[DISCARDED] Protections During Territorial Transitions

[Daarwyrth]

OOC: A valid observation. The independence would have to occur non-violently however, as per Clause 1 this resolution only applies to those types of economic or diplomatic proceedings. One could argue that potential relocation would have to be negotiated during those proceedings, which would partially solve the issue. Do you think that an extra provision for such a situation would be useful in this resolution? If so, do you have any suggestions as to what shape it should take?

OOC: Thing is even if the independence process is non-violent some countries may allow independence with only, like, 60% of the vote in a referendum. What about the other 40%? That's a lot of people and considering how varied nations are we have to take into account those possibilities.
I'm not exactly sure what form it could take, after all drawing lines is always complicated - I would probably put some sort of small limitation clause when it comes to relocation and citizenship in independences specifying what we've discussed (maybe, if there isn't enough space to relocate everyone who wants to be relocated, they can have double citizenship to help with a future relocation?).

OOC: Hmm, I'm wondering whether this could be a subject for a proposal of its own. Nonetheless, it would indeed fit in with this draft, I'm just trying to figure out how. I think I could include an individual clause for it, and that would be the best way to approach it.

[Calamari Lands]

OOC: Thing is even if the independence process is non-violent some countries may allow independence with only, like, 60% of the vote in a referendum. What about the other 40%? That's a lot of people and considering how varied nations are we have to take into account those possibilities.
I'm not exactly sure what form it could take, after all drawing lines is always complicated - I would probably put some sort of small limitation clause when it comes to relocation and citizenship in independences specifying what we've discussed (maybe, if there isn't enough space to relocate everyone who wants to be relocated, they can have double citizenship to help with a future relocation?).

OOC: Hmm, I'm wondering whether this could be a subject for a proposal of its own. Nonetheless, it would indeed fit in with this draft, I'm just trying to figure out how. I think I could include an individual clause for it, and that would be the best way to approach it.

OOC: Probably the best idea, though I don't think independence processes should be highly regulated by the WA if at all, so I'd be pretty skeptical about a whole resolution on it.

[Eratsia]

The Eratzian government supports this motion as we believe it is important to ensure the comfort and safety of citizens during these major transitions.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Most clauses with "citizen" should likely be replaced with "inhabitant". Laws being equal and all that.

[Daarwyrth]

OOC: Most clauses with "citizen" should likely be replaced with "inhabitant". Laws being equal and all that.

OOC: Valid point! Will mend it in the next draft

[Daarwyrth]

OOC: I have changed 'citizen' to 'inhabitant' in the text of the proposal, and in light of the observations made by Calamari Lands, I have added the current Clause 4. The title has also been altered. As such, new feedback is more than welcome!

Oh, and quick question: is there a word/character limit to proposals?

[Tinhampton]

...is there a word/character limit to proposals?

No word limit. The character limit is 5,000 including BBCode (your current draft is 3,911 characters or so).

[Calamari Lands]

OOC: I have changed 'citizen' to 'inhabitant' in the text of the proposal, and in light of the observations made by Calamari Lands, I have added the current Clause 4. The title has also been altered. As such, new feedback is more than welcome!

Oh, and quick question: is there a word/character limit to proposals?

OOC: Great way to solve the issue we discussed. Full support!

[Uan aa Boa]

When I used Catalan independence as an example, clause 1 was still talking exclusively about territories being bought and sold, so it clearly didn't apply to the situation where part of a state breaks off to form a new state. In the current wording it is a little more ambiguous.

My feeling is that if independence arises democratically, as might happen in Scotland for instance, then it hasn't been imposed on citizens from above without their being consulted. People in Scotland who didn't want to live in the new independent country would be free to move to the rest of the UK in the period before independence was enacted, but I don't feel it would be reasonable to mandate the government help them to do so. I use Scotland as an example here because I know Catalonia is slightly more complex with the illegal referendum/political prisoner situation.

But yes, you need to decide whether you want to address that sort of secession here. Originally you clearly weren't addressing it and it wasn't what I had in mind when I suggested broadening the scope.

[Daarwyrth]

When I used Catalan independence as an example, clause 1 was still talking exclusively about territories being bought and sold, so it clearly didn't apply to the situation where part of a state breaks off to form a new state. In the current wording it is a little more ambiguous.

My feeling is that if independence arises democratically, as might happen in Scotland for instance, then it hasn't been imposed on citizens from above without their being consulted. People in Scotland who didn't want to live in the new independent country would be free to move to the rest of the UK in the period before independence was enacted, but I don't feel it would be reasonable to mandate the government help them to do so. I use Scotland as an example here because I know Catalonia is slightly more complex with the illegal referendum/political prisoner situation.

But yes, you need to decide whether you want to address that sort of secession here. Originally you clearly weren't addressing it and it wasn't what I had in mind when I suggested broadening the scope.

Valid concern. I'd say the wording "as a result of economic or diplomatic proceedings" does put a frame to an extent around what this resolution proposal deals with. From my perspective a secession isn't really economic or diplomatic, as its something more internal while 'diplomatic' to me means external affairs. Clause 4 still is a good one to keep in I think, because even if there's a territorial transition there may be mass relocations that a nation would be overwhelmed by.

I tend to agree with what you stated on the secession by referendum element, where that isn't enforced from the top down, but actually is enforced bottom up. That's the key difference here, and why I think this resolution proposal should deal with top down situations. From my current vantage point, it is regulating top down territorial transitions, but please do tell me if I am wrong, or if it could be further clarified!

EDIT: I've also returned (partially) to the old title, but had to shorten "transitions" to "trans." because it didn't fit in the title box for the forums. I am told that on the proposal submission page it will fit

[Ardiveds]

When I used Catalan independence as an example, clause 1 was still talking exclusively about territories being bought and sold, so it clearly didn't apply to the situation where part of a state breaks off to form a new state. In the current wording it is a little more ambiguous.

My feeling is that if independence arises democratically, as might happen in Scotland for instance, then it hasn't been imposed on citizens from above without their being consulted. People in Scotland who didn't want to live in the new independent country would be free to move to the rest of the UK in the period before independence was enacted, but I don't feel it would be reasonable to mandate the government help them to do so. I use Scotland as an example here because I know Catalonia is slightly more complex with the illegal referendum/political prisoner situation.

But yes, you need to decide whether you want to address that sort of secession here. Originally you clearly weren't addressing it and it wasn't what I had in mind when I suggested broadening the scope.

Valid concern. I'd say the wording "as a result of economic or diplomatic proceedings" does put a frame to an extent around what this resolution proposal deals with. From my perspective a secession isn't really economic or diplomatic, as its something more internal while 'diplomatic' to me means external affairs. Clause 4 still is a good one to keep in I think, because even if there's a territorial transition there may be mass relocations that a nation would be overwhelmed by.

I tend to agree with what you stated on the secession by referendum element, where that isn't enforced from the top down, but actually is enforced bottom up. That's the key difference here, and why I think this resolution proposal should deal with top down situations. From my current vantage point, it is regulating top down territorial transitions, but please do tell me if I am wrong, or if it could be further clarified!

EDIT: I've also returned (partially) to the old title, but had to shorten "transitions" to "trans." because it didn't fit in the title box for the forums. I am told that on the proposal submission page it will fit

OOC: I think GAR 344 is worth a mention here. If the resolution mentions that people have the legal right to return to the original country, that original country, being a WA member, has to guarantee they don't remain homeless.

[Daarwyrth]

Valid concern. I'd say the wording "as a result of economic or diplomatic proceedings" does put a frame to an extent around what this resolution proposal deals with. From my perspective a secession isn't really economic or diplomatic, as its something more internal while 'diplomatic' to me means external affairs. Clause 4 still is a good one to keep in I think, because even if there's a territorial transition there may be mass relocations that a nation would be overwhelmed by.

I tend to agree with what you stated on the secession by referendum element, where that isn't enforced from the top down, but actually is enforced bottom up. That's the key difference here, and why I think this resolution proposal should deal with top down situations. From my current vantage point, it is regulating top down territorial transitions, but please do tell me if I am wrong, or if it could be further clarified!

EDIT: I've also returned (partially) to the old title, but had to shorten "transitions" to "trans." because it didn't fit in the title box for the forums. I am told that on the proposal submission page it will fit

OOC: I think GAR 344 is worth a mention here. If the resolution mentions that people have the legal right to return to the original country, that original country, being a WA member, has to guarantee they don't remain homeless.

OOC: A valid point, yet wouldn't mentioning that resolution institute a House of Cards illegality? As far as I know, resolutions can't lean upon others in their proposal text, no?

[Ardiveds]

OOC: I think GAR 344 is worth a mention here. If the resolution mentions that people have the legal right to return to the original country, that original country, being a WA member, has to guarantee they don't remain homeless.

OOC: A valid point, yet wouldn't mentioning that resolution institute a House of Cards illegality? As far as I know, resolutions can't lean upon others in their proposal text, no?

OOC: Worth a mention in the discussion, not in the proposal. Obviously that would be a HoC violation. What I'm saying is, as long as you keep a clause that mandates that those people have the right to return, the original country can't declare them illegal immigrants and thus, has to provide them shelter one way or another.

[Daarwyrth]

OOC: A valid point, yet wouldn't mentioning that resolution institute a House of Cards illegality? As far as I know, resolutions can't lean upon others in their proposal text, no?

OOC: Worth a mention in the discussion, not in the proposal. Obviously that would be a HoC violation. What I'm saying is, as long as you keep a clause that mandates that those people have the right to return, the original country can't declare them illegal immigrants and thus, has to provide them shelter one way or another.

OOC: Ah, I understand! Yes, that absolutely makes sense, and thank you for pointing us to that resolution. It does put my mind somewhat at ease that there is something to fall back on in the sense that you described

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: I think GAR 344 is worth a mention here. If the resolution mentions that people have the legal right to return to the original country, that original country, being a WA member, has to guarantee they don't remain homeless.

OOC: A valid point, yet wouldn't mentioning that resolution institute a House of Cards illegality? As far as I know, resolutions can't lean upon others in their proposal text, no?

It would depend on the nature of that mention. If you put it in the preamble saying "Oh also by the way GA 344 does this stuff" it isn't a rules violation. If instead you did something like "We use the same standard as in GA 344 in section 3" that would be. What is penalised by the rules is a substantive reliance, not a "reliance" that emerges merely from acknowledging the existence of a previous resolution.

[Daarwyrth]

OOC: A valid point, yet wouldn't mentioning that resolution institute a House of Cards illegality? As far as I know, resolutions can't lean upon others in their proposal text, no?

It would depend on the nature of that mention. If you put it in the preamble saying "Oh also by the way GA 344 does this stuff" it isn't a rules violation. If instead you did something like "We use the same standard as in GA 344 in section 3" that would be. What is penalised by the rules is a substantive reliance, not a "reliance" that emerges merely from acknowledging the existence of a previous resolution.

OOC: I have included an acknowledgement of GAR #344 in the preamble of the new draft I have also made a few stylistic additions to the some of the listed clauses.

[Pland Adanna]

1. This period will be of a fair length, and grant the inhabitant in question enough time to integrate in their new nation;

Hey! I'm wondering what counts as a "fair length" of time or, if there isn't an estimate, who decides if the time given was of a "fair length".

[Daarwyrth]

1. This period will be of a fair length, and grant the inhabitant in question enough time to integrate in their new nation;

Hey! I'm wondering what counts as a "fair length" of time or, if there isn't an estimate, who decides if the time given was of a "fair length".

OOC: My intention was to leave it flexible, as in my opinion it really depends on personal circumstances. A young person may have a much easier time integrating into a new nation than an older individual, who has lived all of their life in their previous country. I imagine that nations would want to regulate on that matter themselves, and create conditions and leniencies that would be fitting to their society and jurisdiction.

If I were to decide upon "fair length" in Daarwyrth, I'd probably go along the following lines:
6 months to 2 years for individuals below the age 30, with a margin for exceptional cases up to 40.
2 years to 5 years for individuals above the age of 30 (taking into account the above margin).
The actual amount would depend on personal circumstances such a fluency of language, familiarity with cultural and societal practices, educational level, financial status, partner or no partner, children or no children, etc etc.

Of course, this is based on my subjective/personal perspective on it and is by no means meant as a measure for other nations.

[Pland Adanna]

I imagine that nations would want to regulate on that matter themselves, and create conditions and leniencies that would be fitting to their society and jurisdiction.

Which nation would decide, the former one or the one that is "taking over"? This probably wouldn't do too much if it was the nation that is "taking over" but the former nation doesn't have any power in the area anymore so how could they decide?

[Daarwyrth]

I imagine that nations would want to regulate on that matter themselves, and create conditions and leniencies that would be fitting to their society and jurisdiction.

Which nation would decide, the former one or the one that is "taking over"? This probably wouldn't do too much if it was the nation that is "taking over" but the former nation doesn't have any power in the area anymore so how could they decide?

OOC: Naturally the nation that is taking over. It wouldn't make much sense for the nation that is handing over territory to regulate that. The Clause is about nations that take over the citizens living on the territory that is being transitioned. Hence the mention of new jurisdiction.

[Pland Adanna]

Which nation would decide, the former one or the one that is "taking over"? This probably wouldn't do too much if it was the nation that is "taking over" but the former nation doesn't have any power in the area anymore so how could they decide?

OOC: Naturally the nation that is taking over. It wouldn't make much sense for the nation that is handing over territory to regulate that. The Clause is about nations that take over the citizens living on the territory that is being transitioned. Hence the mention of new jurisdiction.

Sorry, I'm getting confused. How does putting the new government in charge of this protect inhabitants from the new government?

[Daarwyrth]

OOC: Naturally the nation that is taking over. It wouldn't make much sense for the nation that is handing over territory to regulate that. The Clause is about nations that take over the citizens living on the territory that is being transitioned. Hence the mention of new jurisdiction.

Sorry, I'm getting confused. How does putting the new government in charge of this protect inhabitants from the new government?

OOC: I admit, I am somewhat confused about you mean as well this resolution is about one nation transitioning a part of their territory to another nation. For example, the United States transitions Alaska to Canada. This can (hypothetically) happen as part of a territorial purchase, an economic exchange or even diplomatic exchange. Or, hypothetically, Alaska voted in a referendum to join Canada. Alaska has a number of inhabitants that will be transitioned along with that territory. So, the inhabitants of Alaska, who were first US citizens, become Canadian citizens. The clause that we speak of orders Canada to treat their new citizens, meaning the inhabitants of Alaska, in a fair and lenient manner, because they may not be aware of all the rights and duties that they now have because they are a Canadian citizen, not a US one.

Now, Canada and the US are fairly similar, I imagine. However, imagine a fictional nation that is highly democratic in nature, transitions a part of their territory (non-violently) to a nation that is more authoritarian. The citizens from the democratic nation will lose a lot of their political or civil rights, which they previously held in the democratic nation. Clause 5 ensures that the citizens from the democratic nation will get a fair amount of time to integrate into the new nation, namely the authoritarian one. As such, Clause 5 orders the "receiving" country - in this example the authoritarian nation - to implement that period of integration time, because they are the party receiving the new citizens/inhabitants.

Does that clarify things?

[Imperium Anglorum]

imagine a fictional nation that is highly democratic in nature, transitions a part of their territory (non-violently) to a nation that is more authoritarian

When would this happen? It seems to me it would only happen in cases of war. Eg Alsace-Lorraine in the Treaty of Frankfurt.

[CoraSpia]

"Perhaps I am coming at this from a culturally alien perspective ambassador, but there is something I don't really understand here. I live in a nation in which the territory is controlled by the citizens, who elect a government to manage said territory in the fashion they choose. In what world is it acceptable for a government to elect to relinquish territory without the consent of the inhabitants of said territory, let alone pass it over to another state. Of course, the haven applauds any effort to improve the lot of states which believe inhabited territory can be bought and sold complete with citizens present, however we would ask you to go further and require that a binding plebiscite be held in order to ensure that territorial transfer does not occur without the consent of the majority of inhabitants of those territories."

[Daarwyrth]

imagine a fictional nation that is highly democratic in nature, transitions a part of their territory (non-violently) to a nation that is more authoritarian

When would this happen? It seems to me it would only happen in cases of war. Eg Alsace-Lorraine in the Treaty of Frankfurt.

OOC: Not the best example that I could give with the authoritarian country, I admit. It was more an extreme example to try to convey the intent of the resolution better. However, there may be territorial transitions through referenda, economic exchanges or diplomatic proceedings. Territorial transitions don't have to be initiated through conflict, per se.

"Perhaps I am coming at this from a culturally alien perspective ambassador, but there is something I don't really understand here. I live in a nation in which the territory is controlled by the citizens, who elect a government to manage said territory in the fashion they choose. In what world is it acceptable for a government to elect to relinquish territory without the consent of the inhabitants of said territory, let alone pass it over to another state. Of course, the haven applauds any effort to improve the lot of states which believe inhabited territory can be bought and sold complete with citizens present, however we would ask you to go further and require that a binding plebiscite be held in order to ensure that territorial transfer does not occur without the consent of the majority of inhabitants of those territories."

Vyn Nysen: "The resolution keeps the question of how a territorial transition is initiated as open as it reasonably can. The definition should be taking into account various possibilities, from referenda where the people choose to become part of a different country, to diplomatic or economic exchanges. We don't want to regulate the sovereignty of states in that area, but instead our intention is to ensure that the citizens affected by those territorial transitions will be protected. As you surely well know, Ambassador, the World Assembly consists of various nations, from direct democracies to autocracies. It would be a mistake to assume that all nations grant their citizens the same rights as your country does. As such, to at least offer protection in this form, we have drafted this resolution."

"In addition, thanks to our colleagues from Tinhampton we have just published a new draft that is much more frugal in its word usage, which our delegation admits we should have been from the start, yet maintains almost exactly the same wording of our previous drafts. The delegation of Tinhampton has requested not to be listed as a co-author however, as they feel their contribution wasn't significant enough for such. Nonetheless, our delegation is most grateful for their assistance, and for the assistance of all commenting delegations, of course."