[PASSED] Protections During Territorial Transitions v2.0

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

All member nations involved in a transition must endeavour 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.

"What does this mean? Does this mean that the resolution needs to be copied verbatim to treaties, or something? 'Endevaour to' does not mean that it has to succeed, either, and if it does not succeed but the transition still proceeds WA privil-, er, rights, would be violated. I'd suggest changing this to something like this _"

Member nations are to refrain from transitioning any territory to any member or non-member nation likely to fail to comply with this resolution as a receiving member state, and may not accept territory in a transition from any member or non-member nation likely to fail to comply with this resolution as a ceding member state.

"That said, The Ice States is to be opposed. Member nations should maintain full right to cede or accept territory for any reason in any manner they please."

[Daarwyrth]

"What does this mean? Does this mean that the resolution needs to be copied verbatim to treaties, or something? 'Endevaour to' does not mean that it has to succeed, either, and if it succeeds privil-, er, rights, would be violated.

Zylkoven: "It does not need to be copied word for word, no, but the general idea of each provision should be included. This clause is primarily to grant some form of protection to inhabitants of member nations that are ceding territory to non-member nations. As you well know, the WA can't legislate on non-members. I expect that the provisions from this proposal will be followed and included in territorial transitions between member nations. Yet, I believe this is as far as the WA can go to do the same in territorial transitions between member nations and non-member nations.

That said, our delegation will return to a previous iteration of that Clause that simply stated such provisions are to be included into any such treaties, not just endeavoured to."

[Daarwyrth]

Zylkoven: "One of the points that we'd appreciate commentary on is the use of "sovereign state" in the definitions in Article 1a through 1d. Our delegation is curious to know whether our friends and colleagues within this assembly consider this appropriate, or whether the previous 'member state' would be better. Could the use of 'sovereign state' be construed as an attempt by the WA to legislate non-member nations? Personally, I believe it is not, but we will gladly defer to the wisdom of other delegations on this matter."

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

Ooc: I'm obviously not on GenSec so I'd defer to one of them if they clarify in this thread, but personally, I would be inclined to read "sovereign states" as "member nations" if Section 12 were not there as written, as it implicitly draws a distinction between member nations and non-member nations with "regardless of whether the other nations involved in those agreements are or are not also WA members" -- see also this clarification by Imperium Anglorum -- quoted in relevant part, "There is a distinction between member nations and non-member nations [...] There is an explicit effect on non-members by "requir[ing] that all ISDS mechanisms currently in operation be disbanded". That effect is not exercised through WA nations or institutions only. There is therefore extrajurisdictional metagaming."

Changing "sovereign states" back to "member nations" would solve this, I think.

[Daarwyrth]

Ooc: I'm obviously not on GenSec so I'd defer to one of them if they clarify in this thread, but personally, I would be inclined to read "sovereign states" as "member nations" if Section 12 were not there as written, as it implicitly draws a distinction between member nations and non-member nations with "regardless of whether the other nations involved in those agreements are or are not also WA members" -- see also this clarification by Imperium Anglorum -- quoted in relevant part, "There is a distinction between member nations and non-member nations [...] There is an explicit effect on non-members by "requir[ing] that all ISDS mechanisms currently in operation be disbanded". That effect is not exercised through WA nations or institutions only. There is therefore extrajurisdictional metagaming."

Changing "sovereign states" back to "member nations" would solve this, I think.

OOC: What you say makes perfect sense, let me preface with that. That said, I wonder about the "explicit effect" element. Because the proposal demands that member nations include the provisions of this proposal into treaties with non-members. So, it would be through a member nation, like in the third example of the three cases that IA lists, not directly on the non-member. Unless I'm reading IA's post wrong.

To clarify, this is what I was referring to:

If there is an explicit effect on non-members, does it assert WA jurisdiction over them or does it take action through WA nations and institutions only? If the latter, it is fine.

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

Ooc: I'm obviously not on GenSec so I'd defer to one of them if they clarify in this thread, but personally, I would be inclined to read "sovereign states" as "member nations" if Section 12 were not there as written, as it implicitly draws a distinction between member nations and non-member nations with "regardless of whether the other nations involved in those agreements are or are not also WA members" -- see also this clarification by Imperium Anglorum -- quoted in relevant part, "There is a distinction between member nations and non-member nations [...] There is an explicit effect on non-members by "requir[ing] that all ISDS mechanisms currently in operation be disbanded". That effect is not exercised through WA nations or institutions only. There is therefore extrajurisdictional metagaming."

Changing "sovereign states" back to "member nations" would solve this, I think.

OOC: What you say makes perfect sense, let me preface with that. That said, I wonder about the "explicit effect" element. Because the proposal demands that member nations include the provisions of this proposal into treaties with non-members. So, it would be through a member nation, like in the third example of the three cases that IA lists, not directly on the non-member. Unless I'm reading IA's post wrong.

To clarify, this is what I was referring to:

If there is an explicit effect on non-members, does it assert WA jurisdiction over them or does it take action through WA nations and institutions only? If the latter, it is fine.

Ooc: Section 12 would indeed be, in my opinion, legal as a standalone resolution -- obviously with the definitions -- but as written nearly all provisions just use "ceding state" or "receiving state", as opposed to "member state" or "member nation". Section 12 draws a distinction between member nations and non-member nations, and other provisions of the resolution legislate by binding all nations -- rather than only member nations.

[Daarwyrth]

Ooc: Section 12 would indeed be, in my opinion, legal as a standalone resolution -- obviously with the definitions -- but as written nearly all provisions just use "ceding state" or "receiving state", as opposed to "member state" or "member nation". Section 12 draws a distinction between member nations and non-member nations, and other provisions of the resolution legislate by binding all nations -- rather than only member nations.

OOC: Hmm, I see. So, if I understand correctly what you're saying "sovereign states" should be reverted to "member states" in 1a through 1d, and then Clause 12 would be legal? Or should Clause 12 be removed in its entirety from the resolution proposal text?

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

Ooc: Section 12 would indeed be, in my opinion, legal as a standalone resolution -- obviously with the definitions -- but as written nearly all provisions just use "ceding state" or "receiving state", as opposed to "member state" or "member nation". Section 12 draws a distinction between member nations and non-member nations, and other provisions of the resolution legislate by binding all nations -- rather than only member nations.

OOC: Hmm, I see. So, if I understand correctly what you're saying "sovereign states" should be reverted to "member states" in 1a through 1d, and then Clause 12 would be legal? Or should Clause 12 be removed in its entirety from the resolution proposal text?

Ooc: From my understanding, Section 12 is legal, as in it doesn't legislate outside of WA jurisdiction, but it makes the other clauses illegal as written. Changing "sovereign states" back to "member states" would indeed resolve legality issues, but it could make Section 12 -- which I think is good policy -- meaningless, because it wouldn't be considered a "transition" if there's one non-member nation involved

Maybe if the definition of a "transition" was changed to "the transfer of territory from one sovereign state to another sovereign state resulting from economic, political or diplomatic proceedings and where at least one member nation either acquires or cedes territory;" and the other mentions of "sovereign state" in 1b - 1d were changed to "member nation" it would work...

[Daarwyrth]

Maybe if the definition of a "transition" was changed to "the transfer of territory from one sovereign state to another sovereign state resulting from economic, political or diplomatic proceedings and where at least one member nation either acquires or cedes territory;" and the other mentions of "sovereign state" in 1b - 1d were changed to "member nation" it would work...

OOC: That is a good one, I'll update the draft with that approach. Thanks!

[Daarwyrth]

OOC: If there's no more commentary and feedback on this draft, I'm considering submitting this by the end of the week

[Daarwyrth]

Zylkoven: "Our delegation has moved to submission of this draft proposal, and we would like to ask the honourable Delegates of the World Assembly for their approval of this here proposal. We also would like to thank all of our colleagues for their commentary and feedback during the drafting process."

[Galicia-Podolia]

Representative Madelyne Zylkoven: "After having reviewed several of the projects that my predecessor had endeavoured to undertake, I have come to the conclusion that there is merit in attempting to continue work on the Protections During Territorial Transitions resolution draft. Naturally, the clause that had led to the resolution's unfortunate discarding has been rectified and altered appropriately.

CURRENT DRAFT:

Protections During Territorial Transitions
Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Mild

---

Let it be known that this august body confirms that territorial transitions between member states may occur as part of trade agreements or other diplomatic proceedings, and that sovereign states have the right to manage their territory as they see fit;

Let it be further known that this international organisation applauds previously passed legislation and its mandate that member states allow their inhabitants to fulfil their basic needs, yet is left troubled about the fate of those inhabitants that must endure the effects of territorial transitions; and

Thus, the World Assembly enacts as follows:

1. For the purposes of this resolution, these terms will be defined in the following manner:
   
   
   1. a "transition" as the transfer of territory from one sovereign state to another sovereign state resulting from economic, political or diplomatic proceedings and where at least one member nation either acquires or cedes territory;
      
      
   2. a "receiving state" as a member state that acquires territory as a result of a transition;
      
      
   3. a "ceding state" as a member state that cedes territory as a result of a transition;
      
      
   4. an "affected inhabitant" as an inhabitant of any area of a member state that is directly affected by a transition;
   
   
2. Member states involved in a transition must inform affected inhabitants extensively and with sufficient advance notice on any jurisdictional changes that they will be subjected to as a result of a transition, and provide affected inhabitants with all other information relevant to that transition, and the changes it will inflict upon them, unless affected inhabitants have overtly communicated not to want such information or contact on the subject;
   
   
3. Ceding states must allow affected inhabitants who are unwilling to become the inhabitant of the receiving state as a result of a transition to relocate to another part of the ceding state that is suitable for civilian habitation, without any harmful impact upon their existing rights, duties and protections;
   
   
4. Ceding states must assist affected inhabitants who would be unable to see to their basic needs as a result of relocating within that state in line with their right as granted by Clause 3;
   
   
5. In cases of mass relocation as a result of a transition, or multiple transitions, which would cause a ceding state to be overwhelmed in terms of housing and the fulfilment of affected inhabitants' basic needs, Clauses 3 and 4 may be temporarily waived (and resolved through other suitable, temporary measures) until that state is no longer so overwhelmed;
   
   
6. Receiving states must offer affected inhabitants citizenship within their jurisdiction if the latter held that status within the ceding state, or any other equivalent right to residency that they enjoyed in said state;
   
   
7. Receiving states must automatically transfer any rights, privileges and duties that an affected inhabitant held in the ceding state, or grant them close equivalents to such rights, privileges and duties if such did not previously exist within the receiving state's jurisdiction;
   
   
8. Nothing in Articles 6 and 7 prevents receiving states from offering affected inhabitants new rights and privileges upon the finalisation of a transition;
   
   
9. Receiving states must grant inhabitants who have had their citizenship or right to residence transferred as a result of a transition, a period of acclimatisation to their change of jurisdiction, which must be of a fair length and grant them enough time to integrate into their new nation, and which should be taken into consideration by the authorities of the receiving state where appropriate and necessary;
   
   
10. Receiving states must provide affected inhabitants with aid and/or guidance regarding affairs such as legal integration into their new jurisdiction or the learning of the receiving state's official language(s) free of charge, should those inhabitants request such assistance;
    
    
11. Both receiving and ceding states must ensure that the safety and wellbeing of affected inhabitants are not unduly infringed upon as a result of a transition;
    
    
12. All member nations involved in a transition must 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.

Co-authored with Bears Armed Mission.

So i can't invade my enemy, Ukraine?

[Daarwyrth]

So i can't invade my enemy, Ukraine?

Madelyne Zylkoven smiles politely. "Unless a nefarious little gnome secretly changed the text of the proposal while I was sleeping, the resolution text does not mention 'warfare' or 'invasion'. The definition in Clause 1a clearly defines under what conditions this resolution comes into play."

[The Wallenburgian World Assembly Offices]

"Section 7 places inducted inhabitants above the law, and requires member states to enforce the laws of non-member states rather than their own. This runs contrary to the very concept of nationhood. Once again, such idiotic mandates, in conjunction with section 12, render this resolution impossible for any member state with any significant foreign relations to comply with."

[Daarwyrth]

"Section 7 places inducted inhabitants above the law, and requires member states to enforce the laws of non-member states rather than their own. This runs contrary to the very concept of nationhood. Once again, such idiotic mandates, in conjunction with section 12, render this resolution impossible for any member state with any significant foreign relations to comply with.

"Additionally, this is illegal for legislating to non-member states. All instances of 'ceding state' and 'receiving state' demonstrate no limitation to membership, and any implication thereof is destroyed by the distinction drawn between sovereign states and member states."

Madelyne Zylkoven continues to smile politely. "It is somewhat regrettable that you have only chosen to provide commentary and feedback now, when there was plenty of time to raise concerns before."

"Regardless, no one is being placed above the law in Clause 7, the text there is clear. As the delegation from Imperium Anglorum noted, the proposal lacked an automatic transfer of rights for rights. This is how our delegation has given shape to that comment. Clause 7 requires that the rights an inhabitant held in a ceding state are transferred into the national jurisdiction of the receiving state. And if the receiving state doesn't have those specific rights available for their citizenry, then the closest equivalent to those rights must be given. It seems more than reasonable to us that inhabitants should lose as few rights and privileges as possible in a territorial transition, which is why we saw merit in the suggestion made by the delegation from Imperium Anglorum to include an automatic transfer of rights for rights.

Furthermore, the issue of Clause 12 was discussed during the course of the drafting process. The Article is not directly impacting non-member nations and has no direct influence on them. It asks member nations to have the provisions included into any treaties that may arise between them and non-members, but that is not a mandate that is imposed on non-members. The commentary and feedback we have received did not contradict is."

[Toonela]

Receiving states must automatically transfer any rights, privileges and duties that an affected inhabitant held in the ceding state, or grant them close equivalents to such rights, privileges and duties if such did not previously exist within the receiving state's jurisdiction;

Sakarbaal, one of the members of the Toonelan delegation, smooths out the front of their tunic before speaking.

"Just to make sure we understand the seventh clause of this resolution correctly, 'rights, privileges and duties' being a very broad mandate . . . a democratic receiving state, one more democratic than the ceding state, would be required to create less democratically structured institutions in order to preserve privileges held by the now-former citizens of the ceding state, as well as create new roles, the obligations of those roles being from where these duties in the ceding state stemmed from, to fulfill this part of the resolution?"

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC. I don't buy that section 12 actually does what it claims to do.

All member nations involved in a transition must 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.

There are two issues here. The first is that the use of plural forms only (which I already commented on and said to avoid) makes this a mess between singular and collective actors. There is the obvious reading that is probably what is intended; there are others which are not and would be prima facie permissible repeal arguments.

The second is more major. If you wrote into the treaty the terms of this resolution, that resolution would bind only member states because all the duties imposed in it are on ceding and receiving states, which are definitionally member states. There are therefore no effects on non-member nations.

[Daarwyrth]

OOC. I don't buy that section 12 actually does what it claims to do.

All member nations involved in a transition must 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.

There are two issues here. The first is that the use of plural forms only (which I already commented on and said to avoid) makes this a mess between singular and collective actors. There is the obvious reading that is probably what is intended; there are others which are not and would be prima facie permissible repeal arguments.

The second is more major. If you wrote into the treaty the terms of this resolution, that resolution would bind only member states because all the duties imposed in it are on ceding and receiving states, which are definitionally member states. There are therefore no effects on non-member nations.

OOC: I had explicitly asked about this during the drafting process, but I received only 1 reply to it. I asked whether the use of "sovereign state" would be more appropriate than "member state", as per the IC post here:

Zylkoven: "One of the points that we'd appreciate commentary on is the use of "sovereign state" in the definitions in Article 1a through 1d. Our delegation is curious to know whether our friends and colleagues within this assembly consider this appropriate, or whether the previous 'member state' would be better. Could the use of 'sovereign state' be construed as an attempt by the WA to legislate non-member nations? Personally, I believe it is not, but we will gladly defer to the wisdom of other delegations on this matter."

The only replies were from Magecastle, which quite reasonably detailed that "sovereign states" might pose more of a problem than "member states" and that a reversal to the previous term might be better. As there were no other replies or comments contradicting that, I went along with the suggestion.

As to the comment that there is no effect on non-member states, I don't believe that to be true. The text says "all member nations involved in a transition must 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". This does not mean that the clauses have to be copied word for word into the treaties with non-members. Rather, it means that the protections that they grant have to be included into those treaties. Those treaties will be considered binding between the two parties involved, and so any provisions that will be included (which by no means have to be word for word what this treaty says) can be written in those treaties in such a way that they include the provisions of this resolution, while the language binds both parties of the treaty regulating the transition. That is the idea I always operated under, that "provisions included" does not mean "copied word for word".

As for the comments about the plural use, it feels natural to refer to an entity that contains many members in the plural when talking about those members, but I will continue to watch myself for it in the future.

[Starkindler]

[U][WA] Unclassified - World Assembly Use Only
Communiqué from the World Assembly Mission of Her Most Serene Majesty, The Crown of Starkindler:

To the delegates of the World Assembly:

After careful deliberation; the Crown shall submit a vote of AGAINST to proposed WA resolution # 620:

Reasons against follow:
Point 2. of the proposed Resolution would require sufficient notice be given to residents of annexed territories about the jurisdictional changes regarding their personal lives. This would directly contradict Imperial (and as per the results of Imperial Intelligence, many other states') military doctrines and protocols about the status of occupied territories in wartime and during the process of peace talks after the other side surrendered. This is due to frontlines in current wars moving significantly faster than we could inform the civilian population of enemy population centers, and the need of occupation forces to re-establish civilian order in occupied territories.
These usually mean that in occupied territories, and freshly annexed territories, civilian and sentient rights are usually suspended to maximize survivability of the occupying force, and prevent unnecessary loss of civilian life in the process of active combat.
Thus we would like to suggest that the proposed Resolution would recognize a transitional time between war and peace.

Point 7. of the proposed Resolution would require receiving states to pass all rights an individual had in their ceding state. These rights, however must be limited sometimes as for example in the following cases, where no equivalent of some common rights exist in the receiving state

• No equivalent of the right to free private enterprise and/or owning the means of production by private individuals exist in the receiving state. In this case such legal entities must be properly disposed as companies usually doesn't have the means to move, especially in wartime.
• In the above case, article 7 would cause a special economic district creating an internal division of territories, where people living in some territories (the annexed ones) having the right of free enterprise (because they were granted by the Ceding State and an equivalent right must be granted to them by Article 7), and the native population would not. The question would be how long should each right stand?
• No equivalent partnership exists in the receiving state, where the individual/s enjoyed marriage equality and/or plural marriage(s) and/or the right for reproduction for couples where it would otherwise be biologically impossible (eg. right for artificial insemination of lesbian human couples), In these cases, however the individual/s would be free to move back to the ceding state which would cause an exodus, a humanitarian crisis waiting to happen.
• No equivalent right to live exist in the receiving state. While the Universal Declaration of Sentient Rights protects most sentient organics, Imperial Intelligence knows about pogroms - State supported, clandestine, or just tolerated - against some sentient species, most commonly AI and digital lifeforms, and ponies. This could also cause a mass exodus.

The proposed resolution doesn't elaborate on how long should the equivalent rights stand in case of Article 7, where civilian rights in the ceding state were more extensive than in the receiving state.

While Article 3 gives civilians in the ceding state rights to leave, it does not extend to the right of free passage for military, which is at that point assumed to be under the effect of cease-fire aggreements, and by the international laws of war, is considered to be unarmed combatants and thus entitled to protections.

While Article 3 gives civilians in the ceding state rights to leave, it does not explicitly state willingly, thus opening the door of forced relocation of the population to the ceding state which is forced to accept it even if it does not have the appropriate humanitarian measures to accept such a population. After the effects of war, on an annexed territory, leaving population often come malnourished, and in immediate need of physical and mental treatments, and without any provisions of their own. The mother country can be safely assumed to be in an equivalent state. Thus also opening the door for humanitarian crises.

Furthermore the proposed Resolution would fail to recognize that a statistically significant minority block would usually be created in the annexed territory. That territory could be reasonably expected to petition for their rights to:

• Keep their integrity, and be safe from forced relocation and the disbanding of the contigious minority status3
• Keep reasonable safety from colonization by the majority of the receiving country
• Practice their traditions, religion and language (or other code of communication, eg. signed languages, nonverbal communication forms)
• Have access to education in their own language (or other code of communication)
• Maintain cultural ties with the ceding country
• Maintain access to family that remained in the ceding country

Thus urging the original author of the proposed resolution to consider reconsidering the bill in favor of individual resolution of territorial changes between the affected nation-states, if applicable, using the services of an international court of law, or the representative of a third-party, unaligned sovereign.

Signed,
Gertrude Faulkes
Ambassador to the World Assembly Mission of Her Most Serene Majesty, The Crown of Starkindler

[West Barack and East Obama]

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: As the resident oppressive dictatorship, opposed. Creating a class of people who get more rights than others is unfair. We may abuse civil rights, but we do it equally.

[Daarwyrth]

Point 2. of the proposed Resolution would require sufficient notice be given to residents of annexed territories about the jurisdictional changes regarding their personal lives. This would directly contradict Imperial (and as per the results of Imperial Intelligence, many other states') military doctrines and protocols about the status of occupied territories in wartime and during the process of peace talks after the other side surrendered. This is due to frontlines in current wars moving significantly faster than we could inform the civilian population of enemy population centers, and the need of occupation forces to re-establish civilian order in occupied territories.
These usually mean that in occupied territories, and freshly annexed territories, civilian and sentient rights are usually suspended to maximize survivability of the occupying force, and prevent unnecessary loss of civilian life in the process of active combat.
Thus we would like to suggest that the proposed Resolution would recognize a transitional time between war and peace.

Zylkoven: "Ambassador, where in this proposal do you see anything about warfare or annexation? The definition of a transition is limited to 'economic, political or diplomatic proceedings'."

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: As the resident oppressive dictatorship, opposed. Creating a class of people who get more rights than others is unfair. We may abuse civil rights, but we do it equally.

"But Ambassador, how would this class supposedly come into existence? The resolution proposal demands that rights are transferred for rights if they exist in both nations, and if the receiving state doesn't have that right then the closest equivalent to it must be given that does exist in that nation. In other words, no new rights and privileges would have to be created for any affected inhabitant, only existent ones extended to them. This comment should also address the concerns raised about Clause 7 by the delegation from Starkindler."

[West Barack and East Obama]

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: Ah, I read that incorrectly. Well then, full support. As long as we can keep oppressing people the way we like, then that it is 'okiedokieartichokie' in our books.

[Toonela]

"But Ambassador, how would this class supposedly come into existence? The resolution proposal demands that rights are transferred for rights if they exist in both nations, and if the receiving state doesn't have that right then the closest equivalent to it must be given that does exist in that nation. In other words, no new rights and privileges would have to be created for any affected inhabitant, only existent ones extended to them. This comment should also address the concerns raised about Clause 7 by the delegation from Starkindler."

Sakarbaal shakes their head.

"That is not what the language of the clause in question provides for. What the seventh clause of this resolution does is charge the receiving state with fulfilling one of two mandates: either the granting of a role which is the close equivalent of their former one, should one not already exist within the receiving state, or the provision of a role which is imbued with all of the same rights, privileges, and duties. If it is your delegation's position that, should a close equivalent not exist within the receiving state, they have no obligation whatsoever to fulfill one of these two mandates via the creation of new roles, a sort of 'default to nullification', it isn't a position effectuated within the language of the resolution. Our polity respects your intentions, but they are incongruent with the resolution you have put before this body, and we will be voting against it."

[Trattativa]

My nation is also unwilling to support this proposal, largely due to Article 6.
Some rights of 'affected inhabitants' would inevitably be found morally abhorrent or unfair to the citizens of some 'receiving states'.
Consider having to allow otherwise illegal activities (perhaps drug use or dueling), or provide government funded services (possibly health/education) not granted to the rest of the nation.

Note also that Article 3 already grants populations concerned about the changes a chance to relocate.

Finally, 'affected inhabitants' are protected (and rightly so) by existing WA civil rights resolutions protecting their rights of free speech and religion, right to a fair trial, protections from torture or execution, and many more (GA 197 Banning Extrajudicial Transfer and GA 57 Refugee Protection included).

My government believes that any additional rights, beyond those standard within the receiving state or required by international law, should be negotiated upon by the two states.

[Starkindler]

Perplexed after Representative Zylkoven has told her that not all territorial transitions come at an end of warfare despite having heard of the USA buying territory several times in its history. Even though a seasoned politician, she couldn't help hiding her shock hearing that sovereigns trade territory at peacetime. The body of the crown forged indivisible by over a millenium of tumultous history - referring to the myth underpinning the Empire, and elevating the Crown - not the Empress or the occasional Emperor; a disembodied concept - as the sovereign holding power over Starkindlerians, since it was recognized from the tumultous times of the Warring States period.
"Please excuse me for being so vague, Princess" - she addressed the Daarwythian - "but analysts of the Crown had refused to consider a sovereign being in so dire straits in peacetime as to consider giving away territory and subjects in exchange for baubles or political favors. Despite that isn't constructing a peace treaty - whether dictated by the victor or a treaty of equals considered a diplomatic affair? And about your other question, maybe my translator AI companion has malfunctioned, but I have heard " - she spoke in a melodic far eastern language, Starkindlerian - ", which in the working language of this august body could be translated as Annexation - a sovereign gaining territory. In out language the definition doesn't care which way and from whom the sovereign gained territory. And despite all, the clarifications which the resolution being compatible with what our concept of sentient rights is" - she looked towards representatives of more liberal nations viewing Starkindler as a Corrupt Dictatorship,teetering precariously on the line between Democratic Socialists and a Corrupt Dictatorship with the citizenry holding onto what precious little have left of their civil rights after the fall of the Mother Knows Best government - "however little fake news outlets tends to think about it. Nevertheless as the representative of the Crown I still can not in good faith vote FOR the resolution, as I would urge the members of this august body to in stead pass resolutions that would further foreign aid and diplomatic assistance if required for those nation-states considering to trade away territory and people. The Crown also believes that in cases where such transactions are unavoidable - while this proposed Resolution would lessen the blow of the citizenship affected - that the representatives of the sovereigns must be trusted to be wise enough to agree to transfer terms along with the equivalents of rights for affected subjects to lessen the blow for all sovereigns and subjects involved."