Global Welfare Objectives Act [First Draft]

[Uluru Aborigines]

Global Welfare Objectives Act

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Mild

The World Assembly,

RECOGNISING the inadequacy of current international law in securing basic benefits for everyone, regardless of wealth or social status,
NOTING that this body has an obligation to work with individual member nations to preserve and promote the general welfare,
BELIEVING that the goals of equality and social justice are best achieved through applying the principles of national sovereignty and individual responsibility,

HEREBY

1) ACKNOWLEDGES that each and every documented resident in World Assembly member nations should have access to essential services which are necessary for the sustenance of life,

2) ESTABLISHES a fundamental and inalienable right to affordable food, water, and healthcare,

3) ENCOURAGES all nations to actively work to create a society based on meritocracy and personal initiative,

4) DECLARES that the implementation of specific policies to combat poverty and financial hardship is the exclusive province of individual nations, acting in their sovereign and independent character, subject to the limitations of existing international law.

[Uluru Aborigines]

Feel free to offer your comments on this piece of legislation, which will rightly exercise the World Assembly's powers in favour of ordinary working people and establish basic benefits such as medical care not only as targets, but as rights that should be upheld at all times.

[Mousebumples]

5) EXCLUDES existing international legislation from the previous provision.

This seems likely to be illegal due to contradiction.

Further, this proposal is far too general and is trying to serve as something of a "catch all." A lot of this stuff IS already covered by existing resolutions. If you don't feel that something is adequately covered, I would suggest a mores specific proposal draft - trying to cover that area.

As is, I'm thinking it will contradict (if not duplicate) a number of already passed resolutions.

Opposed, as written.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

5) EXCLUDES existing international legislation from the previous provision.

This seems likely to be illegal due to contradiction.

Further, this proposal is far too general and is trying to serve as something of a "catch all." A lot of this stuff IS already covered by existing resolutions. If you don't feel that something is adequately covered, I would suggest a mores specific proposal draft - trying to cover that area.

As is, I'm thinking it will contradict (if not duplicate) a number of already passed resolutions.

Opposed, as written.

I think it was written for that purpose by someone I happen to know. Check out the Sovereigntist Saloon and you'll see

[Mousebumples]

I think it was written for that purpose by someone I happen to know. Check out the Sovereigntist Saloon and you'll see

I'm aware.

It doesn't make the proposal any more legal as presently written. Besides, as presently written, I think you'd have a category violation as well. There's no way this is a mild proposal.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

I think it was written for that purpose by someone I happen to know. Check out the Sovereigntist Saloon and you'll see

I'm aware.

It doesn't make the proposal any more legal as presently written. Besides, as presently written, I think you'd have a category violation as well. There's no way this is a mild proposal.

Well, it can't really be significant?

Any suggested modifications in the wording?

[Mousebumples]

RECOGNISING the inadequacy of current international law in securing basic benefits for everyone, regardless of wealth or social status,
NOTING that this body has an obligation to work with individual member nations to preserve and promote the general welfare,
BELIEVING that the goals of equality and social justice are best achieved through applying the principles of national sovereignty and individual responsibility,

Blah blah blah, boilerplate.

However, the first line, in particular, is not my favorite. How or Why is current international law inadequate? But we'll get to that more in a little bit ...

1) ACKNOWLEDGES that each and every documented resident in World Assembly member nations should have access to essential services which are necessary for the sustenance of life,

As "essential services" is fairly nebulous in this regard (no definition or listed limitations), that's a start to your strength problems.

2) ESTABLISHES a fundamental right to affordable healthcare, food, water, and education,

Healthcare, Food, Water, and Education are (I think) all covered by existing legislation. Therefore, this is duplication.

Also, this line is what nudges this AT LEAST into a Strong Significant strength. You're covering SO MANY areas with this proposal that there's no way it's Mild.

(Editing note: I always mix up which is "stronger" - Strong or Significant. Significant "sounds" stronger to me, but it's the moderate strength in proposals. My goof there.)

3) ENCOURAGES all nations to actively work to create a society based on meritocracy and personal initiative,

This seems to be an ideological ban as some ideologies are NOT based on meritocracy - i.e. communism.

4) DECLARES that the implementation of specific policies to combat poverty and financial hardship is the exclusive province of individual nations, acting in their sovereign and independent character,

Nat Sov blocker, fine. Given your other clauses, this is presently a legal kind of blocker. However, due to the legality issues listed above, it's illegal as presently written.

5) EXCLUDES existing international legislation from the previous provision.

[/quote]
I think this would be clearer if you had tacked it onto Clause 4. Since it was separate, I missed the detail above. Adding something like "subject to the limitations of existing international law" might do the trick.

[Uluru Aborigines]

RECOGNISING the inadequacy of current international law in securing basic benefits for everyone, regardless of wealth or social status,
NOTING that this body has an obligation to work with individual member nations to preserve and promote the general welfare,
BELIEVING that the goals of equality and social justice are best achieved through applying the principles of national sovereignty and individual responsibility,

Blah blah blah, boilerplate.

However, the first line, in particular, is not my favorite. How or Why is current international law inadequate? But we'll get to that more in a little bit ...

1) ACKNOWLEDGES that each and every documented resident in World Assembly member nations should have access to essential services which are necessary for the sustenance of life,

As "essential services" is fairly nebulous in this regard (no definition or listed limitations), that's a start to your strength problems.

2) ESTABLISHES a fundamental right to affordable healthcare, food, water, and education,

Healthcare, Food, Water, and Education are (I think) all covered by existing legislation. Therefore, this is duplication.

Also, this line is what nudges this AT LEAST into a Strong strength. You're covering SO MANY areas with this proposal that there's no way it's Mild.

3) ENCOURAGES all nations to actively work to create a society based on meritocracy and personal initiative,

This seems to be an ideological ban as some ideologies are NOT based on meritocracy - i.e. communism.

4) DECLARES that the implementation of specific policies to combat poverty and financial hardship is the exclusive province of individual nations, acting in their sovereign and independent character,

Nat Sov blocker, fine. Given your other clauses, this is presently a legal kind of blocker. However, due to the legality issues listed above, it's illegal as presently written.

5) EXCLUDES existing international legislation from the previous provision.

I think this would be clearer if you had tacked it onto Clause 4. Since it was separate, I missed the detail above. Adding something like "subject to the limitations of existing international law" might do the trick.[/quote]

Clause 1 simply acknowledges that something should be done.
Clause 2 establishes a definite right in principle, that is the goal of the World Assembly and will guide its policy, and that of the various nations, wherever existing regulations do not apply.
Clause 3 simply "encourages", it does not coerce or mandate.

Thanks for the comments though

[Darenjo]

What exactly does this make WA nations do?

I feel that this could violate the optionality ban.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Ms. Harper feels that this draft will conflict with a number of existing resolutions, whether be it duplication or contradiction. FOr example, it has already been established that the child has a right to food, water, and healthcare, and there are rules supporting choice of treatment.

[Moronist Decisions]

Contradiction with Food Welfare Act and other current resolutions. Opposed.

[Monikian WA Mission]

"The Monkian Government will oppose this drivel."