[DISCARDED] Protections During Territorial Transitions

[Ardiveds]

"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."

"Ambassador, peaceful transfer of territories can often resolve conflicts that would otherwise deteriorate into full blown wars, even if the people living in the territories have no say in the matter. Would you rather have a province full of unhappy citizens or send your citizens to be slaughtered in the trenches?"

[Daarwyrth]

"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."

"Ambassador, peaceful transfer of territories can often resolve conflicts that would otherwise deteriorate into full blown wars, even if the people living in the territories have no say in the matter. Would you rather have a province full of unhappy citizens or send your citizens to be slaughtered in the trenches?"

Vyn Nysen: "Or cause an insurgency to arise should the peaceful territorial transition not come to pass. It is why the resolution in question grants citizens the right to relocate to another part of their country, if they do not want to become part of the nation to which the territory in question is being transitioned. Without infringing too much upon the sovereignty of states, we feel this is a suitable approach to protect inhabitants affected by territorial transitions."

[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."

"Ambassador, peaceful transfer of territories can often resolve conflicts that would otherwise deteriorate into full blown wars, even if the people living in the territories have no say in the matter. Would you rather have a province full of unhappy citizens or send your citizens to be slaughtered in the trenches?"

"If the Havenic government has attempted to gain the approval of citizens for a transfer of territory and failed, then there is no way in which the Havenic government can constitutionally allow such a transfer to go ahead. Therefore, faced with a nation which demanded territory which the inhabitants of said territory were unwilling to give up, the Haven would have no choice but to go to war in order to defend the rights of its citizens, rights that it has defended for thousands of years. Sometimes ambassador, there are things worth fighting for; a homeland is one of those things."

[Daarwyrth]

"Ambassador, peaceful transfer of territories can often resolve conflicts that would otherwise deteriorate into full blown wars, even if the people living in the territories have no say in the matter. Would you rather have a province full of unhappy citizens or send your citizens to be slaughtered in the trenches?"

"If the Havenic government has attempted to gain the approval of citizens for a transfer of territory and failed, then there is no way in which the Havenic government can constitutionally allow such a transfer to go ahead. Therefore, faced with a nation which demanded territory which the inhabitants of said territory were unwilling to give up, the Haven would have no choice but to go to war in order to defend the rights of its citizens, rights that it has defended for thousands of years. Sometimes ambassador, there are things worth fighting for; a homeland is one of those things."

Vyn Nysen: "While we understand the position of your nation, Ambassador, we do hope to encourage more peaceful transitions of territories, and we believe this resolution will aid in that. We are entertaining the idea another proposal draft on the subject of civilian involvement in deciding for or against territorial transitions, yet we have mixed feelings regarding such legislation. Is it fair to demand from a nation that has never had elections or hosted referenda, to hold referenda for this particular matter? The WA has chosen not to impose ideologies upon its members, and our delegation, while seeking to promote the values of responsible democracy, wishes to respect that decision."

[CoraSpia]

"If the Havenic government has attempted to gain the approval of citizens for a transfer of territory and failed, then there is no way in which the Havenic government can constitutionally allow such a transfer to go ahead. Therefore, faced with a nation which demanded territory which the inhabitants of said territory were unwilling to give up, the Haven would have no choice but to go to war in order to defend the rights of its citizens, rights that it has defended for thousands of years. Sometimes ambassador, there are things worth fighting for; a homeland is one of those things."

Vyn Nysen: "While we understand the position of your nation, Ambassador, we do hope to encourage more peaceful transitions of territories, and we believe this resolution will aid in that. We are entertaining the idea another proposal draft on the subject of civilian involvement in deciding for or against territorial transitions, yet we have mixed feelings regarding such legislation. Is it fair to demand from a nation that has never had elections or hosted referenda, to hold referenda for this particular matter? The WA has chosen not to impose ideologies upon its members, and our delegation, while seeking to promote the values of responsible democracy, wishes to respect that decision."

"I believe it is absolutely fair to impose such a duty. A persons nationality is often one of the great defining characteristics, and it should never be taken away at the whims of a government; this extends both to this issue and also the stripping of citizenship from individuals."

[Daarwyrth]

Vyn Nysen: "While we understand the position of your nation, Ambassador, we do hope to encourage more peaceful transitions of territories, and we believe this resolution will aid in that. We are entertaining the idea another proposal draft on the subject of civilian involvement in deciding for or against territorial transitions, yet we have mixed feelings regarding such legislation. Is it fair to demand from a nation that has never had elections or hosted referenda, to hold referenda for this particular matter? The WA has chosen not to impose ideologies upon its members, and our delegation, while seeking to promote the values of responsible democracy, wishes to respect that decision."

"I believe it is absolutely fair to impose such a duty. A persons nationality is often one of the great defining characteristics, and it should never be taken away at the whims of a government; this extends both to this issue and also the stripping of citizenship from individuals."

"Ambassador, no one's citizenship is being stripped. The resolution grants inhabitants the right to relocate if they wish to keep their citizenship, and the state is instructed to offer aid and support where necessary. If inhabitants consider their citizenship more important than the land upon which they live, this resolution grants them ample opportunity to maintain their citizenship."

[Daarwyrth]

OOC: Any new comments and/or feedback on this resolution draft?

[Araraukar]

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: Any nation ever that actually gives ownership of the land of an embassy to the nation whose embassy it is? Smallscale example, I know, but still valid.

---

OOC still: As for proposal contents, you could do away with the clemency faff and its problems simply by requiring all the info be provided prior to the change-over (currently none of it is required beforehand as far as I can see), so there's no legit "ignorance of the law" defence.

[Daarwyrth]

OOC still: As for proposal contents, you could do away with the clemency faff and its problems simply by requiring all the info be provided prior to the change-over (currently none of it is required beforehand as far as I can see), so there's no legit "ignorance of the law" defence.

OOC: I have posted a new draft with your suggestions worked into it. It was indeed an oversight on my part to not include any mention of time regarding the distribution of the information and such! I agree that in that light the legal ignorance had become superfluous as a result, so I removed that clause and instead expanded a bit on the intergrational period.

As such, new feedback is welcome!

[Bears Armed]

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: How about "with any other rights guaranteed by earlier GA legislation that has not been replaced" ? That would cover #34 even if the latter were to be repealed without replacement...

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.

OOC: Ideally this would be -- perhaps even should be-- covered by the relevant treaty or referendum.

Then you'd just have to hope that the other nation keeps to the agreed terms (as the PRC is not doing for Hong Kong...).

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.

OOC: Quebec might also be, or at least have been, a possibility... although there there's also the problem that most of the First Nations peoples and some of the Anglophones live in specific districts (where they are the majorities) and would probably really want to see those entire areas excluded from the secession.

"If the Havenic government has attempted to gain the approval of citizens for a transfer of territory and failed, then there is no way in which the Havenic government can constitutionally allow such a transfer to go ahead. Therefore, faced with a nation which demanded territory which the inhabitants of said territory were unwilling to give up, the Haven would have no choice but to go to war in order to defend the rights of its citizens, rights that it has defended for thousands of years. Sometimes ambassador, there are things worth fighting for; a homeland is one of those things."

"Hear, hear!"
(various members of the BA Mission)

____________________________________________________

OOC: How about adding a clause that the treaties or other agreements behind any such transfers must include terms requiring the nation that gains the territory to follow this resolution's conditions with respect to the territory's inhabitants even if is not, or ceases to be, a WA member?

[Daarwyrth]

OOC: How about adding a clause that the treaties or other agreements behind any such transfers must include terms requiring the nation that gains the territory to follow this resolution's conditions with respect to the territory's inhabitants even if is not, or ceases to be, a WA member?

OOC: I have indeed been wondering about this, and it has left me feeling a bit unsure. Because I would want to include a Clause that regulates that, but wouldn't that violate that the WA can't legislate beyond its authority? Or am I being too cautious in this regard?

[Bears Armed]

OOC: How about adding a clause that the treaties or other agreements behind any such transfers must include terms requiring the nation that gains the territory to follow this resolution's conditions with respect to the territory's inhabitants even if is not, or ceases to be, a WA member?

OOC: I have indeed been wondering about this, and it has left me feeling a bit unsure. Because I would want to include a Clause that regulates that, but wouldn't that violate that the WA can't legislate beyond its authority? Or am I being too cautious in this regard?

OOC: You'd just be telling the members to make sure that those terms are included when they make such agreements, which is 'legal', and not trying to legislate directly on the non-members as well which would not be. Precedent says that telling the members how to deal with non-members, like this, is perfectly fine.[1/6 of GenSec]

[Daarwyrth]

OOC: I have indeed been wondering about this, and it has left me feeling a bit unsure. Because I would want to include a Clause that regulates that, but wouldn't that violate that the WA can't legislate beyond its authority? Or am I being too cautious in this regard?

OOC: You'd just be telling the members to make sure that those terms are included when they make such agreements, which is 'legal', and not trying to legislate directly on the non-members as well which would not be. Precedent says that telling the members how to deal with non-members, like this, is perfectly fine.[1/6 of GenSec]

OOC: Thank you! That's a sound approach, and I'll include it in the next draft

[Daarwyrth]

OOC: How about "with any other rights guaranteed by earlier GA legislation that has not been replaced" ? That would cover #34 even if the latter were to be repealed without replacement...

OOC: How about adding a clause that the treaties or other agreements behind any such transfers must include terms requiring the nation that gains the territory to follow this resolution's conditions with respect to the territory's inhabitants even if is not, or ceases to be, a WA member?

OOC: I have included these suggestions in a way I think aligns with what you meant in the newest draft. The first quoted bit is included at the end of Clause 4, and the lower quote is worked into the new Clause 9. I'd love to know whether this is what you meant, and of course what others think of this inclusion!

[Bears Armed]

OOC: I have included these suggestions in a way I think aligns with what you meant in the newest draft. The first quoted bit is included at the end of Clause 4, and the lower quote is worked into the new Clause 9. I'd love to know whether this is what you meant, and of course what others think of this inclusion!

OOC
Clause 4, yes.
Clause 9, it would be nice to take account of the fact that a member nation might leave the WA -- and thus, under the current wording, no longer be subject to this -- as well.
How about
"Requires member nations to have the provisions of this resolution included in the treaties and/or agreements regulating the transition of territories as per the definition of Clause 1a, regardless of whether the other nations involved in those agreements are or are not also WA members; and"

[Daarwyrth]

How about
"Requires member nations to have the provisions of this resolution included in the treaties and/or agreements regulating the transition of territories as per the definition of Clause 1a, regardless of whether the other nations involved in those agreements are or are not also WA members; and"

OOC: Done! I took over the text as you had written it, except I changed "requires" to "compels", to have stylistic variation. I believe it would have the same effect as 'requires'

[Bears Armed]

except I changed "requires" to "compels", to have stylistic variation. I believe it would have the same effect as 'requires'

It will, but it might be less acceptable to voters.

[Daarwyrth]

except I changed "requires" to "compels", to have stylistic variation. I believe it would have the same effect as 'requires'

It will, but it might be less acceptable to voters.

OOC: Hmm, would "Also requires" instead of "Further requires" be acceptable? I used "Further requires" in Clause 7 already, hence why I wanted to differentiate.

[Bears Armed]

It will, but it might be less acceptable to voters.

OOC: Hmm, would "Also requires" instead of "Further requires" be acceptable? I used "Further requires" in Clause 7 already, hence why I wanted to differentiate.

Yes.

[Daarwyrth]

OOC: Hmm, would "Also requires" instead of "Further requires" be acceptable? I used "Further requires" in Clause 7 already, hence why I wanted to differentiate.

Yes.

OOC: Done! Thanks for the suggestion

[Daarwyrth]

OOC: I've moved this draft to last call, and I'm thinking about submission somewhere next week. As such, any last comments and feedback would be absolutely appreciated!

[Hulldom]

"We have two quibbles with this draft, Ambassador.

One, that clauses 2 and 3 could pretty reasonably be combined.

Two, what "temporary measures" would you be comfortable saying are acceptable under clause 6."

OOC: the first is a suggestion, would like an answer to two.

[Daarwyrth]

"We have two quibbles with this draft, Ambassador.

One, that clauses 2 and 3 could pretty reasonably be combined.

Two, what "temporary measures" would you be comfortable saying are acceptable under clause 6."

OOC: the first is a suggestion, would like an answer to two.

Vyn Nysen: "Thank you for your suggestion, Ambassador. Clauses 2 and 3 were initially joined, yet we had received the suggestion to separate the two. Our delegation will take a closer look at the text of those two clauses once again, and reconsider joining them.

Regarding your question, a potential measure could be temporary dual citizenship until the inhabitant in question can relocate to another part of their nation again. That seems to us the most logical measure in such a case, but I am confident there are more options to think of. Temporary housing in another part of the nation until the citizen can move to the desired part is another, I believe.

Does that answer your question, Ambassador? If you have more questions as a result, please don't hesitate to ask."

[Hulldom]

"We have two quibbles with this draft, Ambassador.

One, that clauses 2 and 3 could pretty reasonably be combined.

Two, what "temporary measures" would you be comfortable saying are acceptable under clause 6."

OOC: the first is a suggestion, would like an answer to two.

Vyn Nysen: "Thank you for your suggestion, Ambassador. Clauses 2 and 3 were initially joined, yet we had received the suggestion to separate the two. Our delegation will take a closer look at the text of those two clauses once again, and reconsider joining them.

Regarding your question, a potential measure could be temporary dual citizenship until the inhabitant in question can relocate to another part of their nation again. That seems to us the most logical measure in such a case, but I am confident there are more options to think of. Temporary housing in another part of the nation until the citizen can move to the desired part is another, I believe.

Does that answer your question, Ambassador? If you have more questions as a result, please don't hesitate to ask."

"That clears things up, Ambassador. Full support."

[Daarwyrth]

Vyn Nysen: "Our delegation has moved to the submission of this resolution proposal. We thank all delegations for their commentary and feedback during the drafting process."