NationStates

Your definitions are circular. In (1) it's necessary to have established where the normal residence is in order to know that an abduction has taken place, but then in (2) the definition of the normal residence refers to the abduction which is defined in (1). (3b) has a similar issue.

Uan aa Boa wrote:Your definitions are circular. In (1) it's necessary to have established where the normal residence is in order to know that an abduction has taken place, but then in (2) the definition of the normal residence refers to the abduction which is defined in (1). (3b) has a similar issue.

Thank you for catching that. I will edit accordingly.

Aurakar: I will answer you at length later. I am on my way out the door, but I, at a quick glance, agree with you about the wording of clause 6. It ought to say "imminent" or "overwhelmingly likely" instead of "immediate" to make sure it is interpreted the way I intend, I think. I disagree with you about the argument regarding "or" and I will try to get Kenmoria or another grammarian to weigh in. Assuming you are right, do you have a suggestion on how to word it properly?

For the "penis mutilation" thing, the resolution requires neutrality in regards to cultural practices, and thus the parent abducting the child to prevent circumcision would be within the ambit of the resolution. Although even if it did not, permit male circumcision likely prevents a court from declaring circumcision to be a "harm" much less a "severe" one. If you object, you would have my support on a repeal of the resolution and a replacement to define it as genital mutilation, but that is neither here nor there.

Desmosthenes and Burke wrote:*snip*

OOC: Forget genitalia specifically, replace it with any other body modification that one parent agrees to and the other doesn't. Also, "imminent" is as bad as "immediate".

“What is the strength of this proposal?”

Opposed. We will not surrender any citizen to a foreign government because said government says that said citizen was “kidnapped”.

Kenmoria wrote:“What is the strength of this proposal?”

As of the moment, I am leaning towards significant.

I had originally thought mild, as it was effectively a statute to resolve questions of jurisdiction as opposed to merits. However, as it now criminalizes the behaviour at issue, I feel that is an intrusion sufficient to push it up a level. I maintain that, assuming a reasonable level of compliance with other resolutions, international child abduction, as I have defined it, should be rare enough to make "strong" inappropriate.

Greetings your draft proposal is good, but it could lead to a lot of cases within the WA Countries.

Internation Child Abduction has a lot of meaning. It can be "The Stolen Generation", "Paedophile who Kidnaps the Child","Estranged Husband/Wife takes their child, to another country, and was not heard of again" etc etc. Your proposal, has loopholes, it can be used for all the wrong/stupid reasons, and not the right ones that it was originally put through for.

Take, for instance, a Citizen can accuse a school of kidnapping their child, when they had already agreed that their child can go to a holiday camp, in another country. In order to avoid paying the fees. Or in a court case, where a Parent has won custody to take the child from the Principality to live and work in another country, and the Mother/Father disputes it in court.

As I said your draft proposal is good. But it won't receive my vote. Please take another look at your draft proposal.

-The Principality

"Clause 3d is vague currently, what is meant by 'a place'? It seems rather unspecific."

Desmosthenes and Bruke wrote:I disagree with you about the argument regarding "or" and I will try to get Kenmoria or another grammarian to weigh in. Assuming you are right, do you have a suggestion on how to word it properly?

(OOC: I believe the current wording of the clause is ambiguos with regards to Arakaur's interpretation, and could be interpreted either way. To resolve this, I suggest the wording: "permitting the removal or retention, whichever is in dispute,")