[DRAFT] Ban on Child Sex Tourism

[The Dark Star Republic]

"Okay, we are satisfied with this explanation, though maybe add a clause to cover the sub-national, maybe along the lines of 'Does not apply to travel across sub-national borders' or something along those lines may be appropriate."

"Oh, I see - I misunderstood the latter part. But I'm not sure the clarification is needed, given the use of the word 'foreign' in Article 1."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

[Hakio]

Category: Moral Decency | Strength: Mild[/align]

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging that several Resolutions have acknowledged the importance of preventing child abuse, including the commercial sexual exploitation of children,

RecognisingRecognizing that some individuals may attempt to evade national prohibitions on child abuse by travelling to foreign destinations where prohibitions on such actions would not be enforced,

Believing that it should be the responsibility of international law to close this loophole so as to prevent the perpetuation of such abuses,

Does hereby:

1. Require all nations to enact travel bans on any persons within their jurisdiction where there exists probable cause to believe their travel to a foreign destination would be for the purpose of committing a sexual act with a child that would be illegal as child abuse under their own domestic laws;

What measures would be mandated upon nations to have this work? Should we enforce it ourselves? Also what exactly would be "probable cause"?

2. Affirm that all nations must enforce such bans according to the due process of law and with respect to all rights and freedoms guaranteed by international law;

3. Encourage all nations to cooperate in intelligence regarding locations where the commercial sexual exploitation of children is not restricted through adequate law enforcement.[/box]
"As our repeal effort has been stalled by the need to wait for a Secretariat review, and our other projects would also require Secretariat review, we're moving onto something different. This is an attempt to close a loophole, rather than establish an entire legal regime."

A definition of "sexual exploitation of children" may also be warranted.
Good first draft, nonetheless.

WA Ambassador
~Sia Hedishi

[Bananaistan]

We are unsure why it is the responsibility of one nation to protect the children of another nation when that other nation doesn't bother to do so themselves. We are also concerned that "probable cause" is not defined and as we have no such term in our legal system, we have no idea how this would impact us. Furthermore, we would much prefer mandatory sharing of information between WA members about suspect individuals which would allow each country to decide themselves whether or not to admit any such individual.

Nevertheless we will offer our intention to support this proposal should the required clause be tightened up with wording appropriate to everyone's legal system.

[Bananaistan]

RecognisingRecognizing

OOC: This drives me round the bend. There are more countries in the world than the US and you well know that this is not a spelling error.

[Hakio]

RecognisingRecognizing

OOC: This drives me round the bend. There are more countries in the world than the US and you well know that this is not a spelling error.

OOC: Is it spelled differently in other countries?

[The Dark Star Republic]

We are unsure why it is the responsibility of one nation to protect the children of another nation when that other nation doesn't bother to do so themselves.

"In fairness, some of the nations may, rather than 'not bothering', simply not be able to enforce their laws. We're thinking of post-conflict zones, for example, that lack the resources to police child protection laws.

We are also concerned that "probable cause" is not defined and as we have no such term in our legal system, we have no idea how this would impact us.

"As I mentioned before, 'probable cause' is the legal standard used in Right of Emigration, which is why it's consistent to use it here. Furthermore, it's a term used in several other WA resolutions, so I'm not sure you can claim not to understand it at all. That said, I am open to using a different term so as to avoid confusion, so long as (a) the proposal remains legal under Right of Emigration and (b) it's not simply swapping one ambiguity for another. The main point is to hold it to a standard that is consistent with the initiation of a formal criminal investigation (such as serving a warrant or detaining for questioning).

Furthermore, we would much prefer mandatory sharing of information between WA members about suspect individuals which would allow each country to decide themselves whether or not to admit any such individual.

"I'm certain more can be added to Article 3, though our priority is obviously on tightening the definitions in 1 and 2."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

[Imperializt Russia]

I suppose one would ask, "why not ban sex with minors in the WA?" (OOC: cultural and one-size-fits-all issues notwithstanding)

Banning "X morally repugnant activity" tourism is difficult to enforce no matter what it is.
I would struggle to understand how this would be an "international" issue (as in, I completely understand the appeal, but not the authority) rather than a national one - if states feel that they wish to hold their citizens to such a standard without, for example, refusing to issue or authorise visas to such states, then they can choose to do so as they will.

While such a thing conducted in a foreign country may be a crime in our own, if it is not a crime in the country in which it is committed, then it must be asked - what jurisdiction do we actually have?

[Imperializt Russia]

OOC: This drives me round the bend. There are more countries in the world than the US and you well know that this is not a spelling error.

OOC: Is it spelled differently in other countries?

Zs in words are primarily an Americanism. Like dropping the u out of words like "colour" or additional letters like the second l of "traveller".
In "English", as opposed to American English, the "correct" spelling is with an s.

Though, with the prevalence of the US English spellchecker, one has to question if it's right to call the correction incorrect.

[Potted Plants United]

OOC: This drives me round the bend. There are more countries in the world than the US and you well know that this is not a spelling error.

OOC: Is it spelled differently in other countries?

OOC: -ise and -ize are both correct. One is more prevalent in Britain and/or Australia, and the other in USA.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

We're not aware of any nation in which it is actually legal for an adult to have sex with a child. The technical academic, philosophical possibility of such a nation existing is far too abstract and ephemeral to justify an argument that since it's not a crime there ("there" being some hypothetical dystopian hell whose national sovereignty we must respect, or would if it actually existed), there's no grounds for detention or no-fly listing here ("here" being any given actual place). I'm not saying any ambassador has actually made this argument, but I've heard some sentiments in this chamber that seem to skirt it.

We're aware of plenty of countries, however, which are too cash-strapped, busy with civil breakdowns, or plain corrupt to prosecute or in some cases even arrest the adults in question. Putting aside the moral repugnance of this crime for a minute, it would be a courtesy and a sign of international goodwill for WA nations to keep would-be criminals from running rampant across borders with impunity. And now re-clothing ourselves once again in what in any other situation would be unforgivably obnoxious self-righteousness, the upstanding citizens of those countries will doubtless think it's about damn time we stop letting our sickest and most terrible people into their nations to get just about the worst possible entertainment.

SUPPORT.

[Hakio]

OOC: Is it spelled differently in other countries?

OOC: -ise and -ize are both correct. One is more prevalent in Britain and/or Australia, and the other in USA.

OOC: Our apologies. "Recognising" would be just as correct then.

[Wrapper]

We're not aware of any nation in which it is actually legal for an adult to have sex with a child.

A 19-year-old and a 16-year old who are not legally married, may be breaking the law in one nation but might not be in another.

[Timurid Empire]

The Empire will support this Resolution in it's current form.

[Potted Plants United]

We're not aware of any nation in which it is actually legal for an adult to have sex with a child.

OOC: Well there's quite a few where there isn't an "age of majority" in existence, or it's set to puberty. I can't remember which Eireann Fae uses, but they popped to mind as a possible one. Especially if you would set the age limit to 18.

[Normlpeople]

"This doesn't really affect us, since anyone found committing this offense of child sex tourism is tried in the same manner as if they had done so within our own borders. That said, its shocking this hasn't been covered yet, and will absolutely receive my support"

[Sierra Lyricalia]

We're not aware of any nation in which it is actually legal for an adult to have sex with a child.

A 19-year-old and a 16-year old who are not legally married, may be breaking the law in one nation but might not be in another.

...quite a few where there isn't an "age of majority" in existence, or it's set to puberty. I can't remember which Eireann Fae uses, but they popped to mind as a possible one. Especially if you would set the age limit to 18.

Forgive me, ambassadors; I should have been clear that I wasn't talking about some wishy-washy thing with red-blooded, enthusiastic teenagers on opposite sides of a somewhat arbitrary age of consent; but about the practice of creepy assholes putting themselves onto unarguably pre-pubescent, entirely non-sexual children. That's not something any country I'm aware of legalizes. Once this passes, the former is none of our concern unless and until legal complaints are filed; the latter will continue to be sought out and dealt with as laws and evidence dictate, simply with additional attention paid to traveling situations.

[Araraukar]

I wasn't talking about some wishy-washy thing with red-blooded, enthusiastic teenagers on opposite sides of a somewhat arbitrary age of consent

You weren't? Sounded like that to us. Also, how about 15-yo with a 55-yo? Would that make the "arbitrary age" suddenly matter a lot?

unarguably pre-pubescent, entirely non-sexual children.

Children are sexual beings same as adults. It's just their sexuality is expressed otherwise than that of the adults. And I repeat, there are countries around here that DO NOT HAVE an age of majority. At all. That means everyone's considered "adult" from the moment they're born (or possibly from the moment they can talk intelligibly).

OOC: I am NOT advocating adult-child sex in any manner or form, I'm just attacking a fallacious statement. Also, 15 is a usual age of consent for many RL countries.

[Rotwood]

"Okay, we are satisfied with this explanation, though maybe add a clause to cover the sub-national, maybe along the lines of 'Does not apply to travel across sub-national borders' or something along those lines may be appropriate."

"Oh, I see - I misunderstood the latter part. But I'm not sure the clarification is needed, given the use of the word 'foreign' in Article 1."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

(OOC: I do apologise, it was late at night after a long afternoon shift when I was writing.)

"Okay, our fears are somewhat alleviated. It does, however, appear we weren't the only ones with this problem."

[The Dark Star Republic]

"How prevalent countries with no concept of age of consent laws are is not necessarily the biggest issue. I would suspect - and admit to not having any kind of evidence to back this up - that far more prevalent are countries with at least a notional concept of age of consent laws, but with inefficient enforcement of those laws, whether through negligence, corruption, or catastrophic government failure. To put it another way: any time a proposal requiring some kind of government action is discussed here, Ambassador Bell and others make sure to plead the case of the anarchies, minarchies, and other such political arrangement. It seems only fair we take account of such systems when considering the regime of international law, too.

"Seeing as two separate people have raised the Romeo & Juliet exemption idea, and it's something we'd already considered, we are willing to entertain language on that point - but does anyone have any suggestions that wouldn't just defeat the entire purpose of the proposal? Thus far, my staff have come up with:

x. Permits nations to make reservations to these obligations so as to protect statutory rape laws that make account for young persons of close ages either side of the arbitrary division of consent;

"But I'm not wholly convinced, yet."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

[Separatist Peoples]

"How prevalent countries with no concept of age of consent laws are is not necessarily the biggest issue. I would suspect - and admit to not having any kind of evidence to back this up - that far more prevalent are countries with at least a notional concept of age of consent laws, but with inefficient enforcement of those laws, whether through negligence, corruption, or catastrophic government failure. To put it another way: any time a proposal requiring some kind of government action is discussed here, Ambassador Bell and others make sure to plead the case of the anarchies, minarchies, and other such political arrangement. It seems only fair we take account of such systems when considering the regime of international law, too.

"Seeing as two separate people have raised the Romeo & Juliet exemption idea, and it's something we'd already considered, we are willing to entertain language on that point - but does anyone have any suggestions that wouldn't just defeat the entire purpose of the proposal? Thus far, my staff have come up with:

x. Permits nations to make reservations to these obligations so as to protect statutory rape laws that make account for young persons of close ages either side of the arbitrary division of consent;

"But I'm not wholly convinced, yet."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

"Mentioned by name in a debate I'm not participating it. I'm not sure if that's a good sign, such as with Ambassador SouthWoods, or a bad one, as with Dr. Castro...

"Anyways, for what its worth, I don't think that exception needs to be made. Individuals relatively close in age traveling for a romantic meeting, while possibly illegal according to the laws of one's country of origin, is not a serious matter, and will likely not be considered abuse by any reasonable court. I doubt any but the worst kind of Javert-reborn officers and Puritan judges will have trouble separating lusty teenagers involved long-distance and pedophiles looking for a good time. The worst this causes is an embarrassing situation."

[Wrapper]

Forgive me, ambassadors; I should have been clear that I wasn't talking about some wishy-washy thing with red-blooded, enthusiastic teenagers on opposite sides of a somewhat arbitrary age of consent; but about the practice of creepy assholes putting themselves onto unarguably pre-pubescent, entirely non-sexual children.

Rest assured Ambassador -- and the DSR Ambassador too -- that we want the same thing. However, one must be careful with how this resolution can be interpreted. We don't want a perfectly sensible idea to become flawed legislation, which can later be misapplied to such, as you refer to them, "wishy-washy" cases.

[Araraukar]

So, I repeat for what seems like the fifteenth time (and I'm not the only one to have asked this): If the person travels from country A to country B and has sex in country B with a person who is, by country B's laws above the age of consent, but would by country A's laws to be under the age of consent, is that person going to be tried under country A's laws, though they committed no crime in country B?

And for clarity, make the age difference be significant.

OOC: Many US states have 18 as the age for sex, but many European nations have 16 or even 15. So a person having sex with a 15-yo in a country where that's the age of consent would be committing a crime if the US laws were applied instead.

[Sciongrad]

So, I repeat for what seems like the fifteenth time (and I'm not the only one to have asked this): If the person travels from country A to country B and has sex in country B with a person who is, by country B's laws above the age of consent, but would by country A's laws to be under the age of consent, is that person going to be tried under country A's laws, though they committed no crime in country B?

And for clarity, make the age difference be significant.

"I am not ambassador Fungschlammer, so forgive me if I'm incorrect, but the proposal prohibits the act of travelling, so I would imagine that country A - the country from which the individual originates - is the country responsible for prosecution, especially considering the fact that this will prohibit travel to non-member nations almost exclusively, who cannot be compelled to prosecute an individual by the World Assembly. One could further argue that the individual would be tried for circumventing the travel ban, and not necessarily the act of having sex with someone under the age of majority, because this proposal doesn't actually ban the latter.

Anyways, the ambassador from the Dark Star Republic can expect the full support of Sciongrad in their endeavor."

[Araraukar]

especially considering the fact that this will prohibit travel to non-member nations almost exclusively

...so it's in effect completely forbidding WA citizens from traveling to non-WA countries? I'm suddenly starting to like this proposal. Less tourism means less ecological damage, after all.

[Sciongrad]

especially considering the fact that this will prohibit travel to non-member nations almost exclusively

...so it's in effect completely forbidding WA citizens from traveling to non-WA countries? I'm suddenly starting to like this proposal. Less tourism means less ecological damage, after all.

"No, that isn't what I said at all. There is currently legislation that restricts sexual abuse of children in member nations, within reason (as certain nations may simply set their age of majority to zero *cough* Quelesh *cough* in an effort to circumvent GAR#222) but this does not apply to non-member nations. As such, this will effect non-member nations almost exclusively, by which I mean child sex tourism between member nations, which would likely still be affected, would not be affected as much as non-member nations. As such, it logically follows that the nation of origin is responsible for prosecution."