NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] Legal Competence

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.
User avatar
Bears Armed Mission
Diplomat
 
Posts: 825
Founded: Jul 26, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

[PASSED] Legal Competence

Postby Bears Armed Mission » Thu Dec 12, 2013 10:16 am

Fifth & final Draft


Legal Competence

Category:
Human Rights
Strength: Significant

Description: The World Assembly,

Believing that the freedom to make important decisions about one’s life for oneself is a fundamental ‘sapient right’ that should not be unreasonably restricted;

Hereby, within any limits set by earlier resolutions that are still in force,

1). Defines the term ‘Legal Competence’ as meaning a status in law whose possessors (i.e. ‘legally competent’ persons) are considered mature and mentally capable enough to give their informed consent on important decisions and who are therefore eligible to validate legally-binding contracts, manage finances and property and businesses, agree to or refuse medical treatments (except for any measures against disease that are legally required), make valid wills, emigrate, act as legal guardians for persons who lack this status, and enjoy any other rights that applicable laws declare are also (like all of those listed above) linked to possession of this status, without needing consent from a parent or other ‘guardian’ for any of those actions;

2). Requires all member nations to have clear and fair rules about when and how a person becomes recognised as possessing Legal Competence within their jurisdiction, and to make those rules publicly available, and specifies that _
i/ The only criteria that can be used for denying a person Legal Competence are immaturity (defined by chronological age and/or psychological testing), mental illness, very low intelligence, or physical injuries or illnesses that currently make it impossible for that person to exercise informed consent;
ii/ For any of those criteria other than chronological age, the decision as to whether or not they apply must be made by appropriate experts acting (and allowed by the authorities to act) objectively without fear or favour;
iii/ A person’s active dissent from the views of national or local authorities on any matter (including but not limited to politics, religion, philosophy, or economics) cannot be used as “evidence” that the person is unsuitable to possess this status;
iv/. There must be a reasonable system for appeal against any refusal to recognise a person as legally competent on any basis other than just their chronological age, whether the appeals are made by those persons themselves or by others acting on their behalf;
v/. If subdivisions within a member nation are allowed to set thresholds for this status for their own peoples separately then any person who has been granted this status by any of those jurisdictions must still be recognised as holding it by every part of that nation;

3). States that any person classified as not legally competent must have at least one legally competent person officially recognised as a ‘guardian’ to make relevant decisions for them and protect their interests, and also that people who are not legally competent must not be employed in combat;

4). Acknowledges the right of member nations to set reasonable thresholds of maturity and/or mental capability for people to hold any other rights or responsibilities within their jurisdictions (including but not limited to, whatever is legal there in terms of political matters, criminal responsibility, sexual matters, access to and operation of weapons or vehicles or other devices, participation in hazardous activities, use of drugs, and gambling), and that in these cases a single government can assign different thresholds for different rights or responsibilities.


Changes from the fourth draft:
Clause 1 has “(like all of those listed above)” inserted and clause 4 has “in these cases” inserted to help clarify that the rights listed in clause 1 are a package deal that must all be granted (or withheld) together.
Clause 2’s section ‘iii’ has been altered in line with an Ardchoillean suggestion that improves the phrasing but doesn’t affect the actual meaning.

Unused characters/spaces, with the current wording, = c.30.


Legal Competence

Category:
Human Rights
Strength: Significant (?)

Description: The World Assembly,

Believing that the freedom to make important decisions about one’s life for oneself is a fundamental ‘sapient right’ that should not be unreasonably restricted;

Hereby, within any limits set by earlier resolutions that are still in force,

1). Defines the term ‘Legal Competence’ as meaning a status in law whose possessors (i.e. ‘legally competent’ persons) are considered mature and mentally capable enough to give their informed consent on important decisions and who are therefore eligible to validate legally-binding contracts, manage finances and property and businesses, agree to or refuse medical treatments (except for any measures against disease that are legally required), make valid wills, emigrate, act as legal guardians for persons who lack this status, and enjoy any other rights that applicable laws declare should also be linked to possession of this status, without needing consent from a parent or other ‘guardian’ for any of those actions;

2). Requires all member nations to have clear and fair rules about when and how a person becomes recognised as possessing Legal Competence within their jurisdiction, and to make those rules publicly available, and specifies that _
i/ The only criteria that can be used for denying a person Legal Competence are immaturity (defined by chronological age and/or psychological testing), mental illness, very low intelligence, or physical injuries or illnesses that currently make it impossible for that person to exercise informed consent;
ii/For any of those criteria other than chronological age, the decision as to whether or not they apply must be made by appropriate experts acting (and allowed by the authorities to act) objectively without fear or favour;
iii/ That a person’s opinion on any matter (including but not limited to politics, religion, philosophy, or economics) are ones to which national or local authorities object can not be used as “evidence” that that person is unsuitable to possess this status;
iv/. There must be a reasonable system for appeal against any refusal to recognise a person as legally competent on any basis other than just their chronological age, whether the appeals are made by those people themselves or by others acting on their behalf;
v/. If subdivisions within a member nation are allowed to set thresholds for this status for their own peoples separately then any person who has been granted this status by any of those jurisdictions must still be recognised as holding it by every part of that nation;

3). States that any person classified as not legally competent must have at least one legally competent person officially recognised as a ‘guardian’ to make relevant decisions for them and protect their interests, and also that people who are not legally competent must not be employed in combat;
4). Acknowledges the right of member nations to set reasonable thresholds of maturity and/or mental capability for people to hold any other rights or responsibilities within their jurisdictions (including but not limited to, whatever is legal there in terms of political matters, criminal responsibility, sexual matters, access to and operation of weapons or vehicles or other devices, participation in hazardous activities, use of drugs, and gambling), and that a single government can assign different thresholds for different rights or responsibilities.


Changes from the third draft: Emigration added to the list of actions for which a legally competent person doesn’t need a guardian’s approval (so that repressive governments can’t loophole around the recent resolution on that subject by declaring people mentally unfit to emigrate unless they actually deny them this status altogether); physical illnesses that make it [currently] impossible for the subject to give informed consent added to the list of acceptable reasons for denying a person this status; clause about ‘Guardians’ expanded slightly (but that topic is really too complex to cover here, within the limited length allowed, so I’ll be starting a separate draft for that purpose instead unless somebody else decides to tackle it beforepaw and does so in a way that I like…); list of basic examples for “other rights and responsibilities” in clause #4 added; some minor changes to wording.
Unused characters/spaces, with the current wording, = c.50.


Legal Competence

Category:
Human Rights
Strength: Significant (?)

Description: The World Assembly,

Believing that the freedom to make important decisions about one’s life for oneself is a fundamental ‘sapient right’ that should not be unreasonably restricted;

Hereby, within any limits set by earlier resolutions that are still in force,

1). Defines the term ‘Legal Competence’ as meaning a status in law whose possessors (i.e. ‘legally competent’ persons) are considered mature and mentally capable enough to give their informed consent on important decisions and who are therefore eligible to validate legally-binding contracts, manage finances and property and businesses, agree to or refuse medical treatments (except for any measures against disease that are legally required), make valid wills; act as legal guardians for persons who lack this status, and enjoy any other rights that applicable laws declare should also be linked to possession of this status, without needing a guardian’s consent for any of those actions;

2). Requires all member nations to have clear and fair rules about when and how a person becomes recognised as possessing Legal Competence within their jurisdiction, and to make those rules publicly available, and specifies that _
i/ The only criteria that can be used for denying a person Legal Competence are immaturity (defined by chronological age and/or psychological testing), mental illness, very low intelligence, or physical injuries that make it impossible for that person to exercise informed consent;
ii/For any of those criteria other than chronological age, the decision as to whether or not they apply must be made by appropriate experts acting (and being allowed by the authorities to act) objectively without fear or favour;
iii/ That a person holds opinions on any matter (including but not limited to politics, religion, philosophy, or economics) to which the national or local authorities object cannot be used as “evidence” that that person is unsuitable to possess this status;
iv/. There must be a reasonable system for appeals against any refusals to recognise a person as having this status on any basis other than just their chronological age, whether those appeals are made by those people themselves or by others acting on their behalf;
v/. If subdivisions within a member nation are allowed to set thresholds for this status separately then any person who has been granted this status in any of those jurisdictions must still be recognised as holding it in every part of that nation;

3). States that any person classified as not legally competent must have at least one legally competent person as a ‘guardian’ to protect their interests, and that people who are not legally competent may not be employed in combat;

4). Acknowledges the right of member nations’ governments, within any limits set by those nations’ own constitutions, to set reasonable thresholds of maturity and/or mental capability for people to exercise any other applicable rights or responsibilities (e.g. [List to follow: apart from anything else, this should block future attempts at one-size-fits-all micro-management of such limits in fields such as [for example] ‘Gun Control’ or ‘Recreational Drugs’…]) within their jurisdictions, and that a single government can assign different thresholds for different rights or responsibilities.


Changes from the second draft: definition of legal competence in clause #1 expanded slightly (the already-listed right to “manage property and businesses” expanded to cover “finances” as well; the right “to make valid wills” added; and clarification that lack of need for a guardian’s consent applies to ALL of those actions), clause about ‘Emancipated Minors’ dropped again; sub-clause about appeals against denial of this status expanded to clarify that appeals may be made both by the people affected themselves and by others acting on their behalf.
Still to do: expand clause #3 about ‘guardians’, add list of examples for “other rights and responsibilities” in clause #4.
Characters available, with current wording, c.150.


Legal Competence

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant (?)

Description: The World Assembly,

Believing that the freedom to make important decisions about one’s life for oneself is a fundamental ‘sapient right’ that should not be unreasonably restricted;

Hereby, within any limits set by earlier resolutions that are still in force,

1). Defines the term ‘Legal Competence’ as meaning a status in law whose possessors (i.e. ‘legally competent’ persons) are considered mature and mentally capable enough to give their informed consent on important decisions and who are therefore eligible to validate legally-binding contracts, manage finances and property and businesses, agree to or refuse medical treatments (except for any measures against disease that are legally required), act as legal guardians for persons who lack this status, and enjoy any other rights that applicable laws declare should also be linked to possession of this status, without needing a guardian’s consent;

2). Requires all member nations to have clear and fair rules about when and how a person becomes recognised as possessing Legal Competence within their jurisdiction, and to make those rules publicly available, and specifies that _
i/ The only criteria that can be used for denying a person Legal Competence are immaturity (defined by chronological age and/or psychological testing), mental illness, very low intelligence, or physical injuries that make it impossible for that person to exercise informed consent;
ii/For any of those criteria other than chronological age, the decision as to whether or not they apply must be made by appropriate experts acting (and being allowed by the authorities to act) objectively without fear or favour;
iii/That a person holds opinions on any matter (including but not limited to politics, religion, philosophy, or economics) to which the national or local authorities object cannot be used as “evidence” that that person is unsuitable to possess this status;
iv/. There must be a reasonable system for appeals against any refusals to recognise a person as having this status on any basis other than just their chronological age;
v/. If subdivisions within a member nation are allowed to set thresholds for this status separately then any person who has been granted this status in any of those jurisdictions must still be recognised as holding it in every part of that nation;

3).Defines the term ‘Emancipated Minor’ as meaning a person who is officially recognised as legally competent although still below their society’s normal age for this;

4). States that any person classified as not legally competent must have at least one legally competent person as a ‘guardian’ to protect their interests, and that people who are not legally competent may not be employed in combat;

5). Acknowledges the right of member nations’ governments, within any limits set by those nations’ own constitutions, to set reasonable thresholds of maturity and/or mental capability for people to exercise any other applicable rights or responsibilities (e.g. [List to follow: apart from anything else, this should block future attempts at one-size-fits-all micro-management of such limits in fields such as [for example] ‘Gun Control’ or ‘Recreational Drugs’…]) within their jurisdictions, and that a single government can assign different thresholds for different rights or responsibilities.


"Changes from the first draft: We have added a short [very short] preamble, moved the [currently incomplete] clause about other rights and responsibilities to after those about ‘Legal Competence’ itself, modified the definition of Legal Competence slightly to remove the circularity that Ambassador Fungschlammer pointed out, added a definition of the term ‘Emancipated Minor’ because that also seemed relevant, and filled in some more details. There are obviously still places where more work is needed, although total length is now becoming a concern.
“We were also considering the addition, if space allows, of a further clause suggesting that anybody who possess Legal Competence should be capable of being held criminally responsible for misdeeds, that the reverse need not necessarily be true, and — maybeso — that anybody who is held criminally responsible for their actions but is not considered legally competent should not be liable to capital punishment. Unfortunately, however, it now looks as though there wouldn’t be enough room for this within the maximum length allowed.”



Legal Competence

Category:
Human Rights
Strength: Significant (?)

Description: The World Assembly hereby, within any limits set by earlier resolutions that are still in force,

1). Acknowledges the right of member nations’ governments, within any limits set by those nations’ own constitutions, to set reasonable thresholds of maturity and/or mental capability for people to exercise applicable rights or responsibilities (e.g. [List to follow: apart from anything else, this should block future attempts at one-size-fits-all micro-management of such limits in fields such as [for example] ‘Gun Control’ or ‘Recreational Drugs’…]) within their jurisdictions, and that a single government can assign different thresholds for different rights or responsibilities;

2). Defines the term ‘Legal Competence’ as meaning a status in law whose possessors are considered competent enough to give their informed consent on important decisions and who are therefore eligible to validate legally-binding contracts, manage property and businesses, agree to or refuse medical treatments (except for any measures against disease that are legally required), act as legal guardians for persons who lack this status, and enjoy any other rights that applicable laws declare should also be linked to possession of this status, without needing a guardian’s consent;

3). Requires all member nations to have clear and fair rules about when and how a person becomes recognised as possessing Legal Competence within their jurisdiction, and to make those rules publicly available, and specifies that _
i/ The only criteria that can be used for denying a person Legal Competence are immaturity (defined by chronological age and/or psychological testing), mental illness, very low intelligence, or physical injuries that make it impossible for that person to exercise informed consent;
ii/For any of those criteria other than chronological age, the decision as to whether or not they apply must be made by appropriate experts acting (and being allowed by the authorities to act) without fear or favour;
iii/A person holding opinions on any matter (including but not limited to politics, religion, philosophy, or economics) to which the national or local authorities object cannot be used as “evidence” that that person is unsuitable to possess this status;
iv/. There must be a reasonable system for appeals against any refusals to recognise a person as having this status on any basis other than just their chronological age;
v/. (“full faith and credence” sub-clause for any situations where separate divisions within a nation are entitled to set thresholds for their own peoples)



“I’d actually have liked to call itPresumption of Legal Competence’, but sadly that title turns out to be just over the maximum length allowed. There should be enough room to fit in a clause or two protecting the rights of people who lack this status — for example, by forbidding their use as combatant personnel — too, although covering ‘Guardianship’ adequately would probably be too much to achieve.”

"And before anybody asks
"But aren't you supposed to be a Sovereigntist?", my government has customarily accepted the principle that establishing the most fundamental rights for individuals trumps the concept of national governments' sovereigntity and considers this subject one that falls under that heading."'


Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.
Last edited by Frisbeeteria on Sun Jul 20, 2014 11:13 pm, edited 14 times in total.
This is the WA Mission of Bears Armed, but is technically defined as a separate nation in its own right for all legal purposes. Population = sixty-four seventy-two staff, plus some dependents.

GA Resolution Author

Ardchoille says: “Bears can be depended on for decent arguments even when there aren't any”.

User avatar
The Dark Star Republic
Senator
 
Posts: 4339
Founded: Oct 19, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby The Dark Star Republic » Thu Dec 12, 2013 10:30 am

"Really interesting idea. My main concern is the definition: you're defining 'legal competence' as a 'status in law'...regarding 'competence'. That seems completely circular."

User avatar
Bears Armed Mission
Diplomat
 
Posts: 825
Founded: Jul 26, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed Mission » Thu Dec 12, 2013 11:33 am

The Dark Star Republic wrote:"Really interesting idea. My main concern is the definition: you're defining 'legal competence' as a 'status in law'...regarding 'competence'. That seems completely circular."


"Ur'rmm...
... "Oops!"?"



(OOC: Good point. I've been a bit under the weather these last couple of days, which is why the draft's still so far from complete, and that point managed to sneak past my attention. I'll fix it tomorrow.)
This is the WA Mission of Bears Armed, but is technically defined as a separate nation in its own right for all legal purposes. Population = sixty-four seventy-two staff, plus some dependents.

GA Resolution Author

Ardchoille says: “Bears can be depended on for decent arguments even when there aren't any”.

User avatar
Point Breeze
Diplomat
 
Posts: 709
Founded: Dec 26, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Point Breeze » Thu Dec 12, 2013 11:45 am

Bears Armed Mission wrote:“I and my staff haven’t got as far with this draft as I’d hoped would be the case by now when first mentioning it a couple of days ago, unfortunately, but here’s the project as it currently stands...”


1). Acknowledges the right of member nations’ governments, within any limits set by those nations’ own constitutions, to set reasonable thresholds of maturity and/or mental capability for people to exercise applicable rights or responsibilities (e.g. [List to follow: apart from anything else, this should block future attempts at one-size-fits-all micro-management of such limits in fields such as [for example] ‘Gun Control’ or ‘Recreational Drugs’…]) within their jurisdictions, and that a single government can assign different thresholds for different rights or responsibilities;

2). Defines the term ‘Legal Competence’ as meaning a status in law whose possessors are considered competent enough to give their informed consent on important decisions and who are therefore eligible to validate legally-binding contracts, manage property and businesses, agree to or refuse medical treatments (except for any measures against disease that are legally required), act as legal guardians for persons who lack this status, and enjoy any other rights that applicable laws declare should also be linked to possession of this status, without needing a guardian’s consent


Alright, here's a question. Clause 1 states member nations can recognize different requirements for different legal actions - obtaining a driver's license vs. filing a lawsuit or eligibility for the death penalty. Clause 2's definition seems to require citizens be allowed to do all those things listed before "legal competence" is gained. They're contradictory. (Right?)
Last edited by Point Breeze on Thu Dec 12, 2013 11:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
Thane of WA Affairs for Wintreath

User avatar
Hirota
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5337
Founded: Jan 22, 2004
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Hirota » Thu Dec 12, 2013 1:39 pm

FOR, with the reservation that my government may re-review their stance upon a subsequent draft.

OOC: Also, get well soon.
When a wise man points at the moon the imbecile examines the finger

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
Known to trigger Grammar Nazis, Spelling Nazis, Actual Nazis, the emotionally stunted, pedants and koi carp.
Those affected by the views, opinions or general demeanour of this poster should review this puppy picture. Those affected by puppy pictures should consider investing in an isolation tank.
Economic Left/Right: -3.25, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.03
Isn't it curious how people will claim they are against tribalism, then pigeonhole themselves into tribes?

User avatar
Bears Armed Mission
Diplomat
 
Posts: 825
Founded: Jul 26, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed Mission » Fri Dec 13, 2013 10:45 am

Point Breeze wrote:Alright, here's a question. Clause 1 states member nations can recognize different requirements for different legal actions - obtaining a driver's license vs. filing a lawsuit or eligibility for the death penalty. Clause 2's definition seems to require citizens be allowed to do all those things listed before "legal competence" is gained. They're contradictory. (Right?)
“Hr’rmm, where exactly do you think that clause #2 requires that? As it was meant to be read, people would only have to be allowed to do those things that “applicable laws” say should be the case by that stage, which would leave nations free to set higher thresholds for those rights and responsibilities for which they consider this appropriate…
“Anyhows, I think that hopefully the re-arrangement of clauses for the new draft, and the insertion of the word
“other” into the former clause #1 (which is now #5), should be enough to settle that point: Hokay?
“Oh, and thank you for mentioning the right to file law-suits: I knew that there was something omitted from the list of rights that should automatically be included with Legal Competence, but couldn’t remember what that something was… and that was it. It’s now been added to that list.”


Hirota wrote:FOR, with the reservation that my government may re-review their stance upon a subsequent draft.

OOC: Also, get well soon.

“Thank you. Obviously I hope that your government will find the new draft at least as acceptable.”


(OOC: New draft now added to this thread's opening post.)
Last edited by Bears Armed Mission on Fri Dec 13, 2013 10:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
This is the WA Mission of Bears Armed, but is technically defined as a separate nation in its own right for all legal purposes. Population = sixty-four seventy-two staff, plus some dependents.

GA Resolution Author

Ardchoille says: “Bears can be depended on for decent arguments even when there aren't any”.

User avatar
Rotwood
Diplomat
 
Posts: 629
Founded: Nov 15, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Rotwood » Sat Dec 14, 2013 2:08 am

We believe the criminal responsibility part should be left out. The Rotan lawyers are very well skilled and abuse it beyond the intended. Other than that, this looks very tidy and acceptable.

We also agree with your sentiment that while there are issues which are best handled by nations, there are ones like these which the individuals rights should come first.
Ambassadors Jericho Reigns and Felicia Honeysworth, The Discordant Harmony of Rotwood
Taleta Ouin Vyda - Decide Your Fate
Rotan Swear Jar Tally: 28 Pax
Economic Left/Right: -4.25, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.18

User avatar
The Dark Star Republic
Senator
 
Posts: 4339
Founded: Oct 19, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby The Dark Star Republic » Sat Dec 14, 2013 3:38 am

"I'm not sure what the point of definining 'emancipated minor' is, given it doesn't seem to be used elsewhere? The term seems to have a common sense definition: I don't think this would greatly benefit other proposals using the term."

User avatar
Bears Armed Mission
Diplomat
 
Posts: 825
Founded: Jul 26, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed Mission » Sun Dec 15, 2013 9:26 am

Rotwood wrote:We believe the criminal responsibility part should be left out. The Rotan lawyers are very well skilled and abuse it beyond the intended. Other than that, this looks very tidy and acceptable.
Don't worry, it's pretty clear now that fitting that clause into the allowed length wouldn't be possible.

The Dark Star Republic wrote:"I'm not sure what the point of definining 'emancipated minor' is, given it doesn't seem to be used elsewhere? The term seems to have a common sense definition: I don't think this would greatly benefit other proposals using the term."
I seemed to recall somebody else talking about the subject in this forum not long ago*, so thought that -- as it was reasonably relevant to the topic -- covering the definition here wouldn't hurt. As it happens, though, that's another clause that now looks likely to get squeezed out of the text by more important stuff anyhows.

*<checks>*
Well, apart from a handful of passing references in discussions about other proposals, basically about a year ago: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=200983&hilit=Emancipated.
Last edited by Bears Armed Mission on Sun Dec 15, 2013 9:31 am, edited 2 times in total.
This is the WA Mission of Bears Armed, but is technically defined as a separate nation in its own right for all legal purposes. Population = sixty-four seventy-two staff, plus some dependents.

GA Resolution Author

Ardchoille says: “Bears can be depended on for decent arguments even when there aren't any”.

User avatar
The Dark Star Republic
Senator
 
Posts: 4339
Founded: Oct 19, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby The Dark Star Republic » Sun Dec 15, 2013 9:50 am

"I'm just not a huge fan of establishing a definition that's meant to affect other resolutions, but doesn't have any effect in this one. I'd be inclined to suggest you leave out such a definition. The WA doesn't (as far as I can tell) require that nations actually permit emancipation, so unless your proposal is going to do so, the definition serves nothing.

"I would similarly be inclined to stick a pin in 2.iii., pending the Alqanian delegation's Freedom of Conscience resolution.

"I have a further question about 2.iv. This article obviously affords a great amount of leeway, which is appropriate, but who is actually doing the appealing? Is it the person being considered incompetent, or does this allow for an appeal on their behalf?

"I'm a bit concerned the 'combat' provision in Article 4. It seems rather tagged on as an afterthought. And there are already protections preventing children in war; I'm not sure an additional one is needed for the incompetent in general. For example, is there a reason to prohibit someone with a learning disability that precludes legal competence from working as a porter or stretcher-bearer?

"There's also very little definition of what a 'guardian' actually is, beyond being there 'to protect their interests'. Given such interests can at times be at odds - for example, an expensive surgery, which would hamper the ward's financial status but improve their medical quality of life - I wonder if clearer definition is needed.

"Please don't take all my nit-picking as a sign of objecting to the central premise of your proposal, though, which I still think is very strong."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

User avatar
Libraria and Ausitoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7099
Founded: May 30, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Libraria and Ausitoria » Mon Dec 16, 2013 2:18 am

Given our continued support for the protection and clarification of important individual rights, we would like to indicate our support for the principle of this proposal, and our initial support for the current draft, with or without the suggestions of the Ambassador from The Dark Star Republic.
Last edited by Libraria and Ausitoria on Mon Dec 16, 2013 2:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Aestorian Commonwealth - Pax Prosperitas - Gloria in Maere - (Factbook)

Disclaimer: Notwithstanding any mention of their nations, Ausitoria and its canon does not exist nor impact the canon of many IFC & SACTO & closed-region nations; and it is harassment to presume it does. However in accordance with my open-door policy the converse does not apply: they still impact Ausitoria's canon.
○ Commonwealth Capital (Bank) ○ ○ Commonwealth Connect (Bank Treaty) ○ ○ SeaScape (Shipping & Energy) ○
(██████████████████████████████║║◙█[Θ]█]◙◙◙◙◙[█]

User avatar
Bears Armed Mission
Diplomat
 
Posts: 825
Founded: Jul 26, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed Mission » Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:07 am

The Dark Star Republic wrote:""I'm just not a huge fan of establishing a definition that's meant to affect other resolutions, but doesn't have any effect in this one. I'd be inclined to suggest you leave out such a definition. The WA doesn't (as far as I can tell) require that nations actually permit emancipation, so unless your proposal is going to do so, the definition serves nothing.
Fair enough, it’s out.

"I would similarly be inclined to stick a pin in 2.iii., pending the Alqanian delegation's Freedom of Conscience resolution.
I will consider this, depending on how that other proposal progresses, although — bearing in mind that in previous debates some member nations’ ambassadors have made remarks along the line of “In my country, we officially consider anybody who expresses religious belief of any kind to be mentally ill” — I’m inclined to leave it in here as an additional safeguard.

"I have a further question about 2.iv. This article obviously affords a great amount of leeway, which is appropriate, but who is actually doing the appealing? Is it the person being considered incompetent, or does this allow for an appeal on their behalf?
That is a good point , and one that — believe it or not — had already occurred to me too. The clause has been expanded to clarify that appeals may be made by those people themselves and by others acting on their behalf.

"I'm a bit concerned the 'combat' provision in Article 4. It seems rather tagged on as an afterthought. And there are already protections preventing children in war; I'm not sure an additional one is needed for the incompetent in general.
Some nations might set an age-based threshold for legal competence several years above their "ages of majority" for other purposes (such as sex & marriage), which even under that existing legislation would let them enlist people of ages intermediate between those two thresholds as soldiers: For example there have been Human cultures in which the minimum age for legal competence was 21 years or even higher although their "ages of consent" for sexual matters -- which could reasonably be taken as the limits involved under that earlier legislation -- were several years lower than that. Rather than trying to force all member nations to use identical thresholds for the two conditions (which might not be a suitable arrangement, anyhows), I decided that making those nations’ governments have to choose between how high to keep the thresholds and how many people they could have potentially available as troops would be a reasonable compromise.

For example, is there a reason to prohibit someone with a learning disability that precludes legal competence from working as a porter or stretcher-bearer?
The fact that they might be less capable of understanding the danger into which they were being sent, and thus less capable of giving informed consent to those risks. (Yes, I do realise that in some cases personnel will be conscripts rather than volunteers, so that the question of consent would be less applicable anyway, but it’s a matter of principle…) Also, please note that the restriction specifically says “in combat” rather than “in the armed forces” so that the employment of those people as porters or stretcher-bearers or hospital cleaners or whatever in rear-echelon situations would still be legal.
"There's also very little definition of what a 'guardian' actually is, beyond being there 'to protect their interests'. Given such interests can at times be at odds - for example, an expensive surgery, which would hamper the ward's financial status but improve their medical quality of life - I wonder if clearer definition is needed.
A clearer definition is needed, yes. Trying to make room for this is one reason why I’m willing to drop a couple of the less important clauses. However, given the potential complexity of that subject, I suspect that a separate proposal — carefully worded so as not to have HoC-level dependence on this one, of course — might end up being needed.
I haven’t really started making notes on the subject yet, though: Might this be a project that you would be interested in handling?

"Please don't take all my nit-picking as a sign of objecting to the central premise of your proposal, though, which I still think is very strong."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer
I didn’t; and thank you.

Libraria and Ausitoria wrote:Given our continued support for the protection and clarification of important individual rights, we would like to indicate our support for the principle of this proposal, and our initial support for the current draft, with or without the suggestions of the Ambassador from The Dark Star Republic.
"Thank you."


A third draft has now been posted at the start of this thread.
I realise that this may seem a bit rushed by some people’s standards, but if possible I’d like get the proposal “finished” in the next two or three days, to get a trial run completed before Christmas Eve, for a re-submission with TGs (presuming that it doesn’t get to quorum, without them, at that first attempt) at some point in between Christmas & New Year’s Eve. Failing that, unfortunately, it would probably be at least six more weeks before I’d have the time online available for a TG campaign. (RL factors restrict me to “manual” TG campaigns…)
is there general agreement that this proposal does do enough to justify labelling it as 'Significant' in strength?
Last edited by Bears Armed Mission on Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:27 am, edited 10 times in total.
This is the WA Mission of Bears Armed, but is technically defined as a separate nation in its own right for all legal purposes. Population = sixty-four seventy-two staff, plus some dependents.

GA Resolution Author

Ardchoille says: “Bears can be depended on for decent arguments even when there aren't any”.

User avatar
WA Champions
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 2
Founded: Dec 17, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby WA Champions » Tue Dec 17, 2013 11:28 am

I realise that this may seem a bit rushed by some people’s standards, but if possible I’d like get the proposal “finished” in the next two or three days, to get a trial run completed before Christmas Eve, for a re-submission with TGs (presuming that it doesn’t get to quorum, without them, at that first attempt) at some point in between Christmas & New Year’s Eve. Failing that, unfortunately, it would probably be at least six more weeks before I’d have the time online available for a TG campaign.


Dear Ambassador,

I represent the esteemed Champions of WA Law,

We would humbly like to volunteer our services to campaign for this act on your behalf should you wish to refine it more. This would essentially nullify the six week wait that you currently describe facing.

If this is something you'd be interested in, please TG us at your convenience.

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18324
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Tue Dec 17, 2013 11:47 am

WA Champions wrote:Dear Ambassador,

I represent the esteemed Champions of WA Law,

We would humbly like to volunteer our services to campaign for this act on your behalf should you wish to refine it more. This would essentially nullify the six week wait that you currently describe facing.

If this is something you'd be interested in, please TG us at your convenience.


*<wonders who's behind that nation>*
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Our population is approximately 20 million. We do have a national government, although its role is strictly limited. Economy = thriving. Those aren't "biker gangs", they're our traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies'... and are generally respected, not feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152.

User avatar
The Dark Star Republic
Senator
 
Posts: 4339
Founded: Oct 19, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby The Dark Star Republic » Tue Dec 17, 2013 5:56 pm

"My objection to the 'combat' clause is not its intent, but its brevity. The issue of consent in military actions has already been covered by the Military Freedom Act, though the legally incompetent obviously do not meet the definition of conscientious objectors: my point is that the issue is a complex one. I don't think a quick 'and also...' clause can possibly cover the necessary extent.

"Regarding the status of a 'guardian', it's not a topic I would know enough about to legislate on myself. But I think it would be a mistake not to provide any definition in this proposal. For one thing, having two separate resolutions would present a severe House of Cards issue in the case of a repeal."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

OOC: I'm also hoping some of the wordsmiths in the WA will look over your proposal (though I highly doubt it) because I have a feeling that your prose could be pared down considerably, thereby allowing you the character space to elaborate on such points, but that's never been my strength; indeed, I believe I still hold the record for the most verbose resolution, exactly reaching the legal limit. If you could reduce the character count of what you have now, a definition of guardianship should be included.

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18324
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Thu Dec 19, 2013 10:31 am

WA Champions wrote:
I realise that this may seem a bit rushed by some people’s standards, but if possible I’d like get the proposal “finished” in the next two or three days, to get a trial run completed before Christmas Eve, for a re-submission with TGs (presuming that it doesn’t get to quorum, without them, at that first attempt) at some point in between Christmas & New Year’s Eve. Failing that, unfortunately, it would probably be at least six more weeks before I’d have the time online available for a TG campaign.


Dear Ambassador,

I represent the esteemed Champions of WA Law,

We would humbly like to volunteer our services to campaign for this act on your behalf should you wish to refine it more. This would essentially nullify the six week wait that you currently describe facing.

If this is something you'd be interested in, please TG us at your convenience.

OOC: After an exchange of TGs, offer accepted, but I don't now know when the proposal is likely to be ready for submission.
Apart from dealing with the Dark Star Republic's comments, which I'm taking seriously, I'm currently spending a fair amount of my NS time trying to get the Bears' football team through qualification for the latest World Cup (They failed to do so for the previous two, after a run of twenty successes out of twenty-one attempts, and their ranking has slipped badly enough as a consequence that they really "need" to make it this time...) -- and the Winter Olympics are coming up (in NS, not just in RL) too -- even leaving aside the limits on my posting activity because of holidays...
And a lot of my puppets are coming up on the 60-day limit, and therefore need a bit of attention, as well...
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Our population is approximately 20 million. We do have a national government, although its role is strictly limited. Economy = thriving. Those aren't "biker gangs", they're our traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies'... and are generally respected, not feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152.

User avatar
WA Champions
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 2
Founded: Dec 17, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby WA Champions » Thu Dec 19, 2013 10:36 am

We have responded to your telegram and eagerly await further instructions.

Yours,
The Champions of WA Law.

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18324
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Tue Dec 24, 2013 9:47 am

*(bumped in case anybody else would like to coment before I produce the next draft)*
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Our population is approximately 20 million. We do have a national government, although its role is strictly limited. Economy = thriving. Those aren't "biker gangs", they're our traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies'... and are generally respected, not feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152.

User avatar
Chester Pearson
Minister
 
Posts: 2753
Founded: Aug 02, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Chester Pearson » Tue Dec 24, 2013 3:15 pm

Still unsure as how this is an international issue? Seems at best a provincial/territorial matter to me.....
Separatist Peoples wrote:With a lawnchair and a large bag of popcorn in hand, Ambassador SaDiablo walks in and sets himself up comfortably. Out of a dufflebag comes a large foam finger with the name "Chester Pearson" emblazoned on it, as well as a few six-packs.
Economic Left/Right: -8.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.90
-17.5 / -6
Chester B. Pearson,
Ambassador, Imperial Minster of Foreign Affairs United Federation of Canada
Premier The North American Union
Secretary-General United Regions Alliance
World Assembly Resolution Author
Recognized as one of the most famous NS's ever

User avatar
Abacathea
Minister
 
Posts: 2057
Founded: Nov 17, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Abacathea » Tue Dec 24, 2013 5:35 pm

Chester Pearson wrote:Still unsure as how this is an international issue? Seems at best a provincial/territorial matter to me.....


A universal definition may not essentially be a bad thing and may indeed be internationally positive. Lets take person X for example. In their origin nation, they are legally deemed incompetent, they move to nation Y, where they are not, despite the possibility that they should. This, would resolve this issue in our opinion.

We support the bears on this crusade.
G.A #236; Renewable Energy Installations (Repealed)
G.A #239; Vehicle Emissions Convention (Repealed).
G.A #257; Reducing Automobile Emissions (Repealed).
G.A #263; Uranium Mining Standards Act
G.A #279; Right of Emigration
G.A #292; Nuclear Security Convention
(Co-Author)
G.A #363; Preservation of Artefacts (repealed)
S.C #118; Commend SkyDip
S.C #120; Commend Mousebumples
S.C #122; Condemn Gest
S.C #124; Commend Bears Armed
S.C #125; Commend The Bruce
S.C #126; Commend Sanctaria
S.C #131: Commend NewTexas
(Co-Author)
S.C #136; Repeal "Liberate St Abbaddon" (Co-Author)
S.C #143; Commend Hobbesistan
S.C #146; Repeal "Liberate Hogwarts"

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18324
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Thu Dec 26, 2013 6:09 am

Chester Pearson wrote:Still unsure as how this is an international issue?
It isn't, it's a 'Fundamental Sapient Rights' matter and therefore -- in our opinion -- a right that should be guaranteed internationally.
c.f. 'Freedom of Assembly' and 'Freedom of Expression', which also aren't really 'international' but that have both been guaranteed by the WA anyhows.
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Our population is approximately 20 million. We do have a national government, although its role is strictly limited. Economy = thriving. Those aren't "biker gangs", they're our traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies'... and are generally respected, not feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152.

User avatar
Bears Armed Mission
Diplomat
 
Posts: 825
Founded: Jul 26, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed Mission » Thu Dec 26, 2013 7:44 am

Abacathea wrote:
Chester Pearson wrote:Still unsure as how this is an international issue? Seems at best a provincial/territorial matter to me.....


A universal definition may not essentially be a bad thing and may indeed be internationally positive. Lets take person X for example. In their origin nation, they are legally deemed incompetent, they move to nation Y, where they are not, despite the possibility that they should. This, would resolve this issue in our opinion.


"Extend the scope for the 'full faith and credence' sub-clause internationally? Hr'rmmm..."
This is the WA Mission of Bears Armed, but is technically defined as a separate nation in its own right for all legal purposes. Population = sixty-four seventy-two staff, plus some dependents.

GA Resolution Author

Ardchoille says: “Bears can be depended on for decent arguments even when there aren't any”.

User avatar
Discoveria
Diplomat
 
Posts: 689
Founded: Jan 16, 2006
New York Times Democracy

Postby Discoveria » Thu Dec 26, 2013 2:54 pm

I'm not convinced of the case for this proposal. It doesn't mandate that governments tie the 'legal competence' legal status to anything useful. For example, a government could pass a law implementing this and giving its adult population legal competence. But it could also at the same time maintain separate laws for each useful application of legal competence, e.g. a separate law for consenting to marriage, in which the eligibility and exclusion criteria for entering into a marriage are defined within that law and there is no reference to legal competence in the law itself.

With regard to clause 3, what stops a rogue state from declaring its entire population legally competent in order to keep its army of child soldiers?

I'm not sure if my objections are that strong and there would be a symbolic value to passing this resolution in terms of promoting autonomy. Just something to think about before your next draft.
"...to be the most effective form of human government."
Professor Simon Goldacre, former Administrator of the Utopia Foundation
WA Ambassador: Matthew Turing

The Utopian Commonwealth of Discoveria
Founder of LGBT University

A member of | The Stonewall Alliance | UN Old Guard
Nation | OOC description | IC Factbook | Timeline

User avatar
Bears Armed Mission
Diplomat
 
Posts: 825
Founded: Jul 26, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed Mission » Thu Jan 23, 2014 11:39 am

Legality check questions posted.


Discoveria wrote:I'm not convinced of the case for this proposal.
It doesn't mandate that governments tie the 'legal competence' legal status to anything useful. For example, a government could pass a law implementing this and giving its adult population legal competence. But it could also at the same time maintain separate laws for each useful application of legal competence, e.g. a separate law for consenting to marriage, in which the eligibility and exclusion criteria for entering into a marriage are defined within that law and there is no reference to legal competence in the law itself.

With regard to clause 3, what stops a rogue state from declaring its entire population legally competent in order to keep its army of child soldiers?


I'm not sure if my objections are that strong and there would be a symbolic value to passing this resolution in terms of promoting autonomy. Just something to think about before your next draft.
I will be replying soon.
Last edited by Bears Armed Mission on Thu Jan 23, 2014 11:42 am, edited 2 times in total.
This is the WA Mission of Bears Armed, but is technically defined as a separate nation in its own right for all legal purposes. Population = sixty-four seventy-two staff, plus some dependents.

GA Resolution Author

Ardchoille says: “Bears can be depended on for decent arguments even when there aren't any”.

User avatar
Bears Armed Mission
Diplomat
 
Posts: 825
Founded: Jul 26, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed Mission » Sat Jan 25, 2014 2:43 am

Bears Armed Mission wrote:
Abacathea wrote:
A universal definition may not essentially be a bad thing and may indeed be internationally positive. Lets take person X for example. In their origin nation, they are legally deemed incompetent, they move to nation Y, where they are not, despite the possibility that they should. This, would resolve this issue in our opinion.


"Extend the scope for the 'full faith and credence' sub-clause internationally? Hr'rmmm..."

I have now considered this possibility, but have decided against it. Standards as to who qualifies as Legally Competent seem likely to differ more widely on an international basis than on an intranational one — We’ve seen nations represented here whose ambassadors have claimed that five-year-old (and possibly even younger?) Human children are just as capable of making important decisions properly as adults are, after all — and whereas individual nations might have ways to arbitrate internal disagreements on the subject the international community obviously doesn’t have any system for doing so.


Discoveria wrote:I'm not convinced of the case for this proposal. It doesn't mandate that governments tie the 'legal competence' legal status to anything useful. For example, a government could pass a law implementing this and giving its adult population legal competence. But it could also at the same time maintain separate laws for each useful application of legal competence, e.g. a separate law for consenting to marriage, in which the eligibility and exclusion criteria for entering into a marriage are defined within that law and there is no reference to legal competence in the law itself.

There are already at least two existing resolutions that tie specific rights to legal competence without specifying how nations are to define that status (‘Freedom to Contract’ and ‘Right of Emigration’), and I think that this should at least affect how the status is handled for those: Also, it effectively allows future resolutions to tie whatever specific rights they cover to legal competence without needing to explain how that status is defined as well.
An ‘unreasonable’ government could maybeso do as you suggest, yes… but then, unfortunately, an ‘unreasonable’ government could argue that it has ways to get around any wording by [for example] redefining what the words used actually mean in their nations (“chalk”= “cheese”, anybody?), anyhows… and so the Secretatriat has said in the past that we only need to legislate on the presumption that governments will be ‘reasonable’, instead. In the specific case of marriage, I think that a ‘reasonable’ government interpreting this measure “in good faith” (as it is required to do by earlier legislation) would consider any marriage that had legally binding aspects as falling within the ‘legally-binding contracts’ category and thus as covered not only by this legislation but by the earlier resolution on contracts as well.
Do you think that I need to make clause ‘1’ clearer about the fact that all of the rights listed are linked, so that a government can’t grant its people all but whichever one of them it likes the least and then ignore the concept of ‘legal competence’ altogether?

Discoveria wrote:With regard to clause 3, what stops a rogue state from declaring its entire population legally competent in order to keep its army of child soldiers?

Firstly, this proposal would only apply “within any limits set by earlier resolutions that are still in force” and we already have a resolution that bans the use of children as soldiers.
Secondly, in the unlikely event of that resolution ever being repealed, clause 3 of this one only says that those people who aren’t legally competent can’t be employed in combat and not that everybody who is legally competent can be thus employed, so a replacement — which I would expect to see in fairly short order — could easily reinstate that ban.
And thirdly, in order to classify those children as legally competent, the rogue state would have to grant them all of the listed rights… including the right to emigrate, which would make keeping that army potentially harder.
This is the WA Mission of Bears Armed, but is technically defined as a separate nation in its own right for all legal purposes. Population = sixty-four seventy-two staff, plus some dependents.

GA Resolution Author

Ardchoille says: “Bears can be depended on for decent arguments even when there aren't any”.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads