[DRAFT] Repeal "Convention on Execution"

by **Alpha Gamma Kappa** » Fri Jan 01, 2016 10:21 pm

Repeal "Convention on Execution"
by Alpha Gamma Kappa

Third Draft

Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #112: Convention on Execution (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: COMMENDING "Convention on Execution" for its goal of preventing the unjust use of capital punishment; BUT

BEMOANING that said resolution fails to achieve said objective; AND

OBSERVING that said resolution does not provide a definition for the word "children", which is used in §3c; AND

SEEING that said lack of a definition renders said clause meaningless and unenforceable; AND

NOTICING that §6 merely encourages, but does not require, World Assembly member states to refrain from applying the death penalty for trivial offenses; AND

REGRETTING that some World Assembly member states may still execute their citizens for committing minor infractions in spite of said clause,

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY HEREBY REPEALS "Convention on Execution" and its provisions in the hopes of seeking a more effective resolution concerning capital punishment.

by **Wallenburg** » Fri Jan 01, 2016 10:32 pm

Alpha Gamma Kappa wrote:Lauding "Convention on Execution" for its goal of ensuring that capital punishment is not applied in an unjust fashion in World Assembly member states; but

Bemoaning that said resolution fails to achieve said objective,

The World Assembly

Observes that said resolution does not provide a definition for the word "children", which is used in 3c; and

Notices that Article 6 of said resolution merely encourages, but does not require, World Assembly member states to refrain from applying the death penalty for trivial offenses; and

Understands that some World Assembly member states may still execute their citizens for minor infractions in spite of said clause; and

Repeals "Convention on Execution" and its provisions in the hopes of seeking a more effective resolution concerning capital punishment.

You should move "The World Assembly" to the beginning of the last clause, with a "hereby" attached to it. Also, the resolution needs no definition for "children". That word is quite unambiguous.

by **Liagolas** » Sat Jan 02, 2016 12:45 am

"The Dominion is less certain about the supposed unambiguity of the term 'children,'" the Mouth of the Dominion to the World Assembly says with a shake of its head. "It is the view of the Dominion that 'individuals below the age of majority as defined for the individual's species' would be the more unambiguous term. To say 'children' is too vague. In purely human terms, is a twelve-year-old a child? Is a thirteen-year-old a child? Fifteen? Seventeen? 'Children' may imply this, but the Dominion feels that it is too ambiguous for a World Assembly Resolution."

by **Araraukar** » Sat Jan 02, 2016 6:42 am

Let's see what this little beast has eaten. *pulls out the Proposal Scalpel*

Alpha Gamma Kappa wrote:Argument: Lauding

OOC: I know it's just stylistic, but rather than bolding your statement words, why not capitalize them instead, if you feel they must stand out more? Or, you know, just not bother. People who bother to read this, can read it either way.

"Convention on Execution" for its goal of ensuring that capital punishment is not applied in an unjust fashion in World Assembly member states; but

Bemoaning that said resolution fails to achieve said objective,

I don't agree that it fails to provide protection from "unjust" executions, as it specifically requires executions to be lawful decisions determined in a trial, and that every trial must be a two-parter, where guilty and capital punishment are decided on separately. I know what emotional nuance you're going for with this statement, but it's factually incorrect.

Observes that said resolution does not provide a definition for the word "children", which is used in 3c; and

Nor does it define "trial" or "pregnant" or any of the other regular words, nor does it have to. Every nation is capable of saying what "child" means in their own legislation. Some other resolutions indeed use "under the age of majority", but as that age is left to the member nations to decide as well (OOC: because of roleplay, you can't set a hard age limit), it doesn't do much but look more Legalese.

Notices that Article 6 of said resolution merely encourages, but does not require, World Assembly member states to refrain from applying the death penalty for trivial offenses; and

Understands that some World Assembly member states may still execute their citizens for minor infractions in spite of said clause; and

What's trivial to you might not be trivial to someone else. Treason, murder, drug trafficking, terrorism, rape, spilling hazardous waste in a nature preserve... What is minor, what is not? For example, in Araraukar treason is considered trivial enough to merely warrant jailtime and ~~reprogramming~~ rehabilitation, the others I listed are punishable by death. (OOC: I know Araraukar isn't a WA nation, but if I go on my WA nation that list is going to look far weirder.) Nor should the WA attempt to tell nations what their values are in this matter.

OOC: An outright ban on capital punishment will never pass, no matter how much you'd want it to. So if that's your reason for trying to push this repeal, don't hold your breath.

Repeals "Convention on Execution" and its provisions in the hopes of seeking a more effective resolution concerning capital punishment.

If you had a solid replacement, then this would have more hope of ever passing, but I honestly doubt you can draft one good enough.

by **Alpha Gamma Kappa** » Sat Jan 02, 2016 1:47 pm

Araraukar wrote:I don't agree that it fails to provide protection from "unjust" executions, as it specifically requires executions to be lawful decisions determined in a trial, and that every trial must be a two-parter, where guilty and capital punishment are decided on separately. I know what emotional nuance you're going for with this statement, but it's factually incorrect.

"But the resolution does not prohibit execution for trivial offenses, and the use of capital punishment in such instances is hardly just, in our opinion.

Nor does it define "trial" or "pregnant" or any of the other regular words, nor does it have to. Every nation is capable of saying what "child" means in their own legislation. Some other resolutions indeed use "under the age of majority", but as that age is left to the member nations to decide as well, it doesn't do much but look more Legalese.

"What is a 'child'? Is an adolescent a child? Where is the line between 'child' and 'non-child' drawn?

What's trivial to you might not be trivial to someone else. Treason, murder, drug trafficking, terrorism, rape, spilling hazardous waste in a nature preserve... What is minor, what is not? For example, in Araraukar treason is considered trivial enough to merely warrant jailtime and rehabilitation, the others I listed are punishable by death. Nor should the WA attempt to tell nations what their values are in this matter.

OOC: An outright ban on capital punishment will never pass, no matter how much you'd want it to. So if that's your reason for trying to push this repeal, don't hold your breath.

OOC: Although ΑΓΚ does not use the death penalty, I do not intend to see a WA-wide ban on capital punishment.

by **Liagolas** » Sat Jan 02, 2016 1:51 pm

Araraukar wrote:snip

"On reflection, the Dominion must concur with the reasoning of Miss Leveret," the Mouth says with a nod. "The supposed 'ambiguity' is simply a recognition of both rational nation theory and the necessity of self-governance in a body as diverse as this World Assembly. The absence of a stringent definition of trivial offenses is especially important in the original resolution, as it enables states to maintain their own cultural sovereignty rather than have morals imposed on them by the World Assembly in this regard."

"What is a 'child'? Is an adolescent a child? Where is the line between 'child' and 'non-child' drawn?

"It is the responsibility of member nations to define the term," the Mouth says. "Unless you wish to question the ability of the Dominion and the abilities of other member nations to define such a straightforward term, we do not see the necessity of making the meaning more clear."

The Mouth shakes it head. "It is not the will of the Dominion to support this resolution. We understand the rationale behind this repeal, but we do not agree with it."

by **Alpha Gamma Kappa** » Sat Jan 02, 2016 2:02 pm

"Not only does §3c fail to define child, but it also does not delegate WA member states the right to define said term; therefore, it has no meaning, as far as the implementation of 'Convention of Execution' is concerned. Besides, even if member states were able to define the word 'child', there is no method of ensuring that they would not use an absurd definition in the pursuit of negative ends.

Anyway, we have altered the format of our draft."

by **Separatist Peoples** » Sat Jan 02, 2016 2:18 pm

Alpha Gamma Kappa wrote:"Not only does §3c fail to define child, but it also does not delegate WA member states the right to define said term; therefore, it has no meaning, as far as the implementation of 'Convention of Execution' is concerned. Besides, even if member states were able to define the word 'child', there is no method of ensuring that they would not use an absurd definition in the pursuit of negative ends.

Anyway, we have altered the format of our draft."

OOC: its not possible to deal with those nations that manipulate language so completely that they wont be in compliance. The term "child" is common enough that to add a definition would be silly. As Araraukar pointed out, the resolution doesn't define "trial", yet nobody is likely to interpret that as a "interpretive dance emulating the stages of life in a bean sprout". Defining child or replacing the term with "age of majority" still won't alter that issue, since those players are equally likely to interpret "age of majority" as "silly hat", or something equally ridiculous, or set the age of majority to three days. Its a weak argument to use, and you really ought avoid grasping at straws.

by **Liagolas** » Sat Jan 02, 2016 2:47 pm

OOC: Nations that are non-compliant (let's say, Liagolas (because if you've read the factbook you know there's no way it's compliant)) to the spirit of the law aren't going to become more compliant through a different resolution. They'll just find new ways to be non-compliant. Like defining the age of majority as conception. While the goals of this repeal are noble, the benefits to be gained IC may be very limited. And the issue with trying to define "trivial" has already been touched on as well.

You're right that the original resolution probably can't be called perfect, but I think that the nature of the World Assembly makes improvement on this specific subject exceptionally difficult, if not nigh impossible.

by **We Couldnt Agree On A Name** » Sat Jan 02, 2016 4:44 pm

SEEING that said lack of a definition makes

Makes? Makes what? I'm on the edge of my chair!

by **Alpha Gamma Kappa** » Sat Jan 02, 2016 5:15 pm

We Couldnt Agree On A Name wrote:
SEEING that said lack of a definition makes

Makes? Makes what? I'm on the edge of my chair!

"Apologies. We have corrected the error."

by **Imperium Anglorum** » Sat Jan 02, 2016 9:03 pm

Please get rid of all these capitalised 'and's.

by **Bears Armed** » Sun Jan 03, 2016 6:56 am

Alpha Gamma Kappa wrote:"Not only does §3c fail to define child, but it also does not delegate WA member states the right to define said term."

Member nations already possess that right, by default, as no GA legislation has taken it away from them.

by **Alpha Gamma Kappa** » Sun Jan 03, 2016 7:31 am

Bears Armed wrote:
Alpha Gamma Kappa wrote:"Not only does §3c fail to define child, but it also does not delegate WA member states the right to define said term."

Member nations already possess that right, by default, as no GA legislation has taken it away from them.

"Yes, but the resolution does not establish how the word 'child' is to be defined. §3c does not state 'a child as is defined within the relevant jurisdiction'; it simply mentions a 'child.' "

by **Tinfect** » Sun Jan 03, 2016 8:16 am

Alpha Gamma Kappa wrote:
Bears Armed wrote:Member nations already possess that right, by default, as no GA legislation has taken it away from them.

"Yes, but the resolution does not establish how the word 'child' is to be defined. §3c does not state 'a child as is defined within the relevant jurisdiction'; it simply mentions a 'child.' "

"Ambassador, I see no reason we need to define simple dictionary words."

by **Alpha Gamma Kappa** » Sun Jan 03, 2016 8:27 am

Tinfect wrote:
Alpha Gamma Kappa wrote:"Yes, but the resolution does not establish how the word 'child' is to be defined. §3c does not state 'a child as is defined within the relevant jurisdiction'; it simply mentions a 'child.' "

"Ambassador, I see no reason we need to define simple dictionary words."

"Because their definitions can be rather variable. Is a child anyone who is not an adult? Is an adolescent a child? As with many common words, the term 'child' has the potential to be ambiguous."

by **Tinfect** » Sun Jan 03, 2016 8:35 am

Alpha Gamma Kappa wrote:
Tinfect wrote:"Ambassador, I see no reason we need to define simple dictionary words."

"Because their definitions can be rather variable. Is a child anyone who is not an adult? Is an adolescent a child? As with many common words, the term 'child' has the potential to be ambiguous."

"The sole argument of this repeal, is based on a single clause, within Resolution 112, which states;"

3. Establishes exceptions to article 2 for the following persons:
c. Children and those with equivalent mental capacity;

"This clause, is quite clear in both its intent, and function. Any ambiguity, is the cause of a dishonest interpretation of the Resolution on your part. A child, is to be defined, however it is defined in your Nation. The term does not require any definition within the resolution."

by **Liagolas** » Sun Jan 03, 2016 8:37 am

"It is the conviction of the Dominion that any replacement for the word 'child' will not be any less ambiguous," the Mouth says firmly. "What do you propose we replace the term with?"

by **Tazzina** » Sun Jan 03, 2016 8:52 am

"The Government of Tazzina supports this bill."

by **Grays Harbor** » Sun Jan 03, 2016 1:18 pm

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for each and every resolution must become a damned dictionary for common words, and not having a definition for a common word is hardly grounds for repeal.

by **Imperium Anglorum** » Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:08 pm

Grays Harbor wrote:There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for each and every resolution must become a damned dictionary for common words, and not having a definition for a common word is hardly grounds for repeal.

Debris.

by **Sierra Lyricalia** » Sun Jan 03, 2016 5:02 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Grays Harbor wrote:There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for each and every resolution must become a damned dictionary for common words, and not having a definition for a common word is hardly grounds for repeal.

Debris.

by **Grays Harbor** » Sun Jan 03, 2016 5:23 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Grays Harbor wrote:There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for each and every resolution must become a damned dictionary for common words, and not having a definition for a common word is hardly grounds for repeal.

Debris.

Ya lost me, there, sparky.

by **Wallenburg** » Sun Jan 03, 2016 5:29 pm

Grays Harbor wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Debris.

Ya lost me, there, sparky.

http://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pas ... ?start=348

by **Separatist Peoples** » Sun Jan 03, 2016 6:55 pm

Wallenburg wrote:
Grays Harbor wrote:
Ya lost me, there, sparky.

http://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pas ... ?start=348

OOC: In the future, it might be best if we explained our positions in coherent, full sentences, like we learned to do in grade school.

[DRAFT] Repeal "Convention on Execution"

[DRAFT] Repeal "Convention on Execution"

Who is online