[PASSED] Protection of Sapient Rights [NOW WITH FAQ]

[Mousebumples]

Second Draft:

Protection of Sapient Rights
A resolution to improve world multiverse-wide human sapient and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Excidium Planetis

---

Description: The General Assembly,

Applauding the efforts to secure rights for all sapient beings, regardless of race, and the many efforts not to limit such rights to only beings of the homo sapiens species;

Nevertheless Concerned at the many attempts to restrict the rights of sapient beings for purely racial reasons, including but not limited to attempts to restrict the rights of sapient machines and an attempt to make human decisions necessary in the warfare of non-human species;

Believing that to secure once and for all the rights of sapient beings everywhere, a resolution is needed to affirm these rights;

Defines: "Sapient Being" as any entity possessing both a) the ability to reason and act with appropriate judgement and b) sentience.

"Sentience" as the ability to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively.

"Existing international laws" as any passed World Assembly Resolutions which are extant and not void at the time an individual may read this resolution, whether those resolutions have been passed before or after this resolution was passed.

And Hereby Declares that any sapient beings found inside member nations are not to be denied any of the rights guaranteed to humans or sapient beings by existing international laws, and that no member nation may discriminate against sapient beings for reasons of race or species alone.

Clarifies that it is the responsibility of individual member nations to determine whether a given entity is a sapient being, but that such methods of determination must apply equally to humans and any other entities examined.

Further Affirms that sapient beings shall be recognized in the eyes of the World Assembly as living beings, regardless of biological status.

Protection of Sapient Rights
A resolution to improve world multiverse-wide human sapient and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Excidium Planetis

---

Description: The General Assembly,

Applauding the efforts to secure rights for all sapient beings, regardless of race, and the many efforts not to limit such rights to only beings of the homo sapiens species;

Noting the active participation in this Assembly of many ambassadors and delegates of various sapient species;

Nevertheless Concerned at the many attempts to restrict the rights of sapient beings for purely racial reasons, including but not limited to attempts to restrict the rights of sapient machines and an attempt to make human decisions necessary in the warfare of non-human species;

Believing that to secure once and for all the rights of sapient beings everywhere, a resolution is needed to affirm these rights;

Defines: "Sapient Being" as any entity possessing both a) the ability to reason and act with appropriate judgement and b) sentience.

"Sentience" as the ability to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively.

"Existing international laws" as any passed World Assembly Resolutions which are extant and not void at the time an individual may read this resolution, whether those resolutions have been passed before or after this resolution was passed.

And Hereby Declares that Sapient beings are not to be denied any of the rights guaranteed to humans or sapient beings by existing international laws, and that no nation may discriminate against sapient beings for reasons of race or species alone.

Further Affirms that all sapient beings shall be recognized in the eyes of the World Assembly as living beings, regardless of biological status.

Frequently Asked Questions:

Isn't this forced roleplay? In my nation's universe, humans are the only sapient beings.

No, this resolution does not force roleplay. That's illegal, so I wrote the resolution in such a way that there isn't even one clause that actually says non-human sapients exist. Additionally, I put the burden of finding sapients on individual nations specifically to allow some nations to roleplay not finding any except humans.

What about humans who don't pass a sapience test? Do they have no rights?

Humans who might not be considered sapient beings under this resolution, such as children and the mentally ill/disabled, are still humans, covered by the rights given to humans by the WA. If they are not adequately protected by WA law, it is not my fault.

What if a nation tries to define the ability to reason in a way that excludes non-humans?&

It would be quite difficult to do so, especially since the sapience test must be applied equally to humans and non-humans. It is theoretically possible, but to define reason in such a way as to exclude a being equally as reasonable as a human would risk excluding humans from the definition of sapient beings. Nevertheless, I must leave the determination of sapience up to individual nations to avoid forced roleplay.

Doesn't this duplicate CoCR? The mods ruled that CoCR covers non-humans.

"Inhabitants of member states" isn't defined in CoCR, and certainly doesn't extend to "animals" (such as say, dolphins). This resolution would require member states to grant rights to any sapient beings (not necessarily saying dolphins are sapient, just that if they were found to be sapient, you'd have to include them) found within their borders, even if they were not considered inhabitants.

For a further example, consider alien tourists from non-member states. They are sapient beings, granted the protections of this resolution, yet they are not inhabitants of member states, so not covered by CoCR.

Why did you define sapience based on the individual, rather than the whole species? What if 50% of a species is sapient, but the rest aren't, does that mean 50% aren't given these rights?

As Wrapper (who, for the record doesn't necessarily agree with me) said: "Say an individual synthetic form, a robot or android if you will, achieves sapience. Your choices, if you were to define sapience by species, are, classify all synthetics as non-sapient, and therefore allow the denial of rights to this individual, or classify all synthetics as sapient, which would mean the imprisonment of children if they let the batteries in their little Robogotchi toys die. While the latter is just silly, the former is undesirable as well. Just because he or she is the first and only synthetic to achieve sapience, does not mean his or her rights should be abridged."
To avoid these problems, I defined it based on the individual.

Stuff:
I think this resolution is necessary in light of some recent proposals. What are your thoughts? Do you have suggestions for improving the resolution, or arguments against the resolution? I would like to hear them.

Special thanks to Fillash and Altoma for providing the endorsements necessary to submit this proposal.

[Separatist Peoples]

"The overwhelming amount of language in WA laws refers to species-neutral terminology. Like citizen, inhabitant, individual, etc. So, while this is technically legal, do we really have a certified need for this? Are there any human-exclusive resolutions on the books?

"Also, you really needn't define "existing international law". That one is fairly intuitive and definition-wank-proof."

[Excidium Planetis]

"The overwhelming amount of language in WA laws refers to species-neutral terminology. Like citizen, inhabitant, individual, etc. So, while this is technically legal, do we really have a certified need for this? Are there any human-exclusive resolutions on the books?

"Also, you really needn't define "existing international law". That one is fairly intuitive and definition-wank-proof."

I see it necessary to prevent future resolutions from restricting sapient rights. Some recent proposals have included such measures, but thankfully have been defeated or modified in the draft phase.

It wasn't in Non-interference in Elections, where I engaged in an argument about it.
EDIT: In fact, when I argued the definition used in this resolution, you disagreed:

Note the bold. Any WA resolutions passed would affect this clause, obviously. It does not prevent any further resolutions promoting (or discouraging) free and fair elections.

"Incorrect. It says existing. Therefore, new proposals, which are not existing laws, would be in contradiction of this clause, and ruled illegal prior to making it to vote."

[Separatist Peoples]

"The overwhelming amount of language in WA laws refers to species-neutral terminology. Like citizen, inhabitant, individual, etc. So, while this is technically legal, do we really have a certified need for this? Are there any human-exclusive resolutions on the books?

"Also, you really needn't define "existing international law". That one is fairly intuitive and definition-wank-proof."

I see it necessary to prevent future resolutions from restricting sapient rights. Some recent proposals have included such measures, but thankfully have been defeated or modified in the draft phase.

It wasn't in Non-interference in Elections, where I engaged in an argument about it.

"It didn't have to. It wasn't necessary for the resolution. Member states are already not allowed to arbitrarily discriminate between inhabitants thanks to CoCR, so there is little chance of any legal discrimination between species occurring in extant WA law. Noninterference in Elections would have been bound by that component with or without this. If your concern is dealing with future law, you should know that the resistance to human-centric proposals is very stiff already. Its vanishingly unlikely that any such effort would pass. Sorry, ambassador, but I'm just not seeing a definite need here."

[Excidium Planetis]

I see it necessary to prevent future resolutions from restricting sapient rights. Some recent proposals have included such measures, but thankfully have been defeated or modified in the draft phase.

It wasn't in Non-interference in Elections, where I engaged in an argument about it.

"It didn't have to. It wasn't necessary for the resolution. Member states are already not allowed to arbitrarily discriminate between inhabitants thanks to CoCR, so there is little chance of any legal discrimination between species occurring in extant WA law. Noninterference in Elections would have been bound by that component with or without this. If your concern is dealing with future law, you should know that the resistance to human-centric proposals is very stiff already. Its vanishingly unlikely that any such effort would pass. Sorry, ambassador, but I'm just not seeing a definite need here."

I was talking about the definition of "existing international law" in Non-interference in Elections, not about violations of sapient rights.

And just because resistance is stiff doesn't mean it is necessary. There would be significant resistance to a proposal trying to discriminate based on gender, but there are still GA resolutions about that.

[Separatist Peoples]

"It didn't have to. It wasn't necessary for the resolution. Member states are already not allowed to arbitrarily discriminate between inhabitants thanks to CoCR, so there is little chance of any legal discrimination between species occurring in extant WA law. Noninterference in Elections would have been bound by that component with or without this. If your concern is dealing with future law, you should know that the resistance to human-centric proposals is very stiff already. Its vanishingly unlikely that any such effort would pass. Sorry, ambassador, but I'm just not seeing a definite need here."

I was talking about the definition of "existing international law" in Non-interference in Elections, not about violations of sapient rights.

"Ah, that makes much more sense, yes. Fair enough."

And just because resistance is stiff doesn't mean it is necessary. There would be significant resistance to a proposal trying to discriminate based on gender, but there are still GA resolutions about that.

"In those cases, it tends to be about a sex-specific procedure, such as genital mutilation. It is hard to include males in a topic covering female genital mutilation. I imagine you are likely to find far less cut-and-dry interspecific issues to cover than gender issues. It really seems to be a solution in search of a problem, ambassador."

[Excidium Planetis]

And just because resistance is stiff doesn't mean it is necessary. There would be significant resistance to a proposal trying to discriminate based on gender, but there are still GA resolutions about that.

"In those cases, it tends to be about a sex-specific procedure, such as genital mutilation. It is hard to include males in a topic covering female genital mutilation. I imagine you are likely to find far less cut-and-dry interspecific issues to cover than gender issues. It really seems to be a solution in search of a problem, ambassador."

"Times change. Discrimination based on species might be strongly opposed now, but what about in the future? Can you guarantee that such proposals will not pass? There was some support for the first draft of Ban the Use of Autonomous Weapons, and proposals that deal specifically with humans such as On Nutritional Labeling and Compulsory Nutrition Labels for Food and Beverages Products have a decent chance of eventually be passed in some form. This resolution would protect sapient rights from possible future violations. If your only argument against it is 'it might not be necessary', and there is potential that it is necessary, why would you oppose it?"

[Sierra Lyricalia]

As should have been clear once you got the Secretariat ruling in that discussion, Madam Ambassador, it's completely unnecessary to define "existing international law" because that phrase will only ever be interpreted one way - specifically that way.

One other item jumps out immediately - you define "sentience" as inherently subjective. But I'm unaware of any means of measuring subjective experience in the objective manner necessary to enforce these rules. That's going to be a sticking point. You probably want a definition that can be tested fairly by people (of whatever species) without having to invent telepathy first.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Times change. Discrimination based on species might be strongly opposed now, but what about in the future? Can you guarantee that such proposals will not pass? There was some support for the first draft of Ban the Use of Autonomous Weapons, and proposals that deal specifically with humans such as On Nutritional Labeling and Compulsory Nutrition Labels for Food and Beverages Products have a decent chance of eventually be passed in some form. This resolution would protect sapient rights from possible future violations. If your only argument against it is 'it might not be necessary', and there is potential that it is necessary, why would you oppose it?"

"Neither has a NatSov blocker on Gambling been necessary, despite the potential for that changing. I'm not advocating one such blocker for the same reason I stand against this idea.

"Besides, that isn't my only argument against, ambassador. I've already pointed out how discrimination based on species is already illegal. No resolution could technically arbitrarily discriminate against nonhumans in favor of humans, certainly not in covered topics. There are possibilities of a resolution disproportionately affecting one group over another, but the same is true of certain resolutions disproportionately affecting dictatorships or capitalists, which has been acceptable. Any such disproportionate effect would have to have a non-arbitrary justification, like barring creatures that explode when too close to uranium from working in a nuclear power plant. I just don't see the issue to be as pronounced as you see it."

[Excidium Planetis]

As should have been clear once you got the Secretariat ruling in that discussion, Madam Ambassador, it's completely unnecessary to define "existing international law" because that phrase will only ever be interpreted one way - specifically that way.

One other item jumps out immediately - you define "sentience" as inherently subjective. But I'm unaware of any means of measuring subjective experience in the objective manner necessary to enforce these rules. That's going to be a sticking point. You probably want a definition that can be tested fairly by people (of whatever species) without having to invent telepathy first.

What ruling? I was aware there was a ruling that the author of "Non-interference in Elections" intended the phrase to mean something other than the way I have defined it here, but was not aware of any ruling on what the phrase actually means. I have defined it the way I wish to use it here for the purposes of clarification. Unless you have a better phrase that describes the same thing?

I defined sentience in the way it is defined in a popular digital encyclopedia. Further Inquiries into a definition have turned up definitions that indicate an ability to feel, which is part of the definition used here. Since the definition used here indicates an ability to feel or perceive or to experience subjectively, it is in my perception the broader definition, and thus the more easily applicable one. Some argue that machines can not feel, and thus sapient machines would be ruled out by the other definitions. If you have a specific, better definition in mind, I would be open to hearing it.

[Excidium Planetis]

"Times change. Discrimination based on species might be strongly opposed now, but what about in the future? Can you guarantee that such proposals will not pass? There was some support for the first draft of Ban the Use of Autonomous Weapons, and proposals that deal specifically with humans such as On Nutritional Labeling and Compulsory Nutrition Labels for Food and Beverages Products have a decent chance of eventually be passed in some form. This resolution would protect sapient rights from possible future violations. If your only argument against it is 'it might not be necessary', and there is potential that it is necessary, why would you oppose it?"

"Neither has a NatSov blocker on Gambling been necessary, despite the potential for that changing. I'm not advocating one such blocker for the same reason I stand against this idea.

"Besides, that isn't my only argument against, ambassador. I've already pointed out how discrimination based on species is already illegal. No resolution could technically arbitrarily discriminate against nonhumans in favor of humans, certainly not in covered topics. There are possibilities of a resolution disproportionately affecting one group over another, but the same is true of certain resolutions disproportionately affecting dictatorships or capitalists, which has been acceptable. Any such disproportionate effect would have to have a non-arbitrary justification, like barring creatures that explode when too close to uranium from working in a nuclear power plant. I just don't see the issue to be as pronounced as you see it."

If such discrimination is illegal, why was illegality not brought up on either Ban Autonomous Weapons or Concerning Artificial Intelligence (in which the only illegal aspect discussed was its mandate on individuals rather than nations)? In fact, the latter was even submitted, and only removed because the author requested it be removed. Clearly it is possible to legislate racism on non-human sapient beings.

[Abazhaka]

this bill may be problematic, mainly because this leaves a gateway for people striking down other bills relating to abortion, by defining the unborn as sapient.

opposed.

[Excidium Planetis]

this bill may be problematic, mainly because this leaves a gateway for people striking down other bills relating to abortion, by defining the unborn as sapient.

opposed.

Would you consider an unborn fetus having the "ability to reason and act with appropriate judgement"? I wouldn't.
This resolution also only grants sapients the rights A) Already given to them by other resolutions and B) Already given to humans. Since current resolutions do not give unborn humans the right to life, this resolution will not either.

This resolution will not affect abortion.

[Kaboomlandia]

Defines: "Sapient Being" as any entity possessing both a) the ability to reason and act with appropriate judgement

"So, by this, monkeys, elephants, and dolphins could possibly be defined as "sapient"?"

[Excidium Planetis]

Defines: "Sapient Being" as any entity possessing both a) the ability to reason and act with appropriate judgement

"So, by this, monkeys, elephants, and dolphins could possibly be defined as "sapient"?"

They could be defined as sapient, yes. Some nations already do so.

[Separatist Peoples]

this bill may be problematic, mainly because this leaves a gateway for people striking down other bills relating to abortion, by defining the unborn as sapient.

opposed.

Would you consider an unborn fetus having the "ability to reason and act with appropriate judgement"? I wouldn't.
This resolution also only grants sapients the rights A) Already given to them by other resolutions and B) Already given to humans. Since current resolutions do not give unborn humans the right to life, this resolution will not either.

This resolution will not affect abortion.

"Of course, that definition excludes newborns and the seriously mentally damaged from personhood."

[Excidium Planetis]

Would you consider an unborn fetus having the "ability to reason and act with appropriate judgement"? I wouldn't.
This resolution also only grants sapients the rights A) Already given to them by other resolutions and B) Already given to humans. Since current resolutions do not give unborn humans the right to life, this resolution will not either.

This resolution will not affect abortion.

"Of course, that definition excludes newborns and the seriously mentally damaged from personhood."

It doesn't exclude them from personhood. It excludes them from being defined as a sapient being, which is not necessarily the same as being a person. If the rights of the mentally disabled and newborns are not adequately covered in other resolutions, we have a bigger problem than them not being considered sapient.

Besides, including newborns would open up a huge can of worms I'm sure many of us do not want, like giving newborns the rights entitled to humans in the Sexual Privacy Act. Nevermind, Forget I mentioned the SPA.

[Dakota Prime]

"So, by this, monkeys, elephants, and dolphins could possibly be defined as "sapient"?"

They could be defined as sapient, yes. Some nations already do so.

This I think is going to be one of the issues. Because the #267 Sensible Hunting Limits Resolution (of which I am trying to repeal) is in place that allows hunting of all of those species as long as they are not endangered.

[Excidium Planetis]

They could be defined as sapient, yes. Some nations already do so.

This I think is going to be one of the issues. Because the #267 Sensible Hunting Limits Resolution (of which I am trying to repeal) is in place that allows hunting of all of those species as long as they are not endangered.

Nope. Sensible Hunting Limits does not expressly allow hunting anything, rather, it bans hunting endangered species and leaves the hunting of "animals" up to member nations.

1. Recognises member nations’ rights to allow and regulate the hunting of non-endangered animal stocks, and to ban hunting of any animals, within their borders;

Additionally, it does not define "animal", so either A) Sensible Limits on Hunting allows hunting humans and thus also sapients under this resolution or B) it bans hunting humans and thus also sapients under this bill. Either way, this bill gives no more right to hunt sapients than it does humans.

Also pimping.

[Bears Armed]

"The overwhelming amount of language in WA laws refers to species-neutral terminology. Like citizen, inhabitant, individual, etc. So, while this is technically legal, do we really have a certified need for this? Are there any human-exclusive resolutions on the books?"

OOC: Some people claim that as those laws [mostly] fall into a category labelled 'Human Rights' they only apply to humans...

However, according to past Modly rulling, a proposal can't legally mention the existence of non-human sapients as a definite fact because of the 'No Meta-gaming' rule's ban on forcing people to accept any particular bit of RP as canonical: You'd have to change to more "precautionary" language, instead...

[Separatist Peoples]

"The overwhelming amount of language in WA laws refers to species-neutral terminology. Like citizen, inhabitant, individual, etc. So, while this is technically legal, do we really have a certified need for this? Are there any human-exclusive resolutions on the books?"

OOC: Some people claim that as those laws [mostly] fall into a category labelled 'Human Rights' they only apply to humans...

However, according to past Modly rulling, a proposal can't legally mention the existence of non-human sapients as a definite fact because of the 'No Meta-gaming' rule's ban on forcing people to accept any particular bit of RP as canonical: You'd have to change to more "precautionary" language, instead...

OOC: wasn't there a ruling that said human was just a colloquial and there's no reason to interpret it as affecting nonhuman rights? The same way that a proposal requiring territorial waters be recognized at X miles from shore would still affect a nation that didn't use miles?

[Bears Armed]

OOC: Some people claim that as those laws [mostly] fall into a category labelled 'Human Rights' they only apply to humans...

However, according to past Modly rulling, a proposal can't legally mention the existence of non-human sapients as a definite fact because of the 'No Meta-gaming' rule's ban on forcing people to accept any particular bit of RP as canonical: You'd have to change to more "precautionary" language, instead...

OOC: wasn't there a ruling that said human was just a colloquial and there's no reason to interpret it as affecting nonhuman rights? The same way that a proposal requiring territorial waters be recognized at X miles from shore would still affect a nation that didn't use miles?

OOC: but "no reason to interpret it as" doesn't mean "can't interpret it as"...

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: wasn't there a ruling that said human was just a colloquial and there's no reason to interpret it as affecting nonhuman rights? The same way that a proposal requiring territorial waters be recognized at X miles from shore would still affect a nation that didn't use miles?

OOC: but "no reason to interpret it as" doesn't mean "can't interpret it as"...

OOC: I'll have to dig that one up to be sure, then. I want to say that one of the mods put a stop to that argument, but I can't for the life of me be sure.

[Excidium Planetis]

"The overwhelming amount of language in WA laws refers to species-neutral terminology. Like citizen, inhabitant, individual, etc. So, while this is technically legal, do we really have a certified need for this? Are there any human-exclusive resolutions on the books?"

OOC: Some people claim that as those laws [mostly] fall into a category labelled 'Human Rights' they only apply to humans...

However, according to past Modly rulling, a proposal can't legally mention the existence of non-human sapients as a definite fact because of the 'No Meta-gaming' rule's ban on forcing people to accept any particular bit of RP as canonical: You'd have to change to more "precautionary" language, instead...

OOC: Well, this is probably the most serious objection. If the proposal can be ruled out for meta-gaming, then I've got a serious problem. Would deleting the "Noting" (2nd) clause do it?

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: Would it not make sense to wait and see what becomes of the rules discussion on that point? It's become such a convoluted legality point over the years that it might be easier to slice the Gordian Knot than unwind it through a proposal. EP is under no obligation to halt their proposal until the rules discussion progresses, but at the same time they might find their work is significantly easier if they do - or, worse, that if they don't, they may write a proposal that is then rendered immediately redundant by virtue of a rules change. We all spend so much time obsessing over what the rules are that we should take advantage of this rare moment when we get to say what the rules ought be.