Ban on Child Sex Labour

[The Dark Star Republic]

The World Assembly,

Noting the recent repeal of WA Resolution #4,

Moving swiftly to fulfill that repeal's support for an improved regime of international law to eliminate child labour,

Does hereby:

1. Define, for the purposes of this resolution:
   
   • "child" as a person under the age of consent in the nation which has jurisdiction, or otherwise as a pre-pubescent,
   • "child sex labour" as the employment, bondage or servitude of a child in prostitution, pornography, or any other form of labour in which they perform sexual acts;
2. Prohibit immediately and permanently:
   • any legal sanction for child sex labour,
   • any financial or material support for child sex labour, with the sole exception of compensated manumission to free those bonded to a condition of servitude,
   • the refoulement of a child to a location where they would be at risk of being returned to child sex labour,
   • the trafficking of a child to another jurisdiction for the purposes of evading these prohibitions;
3. Require that all nations:
   • enforce the mandates of Article 2 throughout their jurisdiction, including prosecution and appropriate legal punishment of violators,
   • engage in education and outreach programs to discourage support for child sex labour,
   • provide all necessary assistance for the rehabilitation of victims of child sex labour;
4. Enjoin nations with jurisdiction for legal commercial sex operations to:
   • ensure that all commercial sex operators have effective means of preventing the hiring of children, including requiring at minimum verified official proof of age identification,
   • maintain an inspections regime to audit potential violators for compliance
   • confirm, prior to granting of a work visa, the validity of proof of age identification of any migrant workers employed in such operations;
5. Promote international cooperation in:
   • identifying locations with lax enforcement of prohibitions on child sex labour,
   • diplomatic outreach to effectively eliminate child sex labour,
   • communication of information regarding known child sex labour abusers attempting to flee for other jurisdictions.

"This is the first of two planned replacements for Restrictions on Child Labour. Two, because we consider the issues posed by commercial sexual exploitation of children (CSEC) sufficiently different from other forms of child labour to merit special consideration.

"There is some overlap with Prevention of Child Abuse and Child Pornography Ban but in both cases we would defend the duplication as minor and the legislation on the whole as sufficiently novel.

"Comments welcome, but please confine comments on the repeal to that discussion, and comments on the other half of the replacement to that discussion."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[Ainocra]

My only concern would be making sure it doesn't overlap with GAR 300. other than tat looks good. Support

[The Dark Star Republic]

"Yes. We haven't included things like banning distribution of child pornography, because that's been covered already by Resolution #300. The other points of overlap we'd defend as minor enough not to be a problem, and there's no contradiction that we can see."

~ Ms. Chinmusic

[Normlpeople]

"Comments regarding servitude and such may overlap with the ban on slavery and trafficking. Aside from that, I'd support it."

[Bears Armed Mission]

What about protection for any people who are no longer children but who still aren't considered legally competent to make decisions about matters such as this?

[The Dark Star Republic]

What about protection for any people who are no longer children but who still aren't considered legally competent to make decisions about matters such as this?

OOC: No. While that may well be a worthy topic for legislation, it's going to unduly complicate this one. OMGTKK observed the other day that Rights of the Disabled had never been replaced: that sort of thing would probably belong more properly in such a dedicated replacement generally concerning those not considered legally competent.

[Bananaistan]

Full support.

Perhaps you would consider changing "sanction" in the first part of section 2 to authorisation? Sanction has two meanings and while it's clear that you mean the "authorisation" meaning other may get confused regarding the "penalty" meaning of the word.

In the first part of section 3, you might consider adding something to the effect of "... such prohibitions as outlined in 2 throughout ..." This might just make it a tad clearer.

The flow between the second and third parts of section 4 seems a little off. You are requiring nations to cooperate with their own immigration officials. Perhaps if the two clauses were merged into one, it might flow better?

[Bears Armed Mission]

What about protection for any people who are no longer children but who still aren't considered legally competent to make decisions about matters such as this?

OOC: No. While that may well be a worthy topic for legislation, it's going to unduly complicate this one. OMGTKK observed the other day that Rights of the Disabled had never been replaced: that sort of thing would probably belong more properly in such a dedicated replacement generally concerning those not considered legally competent.

OOC: Fair enough.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Perhaps you would consider changing "sanction" in the first part of section 2 to authorisation? Sanction has two meanings and while it's clear that you mean the "authorisation" meaning other may get confused regarding the "penalty" meaning of the word.

"I get what you're saying. But, we wanted to make it clear that we were prohibiting both explicit "authorisation", as you put it, but also implicit sanction, by way of simply not enforcing prohibitions or turning a blind eye to them.

In the first part of section 3, you might consider adding something to the effect of "... such prohibitions as outlined in 2 throughout ..." This might just make it a tad clearer.

"Changed, thanks.

The flow between the second and third parts of section 4 seems a little off. You are requiring nations to cooperate with their own immigration officials. Perhaps if the two clauses were merged into one, it might flow better?

"Changed it a bit.

"Thank you for the comments."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern