NationStates Jolt Archive

World Assembly Slavery Act

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Moderate

RECOGNIZING that many nations oppose slavery

ACCEPTING that some nations will practice slavery anyway

BELIEVING that all sentient beings, regardless of social status, are deserving of protection under law

DEFINES slavery as the ownership and trade of a sentient organic being

MANDATES that nations which practice slavery may not enforce their beliefs upon other nations
a) A nation which practices slavery is not allowed to capture slaves within nations that do not have the practice or within international waters
b) Diplomats of nations which practice slavery may not bring their slaves into nations that oppose the practice
c) Any slave which enters a nation that does not practice slavery is automatically freed, at the owner's expense, of slavery for the duration of their visit

MANDATES that slaves must be treated with the rights that are their due
a) No slave may be tortured for any reason
b) A slave may not be maimed or killed unless in self-defense
c) A slave must be given proper clothing, shelter, food, water, and medical attention to keep them healthy and in top shape or, failing that, enough money to purchase it themselves
d) A slave must be provided compensation to their work equal to what they could reasonably expect if they were a full citizen of the nation
e) A slave must be provided vacation time equal to what they could reasonably expect as a citizen of the nation
f) A slave may not be barred from accessing any service or making any purchase that a regular citizen is allowed
g) The only marking allowed to show someone as a slave is a collar, specifically sized to be comfortable around the slave's neck
h) Slave families may not be broken up just to sell one member of it unless selling children who have reached the age of majority
i) Slaves must be allowed to contact their families any time of the year and meet with them at regular national holidays and during vacations
j) A slave must be allowed to purchase their own freedom, at a rate of 80% of what their normal purchase price would be
k) Slaves must be granted the same marriage rights as regular citizens
l) Slaves may not be sexually molested against their will
m) All slave-practicing nations must prosecute slave owners found in violation of this section at the severest level of law

PROHIBITS the use of military force by nations that practice slavery and nations that oppose slavery to forcefully convert a nation to their point of view on slavery
a) Exception: Military force is allowed in a punitive nature for a nation caught willfully violating this resolution that is also a member of the World Assembly

Just a rough draft so far. What do you think? Personally, I'm comfortable with it.

In this form this resolution imbibes of far too much of the worst hypocracies of moral relativism for our taste, indeed we would say it comes close to being offensive to any moral nation, we would oppose it.

yours e.t.c. ,

c) Any slave which enters a nation that does not practice slavery is automatically freed, at the owner's expense, of slavery

This forcefully rules out the slave's rights to visit family, if the family is in a non-practicing country. Plus it will indirectly inhibit their freedom even more if the owner knows they can run away and he can do nothing against it if they do.

I think it would make more sense to word it 'automatically freed, at the owner's expense, of slavery for the duration of their stay.' or something to that extent.

[I]I think it would make more sense to word it 'automatically freed, at the owner's expense, of slavery for the duration of their stay.' or something to that extent.Except then you are implying that the owner still has control over the former slaves movements, which is still well within the boundaries of "slavery" and thus impossible to enforce in a nation which outlaws slavery.

What I mean is, what allows the owner to force the former slave away from the nation?

I find it's not very clearly written. I'm not entirely sure you are communicating what you really mean. Which to me seems to be "you do your thing, I do mine, I don't care if you have slaves so long as I don't see them". What does this bring to the world?
Also, why try to force slaving nations to help fight illegal slavers? It's hypocritical to say "you can do your own thing but help me do mine elsewhere."

We will not support a resolution that does anything less than outlawing the practice of slavery and freeing all those who are held in involuntary servitude.

A slavery "standards and practices" resolution is also rather amusing.

Nemo Taranton
Ambassador Plenipotens

"Sentient organic beings" weren't born to be slaves. Utterly, completely and irreversibly opposed.

-Arjel Khazaran, Deputy Ambassador

I'm outraged by this draft. A resolution that recognize the practice of slavery will never find any support in my nation and I'm sure most WA nations as well.

The category is wrong too. It should be under Moral Decency (A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency)

It's a resolution that gives rights and protection, even a degree of freedom to slaves - practically, they are raised to the status of servants. As slavery probably won't be abolished anytime soon, Karasova supports this resolution.


What I mean is, what allows the owner to force the former slave away from the nation?

Nothing. However, said slave has less incentive to run away if he knows he can't return (and the owner has some vindication). The draft forces even the countries practicing slavery to acknowledge the former slave's freedom when he returns.

MapleLeafss;14041549']The category is wrong too. It should be under Moral Decency (A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency)

I tend to agree. If this stood a chance in hell of reaching quorum, I'd probably put up a bit of an argument, but this is doomed to utter failure in the current WA constituency. Not worth my time to rip apart.

I agree with many of the esteemed ambassadors, I shall not accept this. Sanctaria will not endorse it.

I disagree with the fact of Slavery, itself. However, I agree with Karasova. The slave in question will not be able to visit family if freed or go back to its home nation.

I find it's not very clearly written. I'm not entirely sure you are communicating what you really mean. Which to me seems to be "you do your thing, I do mine, I don't care if you have slaves so long as I don't see them". What does this bring to the world?
Also, why try to force slaving nations to help fight illegal slavers? It's hypocritical to say "you can do your own thing but help me do mine elsewhere."

The idea isn't to say "you can do your own thing," but to provide those who are enslaved with a set of rights that those who enslave them may attempt to deny. It also will likely force some nations to stop practicing slavery, since they might not be able to afford to continue the practice while treating their slaves as lesser beings. It also is to protect those opposed to slavery from being enslaved.

I will, however, work on it to improve it a bit.

The category is wrong too. It should be under Moral Decency (A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency)

Except the purpose of it is to increase civil liberties of slaves while protecting people opposed to slavery from being enslaved.

The idea isn't to say "you can do your own thing," but to provide those who are enslaved with a set of rights that those who enslave them may attempt to deny. It also will likely force some nations to stop practicing slavery, since they might not be able to afford to continue the practice while treating their slaves as lesser beings. It also is to protect those opposed to slavery from being enslaved.

I will, however, work on it to improve it a bit.



Except the purpose of it is to increase civil liberties of slaves while protecting people opposed to slavery from being enslaved.


This, respected Ambassdor, is the most comprehensively absurd logic we have ever heard, a slave has no civil liberties at all, by definition. They have no liberties whatsoever.

Attempting to improve the working conditions of slaves is like gilding ordure.


yours e.t.c. ,

This, respected Ambassdor, is the most comprehensively absurd logic we have ever heard, a slave has no civil liberties at all, by definition. They have no liberties whatsoever.

Attempting to improve the working conditions of slaves is like gilding ordure.

We respectfully disagree. Slaves within our own nation have a number of guaranteed civil rights. Also, we note that some nations protect pets, which are by definition living beings that are owned by another. So why should we not grant slaves a number of civil rights by international law? It doesn't end slavery, so the nations cannot argue that, but it also removes a lot of the exploitation and creates at least two routes through which slaves may gain their own freedom.

(OOC: There's actually a historical basis for this. Roman slaves, for example, tended to be a lot freer than slaves under the later European system, specifically in that some got rich enough to actually be able to afford slaves of their own. Also, when slavery was first brought to what is now the United States, the slaves were at first granted the same rights as the indentured servants they were there to work with, who had a number of rights by English law. This is just a natural extension of that, going in a better direction.)

We respectfully disagree. Slaves within our own nation have a number of guaranteed civil rights. Also, we note that some nations protect pets, which are by definition living beings that are owned by another. So why should we not grant slaves a number of civil rights by international law? It doesn't end slavery, so the nations cannot argue that, but it also removes a lot of the exploitation and creates at least two routes through which slaves may gain their own freedom.

(OOC: There's actually a historical basis for this. Roman slaves, for example, tended to be a lot freer than slaves under the later European system, specifically in that some got rich enough to actually be able to afford slaves of their own. Also, when slavery was first brought to what is now the United States, the slaves were at first granted the same rights as the indentured servants they were there to work with, who had a number of rights by English law. This is just a natural extension of that, going in a better direction.)


Pets are dumb animals, not human beings, Honoured Ambassador, next the honoured Ambassador will be suggesting we introduce welfare laws to protect humans kept as livestock bred for food. Such welfare could not be expected to alleviate the horror of the state in which such humans lived, the same is true of slavery.

yours e.t.c. ,


O.O.C., I don't make out of character comments in this forum unless i have to
so i wont make one here again. I am very familiar with ancient forms of slavery, and even in the Roman empire where the regime was undoubtedly more lenient than elsewhere and than in other times the vast majority of slaves lived brutal and miserable lives of unremmiting toil and suffering.

Those slaves who did manage to escape this fate, were tiny in number by comparison to the rest and in any case would have had to have suffered the very real and very grievous insult to their dignity of being at their master's beck and call and being their master's property to be disposed of as they would dispose of any other of their property. Their manumission being at the whim of these same masters.

Such a situation is hardly admirable, or one to be promoted or approved of in international law.

Pets are dumb animals, not human beings, Honoured Ambasador, next the honoured Ambassador will be suggesting we introduce welfare laws to protect humans kept as livestock bred for food. Such welfare could not be expected to alleviate the horror of the state in which such humans lived, the same is true of slavery.

yours e.t.c. ,


O.O.C., I don't make out of character comments in this forum unless i have to
so i wont make one here again. I am very familiar with ancient forms of slavery, and even in the Roman empire where the regime was undoubtedly more lenient than elsewhere and than in other times the vast majority of slaves lived brutal and miserable lives of unremmiting toil and suffering.

Those slaves who did manage to escape this fate, were tiny in number by comparison to the rest and in any case would have had to have suffered the very real and very grievous insult to their dignity of being at their master's beck and call and being their master's property to be disposed of as they would dispose of any other of their property. Their manumission being at the whim of these same masters.

Such a situation is hardly admirable, or one to be promoted or approved of in international law.

We would be advocating freeing them from that status, but we hold cannibalism in a different regard to slavery. For one thing, we don't eat our slaves. They are still people, after all. And then there's the moral and medical issues of eating your own species.

We ask you to provide challenges that are relevant to the subject at hand and which are not absurdities from now on.

Diplomat Xen Felgras

[OOC: I admit the system wasn't perfect in either case for those. However, at the same time, the systems could have been improved on in other areas. Let us not forget that the modern world itself has an issue with people who would willingly put themselves in the position of being a slave and would find their lives fulfilled by serving someone without any personal freedom.]

Words cannot express how utterly abhorrent I find the very idea of this proposal. Unalterably opposed.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

ACCEPTING that some nations will practice slavery anyway
No I don't. Opposed.

We would be advocating freeing them from that status, but we hold cannibalism in a different regard to slavery. For one thing, we don't eat our slaves. They are still people, after all. And then there's the moral and medical issues of eating your own species.

We ask you to provide challenges that are relevant to the subject at hand and which are not absurdities from now on.

Diplomat Xen Felgras

[OOC: I admit the system wasn't perfect in either case for those. However, at the same time, the systems could have been improved on in other areas. Let us not forget that the modern world itself has an issue with people who would willingly put themselves in the position of being a slave and would find their lives fulfilled by serving someone without any personal freedom.]



It would serve the honoured Ambassador better if they did not seek to tell us what we may or may not say in future. The fact that the honoured Ambassador's faculties in reasoning do not allow them to see that the heinous morality of the honoured Ambassador's resolution is the same as that which would permit the sort of inversion of decency we outlined previously is somewhat disturbing.

We in Urgench hold slavery to be of the same barbaric nature as homicide, assault, torture, and yes cannibalism. If the honoured Ambassador thinks that through clumsy sophistry they will convince us of anything else then they are mistaken.

As for those who choose servitude for whatever reason, in choosing this state they utterly negate any possible definition of themselves as slaves by the very act of choosing it.

yours e.t.c.,

It would serve the honoured Ambassador better if they did not seek to tell us what we may or may not say in future. The fact that the honoured Ambassador's faculties in reasoning do not allow them to see that the heinous morality of the honoured Ambassador's resolution is the same as that which would permit the sort of inversion of decency we outlined previously is somewhat disturbing.

We in Urgench hold slavery to be of the same barbaric nature as homicide, assault, torture, and yes cannibalism. If the honoured Ambassador thinks that through clumsy sophistry they will convince us of anything else then they are mistaken.

As for those who choose servitude for whatever reason, in choosing this state they utterly negate any possible definition of themselves as slaves by the very act of choosing it.

yours e.t.c.,

We find it interesting that you define a request as telling you what to do. We also find it quite telling that you hold that viewpoint, given that the issue at hand involves a system in which people are allowed to tell others what to do and don't have to request of them. Quite interesting.

And, we also note that it is interesting the all of the items you outlay as holding as evil are outright outlawed by ourselves for doing to slaves, as well with most of them being outlawed by this proposal for doing to slaves (cannibalism we believe to be an obvious one, not needing regulation, due to the very heinous nature of it). And we also find it interesting that you accuse us of sophistry when you, yourself, have tried repeatedly to cast this as an evil proposal despite the fact it is concerned with increasing, through international law, the civil rights of living people as well as also putting limits in place upon the spread of the very system we are talking about. So, what you are in effect saying, by your very words, is that granting any rights to slaves is evil, yet at the same time slavery itself is evil because slaves have no rights. Do you not see the inherent contradiction of your position?

And, finally, we laugh at your claims of a definition. A very esteemed international dictionary we managed to get a copy of provides this definition of slave:

1 : a person held in servitude as the chattel of another
2 : one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence
3 : a device (as the printer of a computer) that is directly responsive to another
4 : drudge , toiler

Note that nothing about the definition outright forbids the possibility of a person placing themself within the system of slavery.

But, as we are not unreasonable and can see too many find it distasteful, we will not pursue this proposal. But, we do request that the representative of Urgench take some time to look over their position, remove the contradictions, and then restate their argument without the inherent contradictions. We ask this not out of any malice, but so that we can have a more consistant argument as a representation of why this proposal will not even make it far enough to get endorsements to be sent back to the Empress.

Diplomat Xen Felgras

I think the representative of Forensatha is misunderstanding the main point of the objections being raised. Fortunately, Diplomat Felgras, you enunciated the point yourself in four words in your last post:

slavery itself is evil