NationStates Jolt Archive

Work in construction:

The Right to a Lawful Divorce and Improving Women's Lives Act
A Resolution to affirm and clarify the Right to Pursue a Lawful Divorce and aiming to further the cause of Women's Rights.

Category: Human Rights
Effect: Significant
Proposed by: Sionis Prioratus


THE WORLD ASSEMBLY,

CELEBRATING the cultural diversity of its Member States,

NOTING that contracts of marriage vary among the States, even within the protections of the Charter of Rights and various Resolutions of the W.A.,

APPALLED that certain States ignore the binding resolutions of the Charter of Rights, restricting Women's Rights such as:

1) Access to a Court of Justice,
2) Access to a fair hearing.

DECRYING the fact that such conditions subject many women in unwanted marriages to a life of misery and abuses of the worst kind,

ENACTS the following Resolution:

1) Any of the parties of a marriage contract may ask for a lawful divorce in a Court of Justice, without need to show cause.

a) There shall be no impediments or delays to access to said Courts.

2) No penalty of any kind shall be imposed on the divorce soliciting party, in case there is no consent of all parties to the marriage to such divorce, nor to a woman party to a marriage, if she does not consent to a divorce.

3) No penalty, in particular the death penalty, shall be imposed on a party of a marriage found to have had sexual relations to another person which is not a party to such marriage.

4) If there are children to the parties of a marriage, the best interest of the child shall be the only factor in considering their placement with parents in the event of a divorce.


CREATES the World Assembly Permanent Commission for Women's Rights (WAPCWR), whose duties SHALL be to:

1) MONITOR the application of the Resolution's provisions,

2) REPORT annually to the W.A. the state of Women's Rights throughout the W.A. Member States,

3) ALERT the W.A. of Women's Rights crisis situations,

4) CREATE a Task Force on Women's Rights (WATFWR) which SHALL, no longer than six months after the Ratification of this Resolution:

a) REPORT to the W.A. a study for verifying if there is a necessity to create a World Court of Women's Rights (WCWR), with the general objective to hear and judge complaints from any person (citizens or not) in any of the Member States about abuses to such Rights,

b) ADVISE the W.A. about the necessity of adding further duties, if any, to the WAPCWR.


FURTHER DETERMINES that the composition of WAPCWR Members shall not be more than 50 W.A. Nations, so as to further efficiency and representativity,

FURTHER DETERMINES that a minimum of 60% affirmative votes of present and non-abstaining W.A. Members shall be necessary to select WAPCWR Members,

PROHIBITS the use of funding promises or withdrawal threats as means of political leverage into WAPCWR deliberations,

FURTHER DETERMINES that membership in WAPCWR shall last two years, renewable for up to three consecutive terms.

Criticims/improvements welcome.

We believe that is a very well written resolution. We do have a question about section 1's wording "1) Any of the parties of a marriage contract may ask for a lawful divorce in a Court of Justice, without need to show cause." Some form of cause should be said in our opinion.

Would any existing pre-nups be enforcable as pertaining to the dividing of material/financial assets? If not, we would be concerned about "Gold Diggers". Poor man marries rich woman for a few weeks, then divorces her a still getting 50% or more of her money/or possessions. Same goes for if it was the reverse. Also would there be a limit to how long one must be married if there were to be a division of assets material,financial, etc?

Also could you clarify sections 2 and 3 under 'Enacts' for me? With all apologies, I dont follow what you are meaning there Honorable Ambassador.

I do have a bit of... Interest, over one point:

APPALLED that certain States ignore the binding resolutions of the Charter of Rights, restricting Women's Rights such as:

1) Access to a Court of Justice,
2) Access to a fair hearing.

If certain states are ignoring binding resolutions, then they will have a quick visit from the WA Gnomes to ensure they do. Meaning that any resolution that is passed is actually binding and they cant get around it.

The composition and determination of composition of the WAPCWR could be seen as illegal, but you would need a ruling on that.

Adding to the concern about Section 1 of Ambassador from Studly Penguins is the impracticality of what is currently written down for 1)a). I would suggest clarification there as some could see it as meaning we have to settle divorce proceedings ahead of say a murder trial. perhaps that should change to 'Unreasonable impediments and delays' instead.

We are concerned, however, about establishing committees focusing in one direction or on one side of discrimination. The establishment of such can actually be seen as counter-discriminatory for some, instead of striving for equality. Perhaps a shift of tone from one gender to equal treatment for both would be better.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

Thank you Honorable Ambassador for your kind review.

I shall elaborate. It is a sad reality that women in certain regions are still silent victims, and sometimes burdensome causes are needed to request a divorce, sometimes effectively blocking all access to women.

Maybe it could be rewritten as something like:

1) Any of the parties of a marriage contract may ask for a lawful divorce in a Court of Justice, without need to show burdensome cause.

a) "Burdensome" in this Resolution context shall be defined as "what creates imminent or irreparable danger to a person's (and/or his/her children) life, health, or psychological well-being",

b) There shall be no impediments or delays to access to said Courts.

Maybe the confusion about sections 2 and 3 are due to its gender-neutral language. I found it necessary, due to the fact that a previous (and thus, binding) resolution states that marriages aren't limited to a man-woman configuration. Not willing to illegally override the spirit of said Resolution, I thought it would be best to write said section in a fashion as gender-neutral as possible, safeguarding the rights of women, who need heightened protection in some regions.

As for the pre-nups, I find myself genuinely conflicted. Insofar assets distribution do not generally impose "burdensome" (as defined) conditions on the party/parties. I find it best to leave it in the realm of National Governments.

I'm open to persuasion, of course, but in the pre-nups case, I don't find it much agreeable to define all citizens as naïve, because some inevitably will be. But certainly it is ground for discussion.

Thank you again, Noble Ambassador, I'm always open to further inquiries.

Honorable Ambassador Ariovist Lynxkind, thank you for your reply.

I think I understand your sentiments. I shall elaborate. Even in a nation with written laws and a functioning judiciary, they might be locally construed in a way that does not reflect the W.A. highest standards, in situations that may render a foreign review impossible, therefore rendering victims invisible to the W.A. helping hand. (The "silent victims" argument above)

I also had reticence about the gendered vector of the proposed Commision. Let me share with the Ambassador my concerns.

Fact is, we don't have a World Court where individuals can find legal relief for reddress of grievances through W.A. mechanisms and agencies. I find women suffering too much urgent to wait for the establishment of a larger, more complex institution (as necessary I may also find the existence of a World Court). In an ideal setting, such a commision would be a subsection of a World Court.

As for establishing committees focusing in one direction, fact is that discrimination still weights much more heavily on women. It is my ardent hope that through the W.A.'s actions such a sad reality will, in an acceptable timeframe, change. What would the Noble Ambassador think about a "sunshine provision", in which after a period of, let us say, 20 years, the structures of such commission would be made gender-neutral?

Thank you for voicing your concerns, Ambassador. I'm always open to further inquiries.

impracticality of what is currently written down for 1)a). I would suggest clarification there as some could see it as meaning we have to settle divorce proceedings ahead of say a murder trial. perhaps that should change to 'Unreasonable impediments and delays' instead.

I forgot to say, I totally agree with the new wording. Thank you once more.

Honorable Ambassador Ariovist Lynxkind, thank you for your reply.

I think I understand your sentiments. I shall elaborate. Even in a nation with written laws and a functioning judiciary, they might be locally construed in a way that does not reflect the W.A. highest standards, in situations that may render a foreign review impossible, therefore rendering victims invisible to the W.A. helping hand. (The "silent victims" argument above)

I also had reticence about the gendered vector of the proposed Commision. Let me share with the Ambassador my concerns.

Fact is, we don't have a World Court where individuals can find legal relief for reddress of grievances through W.A. mechanisms and agencies. I find women suffering too much urgent to wait for the establishment of a larger, more complex institution (as necessary I may also find the existence of a World Court). In an ideal setting, such a commision would be a subsection of a World Court.

As for establishing committees focusing in one direction, fact is that discrimination still weights much more heavily on women. It is my ardent hope that through the W.A.'s actions such a sad reality will, in an acceptable timeframe, change. What would the Noble Ambassador think about a "sunshine provision", in which after a period of, let us say, 20 years, the structures of such commission would be made gender-neutral?

Thank you for voicing your concerns, Ambassador. I'm always open to further inquiries.

First off, the Gnomes get everywhere, trust me on that one. ;)

As for seeing women suffering as being much too urgent we politely disagree as we see the suffering and denying of anyone's rights as an equally urgent matter. We would probably support this anyway, just wanted some form of compromise for it to be neutral, covering everyone. We would prefer a smaller time-frame, but the idea of a goal to be gender-neutral is still good.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

First off, the Gnomes get everywhere, trust me on that one. ;)

As for seeing women suffering as being much too urgent we politely disagree as we see the suffering and denying of anyone's rights as an equally urgent matter. We would probably support this anyway, just wanted some form of compromise for it to be neutral, covering everyone. We would prefer a smaller time-frame, but the idea of a goal to be gender-neutral is still good.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

We agree with the kind ambassador here, and 20yrs in our opinion is a little excessive. We would be inclined to get on board if it was in the 24-36 month, but it may alienate any potential voters with a timeline rather than immediately starting off non-gender biased setup, without "Sunshine Clauses".

Thank you Honorable Ambassador for your kind review.

As for the pre-nups, I find myself genuinely conflicted. Insofar assets distribution do not generally impose "burdensome" (as defined) conditions on the party/parties. I find it best to leave it in the realm of National Governments.

I'm open to persuasion, of course, but in the pre-nups case, I don't find it much agreeable to define all citizens as naïve, because some inevitably will be. But certainly it is ground for discussion.

Thank you again, Noble Ambassador, I'm always open to further inquiries.


As far as pre-nups and the like I aforementioned wasnt aimed to make this an over-complicated resolution and make it miss the goals you are aiming for this to go. I think it would be better served to drop the "need to show cause" part in its entirety, because with the first part of the sentence you already guarantee the right to "Any of the parties of a marriage contract may ask for a lawful divorce in a Court of Justice."

Also the pre-nup(division of material/financial/other assets) would come up eventually with the whole "no need to show cause(burdensome or not)" because there are those who prey on ppl with more than them, sucker them in and then "Clean" them out. I think a one-year minimum of marriage should be required in order to divide any assets, so that way one party didnt marry the other for a month, divorce then walk away with almost everything. Even though the party doing the "Taking" didnt work, didnt invest anything into the relationship(emotionally,physically,etc) doesnt deserve half of what you spent most of your life working for. I understand that we all lean toward Nat'l Soverignty but there does need to be some boundaries.

I guess think on this. Your net worth is 5 million dollars and you meet someone in the bar. After awhile you decide to marry, no pre-nup or whatever. After 3-weeks the said person serves you with divorce papers and the proceedings begin. Let say the person was never around or they abused you, you are still going to run the risk of the person walking away from the "marriage" with half of your earthly possesions, free to go prey on someone else.

If your goal is to protect ppl, you cant protect one group; gender; etc without offering the same protection to all, including the idiots of this world.

As much as I like how well-written this resolution is, I have a certain problem with it. While most of the text of the proposal is very gender-neutral, as it should be, numerous things in the resolution are named very specifically for women and women's rights. While I'm all for women's rights, not all countries are male-dominated, and in not all cultures is this even an appropriate idea.

I would recommend renaming this to only gender neutral terms, instead of focusing on women so much.

Serifina Karin
Ambassador to the WA
Sacred Kingdom of Karianis