Advertisement
by Huntopialand » Wed Apr 18, 2012 9:13 am
by Flibbleites » Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:51 am
by Weed » Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:59 am
by Zanzibarnia » Wed Apr 18, 2012 12:31 pm
by Jaffa land » Wed Apr 18, 2012 1:34 pm
by Sanctaria » Wed Apr 18, 2012 1:34 pm
Jaffa land wrote:I'm confused, the original resolution is quite good. I agree it needed to be cleaned up. An amendment or a re-write would be better than a repeal. Voting against , because it seems only to be a job - half done.
by Syrakhstan » Wed Apr 18, 2012 1:49 pm
by Mahaj » Wed Apr 18, 2012 2:18 pm
Syrakhstan wrote:"Noticing the resolution creates no restrictions on when a government can make private information pubic which it finds in the course of an investigation,"
Me thinks, this small typo may kill it...
<Koth> I'm still going by the assumption that Mahaj is Unibot's kid brother or something
Kandarin(Naivetry): You're going to have a great NS career ahead of you if you want it, Mahaj. :)
<@Eluvatar> Why is SkyDip such a purist raiderist
<+frattastan> Because his region was never raided.
<+maxbarry> EarthAway: I guess I might dabble in raiding just to experience it better, but I would not like to raid regions of natives, so I'd probably be more interested in defense and liberations
by Glen-Rhodes » Wed Apr 18, 2012 2:33 pm
Weed wrote:Observing the text defines privacy, and establishes types of privacy, but does not specifically state that a person has a right to privacy, or that the government cannot infringe on all of those types of privacy...
by Weed » Wed Apr 18, 2012 2:55 pm
Glen-Rhodes wrote:Weed wrote:Observing the text defines privacy, and establishes types of privacy, but does not specifically state that a person has a right to privacy, or that the government cannot infringe on all of those types of privacy...
What exactly does the word "asserting" mean, now? The danger of completely ignoring preambles is that you will sometimes miss active clauses within them...
I highly doubt we ever reach a point where new nations understand that.Sanctaria wrote:Jaffa land wrote:I'm confused, the original resolution is quite good. I agree it needed to be cleaned up. An amendment or a re-write would be better than a repeal. Voting against , because it seems only to be a job - half done.
Eventually I won't need to repeat this but, Ambassador one cannot amend a resolution. It is against the rules and cannot be done.
by Glen-Rhodes » Wed Apr 18, 2012 3:17 pm
Weed wrote:That doesn't require action. It does not assert who must defend privacy. It simply states the general view of the world assembly that privacy should be protected. Unfortunately, that was a view that the resolution never followed up on, and thus it needed to be struck down.
by Weed » Wed Apr 18, 2012 3:38 pm
No, declaring it is a right does not grant that right to anyone. And no, the solution would be: "Declares member states may not infringe on one's right to privacy," as an operative clause. It takes 11 words and leaves approximately 3489 other words to restrict or define that clause as you wish.Glen-Rhodes wrote:Weed wrote:That doesn't require action. It does not assert who must defend privacy. It simply states the general view of the world assembly that privacy should be protected. Unfortunately, that was a view that the resolution never followed up on, and thus it needed to be struck down.
It says that privacy is a right. Are you really saying that the phrase structure "X is a right" isn't sufficient for declaring a right?
What is your solution, here? Summarize modern procedural and substantive doctrines of privacy in 3,500 characters? When it comes to these issue, I don't think many people are realizing that what we understand about these rights comes from judicial decisions, not legislation.
by Hiraga » Wed Apr 18, 2012 4:39 pm
by Glen-Rhodes » Wed Apr 18, 2012 5:27 pm
Weed wrote:No, declaring it is a right does not grant that right to anyone. And no, the solution would be: "Declares member states may not infringe on one's right to privacy," as an operative clause. It takes 11 words and leaves approximately 3489 other words to restrict or define that clause as you wish.
by Robanistania » Wed Apr 18, 2012 5:35 pm
by Tibberiria » Wed Apr 18, 2012 5:52 pm
by The Serbian Empire » Thu Apr 19, 2012 4:16 am
by Baconopolis » Thu Apr 19, 2012 5:00 am
by Yorobia » Thu Apr 19, 2012 6:42 am
by Quelesh » Thu Apr 19, 2012 7:03 am
by Weed » Thu Apr 19, 2012 7:16 am
Yorobia wrote:To the delegate who submitted this resolution, what amendments would you make to the resolution right to privacy to perfect it?
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement