[ON HOLD] On Emancipation

[Sanctaria]

Something that came up in a discussion with another Ambassador that I figured I'd do while I was bored.

Thoughts/Criticisms/Re-writes/Whatever welcomed.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY

On Emancipation
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: Sanctaria

The General Assembly,

UNDERSTANDING that some individuals under their national threshold of majority may be fully capable of caring for themselves and their own interests,

BELIEVING that should these individuals prove competent, they be allowed to lead their own lives free from government intrusion,

Hereby

DEMANDS that member nations allow individuals under the national threshold of majority apply for emancipation;

MANDATES that individuals granted emancipation be considered as individuals over the national threshold of majority for purposes of employment, housing, and social security, if applicable;

PERMITS member nations to grant additional rights or responsibilities to those who have been emancipated.

[Mousebumples]

Right of/to Emancipation would probably appeal to the fluffies more.

[Sanctaria]

Right of/to Emancipation would probably appeal to the fluffies more.

Damn fluffies. Ruining my fun! *shakes fist*

Will most likely change, eventually.

[Discoveria]

REGRETTING the reality that many of those under their national threshold of majority are often left abandoned or neglected by their guardians,

BELIEVING that should these individuals prove competent, they should be allowed to lead their own lives free from government intrusion, I think you need to clarify what you mean by competent. Do you mean something like, able to live their lives independently, or do you mean, similar to the medical sense of the term, the capacity to make an informed decision?

Hereby

DEMANDS that member nations allow individuals under the national threshold of majority to apply for emancipation;

MANDATES that individuals granted emancipation be considered as individuals over the national threshold of majority for purposes of employment, housing, and social security, if applicable; Would this contradict GAR#4: Restrictions on Child Labor?

PERMITS member nations to grant additional rights or responsibilities to those who have been emancipated.

Seems reasonable otherwise.

[Sanctaria]

REGRETTING the reality that many of those under their national threshold of majority are often left abandoned or neglected by their guardians,

BELIEVING that should these individuals prove competent, they should be allowed to lead their own lives free from government intrusion, I think you need to clarify what you mean by competent. Do you mean something like, able to live their lives independently, or do you mean, similar to the medical sense of the term, the capacity to make an informed decision?

Hereby

DEMANDS that member nations allow individuals under the national threshold of majority to apply for emancipation;

MANDATES that individuals granted emancipation be considered as individuals over the national threshold of majority for purposes of employment, housing, and social security, if applicable; Would this contradict GAR#4: Restrictions on Child Labor?

PERMITS member nations to grant additional rights or responsibilities to those who have been emancipated.

Seems reasonable otherwise.

As for your first comment, that's up the individual nation. They know best how to judge competency. Besides, that's in the preamble and doesn't really have any statutory effect other than to say the General Assembly would prefer if the children you emancipate are competent enough to live independently.

With regards to your second, no it shouldn't, because they'd legally be adults, not children.

[The Dourian Embassy]

I gave this some serious thought after you suggested it in that thread, and I just don't see this as an international issue. I could be persuaded I suppose, but I don't think of it as important enough right now.

Edit: But it should be noted that Emancipation as pertains to youth rights should be strictly defined. Emancipation alone is far too vague.

[Sanctaria]

I gave this some serious thought after you suggested it in that thread, and I just don't see this as an international issue. I could be persuaded I suppose, but I don't think of it as important enough right now.

That's fair enough.

I don't think it's a massive international issue, but I do believe that children/minors in care/bad homes who are competent enough to live independently should have the opportunity to do so, regardless of the nation they live in. I wrote it with that in mind, which is why it's short and it's why I've leaving so much power to individual nations.

Basically, no it's not a big problem, but I think individuals should have this ... civil liberty/right to apply for emancipation.

[Alqania]

"The Queendom is sceptical towards emancipation", Lord Raekevik announced. "In the event that a child is abandoned or neglected by their guardian within our jurisdiction, it would be a matter for social services what to do. Children have some special rights under both Alqanian and international law, for example the right to a safe home environment and the right to a childhood, and we would not be inclined to removing such rights from a person by declaring them an adult, even if the child in question asked us to. If the problem is that children are sometimes abandoned or neglected, then to me it would seem a bit like micromanagement and one-size-fits-all to demand that every member state provide emancipation as a solution, when other solutions exist that member states may prefer."

[Sanctaria]

"The Queendom is sceptical towards emancipation", Lord Raekevik announced. "In the event that a child is abandoned or neglected by their guardian within our jurisdiction, it would be a matter for social services what to do. Children have some special rights under both Alqanian and international law, for example the right to a safe home environment and the right to a childhood, and we would not be inclined to removing such rights from a person by declaring them an adult, even if the child in question asked us to. If the problem is that children are sometimes abandoned or neglected, then to me it would seem a bit like micromanagement and one-size-fits-all to demand that every member state provide emancipation as a solution, when other solutions exist that member states may prefer."

This isn't a one-size-fits all solution. This merely gives the right to apply for emancipation. Your nation/legal system can have other solutions too.

Also, abandoned/neglected was just used in the preamble to attract the fluffies. The actually statutory stuff is open to any individual under the threshold of majority to apply for emancipation.

It's very nice that things work that way in your country, but what's the point of being in an international organisation if you just think of yourself the whole time. Every think that, perhaps, being a child in a home, for example, is awful in another country and they'd be better off emancipated?

[Sanctaria]

On reflection, I accept that my mentioning what I mention in the preamble may be confusing so I've changed it.

Yaw.

[Alqania]

"The Queendom is sceptical towards emancipation", Lord Raekevik announced. "In the event that a child is abandoned or neglected by their guardian within our jurisdiction, it would be a matter for social services what to do. Children have some special rights under both Alqanian and international law, for example the right to a safe home environment and the right to a childhood, and we would not be inclined to removing such rights from a person by declaring them an adult, even if the child in question asked us to. If the problem is that children are sometimes abandoned or neglected, then to me it would seem a bit like micromanagement and one-size-fits-all to demand that every member state provide emancipation as a solution, when other solutions exist that member states may prefer."

This isn't a one-size-fits all solution. This merely gives the right to apply for emancipation. Your nation/legal system can have other solutions too.

Also, abandoned/neglected was just used in the preamble to attract the fluffies. The actually statutory stuff is open to any individual under the threshold of majority to apply for emancipation.

It's very nice that things work that way in your country, but what's the point of being in an international organisation if you just think of yourself the whole time. Every think that, perhaps, being a child in a home, for example, is awful in another country and they'd be better off emancipated?

"Yes and in theory, we could also routinely deny 100 % of applications for emancipation, since we would be in nominal compliance simply by allowing them, which makes this proposal entirely toothless, but I assume an author of Your Excellency's calibre already knew that.

If abandonment/neglect is not the problem here, then I suppose this proposal is based on an alleged right to be emancipated, a right which my country does not recognise and unless I am mistaken, this Assembly hitherto does not recognise either. Perhaps Your Excellency could elaborate on why such a right should exist and exactly for whom?

My country is the one that has sent me here, but fair enough. Both I and my country are of the opinion that a child being neglected in their home should be relocated into another home. Neither I or my country is of the opinion that a neglected child should be stripped of their rights as a child. Regardless of which country said child lives in.

I note that Your Excellency's own draft on the Prevention of Child Abuse as currently written includes this relevant clause:"

REQUIRES nations take all reasonable steps to ensure the safety of the victims of reported child abuse, both during and after such investigations;

"To me that requirement seems a bit hard to combine with allowing victims of child abuse 'to lead their own lives free from government intrusion'. How would the act of emancipation itself, as opposed to the mere removal of the child from the abusive home, ensure their safety?"

UNDERSTANDING that some individuals under their national threshold of majority may be fully capable of caring for themselves and their own interests,

"The fact that someone is under their national threshold of majority usually means that as a matter of law they are not capable of caring for themselves and their own interests. If a psychological, intellectual, financial or similar capability is referenced here rather than a legal capability, perhaps that should be clarified."

[Sanctaria]

This isn't a one-size-fits all solution. This merely gives the right to apply for emancipation. Your nation/legal system can have other solutions too.

Also, abandoned/neglected was just used in the preamble to attract the fluffies. The actually statutory stuff is open to any individual under the threshold of majority to apply for emancipation.

It's very nice that things work that way in your country, but what's the point of being in an international organisation if you just think of yourself the whole time. Every think that, perhaps, being a child in a home, for example, is awful in another country and they'd be better off emancipated?

"Yes and in theory, we could also routinely deny 100 % of applications for emancipation, since we would be in nominal compliance simply by allowing them, which makes this proposal entirely toothless, but I assume an author of Your Excellency's calibre already knew that.

If abandonment/neglect is not the problem here, then I suppose this proposal is based on an alleged right to be emancipated, a right which my country does not recognise and unless I am mistaken, this Assembly hitherto does not recognise either. Perhaps Your Excellency could elaborate on why such a right should exist and exactly for whom?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. "My nation doesn't recognise this right and neither does the World Assembly" doesn't really stand, Ambassador. There are a lot of rights that nations across the multiverse do not recognise, for example the right to privacy, the right to education etc, but this World Assembly has still granted. And if the World Assembly had already recognised the right to emancipation, I wouldn't be trying to pass this particular piece of legislation since it would count as duplication or contradiction, which would be illegal.

As for why I believe this should exist, it's quite simple. I believe that this Assembly should look out for the best interests of children and, in some cases, that may be their emancipation and declaration as an adult. Now while I don't believe every child has a right to be emancipated, in many cases they may not be competent enough, I do think that every child has a right to apply or petition for emancipation and let it be judged whether or not they are capable or competent of living on their own.

This is not necessarily because they have been neglected or abused, either. In my country emancipations are most common in the cases of orphans; my country believes families should be kept together and if, for example, the eldest child is seventeen (with our nation's threshold of majority being eighteen), it is often better to emancipate the eldest child and grant custody of the other children to him/her.

I note that Your Excellency's own draft on the Prevention of Child Abuse as currently written includes this relevant clause:"

REQUIRES nations take all reasonable steps to ensure the safety of the victims of reported child abuse, both during and after such investigations;

"To me that requirement seems a bit hard to combine with allowing victims of child abuse 'to lead their own lives free from government intrusion'. How would the act of emancipation itself, as opposed to the mere removal of the child from the abusive home, ensure their safety?"

Again, I'm not seeing where Your Excellency is coming from. This draft does not say "all victims of child abuse must be emancipated to live their lives free from government involvement". For Your Excellency to suggest otherwise is completely disingenuous. This draft says all individuals under the age of majority should have the right to apply for emancipation. It does not mean the State automatically acquiesces to their request.

UNDERSTANDING that some individuals under their national threshold of majority may be fully capable of caring for themselves and their own interests,

"The fact that someone is under their national threshold of majority usually means that as a matter of law they are not capable of caring for themselves and their own interests. If a psychological, intellectual, financial or similar capability is referenced here rather than a legal capability, perhaps that should be clarified."

The Ambassador is just playing politics here. Is he actually saying that the minute you cross the threshold of your majority, you're suddenly imbued with the ability to care for yourself and your interests, something which you apparently didn't possess a minute, hour, or day earlier, when you were under the threshold? Both you and I know that's crazy, Ambassador.

It does not need to be clarified, as I firmly believe nations to be capable of clarifying that themselves. Nations should set their own criteria of what attributes qualifies someone to be over their national threshold of majority; should a nation deem a petitioner to possess those attributes, then I assume they would grant them emancipation.

On a general note, I think it needs to be stressed that this is proposal on emancipation, while a serious one, is not something I am overly concerned with at the moment. I concede that it's not a massively important international issue, but it is something I would like to see happen in WA countries. As such, while I will most likely to continue with this draft, the pace may not be a quick one.

[Alqania]

"I believe my criticism has been made clear enough and I appreciate that this proposal is not the highest priority of the most esteemed Sanctarian delegation", Lord Raekevik said. "I would however like to add one more thing: since this proposal would grant children the right to apply for emancipation but it in no way requires member states to ever approve such an application, I put it to my distinguished colleagues that Mild is a more appropriate strength."

[Mousebumples]

"I believe my criticism has been made clear enough and I appreciate that this proposal is not the highest priority of the most esteemed Sanctarian delegation", Lord Raekevik said. "I would however like to add one more thing: since this proposal would grant children the right to apply for emancipation but it in no way requires member states to ever approve such an application, I put it to my distinguished colleagues that Mild is a more appropriate strength."

As the proposal text both DEMANDS and MANDATES, I think that Mild would be an inappropriate strength. Yes, if nations wish to evade compliance with this proposal, they can do so via the loophole you point out. However, such a loophole doesn't make the proposal mild in and of itself.

[Louisistan]

Deputy Ambassador Schulz conferrs with some advisors before stepping up to the microphone: The Confederacy of Louisistan has already established the possibility of emancipation for children, although these cases are rare. However, I don't see it as an international issue and I don't support a "right of emancipation" for children. However, we are largely indifferent on this matter and if the assembly votes to pass this resolution that's okay with us.

[Linux and the X]

UNDERSTANDING that some individuals under their national threshold of majority may be fully capable of caring for themselves and their own interests,

Not according to reasonable states theory.

[Mousebumples]

UNDERSTANDING that some individuals under their national threshold of majority may be fully capable of caring for themselves and their own interests,

Not according to reasonable states theory.

Do you mind elaborating on this statement? Because I think I'd have to disagree with your statement ...

[Linux and the X]

Not according to reasonable states theory.

Do you mind elaborating on this statement? Because I think I'd have to disagree with your statement ...

OOC: IC-ly, we consider it extraordinarily unreasonable for the threshold of majority to be anything other than competency, so in reasonable states, a capable person would inherently have passed the threshold of majority.

[Mousebumples]

Do you mind elaborating on this statement? Because I think I'd have to disagree with your statement ...

OOC: IC-ly, we consider it extraordinarily unreasonable for the threshold of majority to be anything other than competency, so in reasonable states, a capable person would inherently have passed the threshold of majority.

The term "threshold of majority" is used here - and in other proposals/resolutions - because of requests by your nation (I think?) to have that supplant "age of majority."

As the Threshold of Majority could be defined as an Age of Majority, it is quite reasonable that, say, a 17 year old (under a theoretical 18 year old Age of Majority) could be "fully capable of caring for themselves and their own interests" - even though they would not be legally allowed to do so under that nation's law, as they are under the Age of Majority.

[The Dourian Embassy]

OOC: Emancipation is in essence a special legal exception, brought on by the fact that some 16 year olds(for example) cannot by any means take care of themselves, and some can. So the law assumes those under 18 cannot take care of themselves or others, while emancipation allows those who are exceptions to prove they are competent through legal means.

Edit: Which is in effect a competency test of sorts.

[Linux and the X]

OOC: IC-ly, we consider it extraordinarily unreasonable for the threshold of majority to be anything other than competency, so in reasonable states, a capable person would inherently have passed the threshold of majority.

The term "threshold of majority" is used here - and in other proposals/resolutions - because of requests by your nation (I think?) to have that supplant "age of majority."

Indeed we have.

As the Threshold of Majority could be defined as an Age of Majority, it is quite reasonable that, say, a 17 year old (under a theoretical 18 year old Age of Majority) could be "fully capable of caring for themselves and their own interests" - even though they would not be legally allowed to do so under that nation's law, as they are under the Age of Majority.

I think you misunderstand. The failure to act reasonably is in using a set age as the threshold of majority. In a reasonable state, the threshold of majority is when a person is able to take care of themself, and therefore a person being able to care for themself while being under the threshold of majority is logically impossible.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

For. I remember when I tried something similar and I think that this minimalist approach is more appropriate considering how many different conceptions of "age of majority" there are.

That said, I agree with others who have said that "mild" is a more appropriate strength for this legislation.

Best Regards

[Bears Armed]

"This wouldn't really affect the Bears, because we already define legal adulthood in terms of capability after a miniumum reasonable age rather than just by an age threshold in itself, but it isn't an 'international' matter and I'm not yet convinced that it's actually a fundamental enough matter of rights to deserve WA legislation on that basis neither."


Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly
for
The High Council of Clans,
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.

[Flibbleites]

As the Threshold of Majority could be defined as an Age of Majority, it is quite reasonable that, say, a 17 year old (under a theoretical 18 year old Age of Majority) could be "fully capable of caring for themselves and their own interests" - even though they would not be legally allowed to do so under that nation's law, as they are under the Age of Majority.

I think you misunderstand. The failure to act reasonably is in using a set age as the threshold of majority. In a reasonable state, the threshold of majority is when a person is able to take care of themself, and therefore a person being able to care for themself while being under the threshold of majority is logically impossible.

That's your opinion, and just because you don't find it to be reasonable doesn't mean the Reasonable Nation Theory applies.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[The Eternal Kawaii]

I think you misunderstand. The failure to act reasonably is in using a set age as the threshold of majority. In a reasonable state, the threshold of majority is when a person is able to take care of themself, and therefore a person being able to care for themself while being under the threshold of majority is logically impossible.

That's your opinion, and just because you don't find it to be reasonable doesn't mean the Reasonable Nation Theory applies.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

It may be their opinion, but it is an accurate one. Maturity is a self-evident phenomenon; an individual can express it if and only if they possess it. This is why the Diaspora Church does not set ages of majority, but requires youths to demonstrate the ability to live as adults before being granted adult status within the Church community.