[Draft] Execution Protocol

[Chinese Peoples]

OOC: Heh, SP can convert anyone that Mr. Bell can drink under the table. And his feline army will deal with the rest.

OOC: Going to stand firm about passive voice though.

All right... that should clear things up.

[Chinese Peoples]

While I still think the category and strength should be Trash Bin and On Fire, maybe you can explain how you think this will fit in human rights?

Because if all property is subject to execution, then a person's human rights are affected. For example, it is widely recognized that a person should have retirement income in form of pensions; if that pension is subject to execution, then you're essentially depriving a person of his livelihood.

Or why WA should bother legislating on such a minuscule slice of legal action?

It's not minuscule. It's the concern of many people.

OOC: With the actual execution threads hanging about, you might want to re-think the title, also because some delegates hate things starting with "On". And put a disclaimer at the top of the first post with a link to that Wikipedia article about what you're actually talking about.

[/quote]
I did.

[Araraukar]

Because if all property is subject to execution, then a person's human rights are affected.

OOC: Can we please put aside the Legalese for a bit? You're essentially arguing for what exactly? Pretend I don't have access to any external source and don't know the difference between "execution as capital punishment" and "execution as action".

For example, it is widely recognized that a person should have retirement income in form of pensions; if that pension is subject to execution, then you're essentially depriving a person of his livelihood.

Keeping with reading "execution" meaning capital punishment, I'd say you're not depriving a person from their livelihood but rather their life... Also, arguably anyway, civilized nations would pay pension anyway, whether the person had any possessions or not. Being alive would be a requirement, though.

[Chinese Peoples]

Because if all property is subject to execution, then a person's human rights are affected.

OOC: Can we please put aside the Legalese for a bit? You're essentially arguing for what exactly? Pretend I don't have access to any external source and don't know the difference between "execution as capital punishment" and "execution as action".

OoC: Execution in this context means forcing someone to deliver up on judgment. Say if a court says I need to pay $50 to you, and I refuse to deliver up, the court may issue a writ to execute this judgment, namely by commanding the police to withdraw $50 from my bank account. If I didn't have a bank account, then they'd seize some of my property and sell them, until they had $50 to award to my counterparty.

For example, it is widely recognized that a person should have retirement income in form of pensions; if that pension is subject to execution, then you're essentially depriving a person of his livelihood.

Keeping with reading "execution" meaning capital punishment, I'd say you're not depriving a person from their livelihood but rather their life... Also, arguably anyway, civilized nations would pay pension anyway, whether the person had any possessions or not. Being alive would be a requirement, though.

Nobody has died.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Can we please put aside the Legalese for a bit? You're essentially arguing for what exactly? Pretend I don't have access to any external source and don't know the difference between "execution as capital punishment" and "execution as action".

OoC: Execution in this context means forcing someone to deliver up on judgment. Say if a court says I need to pay $50 to you, and I refuse to deliver up, the court may issue a writ to execute this judgment, namely by commanding the police to withdraw $50 from my bank account.

OOC: Thank you. Now, how is that practice against human rights? And why should the WA be involved? How is that an international issue?

Nobody has died.

Well, we haven't heard from the Mouth of Liagolas for a while, so I'll put that down as "maybe".

[Chinese Peoples]

OoC: Execution in this context means forcing someone to deliver up on judgment. Say if a court says I need to pay $50 to you, and I refuse to deliver up, the court may issue a writ to execute this judgment, namely by commanding the police to withdraw $50 from my bank account.

OOC: Thank you. Now, how is that practice against human rights? And why should the WA be involved? How is that an international issue?

What happens if I depend on those $50 to live? If you deprive me of them, wouldn't that be the same as you killing me? This draft sets up limits on what property could be subject of execution. What happens when a judgment must be executed on property owned in a foreign country?

[Araraukar]

What happens if I depend on those $50 to live? If you deprive me of them, wouldn't that be the same as you killing me?

No, because GAR #344, Minimum Standard of Living Act requires your nation to take care of you.

What happens when a judgment must be executed on property owned in a foreign country?

Go for that angle, and this may actually prove to be somewhat international after all.

[Chinese Peoples]

What happens if I depend on those $50 to live? If you deprive me of them, wouldn't that be the same as you killing me?

No, because GAR #344, Minimum Standard of Living Act requires your nation to take care of you.

That's not enough. What happens if someone collects your payment as part of a judgment?

What happens when a judgment must be executed on property owned in a foreign country?

Go for that angle, and this may actually prove to be somewhat international after all.

Yes.

[Araraukar]

No, because GAR #344, Minimum Standard of Living Act requires your nation to take care of you.

That's not enough. What happens if someone collects your payment as part of a judgment?

OOC: Did you actually read that resolution?

1. Defines the "minimum standard of living", for the purposes of this resolution, as the minimum levels of access to food and water, clothing, housing, sanitation, appropriate utilities, and appropriate transportation necessary for a person to remain reasonably healthy, safe and productive in a given member state;

And further along:

4. Exempts each member state from guaranteeing a minimum standard of living to individuals who:

*snip*

b. refuse to make a good faith attempt to make restitution for crimes of which they have been found guilty by a court of law

So as long as you're willing to make an attempt at restitution - any reasonable nation would have humane ways to deal with poor people in a way that wouldn't make them violate that resolution - you're good.

[The Chinese Peoples]

*Bump*

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC:
Because I didn't know how to put this IC without making my Ambassador more clueless than she should be...

The legalese makes this proposal unnecessarily hard to comprehend. I understand that the GA is a roleplayed UN-type deal, but really, there are so many legal terms in here that comprehension by the laymen who play this game is all but impossible. It also really doesn't fit with the style of GA resolutions... nearly all of which are written in a way that is comprehensible.

Combine that with the fact that most voters never read past the title, and you have a proposal where 99% of the voters will think this has something to do with capital punishment but won't know exactly what it says about it. This makes the future history of this proposal very doubtful.

[Araraukar]

What happens when a judgment must be executed on property owned in a foreign country?

Go for that angle, and this may actually prove to be somewhat international after all.

Yes.

OOC: If you're hoping for this proposal to have any future, you need to make it matter internationally. I don't see at a quick glance any changes towards that goal. And like you've been told by myself and others, you need to reduce the Legalese and write in understandable language.

[Chinese Peoples]

Yes.

OOC: If you're hoping for this proposal to have any future, you need to make it matter internationally. I don't see at a quick glance any changes towards that goal. And like you've been told by myself and others, you need to reduce the Legalese and write in understandable language.

OoC: I'm actively working in that direction.

[Araraukar]

OoC: I'm actively working in that direction.

OOC: I'm just curious why you bumped before you had a new draft.