[DRAFT] Reduction of Statelessness

[Glen-Rhodes]

It seems that a conflation of the terms citizenship and nationality has occurred. There is certainly a difference between being a national (a recognized resident) of a state and a citizen (a recognized resident entitled to certain rights and privileges.) Perhaps this could be solved by a more careful definition of what is meant by a national; I don't believe being a national of a state is or must be synonymous with citizenship. Many states exclude persons of various incomes, intelligences or other characteristics from the full rights of citizenship or citizenship at all, however the excluded persons are certainly considered inhabitants (or nationals) and recognized as such by their government.

I would suggest to the good doctor that nothing in this proposal mandates a nation give citizenship, merely that a nation recognize that a stateless person born within the borders of Glen-Rhodes be considered an inhabitant.

I believe that Ms. Harper's clear intent was to mandate citizenship, and that she still has that intent, but has obviously been misguided by Your Excellency's comments. Her reasoning for the proposal's categorization is that "nationality often results in a person with one being granted political rights", which is the common definition of 'citizenship'.

Though, I don't know where this specific difference between the two words has come from. Nationality does bring with it state protection (rights). The only difference is that a national does not necessarily have the right to vote and other political rights, which are gained through citizenship.

Focusing this proposal merely on nationality has made it much more agreeable, in any case. But, if the reasoning for categorizing it in Furtherment of Democracy is that the resolution would grant political rights, then the text is in conflict with the category. It's a question of whether or not Furtherment of Democracy's "democratic freedoms" means expressly political freedoms, which allow people to participate in the democratic process. Like the proposal now explains, nationality does not confer political rights.

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

[Grays Harbor]

We are still perplexed as to why the WA feels the neccessity to meddle in what are puely domestic issues within each nation.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Focusing this proposal merely on nationality has made it much more agreeable, in any case. But, if the reasoning for categorizing it in Furtherment of Democracy is that the resolution would grant political rights, then the text is in conflict with the category. It's a question of whether or not Furtherment of Democracy's "democratic freedoms" means expressly political freedoms, which allow people to participate in the democratic process. Like the proposal now explains, nationality does not confer political rights.

For this reason I have repaired the categories and preambles, honoured ambassador. it is now Human Rights.

We are still perplexed as to why the WA feels the neccessity to meddle in what are puely domestic issues within each nation.

Assignment of nationality is in fact an international issue because many member states have border controls and limits in which non-nationals can stay for. The key phrase is: a person has a right to have somewhere to call home (country).

---

Generally, just for disambiguation and to highlight to core difference between citizenship and nationality:

cit·i·zen·ship: The status of a citizen with its attendant duties, rights, and privileges.
na·tion·al·i·ty: The status of belonging to a particular nation by origin, birth, or naturalization.

Ms. Sarah Harper,

Chief Ambassador for the Mind of Charlotte Ryberg, to the World Assembly

[Grays Harbor]

Assignment of nationality is in fact an international issue because many member states have border controls and limits in which non-nationals can stay for. The key phrase is: a person has a right to have somewhere to call home (country).

Each nation has a right, as well, to determine what their immigration and border policies are without the WA dictating to them who they can or cannot let in. Because a few people are "stateless" does not give the WA the right to mandate that nations violate their own principles to accomodate the few. Surely there are nations out there who are willing to take in anybody, why take away the right of nations to control their own immigration?

This is not something the WA should become involved in as far as mandating rules and dictating to member nations.

[Gobbannium]

It appears that "membership" can also be confused with citizenship, so it should become "status" instead:

With respect, it does not matter which word is used if its meaning is unclear in the context, or if, as in this case, the context casts doubt on the meaning of a perfectly clear word. The problem is one of punctuation, not terminology.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

It appears that "membership" can also be confused with citizenship, so it should become "status" instead:

With respect, it does not matter which word is used if its meaning is unclear in the context, or if, as in this case, the context casts doubt on the meaning of a perfectly clear word. The problem is one of punctuation, not terminology.

Fixed to read:

DEFINES:
• “Nationality” as a status of a person belonging to a nation or sovereign state, where such status grants the state's jurisdiction over the person and grants the person the protection of the state;
• “Statelessness” as having no nationality of any nation or sovereign state;

Okay, Okay, honoured Prince Rhodri of Segontium, Master of the Red Hounds, etc, etc., I am aware of the commas now and I have dealt with it. I may as well add a "Disambiguates" clause between nationality and citizenship.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Current revision as of 29 october 2009:

Reduction of Statelessness
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

OBSERVING that a person may become stateless for many reasons such as: birth in a territory where no nations claim sovereignty over it, deprivation of nationality due to treason against a state, or membership of a group which is denied such status in the country on whose territory they are born;

CONCERNED that statelessness may cause many problems to both member states and those left stateless, in respect of of civil rights, immigration and automatic right of return, and criminal deportation;

SEEKING to resolve the above issues, be it resolved that the World Assembly:

DEFINES:
• “Nationality” as a status of a person belonging to a nation or sovereign state, where such status grants the state's jurisdiction over the person and grants the person the protection of the state;
• “Statelessness” as having no nationality of any nation or sovereign state;

DECLARES that:
• Every person has the right to a nationality and the right to change their nationality;
• A child born to non-stateless parents shall automatically inherit the nationality of their mother;
• A stateless birth on a transport vessel in a territory which no nations claim sovereignty on shall amount to a birth in the territory of the member state that gave its flag to that transport vessel;

DEFINES FURTHER, “renunciation of nationality” as when a person wishes to cease being a national of said country;

MANDATES that member states’ legislation regarding the renunciation of nationality shall be conditional upon a person’s acquisition or possession of another nationality;

PROHIBITS member states from depriving any of their citizens of their nationality, so as to render them stateless, for any reason other than: acquirement by misrepresentation or fraud, or treason against the member state;

SPECIFIES that any treaty regarding the transfer of territory (between member states or to a successor member state) must have provisions to prevent statelessness, with respect given to the preceding articles.

---

I have provisionally left out the bits concerning marriage, stateless birth on vessel currently, subject to revisions. these are areas that are easily subject to complications.

Ms. Sarah Harper,

Chief Ambassador for the Mind of Charlotte Ryberg, to the World Assembly

[Grays Harbor]

While the improvements have rendered this less objectionable, we are still forced to ponder what the overall purpose of this truly is? We are still of the opinion that matters of citizenship are best left to the individual nations and are therefore outside the purview of the WA. The WA should not be dictating to the nations who may and may not be citizens of their own nation. Should the WA be concerned about the plight of the stateless, then we recommend the WA create its own state for the purpose of issueing passports and other documents of nationality. You could declare the back-up auditorium over in Building C, rarely used anyhow, to be WAland or somesuch. Or the WA could just issue their own extra-territorial documents.

[Gobbannium]

DEFINES:
• “Nationality” as a status of a person belonging to a nation or sovereign state, where such status grants the state's jurisdiction over the person and grants the person the protection of the state;

The additional wording disambiguates the definition as neatly as a semicolon would have. We are now happy that the definition is meaningful, and thank the respected ambassador for remedying the previous deficiency.

• A child born to non-stateless parents shall automatically inherit the nationality of their mother;

Is it intentional that this declares the child of a stateless mother to be stateless regardless of the nationality (or lack thereof) of the father?

MANDATES that member states’ legislation regarding the renunciation of nationality shall be conditional upon a person’s acquisition or possession of another nationality;

So a person is not permitted to make themselves stateless?

PROHIBITS member states from depriving any of their citizens of their nationality, so as to render them stateless, for any reason other than: acquirement by misrepresentation or fraud, or treason against the member state;

We presume the respected ambassador intended this to apply to acquisition of nationality by misrepresentation or fraud, but as written it also applies to the fraudulant acquisition of (say) potatoes.

This clause also provides a mechanism for defeating the previous prohibition making oneself stateless; one fraudulently acquires nationality in a second nation, renounces ones original nationality, and promptly shops oneself for fraud. With a sufficiently co-operative second nation -- and we can well imagine some seeing this as a business opportunity -- no penalties need be involved.

We must echo the sentiments of the representative of Grays Harbour. While we can see that this legislation could be useful, we are struggling to see it as more than Mild in strength.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

While the improvements have rendered this less objectionable, we are still forced to ponder what the overall purpose of this truly is? We are still of the opinion that matters of citizenship are best left to the individual nations and are therefore outside the purview of the WA. The WA should not be dictating to the nations who may and may not be citizens of their own nation. Should the WA be concerned about the plight of the stateless, then we recommend the WA create its own state for the purpose of issueing passports and other documents of nationality. You could declare the back-up auditorium over in Building C, rarely used anyhow, to be WAland or somesuch. Or the WA could just issue their own extra-territorial documents.

Honoured ambassador, what about those that can't make it to the back-up auditorium over in Building C? This draft is about the right to nationality and not citizenship: between these two terms there is a core difference: political rights do not normally get granted to those with just a nationality.

I know some sacrifices have to be made about immigration policies but it is the people I am worried about: the perception that stateless persons, no matter how innocent they are, lack loyalty to their country of residence... no place to call home... lack of ability to endow one's children with a nationality and a place to call home... Inability to get consular services when outside one's country of habitual residence... or what about: no nation being able to accept them. This is a vicious circle that has to be broken, honoured ambassador to Grays Harbor.

Is it intentional that this declares the child of a stateless mother to be stateless regardless of the nationality (or lack thereof) of the father?

I have fixed the OP, section 1.

So a person is not permitted to make themselves stateless?

It is impossible to prevent statelessness totally, but this mandate is for the sake of the person's security and safety.

We presume the respected ambassador intended this to apply to acquisition of nationality by misrepresentation or fraud, but as written it also applies to the fraudulant acquisition of (say) potatoes.

This clause also provides a mechanism for defeating the previous prohibition making oneself stateless; one fraudulently acquires nationality in a second nation, renounces ones original nationality, and promptly shops oneself for fraud. With a sufficiently co-operative second nation -- and we can well imagine some seeing this as a business opportunity -- no penalties need be involved.

Fixed the potatoes issue in the OP. However, it may be considered that the clause may be revised to ensure that the said person has to have another nationality as well.

I am also considering adding the following:

2. MANDATES that (subject to the provisions on article 4) member states shall grant nationality to all persons, otherwise stateless:
• Who is born in their territory, and that the grant of nationality may be by virtue of birth or upon application by or on behalf of the person born in their territory;
• Who is legally prevented from assuming the nationality held by their parent(s) at the time of the birth;
• Who is not born in their territory, but the parent(s) possesses that member state’s nationality;

3. PROVIDES for member states to require that the grant of nationality may be on condition that:
• The applicant has proof of habitual residence in their territory not exceeding five years before application or ten years in total without application;
• The applicant has no convictions of treason against the state or has not been sentenced to penal servitude for five years or more;
• The applicant has always been stateless;

Check the OP often for revisions.

[Gobbannium]

Is it intentional that this declares the child of a stateless mother to be stateless regardless of the nationality (or lack thereof) of the father?

I have fixed the OP, section 1.

Regrettably the fix has introduced a further inconsistency. It causes the child to inherit the singular nationality of the parents, which is indeterminate when the parents have differing nationalities.

It is further worth considering if this clause is truly meaningful in the light of article 3. That allows states to insist on five years of residence (or "ten years in total without application", a phrase we find mystifying in context), something which no newborn can reasonably lay claim to.

So a person is not permitted to make themselves stateless?

It is impossible to prevent statelessness totally, but this mandate is for the sake of the person's security and safety.

But, for the avoidance of any possibility of doubt, it is the intention of this document to forbid any individual to choose to be stateless?

We presume the respected ambassador intended this to apply to acquisition of nationality by misrepresentation or fraud, but as written it also applies to the fraudulant acquisition of (say) potatoes.

Fixed the potatoes issue in the OP.

We note that Ms Harper is having her usual issues with regards to lists and clarity. Particularly given the way that the issues of fraud and treason are run together, this clause rather strongly implies that an individual must fulfill all of the conditions before a state may strip him of nationality. At best one could argue that a person must have another nationality as well as being fraudulent or treasonous. Given previous comments, we would ask for clarification as to whether so hobbling national governments is the intention?

I am also considering adding the following:

2. MANDATES that (subject to the provisions on article 4) member states shall grant nationality to all persons, otherwise stateless:

We note that article 4 is currently crossed out. We further note that article 3 also provides exceptions to article 2. This combination of explicit and implicit will tend to maximise confusion, and we cannot recommend it.

We also fear that the collection of "conditional absolutes" here is disappearing into a quagmire of legalistic complexity that will keep lawyers employed for many years to come.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

But, for the avoidance of any possibility of doubt, it is the intention of this document to forbid any individual to choose to be stateless?

That may be a bit I am missing, honoured ambassador, but the consequences of being such outweighs the benefits.

[Tanaara]

"I still disapprove of this measure, for it seeks to force a nation to grant unto someone something that they have not earned - nationality, citizenship - to me what you are seeking is one and the same, despite your efforts to obscure the sameness."

"I do not see that the WA has the right to dictate this to memeber nations, it is a infringment beyond that which is allowable." The UnDelegate was adamant. He would have nothing kind to say about the ambassador from Charlotte Ryberg, or this proposal.

[Glen-Rhodes]

The current revision of this proposal is more unclear and disagreeable than the first, to my great dismay.

What exactly are you trying to achieve here, Ms. Harper? More to the point, what are you trying to achieve here that can't be done with proper emigration and immigration resolutions? I do not know why you are attempting to cover everything in one proposal, but I can assure you that it is neither wise nor feasible. You are already writing an emigration proposal, which would cover most of the aims of the "reduction of statelessness" and was, at my last reading, headed in an agreeable direction.

If this proposal must go on, I heed Your Excellency to consider my advice. Do not attempt to write nationality procurement or inheritance laws. They are largely the product of national tradition; the proposal is still mandating jus soli and jus sanguinis, by the way. I am not at all convinced that the World Assembly should be extending its reach into any kind of universal nationality right. I cannot support such a broad-reaching, abstract proposal of that kind. I can support a more practical goal, which would resemble sections 4-7 of this proposal.

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

[Sapient Worms]

DECLARES that:
• A child born to non-stateless parents shall automatically inherit the nationality of their mother;

Ahem! If yeh can tell me mudder' from me fadder apart -- than yeh shouldn't be a politician, yeh should be fricken' biologist.

Just remember, there is nuoo difference, eh? *chuckles*

[Charlotte Ryberg]

What exactly are you trying to achieve here, Ms. Harper? More to the point, what are you trying to achieve here that can't be done with proper emigration and immigration resolutions? I do not know why you are attempting to cover everything in one proposal, but I can assure you that it is neither wise nor feasible. You are already writing an emigration proposal, which would cover most of the aims of the "reduction of statelessness" and was, at my last reading, headed in an agreeable direction.

I admit defeat, honoured ambassador Dr. Castro, on principle that there has been more pressure that nationality procurement or inheritance laws should be a national product, let alone there hasn't been any attention paid to my other draft. Even if section 4 to 7 remained, I think this may still constitute as part of the future emigration laws.

I am sorry for making those mistakes so suddenly (well, that's how drafting works), let me make it up to you: may we suggest having what's left of this draft merged to the Emigration Convention draft?


Ms. Sarah Harper,

Chief Ambassador for the Mind of Charlotte Ryberg, to the World Assembly

[Gobbannium]

But, for the avoidance of any possibility of doubt, it is the intention of this document to forbid any individual to choose to be stateless?

That may be a bit I am missing, honoured ambassador, but the consequences of being such outweighs the benefits.

A simple yes or no answer will suffice, ambassador. Is it the intent of this proposal to forbid that choice?

[Charlotte Ryberg]

But, for the avoidance of any possibility of doubt, it is the intention of this document to forbid any individual to choose to be stateless?

That may be a bit I am missing, honoured ambassador, but the consequences of being such outweighs the benefits.

A simple yes or no answer will suffice, ambassador. Is it the intent of this proposal to forbid that choice?

In this case, it could have been yes.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I am sorry for making those mistakes so suddenly (well, that's how drafting works), let me make it up to you: may we suggest having what's left of this draft merged to the Emigration Convention draft?

I think that would be a great idea, even if emigration and nationality procurement/inheritance aren't all that related. It would be more appropriate for it to appear in an immigration resolution, but Emigration Convention has already been debated and refined.

Though, there is no need to apologize. Your Excellency hasn't made any mistakes; we are just at odds on the merits of this proposal.

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I am sorry for making those mistakes so suddenly (well, that's how drafting works), let me make it up to you: may we suggest having what's left of this draft merged to the Emigration Convention draft?

I think that would be a great idea, even if emigration and nationality procurement/inheritance aren't all that related. It would be more appropriate for it to appear in an immigration resolution, but Emigration Convention has already been debated and refined.

Though, there is no need to apologize. Your Excellency hasn't made any mistakes; we are just at odds on the merits of this proposal.

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

Honoured ambassador, the Emigration Convention also had to be updated due to the passing of the Habeas Corpus resolution so therefore there has been some major changes since your last post over there, Dr Castro. You may want to check the revised version before we begin the process of merging sections 5-7 and the related definitions over there.

Ms. Sarah Harper,

Chief Ambassador for the Mind of Charlotte Ryberg, to the World Assembly

[Gobbannium]

But, for the avoidance of any possibility of doubt, it is the intention of this document to forbid any individual to choose to be stateless?

That may be a bit I am missing, honoured ambassador, but the consequences of being such outweighs the benefits.

A simple yes or no answer will suffice, ambassador. Is it the intent of this proposal to forbid that choice?

In this case, it could have been yes.

We thank the ambassador for her lack of answer. We have now asked this question three times, and can therefore only conclude that her continued equivocation is a demonstration of intent to deceive.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

But, for the avoidance of any possibility of doubt, it is the intention of this document to forbid any individual to choose to be stateless?

That may be a bit I am missing, honoured ambassador, but the consequences of being such outweighs the benefits.

A simple yes or no answer will suffice, ambassador. Is it the intent of this proposal to forbid that choice?

In this case, it could have been yes.

We thank the ambassador for her lack of answer. We have now asked this question three times, and can therefore only conclude that her continued equivocation is a demonstration of intent to deceive.

Honoured ambassador, the planned draft forbids any individual to choose to be stateless.

[Enn]

But, for the avoidance of any possibility of doubt, it is the intention of this document to forbid any individual to choose to be stateless?

That may be a bit I am missing, honoured ambassador, but the consequences of being such outweighs the benefits.

A simple yes or no answer will suffice, ambassador. Is it the intent of this proposal to forbid that choice?

In this case, it could have been yes.

We thank the ambassador for her lack of answer. We have now asked this question three times, and can therefore only conclude that her continued equivocation is a demonstration of intent to deceive.

Honoured ambassador, the planned draft forbids any individual to choose to be stateless.

OOC: So... how is this going to affect nations without states? That is, groups such as the Romany, Palestinians, the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, or (within NS) the Kawaiian clans?

[The Magic Spirit]

This draft is trying to solve an issue not all member states have covered in their law. Being stateless obviously poses serious problems to the citizen in question and The Magic Spirit applauds the effort that has gone into this effort.

Some points: If a person is born on a vessel they supposedly get the nationality of whatever flag it travels under. A good idea if there's no alternative, but some nations might prefer to give the birthling the nationality of the parents instead. Also, some nations might prefer to give people a double nationality. For example: If someone was born of a Rutanias vehicle travelling from Rutanias to the The Magic Spirit, the birthling in question would get the nationality of both states. A clause about multiple nationalities would be a good idea.

To the state that considered nationality a privilege to earn at age 21: Technically, children cannot be citizens of your state. How did you solve this in the local legislation, and how are their human rights protected?

[Tsukasa-chan]

Query: Does an individual's nationality grant them rights to live in that nation? I understand that nationality does not grant political rights (eg. voting), but what about other rights? Specifically social services.

Many thanks for any response.

Rin 4
International Ambassador
The Incorporated States of Tsukasa-chan
“Mochi goes whee!”

RFI submitted by Matter//Land Management metagroup