Illegal Child Labour Covenant

[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 majority in the nation which has jurisdiction, or otherwise as a person who has not obtained the necessary mental and physical maturity for their circumstances,
   • "child labour" as the employment, bondage or servitude of a child, whether paid, unpaid, or otherwise compensated, or voluntary, or mandated as civil service or judicial punishment,
   • "guardian" as the person with legal responsibility for a child, whether a parent, carer, or the state itself;
2. Declare that child labour may only be permitted where all of the following conditions are met:
   • it is not damaging to the child's health,
   • it does not hinder the child's completion of secondary education,
   • it is not performed in a location intrinsically dangerous to the child, or from which the child is not permitted to leave, or from which the child would be permanently separated from their guardian,
   • it poses no direct danger to the child through the presence of dangerous equipment, substances, animals, weapons, drugs, or persons,
   • the child is fully informed of all dangers and demonstrates the capacity to understand those dangers,
   • the child and their guardian give their full uncoerced consent to all terms of employment,
   • the work does not involve serving in a military role in armed conflict, participating in the commission of crime, or constitute slavery, forced labour or any other form of servitude,
   • the child is permitted to have their guardian, or another person nominated by their guardian, negotiate the terms of employment on their behalf,
   • the work respects all other applicable labour law and does not take advantage of any possible ignorance of workers' rights on the child's behalf;
3. Mandate that otherwise child labour is to be immediately and permanently prohibited, that all goods and services produced in whole or in part through illegal child labour are to be immediately and permanently embargoed, and that any financial or material assistance to illegal child labour operations, with the sole exception of compensated manumission to free those bonded to a condition of servitude, is to be immediately and permanently ceased;
4. Require that all nations enforce these prohibitions throughout their jurisdiction, including prosecution and appropriate legal punishment of violators;
5. Prohibit the trafficking of children for the purposes of evading these prohibitions:
   • all nations are bound to a strict policy of non-refoulement of children at risk of being returned to a condition of illegal child labour that would violate the terms of this resolution,
   • any international transfers of children, such as intercountry adoption, international student exchanges, or transfer of displaced persons, must be verified to ensure there is no risk of diversion to illegal child labour;
6. Clarify that under the terms of this resolution:
   • member nations, individually or through further international law, retain the right to further restrict or regulate child labour beyond the definition of illegal child labour in Article 2, and,
   • work forming normal civic or domestic duties, when performed under appropriate supervision, does not constitute illegal child labour.

"This is the second 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 but 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. In truth, we are much less satisfied with this draft than the others, but it's a starting point."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[The Candy Of Bottles]

it does not hinder the child's completion of secondary education,

I have to note that 'Secondary Education' refers to college and university. Most nations are allowing people to take a job by that point. I believe that 'Primary Education', referring to grades K-12, would be the correct term here.

[The Dark Star Republic]

it does not hinder the child's completion of secondary education,

I have to note that 'Secondary Education' refers to college and university. Most nations are allowing people to take a job by that point. I believe that 'Primary Education', referring to grades K-12, would be the correct term here.

"No, college/university level is tertiary education. Secondary education is high school.

"Such a standard hasn't technically been established by the WA, but it is technically in resolutions such as Promotion of International Education and Repeal "Access to Science in Schools".

~ Ms. Chinmusic

[Bananaistan]

My initial thoughts, I will provide a more comprehensive review later as unfortunately I became seriously sidetracked.

OOC: I had the misfortune to read "A Promotion of Basic Education" just there now. I had not been aware of the extent of the micromanagement morass in that resolution nor how it goes so far beyond what any reasonable person would term a basic education. Particularly daft is how every nation must teach their citizens how to navigate via star charts, or so we assume given that it includes the word "astrographical" which as far as we can see is a word which does not actually exist.

IC: Regarding the definition of child, the first part is absolutely clear enough but the second currently provides an exploitable loophole. A victorian child chimney sweep would have obtained the necessary mental and physical maturity for their circumstances, given that if they got any more physically mature some slave driver wouldn't be able to shove them up a fireplace. Something to consider might be the lower of the age of majority or typical age at which physical and mental maturity is obtained by, sigh, their species.

There is already international legislation in place which sets a very high requirement for education of citizens. It is reasonably safe to assume that most reasonable nations would use both primary and secondary education to achieve this requirement. Even in nations which do not make a clear distinction between primary and secondary education, or use a different form of nomenclature, this requirement remains. Perhaps in this light we could suggest that you consider adding something to the effect of "or the relevant equivalent level [to secondary education] in use locally"?

I would also suggest a change to the "danger" clause but I'm just not sure what change I would suggest just yet. As currently stated it appears to fall into the same trap as the previous resolution, in that it's not clear when the direct danger arises in the presence of the outlined risks.

I would also suggest broadening the "child labour" definition to include unpaid voluntary work or informal paid work that does not typically constitute employment thereby bring helping on the family farm into the scope of the resolution in terms of safeguarding the physical and mental wellbeing of the child.

Overall though, I'd be very happy with this proposed replacement and there are a number of clauses which in section 2 that we would be extremely happy with.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: I had the misfortune to read "A Promotion of Basic Education" just there now. I had not been aware of the extent of the micromanagement morass in that resolution nor how it goes so far beyond what any reasonable person would term a basic education. Particularly daft is how every nation must teach their citizens how to navigate via star charts, or so we assume given that it includes the word "astrographical" which as far as we can see is a word which does not actually exist.

OOC: If you're ever minded for a repeal/replace, you'd have my enthusiastic support! Always hated that daft resolution.

IC comments follow:

Regarding the definition of child, the first part is absolutely clear enough but the second currently provides an exploitable loophole. A victorian child chimney sweep would have obtained the necessary mental and physical maturity for their circumstances, given that if they got any more physically mature some slave driver wouldn't be able to shove them up a fireplace. Something to consider might be the lower of the age of majority or typical age at which physical and mental maturity is obtained by, sigh, their species.

"Ah, well that's actually what we meant already, so perhaps it needs rewriting to make that clearer. What was intended was that the age of majority is the default. If there is no age of majority, or if no nation has jurisdiction, then to avoid creating a loophole the minimal requirement of a person who has not obtained the necessary maturity is included. But that is intended only to apply in those cases where not meeting the age of majority qualification wouldn't.

There is already international legislation in place which sets a very high requirement for education of citizens. It is reasonably safe to assume that most reasonable nations would use both primary and secondary education to achieve this requirement. Even in nations which do not make a clear distinction between primary and secondary education, or use a different form of nomenclature, this requirement remains. Perhaps in this light we could suggest that you consider adding something to the effect of "or the relevant equivalent level [to secondary education] in use locally"?

"Secondary education was sort of a stop-gap: I just don't want to ban children who've completed their education, such as through graduating early, from being allowed to work.

"So the suggested revision could be: 'it does not hinder the child's completion of their necessary educational requirements, including at minimum completion of secondary education'.

I would also suggest a change to the "danger" clause but I'm just not sure what change I would suggest just yet. As currently stated it appears to fall into the same trap as the previous resolution, in that it's not clear when the direct danger arises in the presence of the outlined risks.

"Hmm. How about: '...the nature, location or specific tasks involved in the work performed by the child would pose a direct danger...'? That's a bit wordy (cries of horror sound from the back of the GA chamber!) but it tries to make it clearer. Open to other suggestions.

I would also suggest broadening the "child labour" definition to include unpaid voluntary work or informal paid work that does not typically constitute employment thereby bring helping on the family farm into the scope of the resolution in terms of safeguarding the physical and mental wellbeing of the child.

"That's fair.

"Thanks for the comments as always."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I would also suggest a change to the "danger" clause but I'm just not sure what change I would suggest just yet. As currently stated it appears to fall into the same trap as the previous resolution, in that it's not clear when the direct danger arises in the presence of the outlined risks.

"Hmm. How about: '...the nature, location or specific tasks involved in the work performed by the child would pose a direct danger...'? That's a bit wordy (cries of horror sound from the back of the GA chamber!) but it tries to make it clearer. Open to other suggestions.

That would do it (we had a similar concern). If you want to hew closer to your original language, perhaps something like: "it {the child labor} poses no danger to the child from contact with or work involving dangerous animals, chemicals, machinery {etc.}..."

On the other hand, your "wordy" solution at least leaves open the kid driving the tractor on her parents' farm, which (arguably) both your original and my "fixed" language in that clause would prohibit. I'll think about other possible wording there.

I have one other concern at this time, but I'll either fully articulate it later (soon, just not now, due to translator [OOC: phone] difficulties) or realize it's nothing.

[Greater Louisistan]

"Looks good. On first glance, no issues arose for us that haven't already been addressed by other colleagues."

[Normlpeople]

"My concern for this is primary from the agricultural sector. Children of families who own and work farms often do so themselves from an early age. Such things are considered chores, however, this would consider them employment and disqualify them from completing most of them. While I can see that we do not want individuals and businesses exploiting child labour, there needs to be exemptions placed to cover family-run operations."

[The Dark Star Republic]

"My concern for this is primary from the agricultural sector. Children of families who own and work farms often do so themselves from an early age. Such things are considered chores, however, this would consider them employment and disqualify them from completing most of them. While I can see that we do not want individuals and businesses exploiting child labour, there needs to be exemptions placed to cover family-run operations."

"It's very difficult to respond when people don't make textual references. Which part of the language do you think bans children from assisting on family farms? I am obviously not going to make a general exception for family run operations as that would be the most massive loophole imaginable."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[Normlpeople]

Clover nodded "Apologies ambassador. That was said after a long trip to the strangers bar. My concern is with your definition of Child Labour. It would seem to include basic chores, as such could be considered as such under current definition. Should they receive allowances, this could very well count as 'other compensation'. While I agree with you this needs addressing, and agree that a universal exception for family owned businesses is a major loophole, I do not wish to see a child being forced to do chores end up as a violation of employment legislation.

As far as agricultural work goes, Section 2 as it stands would seem to invalidate it. Pesticides could be considered 'dangerous chemicals'. Many animals can be considered 'dangerous' depending on the context.

Perhaps both can be solved by clarifying that work done at home isn't considered employment under this legislation?"

[The Dark Star Republic]

Clover nodded "Apologies ambassador.

"Who?"

Daisy looks round, confused.

Perhaps both can be solved by clarifying that work done at home isn't considered employment under this legislation?"

"Again, that would be an absolutely enormous loophole. Domestic servants are some of the most commonly abused of all labourers. We will rule out child domestic work with an exemption, but creating sweeping exemptions as you are asking for is not practical.

As far as agricultural work goes, Section 2 as it stands would seem to invalidate it. Pesticides could be considered 'dangerous chemicals'. Many animals can be considered 'dangerous' depending on the context.

"What is practical is rewriting that clause as we have already indicated we are willing to: we've proposed an alternative wording, as have the representatives of Bananananananananaistan and Sierra Lyricalia. If you have any thoughts on those or alternative suggestions of your own, we'd love to hear them.

"We've added a clarifying clause and tweaked a couple of the definitions. I'm not sure how to deal with prison labour, which is at present included. As for the sticky danger clause in the definitions, of the three proffered suggestions thus far we lean towards Ambassador Zakalwe's as the best."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern