NATION

PASSWORD

[DRAFT] Reduction of Statelessness

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Charlotte Ryberg
The Muse of the Westcountry
 
Posts: 15007
Founded: Mar 14, 2007
Civil Rights Lovefest

[DRAFT] Reduction of Statelessness

Postby Charlotte Ryberg » Mon Oct 26, 2009 12:32 pm

When the Right of Emigration was repealed, I was committed to drafting more meaningful and comprehensive replacement. However, the current version of the replacement has been unable to address a very serious issue that has come up into my mind in light of the theory of an emigration resolution:

Statelessness.

In response, I think it is time to draft a resolution that reduces statelessness and note that this draft focuses on nationality (not citizenship) and reducing statelessness, not asylum and refugees because that's already covered...

Reduction of Statelessness
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild to Significant

OBSERVING that a person may become stateless for reasons such as: birth on territory where no nations claim sovereignty over it, belonging to a group who are denied nationality in the country they were born in, or having nationality of a nation that ceased to exist without a successor nation(s);

CONCERNED that statelessness causes problems to both member states and stateless persons in respect of: automatic right of return, immigration, and criminal deportation;

SEEKING to reducing statelessness, by affording the right of nationality to all inhabitants in member states;

The World Assembly,

DEFINES for the purpose of this resolution:
• A “State” as a internationally recognised sovereign political entity;
• “Nationality” as the status of a person belonging to a particular state, where such status grants the automatic right of return to that state, that state's jurisdiction over that purpose and, upon attaining citizenship, grants the person civil and political rights of that state;
• “Statelessness” as having no nationality of any existing state;


ASSUMES that a person who is citizen of a state also has the nationality of the said state;

1. DECLARES that every person has the right to a nationality and the right to change their nationality;

2. DECLARES that for the purpose of assigning nationality:
• A foundling (abandoned child of unknown parentage) shall be presumed to have been born in the member state where it was found, unless there is evidence to prove the true country of the foundling's birth or the nationality of the foundling's parent(s) within three months of said finding;
• A stateless birth on a transport or space vessel on territory which no nations claim sovereignty to (air, sea or space) shall amount to a birth in the territory of the member state that gave its flag to that vessel;

3. PROVIDES for member states to determine their criteria for the acquirement of nationality and citizenship, provided that such criterion is in good faith compliance with the clauses and intents of section 1.

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

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

5. PROHIBITS member states from depriving their civilian(s) of their nationality, so as to render them stateless, for any reason other than:
• Acquirement of nationality or citizenship by misrepresentation or fraud;
• Treason against that member state, unless no other state is willing to take them in;

6. CALLS FOR treaties regarding the transfer of territory (between member states or to a successor member state) to include provisions to prevent statelessness, with respect given to this resolution.



Bloopers:
2. MANDATES that, subject to the provisions on article 3, member states shall grant nationality to 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,
• Legally prevented from assuming the nationality held by their parent(s) at the time of the birth,
• 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 upon application may be on condition that:
• The applicant has proof of habitual residence in their territory for up to: five years (before application), or ten years overall (without application);
• The applicant has not been: convicted of treason against the state, or sentenced to penal servitude for five years or more;
• The applicant has always been stateless;

4. MANDATES that if a law entails loss of nationality by:
• Marriage/union, divorce, or adoption, or
• A spouse or person under age of majority by virtue of the loss of nationality by the other spouse or a parent,
Such loss must be conditional on the affected person acquiring another nationality.

Wait a minute, what has marriage got to do with this draft?

OBSERVING that a person may become stateless for reasons such as: birth on territory where no nations claim sovereignty over it, belonging to a group which is denied nationality in the country they were born in, or having nationality of a country that ceased to exist without any successor state;

CONCERNED that statelessness causes many problems to both member states and stateless persons in respect of: civil rights, the automatic right of return, immigration, and criminal deportation;

SEEKING to resolve such issues by reducing statelessness, by affording the right of nationality to all inhabitants in member states;

The World Assembly,

RESOLVES everything that is wrong in relation to the issue of statelessness, the right of nationality and anything that causes the issue of statelessness. The end.

Ms Harper: You wish!


Ms. Sarah Harper,

Chief Ambassador for the Mind of Charlotte Ryberg, to the World Assembly
Last edited by Charlotte Ryberg on Wed Jan 13, 2010 1:49 pm, edited 50 times in total.

User avatar
Grays Harbor
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18574
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Grays Harbor » Mon Oct 26, 2009 12:42 pm

A stateless birth on a transport vessel shall amount to a birth in the territory of the member state that gave its flag to that transport vessel;


We were under the impression that this provision was already part of maritime law, that vessals are the sovereign territory of the flagged nation.
Everything you know about me is wrong. Or a rumor. Something like that.

Not Ta'veren

User avatar
Borinata
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 172
Founded: Aug 13, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Borinata » Mon Oct 26, 2009 12:49 pm

Miss Harper,

The Borinata delegation will support this resolution as it stands. We appreciate your effort to draft this resolution and welcome the support it will bring to the nation-less of the world.
Support Humanity, Send Justin Bieber to North Korea

____________________________________________________________________
The Unified States of the Free Republic of Borinata
___________________________
Borinata Embassy Program
Borinata is ranked 1st in the region and 2,539th in the world for Largest Timber Woodchipping Industry.

Borinata is ranked 1st in the region and 1,534th in the world for Fattest Citizens.

Associations:
The League of Republics
Capitalist International

User avatar
Charlotte Ryberg
The Muse of the Westcountry
 
Posts: 15007
Founded: Mar 14, 2007
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Charlotte Ryberg » Mon Oct 26, 2009 1:07 pm

Grays Harbor wrote:
A stateless birth on a transport vessel shall amount to a birth in the territory of the member state that gave its flag to that transport vessel;


We were under the impression that this provision was already part of maritime law, that vessals are the sovereign territory of the flagged nation.

Corrected article 6 to read:

6. DECLARES that:
• A child born to a non-stateless parent shall automatically inherit the nationality of their parent;
• A stateless birth on a transport vessel in a territory, in 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;

User avatar
Glen-Rhodes
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9027
Founded: Jun 25, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Glen-Rhodes » Mon Oct 26, 2009 1:22 pm

I'm very uncomfortable with this proposal. Namely, I do not think it's appropriate for the World Assembly to be dictating that nations must grant citizenship jus soli and jus sanguinis. The Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes does not grant citizenship jus soli. To be born a citizen, both parents must have ancestors who were citizens or nationals. Otherwise, you are not granted citizenship until age 21 (but still receive the benefits of citizenship that normal citizen under age 21 would receive), when you can either waive your right to vote or take a naturalization test. Jus soli goes against centuries of tradition.

The few aspects of this proposal that I do like are articles 8-10.

[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]Image[/float]

User avatar
Bahgum
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 65
Founded: Dec 18, 2003
Ex-Nation

Postby Bahgum » Mon Oct 26, 2009 1:52 pm

What we need is a big floating pub in international waters. Statelessness need never be a stigma again, but a big drifting party.

User avatar
Flibbleites
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 6569
Founded: Jan 02, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Flibbleites » Mon Oct 26, 2009 1:55 pm

Bahgum wrote:What we need is a big floating pub in international waters. Statelessness need never be a stigma again, but a big drifting party.

Surely there's no need to build such a thing when there's already a pub located in international territory..

Bob Flibble
WA Representative
Last edited by Flibbleites on Mon Oct 26, 2009 1:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Charlotte Ryberg
The Muse of the Westcountry
 
Posts: 15007
Founded: Mar 14, 2007
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Charlotte Ryberg » Mon Oct 26, 2009 2:05 pm

Glen-Rhodes wrote:I'm very uncomfortable with this proposal. Namely, I do not think it's appropriate for the World Assembly to be dictating that nations must grant citizenship jus soli and jus sanguinis. The Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes does not grant citizenship jus soli. To be born a citizen, both parents must have ancestors who were citizens or nationals. Otherwise, you are not granted citizenship until age 21 (but still receive the benefits of citizenship that normal citizen under age 21 would receive), when you can either waive your right to vote or take a naturalization test. Jus soli goes against centuries of tradition.

The few aspects of this proposal that I do like are articles 8-10.

[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]Image[/float]

Dr. Castro, the concern about statelessness is that many inhabitants of a member state need to have a place to call home, i.e. automatic right of return. If they were stateless then the concern would be that if that person was to be deported then where would the member state send them to if they had no home state.

However, I must agree that Ancestral history should be the factor for granting citizenship to otherwise stateless persons. Should it be considered that a time limit be imposed, such that an applicant may have up until at least 5 years after the age of majority to claim their citizenship by birth? (this may address the jus soli issue).

Ms. Sarah Harper,

Chief Ambassador for the Mind of Charlotte Ryberg, to the World Assembly
Last edited by Charlotte Ryberg on Mon Oct 26, 2009 2:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Glen-Rhodes
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9027
Founded: Jun 25, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Glen-Rhodes » Mon Oct 26, 2009 6:50 pm

Charlotte Ryberg wrote:However, I must agree that Ancestral history should be the factor for granting citizenship to otherwise stateless persons. Should it be considered that a time limit be imposed, such that an applicant may have up until at least 5 years after the age of majority to claim their citizenship by birth? (this may address the jus soli issue).

I don't think the proposal should be dictating birthright citizenship at all. I think it's unreasonable to mandate that nations grant special citizenship to stateless persons, too. If one wishes to be granted citizenship in Glen-Rhodes, then they can take the same naturalization test millions of other people must take.

I would keep article 7-9. However, non-binding clauses about granting special citizenship would make this proposal much more palatable for Glen-Rhodes to stand behind.

[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]Image[/float]

User avatar
Tanaara
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1179
Founded: Feb 27, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Tanaara » Mon Oct 26, 2009 9:38 pm

"I am profoundly against this, as will all the other Citizens of my nation so be. In Tanaara one earns Citizenship, it is not automatically granted just because one is born within the boundaries of Tanaara, or it's extra homeland territories, or even because one is born to a parent, or parents, who hold Citizenship.”

“Citizenship is privilege not a right, and it certainly sounds like an attempt at an ideological ban, against nations which require Citizenship be earned, or have other prerequisites than mere birth location.”

The UnDelegate shook his head in disgust “It is also deeply infringing upon a nations national sovreginity.

User avatar
Grays Harbor
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18574
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Grays Harbor » Mon Oct 26, 2009 9:51 pm

We do not like it whatsoever that the WA is trying to dictate to the nations what their citizenship laws are. I fear there is no way my government could ever support this.
Everything you know about me is wrong. Or a rumor. Something like that.

Not Ta'veren

User avatar
Quelesh
Minister
 
Posts: 2942
Founded: Jun 09, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Quelesh » Mon Oct 26, 2009 10:56 pm

1. DEFINES for this resolution:
• A “nationality” as a membership of a member state;
• A “stateless person” as a person who has no nationality;


Doesn't this define the citizens of every non-member state as stateless?
"I hate mankind, for I think myself one of the best of them, and I know how bad I am." - Samuel Johnson

"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." - George Bernard Shaw
Political Compass | Economic Left/Right: -7.75 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -10.00

User avatar
Charlotte Ryberg
The Muse of the Westcountry
 
Posts: 15007
Founded: Mar 14, 2007
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Charlotte Ryberg » Tue Oct 27, 2009 3:52 am

Quelesh wrote:
1. DEFINES for this resolution:
• A “nationality” as a membership of a member state;
• A “stateless person” as a person who has no nationality;


Doesn't this define the citizens of every non-member state as stateless?

Definition fixed.

Glen-Rhodes wrote:I would keep article 7-9. However, non-binding clauses about granting special citizenship would make this proposal much more palatable for Glen-Rhodes to stand behind.

I suppose it may be possible to demote sections 3 to 6 to nothing more than a RECOMMENDS clause, after an extensive rewrite. It may appear that the conditions of application may appear too rigid at the moment, honoured Dr Castro.

Ms. Sarah Harper,

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

User avatar
Gobbannium
Envoy
 
Posts: 332
Founded: Jan 10, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Gobbannium » Tue Oct 27, 2009 5:55 am

Charlotte Ryberg wrote:I suppose it may be possible to demote sections 3 to 6 to nothing more than a RECOMMENDS clause, after an extensive rewrite. It may appear that the conditions of application may appear too rigid at the moment, honoured Dr Castro.

The problem with so doing is that it renders the declaration of the "right" to a nationality an exceedingly toothless thing. That said, we find ourself in the incomfortable position of concurring with Dr Castro that the proposal as it stood vastly overreached itself.

Perhaps the problem lies with attempting to define nationality in an exceptionally brief phrase that is itself distinctly ambiguous? The nearest thing we can think of to the most basic level of nationality that may have common agreement is defining it by having a right to reside in the nation with no time limitations placed upon that right. We are far from convinced that it is worth the WA's effort to secure such a right universally.
Prince Rhodri of Segontium, Master of the Red Hounds, etc, etc.
Ambassador to the World Assembly of the Principalities of Gobbannium

User avatar
Bears Armed
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21479
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:02 am

Gobbannium wrote:Perhaps the problem lies with attempting to define nationality in an exceptionally brief phrase that is itself distinctly ambiguous? The nearest thing we can think of to the most basic level of nationality that may have common agreement is defining it by having a right to reside in the nation with no time limitations placed upon that right. We are far from convinced that it is worth the WA's effort to secure such a right universally.

"Wouldn't -- or 'shouldn't -- that most basic level also entitle its holders to the nation's protection, and probably to assistance from any 'consular' staff that it might have in relevant locations, if & when they ever travel elsewhere?"
(OOC: Consider for example at the trouble which the lack of any such protection, and of the right to have a passport issued by any nation, gave to 'stateless' refugees [such as many of the 'White' Russians...] during the period after the First World War...)
Last edited by Bears Armed on Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:06 am, edited 2 times in total.
The Confrederated Clans (and other Confrederated Bodys) of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Population = just under 20 million. Economy = only Thriving. Average Life expectancy = c.60 years. If the nation is classified as 'Anarchy' there still is a [strictly limited] national government... and those aren't "biker gangs", they're traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies', generally respected rather than feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152, 1474, 1521.

User avatar
Gobbannium
Envoy
 
Posts: 332
Founded: Jan 10, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Gobbannium » Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:17 am

Bears Armed wrote:
Gobbannium wrote:Perhaps the problem lies with attempting to define nationality in an exceptionally brief phrase that is itself distinctly ambiguous? The nearest thing we can think of to the most basic level of nationality that may have common agreement is defining it by having a right to reside in the nation with no time limitations placed upon that right. We are far from convinced that it is worth the WA's effort to secure such a right universally.

"Wouldn't -- or 'shouldn't -- that most basic level also entitle its holders to the nation's protection, and probably to assistance from any 'consular' staff that it might have in relevant locations, if & when they ever travel elsewhere?"

A very valid point, ambassador. We merely offered the fruits of a moment's pondering as to what nationality meant; clearly that pondering was very superficial, and any resolution addressing this issue would have to have a considerably tighter and clearer definition of such minimal rights and responsibilities. Since this is an area in which Ms Harper's legislative efforts have previously proven somewhat fluid, we await the next draft with interest.
Prince Rhodri of Segontium, Master of the Red Hounds, etc, etc.
Ambassador to the World Assembly of the Principalities of Gobbannium

User avatar
Borinata
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 172
Founded: Aug 13, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Borinata » Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:33 am

Glen-Rhodes wrote:I'm very uncomfortable with this proposal. Namely, I do not think it's appropriate for the World Assembly to be dictating that nations must grant citizenship jus soli and jus sanguinis. The Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes does not grant citizenship jus soli. To be born a citizen, both parents must have ancestors who were citizens or nationals. Otherwise, you are not granted citizenship until age 21 (but still receive the benefits of citizenship that normal citizen under age 21 would receive), when you can either waive your right to vote or take a naturalization test. Jus soli goes against centuries of tradition.

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro[/float]


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 governments.

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.
Support Humanity, Send Justin Bieber to North Korea

____________________________________________________________________
The Unified States of the Free Republic of Borinata
___________________________
Borinata Embassy Program
Borinata is ranked 1st in the region and 2,539th in the world for Largest Timber Woodchipping Industry.

Borinata is ranked 1st in the region and 1,534th in the world for Fattest Citizens.

Associations:
The League of Republics
Capitalist International

User avatar
Panzersharkcat
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 182
Founded: Apr 11, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Panzersharkcat » Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:49 am

Charlotte Ryberg wrote:7. MANDATES that member states’ legislation regarding the renunciation of nationality shall be conditional upon a person’s acquisition or possession of another nationality;


What if somebody wants to be stateless?
Economic Left/Right: 6.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.51

User avatar
Charlotte Ryberg
The Muse of the Westcountry
 
Posts: 15007
Founded: Mar 14, 2007
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Charlotte Ryberg » Tue Oct 27, 2009 8:18 am

I must admit that we have kind of made a mess with mixing nationality and citizenship, and therefore I'd like to take this opportunity to revise the definition of nationality. The following will cause a category change to "human rights".

I could try considering:

1. DEFINES for this resolution:
• “Nationality” as membership of a nation or sovereign state, granting the state's jurisdiction over a person, and granting that person the protection of that state, but not necessarily the granting of political rights to that person;
• A “stateless person” as a person who has no nationality of any state;
Last edited by Charlotte Ryberg on Tue Oct 27, 2009 8:27 am, edited 5 times in total.

User avatar
Gobbannium
Envoy
 
Posts: 332
Founded: Jan 10, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Gobbannium » Tue Oct 27, 2009 9:28 am

Charlotte Ryberg wrote:I must admit that we have kind of made a mess with mixing nationality and citizenship, and therefore I'd like to take this opportunity to revise the definition of nationality. The following will cause a category change to "human rights".

I could try considering:

1. DEFINES for this resolution:
• “Nationality” as membership of a nation or sovereign state, granting the state's jurisdiction over a person, and granting that person the protection of that state, but not necessarily the granting of political rights to that person;

We would suggest disambiguating this. Our guess is that everything after the first comma is intended to define what "membership of a nation of sovereign state" entails, but the punctuation does not entirely support this supposition.
Prince Rhodri of Segontium, Master of the Red Hounds, etc, etc.
Ambassador to the World Assembly of the Principalities of Gobbannium

User avatar
Charlotte Ryberg
The Muse of the Westcountry
 
Posts: 15007
Founded: Mar 14, 2007
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Charlotte Ryberg » Tue Oct 27, 2009 10:28 am

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

DEFINES for this resolution:
• “Nationality” as a status of belonging to a nation or sovereign state, where the state has jurisdiction over the person, and the person is guaranteed protection from the state. "Nationality" is not to be confused with "Citizenship", which also grants a person political rights in addition to the definition of "Nationality".

User avatar
Qumkent
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 442
Founded: Jun 03, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Qumkent » Tue Oct 27, 2009 10:54 am

When this statute talks of "disloyalty" to a nation does it mean Treason ?


Yours,
Mongkha, Khan of Kashgar, Ambassador to the World Assembly for the Autonomous Principality of Qumkent, a constituent state of the Confederated Sublime Khanate of Urgench

Learn more about the CSKU here - http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=Urgench

User avatar
Charlotte Ryberg
The Muse of the Westcountry
 
Posts: 15007
Founded: Mar 14, 2007
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Charlotte Ryberg » Tue Oct 27, 2009 11:16 am

Qumkent wrote:When this statute talks of "disloyalty" to a nation does it mean Treason ?


Yours,

It's hard to cater for all nations as in all WA resolutions but in this question, yes, as well as crimes against national security.

Yours etc,

User avatar
Qumkent
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 442
Founded: Jun 03, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Qumkent » Tue Oct 27, 2009 12:04 pm

Charlotte Ryberg wrote:
Qumkent wrote:When this statute talks of "disloyalty" to a nation does it mean Treason ?


Yours,

It's hard to cater for all nations as in all WA resolutions but in this question, yes, as well as crimes against national security.

Yours etc,



Crimes against national security are normally classed as a form of treason, wouldn't it be simpler to put the proper legal term Treason in place of the somewhat vague desrciption honoured Ambassador ?


Yours,
Mongkha, Khan of Kashgar, Ambassador to the World Assembly for the Autonomous Principality of Qumkent, a constituent state of the Confederated Sublime Khanate of Urgench

Learn more about the CSKU here - http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=Urgench

User avatar
Charlotte Ryberg
The Muse of the Westcountry
 
Posts: 15007
Founded: Mar 14, 2007
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Charlotte Ryberg » Tue Oct 27, 2009 12:29 pm

Qumkent wrote:
Charlotte Ryberg wrote:
Qumkent wrote:When this statute talks of "disloyalty" to a nation does it mean Treason ?


Yours,

It's hard to cater for all nations as in all WA resolutions but in this question, yes, as well as crimes against national security.

Yours etc,



Crimes against national security are normally classed as a form of treason, wouldn't it be simpler to put the proper legal term Treason in place of the somewhat vague desrciption honoured Ambassador ?


Yours,

Fixed, honoured ambassador.

Yours etc,

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Cromulent Peoples, FlyLands, The Overmind

Advertisement

Remove ads