the World Assembly member nations shall recognize any self-aware individual that is intellectually capable of independently participating in government when given adequate access; and

As recognized individuals, those meeting this criteria will be granted the same rights, subject to the same oppression, and ruled by the same laws; and

Furthermore, the proposals passed by this organization shall be interpreted to apply equally to all individuals who meet this requirement, unless otherwise specified.

Bah. The complaints against seem to be semantics; not opposition to the concept, right?

Not really. I don't like the concept either, but the Game Mechanics violation gave us an easy out.

As currently written, I see this as empty rhetoric. The definitions are fluid enough that you could define this to mean virtually anything. Also, your last line effectively disables everything that has gone before. I don't know what it is, but I can tell you that it isn't Human Rights / Significant.

I'll let others weigh in on this, but it's definitely not ready for submission in this form.

Not really. I don't like the concept either, but the Game Mechanics violation gave us an easy out.

As currently written, I see this as empty rhetoric. The definitions are fluid enough that you could define this to mean virtually anything. Also, your last line effectively disables everything that has gone before. I don't know what it is, but I can tell you that it isn't Human Rights / Significant.

I'll let others weigh in on this, but it's definitely not ready for submission in this form.

This gives rights to all the vampires, talking rabbits and alien life forms inhabiting WA nations. The "fluid definition" is exactly the point - we shouldn't (and can't) have a debate every time a new mythological creature crops up. What's "empty" about that, friend?

I'm not trying to stop them from being slaves or anything, but I'm moving them from absolutely no rights, to equal rights. Then, if slavery is banned, it will apply to them as well. How is that not Human Rights/Significant?

This is bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy. It is just a bunch of useless text. Not to mention it is a Game MOD so your bring it up in the wrong place.

This is bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy. It is just a bunch of useless text. Not to mention it is a Game MOD so your bring it up in the wrong place.

What the hell? Ignoring your inability to use English, how is this a game mod?
:headbang:

Please explain.

This gives rights to all the vampires, talking rabbits and alien life forms inhabiting WA nations. The "fluid definition" is exactly the point - we shouldn't (and can't) have a debate every time a new mythological creature crops up. What's "empty" about that, friend?

I'm not trying to stop them from being slaves or anything, but I'm moving them from absolutely no rights, to equal rights. Then, if slavery is banned, it will apply to them as well. How is that not Human Rights/Significant?

Except that as I read it, it doesn't do that.

As recognized individuals, those meeting this criteria will be granted the same rights, subject to the same oppression, and ruled by the same laws; and

Furthermore, the proposals passed by this organization shall be interpreted to apply equally to all individuals who meet this requirement, unless otherwise specified.
The first one is either meaningless or rules minors (who, let's face it, are capable of making at least as much sense as half the ambassadors here) as being legally the equals of adults. That would make child protection legislation a tad difficult, for starters.

The second one feels fuzzy too, but that might just be smoke inhalation.

I'm really not impressed, though, that this definition still excludes the mentally ill.

Do you consider those limitations unreasonable?
Cerys smiles, which on a hundred and twenty kilos of retired rugby player isn't a pretty sight. "Why ambassador, were your ears burning?"

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

Recognizing that the nations of the World Assembly are composed of a wide variety of citizens from various origins; and
- [yes they are] -

Whereas the World Assembly cannot predict the variety of citizenry that will inhabit future generations; and
- [perhaps not, but I don't think anyone else can predict the future either] -

Therefore, the World Assembly member nations shall recognize any self-aware individual that is intellectually capable of independently participating in government when given adequate access; and
- [doesn't define key terms 'self-aware', 'intellectually capable', 'adequate access. Implicitly requires such recognition to extend to non-WA citizens.] -

As recognized individuals, those meeting this criteria will be granted the same rights, subject to the same oppression, and ruled by the same laws; and
- [what criteria? You never define your terms, and they're pretty amorphous terms. As to the same rights, oppression, and laws - you're laying terms out in an utter vacuum, as no such rights, oppressions and laws exist ... yet] -

Furthermore, the proposals passed by this organization shall be interpreted to apply equally to all individuals who meet this requirement, unless otherwise specified.
- [so they apply, unless they don't] -


This doesn't pass the Empty Rhetoric test. It doesn't say anything without withdrawing it, it doesn't define anything, but nonetheless attempts to make those non-definitions be binding on all future resolutions. There are no rights, human or otherwise, being granted.

Sorry, there's nothing here to take apart. I just don't see that you're doing anything at all.

while Decapod Ten is in full support of changing the idea of 'human' rights to universal rights, i see no option other than a committee to decide who is sentient and who is not, they must also do it instantly, and be completely accurate....... this of course, is fortuneately possible in this world, as opposed to the real world. I tried to do essentially the same thing, and then got into the problem that i cought the flu and was deliriously sick and unable to continue it....... no seriously, i had wierd monochromatic dreams that lacked time and lacked space...... it was awesome.......... good luck to you good sir.