[SUSPENDED]International Adoption Act (Attempt 3)

[Hindopia]

REMOVED PENDING REWRITE

[New Buckner]

There is already something that has been recomened for this type of resolution:

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=42382

[Flibbleites]

There is already something that has been recomened for this type of resolution:

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=42382

Not all children put up for adoption are orphans.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[New Buckner]

Then perhaps the two should get together to combine very similar resolutions with only minor differences into one resolution that covers it all.

[The Civilized Republic]

(3) The receiving Member State shall ensure that the child meets all the minimum requirements for adoption, as determined by law in that country.

Your Excellencies,

In our country, adoption from same-sex parents is allowed. Could they adopt children of other countries?

[Hindopia]

(3) The receiving Member State shall ensure that the child meets all the minimum requirements for adoption, as determined by law in that country.

Your Excellencies,

In our country, adoption from same-sex parents is allowed. Could they adopt children of other countries?

If the country of origin does not object to it, then I cannot see why not.

[Hindopia]

There is already something that has been recomened for this type of resolution:

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=42382

Not all children put up for adoption are orphans.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Quite true, Ambassador Flibble. The proposal that New Buckner has referenced deals solely with the re-housing and adoption of orphans. This resolution seeks to set up an international set of regulations to regulate the practice of international adoption and reduce the instance of child trafficking, kidnapping etc.

Then perhaps the two should get together to combine very similar resolutions with only minor differences into one resolution that covers it all.

As stated in my above posting, I do not think that the resolutions are similar.

[Grays Harbor]

This resolution seeks to set up an international set of regulations to regulate the practice of international adoption and reduce the instance of child trafficking, kidnapping etc.

If that is one of the issues you are seeking to address, then you have a case of duplication as can be seen here in the highlighted portions:

GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION # 19

Child Protection Act
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Rutianas

Description: The World Assembly
Recognizing that children are abused and neglected, and
knowing that this abuse can be international in nature,
Seeking to outlaw this abuse
Defines a child as being under the age of consent or majority as defined by their home nation,
Defines the age of consent to be an age set by the state at which it deems a child able to assent or dissent to sex
Defines the age of majority, for the purpose of this resolution, as an age set by the state to signify a child's ability to be independent from their parents or guardians,
and
Declares;
1. For this resolution, physical abuse of a child under the age of majority is defined as any act which will tend to cause a child physical harm. Emotional abuse shall be defined as any act or behavior which has the result of psychologically harming a child

a) A child is entitled to be cared for, to be given sustenance, shelter, clothing, not to be deprived of education, to receive adequate medical care, and not to be physically or emotionally abused

b) Children have the right to impartial and private investigation of their claims of neglect, physical, emotional, or sexual abuse

2. For this resolution, sexual abuse of a child under the age of consent is defined as any act of sexual intimacy, feigned or real for the purposes of sexual gratification of the adult or others, between an adult and a child, including but not confined to any acts of genital stimulation of either the child or the adult in question

a) It is illegal to sexually abuse a child

b) It is illegal to relocate a child to another country for the purpose to cause sexual abuse to the child

c) Possessing, viewing, or circulating media, including, but not limited to, photographs and video, that involves sexual abuse of a child, shall be illegal

d) Exceptions may be made where member states have given permission for these kinds of materials to be used by law enforcement agencies or for research and scientific purposes, where possession of these materials is monitored by law enforcement authorities

e) Involvement in an act that inflicts sexual abuse is also illegal, however, if it can be proven that it was an unknowing involvement, leniency may be afforded due to the discretion of the nation’s judicial system

f) Exempting law enforcement authorities and court officials that may become involved in such acts to apprehend criminals, provided the agent/s are on duty and materials are relevant to the case

3. A child has the right to remain with his or her parents or guardians, provided that articles 1 and/or 2 have not been violated.

a) WA member states are urged to set up a system in which the public is notified of a kidnapped child

b) WA member states are urged to work together if a suspect and child are believed to have left the nation of the child’s residence

[Pulcifer]

This resolution seeks to set up an international set of regulations to regulate the practice of international adoption and reduce the instance of child trafficking, kidnapping etc.

If that is one of the issues you are seeking to address, then you have a case of duplication as can be seen here in the highlighted portions:

This isn't duplication in the slightest.

b) It is illegal to relocate a child to another country for the purpose to cause sexual abuse to the child

Relocation is not always adoption, there is just straight-forward kidnapping, or even the legal guardian taking their own child elsewhere to abuse them.

a) WA member states are urged to set up a system in which the public is notified of a kidnapped child

That's great, how does that related to streaminglining the adoption process in this resolution

[color=#FF0000]

b) WA member states are urged to work together if a suspect and child are believed to have left the nation of the child’s residence

Again, why highlight that? This is a bill about streaming adoption, which mean that there may be thematic overlap, but not heavy duplication of legislation.

[Grays Harbor]

Why do we require ligislation for adoption? These "Its for the ChilDren!!" proposals are getting out of hand, with one for each and every subgroup and eventuality.

Its duplication.

[Hindopia]

Sorry, I should have clarified my position further. I meant to say that this proposal seeks to set up an international set of regulations to reduce the instance of children being sold or trafficked as part of an adoption scheme. For example: A childless couple from nation A employ the services of a group that kidnap/buy a child (from his/her parents) from nation B and ensure that the child is adopted by those parents from nation A.

To have no international standards for such an important issue (yes, it is for the children) is dangerous.

[Hindopia]

Any other comments or suggestions? If not then it will be submitted tomorrow.

[Krioval]

How is this an issue of "moral decency"? Is it really restricting civil rights?

Aleksei-kan Volkov
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

[Hindopia]

Well, yes.

It is restricting the ability of child traffickers, kidnappers etc to continue their "business". It lays down a set of international regulations for the process of international adoption in order to try and reduce the instance of these acts occurring.

[Hindopia]

Submitted. Now just waiting for those approvals...

[The Masked Ambassador]

Maybe it's just me, but I see this much more as fitting in the Human Rights category than Moral Decency.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

The honoured ambassador from Charlotte Ryberg feels that such legislation would be best suited to Social Justice: Mild to Significant. There is a category for promoting child welfare and Social Justice is the category that fits the best. Moral Decency is more to do with restricting civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency such as the banning of incitement of racial hatred for example.

Yours etc,

[Hindopia]

Ok. The mods have taken it down, and have told me that it would fit better into the human rights category and that a swift rewrite is in order to make it fir properly. I'll have a new version soon.

EDIT: Any suggestions are still appreciated, I'm still not sure that it would fit into the human rights category. Buuut, if any of you feel that it would be better suited please post your suggestions per a rewrite.

[Mousebumples]

Ok. The mods have taken it down, and have told me that it would fit better into the human rights category and that a swift rewrite is in order to make it fir properly. I'll have a new version soon.

You may want to edit the subject line as the proposal is no longer in "submitted" status.

[Hindopia]

Already done

[Bears Armed]

OOC: When you say "the Mods have taken it down", could it be that one Mod unilaterally did so? Unless they actually said that that action was based on a consensus you're entitled to ask for a second opinion... and (although, of course, I'm not a Mod...) it still looks like 'Moral Decency' to me...

[Hindopia]

Heres the TG I was sent (from "NationStates Moderators"):

Re "International Adoption Act": good proposal, but there's a problem with the category. The "in the interests of moral decency" angle isn't supported. Try a swift rewrite to either take it into Human Rights (the opposite of MD) or (possibly through an addition to the prefatory clauses) specify the moral angle. (Don't think it would fly as Social Justice). It's a pain, but better to do it now than have someone challenge it when it's made quorum.

So they explicitly say that it does not fit in the moral decency category, but I don't see it fitting into any other besides that one.
EDIT: Bears, I just realized that it looks like that decision was made by a single mod. So this may leave it open for debate, yes?
EDIT: More thoroughly read the tg and it says "or (possibly through an addition to the prefatory clauses) specify the moral angle". So it could fit under moral decency, just have to expand it more.

[Krioval]

OOC: When you say "the Mods have taken it down", could it be that one Mod unilaterally did so? Unless they actually said that that action was based on a consensus you're entitled to ask for a second opinion... and (although, of course, I'm not a Mod...) it still looks like 'Moral Decency' to me...

OOC: Really? I see either Human Rights or Social Justice - I'm more in favor of the second, as this provides for the welfare of children, and could be argued to also reduce income inequality by reducing child exploitation. Human Rights could be argued as the proposal provides for better civil rights for adopted children, including the consent clause. Every time I see a Moral Decency proposal, it's usually about banning some mild or moderate vice, like pornography or swearing in public. The test for me is to imagine a proposal opposite the one I'm creating. If this is Moral Decency, then the opposite would be a Human Rights proposal that...lets people adopt children for abusive purposes?

If this were Social Justice, the opposite (Free Trade or Advancement of Industry) proposal would be something that eliminates regulations on adoption.

If this were Human Rights, the opposite (Moral Decency) would be a proposal that simply eliminates international adoption altogether.

[Hindopia]

OOC: Really? I see either Human Rights or Social Justice - I'm more in favor of the second, as this provides for the welfare of children, and could be argued to also reduce income inequality by reducing child exploitation. Human Rights could be argued as the proposal provides for better civil rights for adopted children, including the consent clause. Every time I see a Moral Decency proposal, it's usually about banning some mild or moderate vice, like pornography or swearing in public. The test for me is to imagine a proposal opposite the one I'm creating. If this is Moral Decency, then the opposite would be a Human Rights proposal that...lets people adopt children for abusive purposes?

If this were Social Justice, the opposite (Free Trade or Advancement of Industry) proposal would be something that eliminates regulations on adoption.

If this were Human Rights, the opposite (Moral Decency) would be a proposal that simply eliminates international adoption altogether.

In the older draft that was submitted a while back, there was a clause in there that ensured that the child was given citizenship of the country that they were moving in to. This would fly as "Human rights" yes? If so, then I'll put it (and maybe a few more) back in.

EDIT: These are the clauses that I am considering to put in to make it my synonymous with the 'Human Rights' category:

(8) Children adopted by way of international adoption have the right to knowledge of of his/her Country of Origin (CoO) and the cultures

contained therein.

(9) All records of international adoption must be preserved by Member States. Any child adopted by way of international adoption seeking

records pertaining to their adoption must be granted full access to said records.

(10) Anyone adopted by way of international adoption is granted the right to return to his/her CoO. The person must have reached the age of

majority as determined by law in both his/her CoO and nation of residence and have satisfied all minimum requirements for emigration as

determined by law in both nations.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: When you say "the Mods have taken it down", could it be that one Mod unilaterally did so? Unless they actually said that that action was based on a consensus you're entitled to ask for a second opinion... and (although, of course, I'm not a Mod...) it still looks like 'Moral Decency' to me...

OOC: Really? I see either Human Rights or Social Justice - I'm more in favor of the second, as this provides for the welfare of children, and could be argued to also reduce income inequality by reducing child exploitation. Human Rights could be argued as the proposal provides for better civil rights for adopted children, including the consent clause. Every time I see a Moral Decency proposal, it's usually about banning some mild or moderate vice, like pornography or swearing in public. The test for me is to imagine a proposal opposite the one I'm creating. If this is Moral Decency, then the opposite would be a Human Rights proposal that...lets people adopt children for abusive purposes?

If this were Social Justice, the opposite (Free Trade or Advancement of Industry) proposal would be something that eliminates regulations on adoption.

If this were Human Rights, the opposite (Moral Decency) would be a proposal that simply eliminates international adoption altogether.

The 'Moral Decency' category doesn't only cover 'decency' in the "vice" sense", it actually covers any imposition of laws that would restrict individual people's options in a non-'political' & non-'economic' context... Back in NS-UN days, for example, the much-debated 'Murder and Mansalughter Laws' proposals were placed in this catgeory. This proposal's current draft does create such laws, by setting minimum requirements that people must meet before they can adopt internationally, and its "opposite" would be a 'Human Rights' proposal that let people adopt internationally free of any government regulation whatsoever... or perhaps if it guaranteed all children who"need" adoption that they would be adopted, although that could possibly fit under 'Social Justice' instead...