[DRAFT] Natural vs. Legal Personhood

[The Eternal Kawaii]

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

We wish to present for this chamber's consideration the following proposed resolution:

Natural vs. Legal Personhood

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: The Eternal Kawaii


THE WORLD ASSEMBLY,

UNDERSTANDING that there exists a distinction between the concepts of "natural personhood" and "legal personhood";

CONCERNED that this distinction could be obscured by nation-states' governments, to the detriment of their people's rights;

WISHING to establish a clear distinction in law to prevent this;

CONVINCED that the World Assembly should take the lead in codifying that distiction;

DEFINES for the purpose of this resolution:

• A "natural person" to be an actual, individual member of a national population recognized by the World Assembly as having all agencies associated with personhood;
  
• A "legal person" to be an abstract construct recognized by a nation-state as having some agencies associated with personhood.

DECREES:

• That in all World Assembly resolutions that refer to the rights, protections, obligations, and responsibilities associated with personhood, the term "person" or its equivalent shall be understood as referring exclusively to natural persons unless explicitly stated otherwise.
  
• That, unless otherwise legislated by the World Assembly, the right of nation-states to establish and regulate the status of legal persons within their territory shall be unabridged.

Apologia:

We've noticed that there's been a bit of wrangling within the chamber over human rights legislation and how it may or may not apply to collective groups vs. individuals. We propose to draw a sharp distinction between "the person" and "the group", to make sure that this chamber knows clearly what's being debated.

For the Secretariat: It might seem at first glance that this proposal is running afoul of either a House of Cards violation or a Blocker violation, since this resolution basically effects the way other WA resolutions are implemented. However, we think it should be legal; we've worded it such that we're not taking away any powers the WA enjoys, and left room for it to continue legislating on this issue if needed.

[Christian Democrats]

For the Secretariat: It might seem at first glance that this proposal is running afoul of either a House of Cards violation or a Blocker violation, since this resolution basically effects the way other WA resolutions are implemented. However, we think it should be legal; we've worded it such that we're not taking away any powers the WA enjoys, and left room for it to continue legislating on this issue if needed.

GenSec comments
Right now, it violates the Amendments Rule, the Blocker Rule, the Category Rule, and the Operative Clause Rule. As I interpret previous resolutions, the meaning of the word "person" depends on the context of its use.

Policy comments
This proposal is foolish. The people who oppose legal personhood don't understand it. Let me state the concept as simply as possible. When natural persons unite and form an association -- that is, when they exercise their freedom of association -- the association that they form becomes their agent and acquires the power to exercise the rights of its individual members. For example, three natural persons, all possessing freedom of speech, join together and form an association. That association, drawing on the rights of its members, also possesses freedom of speech. The concept is not crazy or oppressive. It extends and enables personal liberty.

[United Massachusetts]

For the Secretariat: It might seem at first glance that this proposal is running afoul of either a House of Cards violation or a Blocker violation, since this resolution basically effects the way other WA resolutions are implemented. However, we think it should be legal; we've worded it such that we're not taking away any powers the WA enjoys, and left room for it to continue legislating on this issue if needed.

Policy comments
This proposal is foolish. The people who oppose legal personhood don't understand it. Let me state the concept as simply as possible. When natural persons unite and form an association -- that is, when they exercise their freedom of association -- the association that they form becomes their agent and acquires the power to exercise the rights of its individual members. For example, three natural persons, all possessing freedom of speech, join together and form an association. That association, drawing on the rights of its members, also possesses freedom of speech. The concept is not crazy or oppressive. It extends and enables personal liberty.

Agreed wholeheartedly.

[The Eternal Kawaii]

For the Secretariat: It might seem at first glance that this proposal is running afoul of either a House of Cards violation or a Blocker violation, since this resolution basically effects the way other WA resolutions are implemented. However, we think it should be legal; we've worded it such that we're not taking away any powers the WA enjoys, and left room for it to continue legislating on this issue if needed.

GenSec comments
Right now, it violates the Amendments Rule, the Blocker Rule, the Category Rule, and the Operative Clause Rule. As I interpret previous resolutions, the meaning of the word "person" depends on the context of its use.

Policy comments
This proposal is foolish. The people who oppose legal personhood don't understand it. Let me state the concept as simply as possible. When natural persons unite and form an association -- that is, when they exercise their freedom of association -- the association that they form becomes their agent and acquires the power to exercise the rights of its individual members. For example, three natural persons, all possessing freedom of speech, join together and form an association. That association, drawing on the rights of its members, also possesses freedom of speech. The concept is not crazy or oppressive. It extends and enables personal liberty.

We are willing to work with the Secretariat and the nations here to make the wording of this proposal legal. In what ways does it violate the various Rules? As for interpreting the meaning of the word "person", as far as we know, previous resolutions don't make the distinction between natural and legal personhood. Correcting this is the whole point of our proposal.

As for the merits of the proposal, we respectfully but resolutely disagree with ambassador from Christian Democrats. The rights of legal persons do not proceed automatically from the rights of the natural persons who form them. For example, in democracies people have the right to vote, but many otherwise democratic national governments do not permit associations, unions or corporations to do so. This is a clear example of the rights of natural persons being different from those of legal persons.

[Imperium Anglorum]

This proposal is foolish. The people who oppose legal personhood don't understand it. Let me state the concept as simply as possible. When natural persons unite and form an association -- that is, when they exercise their freedom of association -- the association that they form becomes their agent and acquires the power to exercise the rights of its individual members. For example, three natural persons, all possessing freedom of speech, join together and form an association. That association, drawing on the rights of its members, also possesses freedom of speech. The concept is not crazy or oppressive. It extends and enables personal liberty.

I find it weird when CD and I are on the same side. However it is, this is also my general thoughts on the proposal. With the slight difference that I think that there are significant public policy arguments against, say, profiteering, which supersede some so-called right inherited by association.

[Christian Democrats]

We are willing to work with the Secretariat and the nations here to make the wording of this proposal legal. In what ways does it violate the various Rules? As for interpreting the meaning of the word "person", as far as we know, previous resolutions don't make the distinction between natural and legal personhood. Correcting this is the whole point of our proposal.

It violates the Blocker Rule and the Operative Clause Rule because it doesn't do anything substantive, it violates the Amendments Rule because it attempts to alter the meaning of previous resolutions, and it violates the Category Rule because it's anti-human rights. It attempts to narrow earlier human rights legislation by preventing associations from exercising those rights.

As for the merits of the proposal, we respectfully but resolutely disagree with ambassador from Christian Democrats. The rights of legal persons do not proceed automatically from the rights of the natural persons who form them. For example, in democracies people have the right to vote, but many otherwise democratic national governments do not permit associations, unions or corporations to do so. This is a clear example of the rights of natural persons being different from those of legal persons.

The right to vote presents a very serious principal–agent problem. It's also a right of a very different character from others. It isn't a universal right but a right reserved for the adult citizens of a certain kind of nation -- i.e., a democratic nation.

[Terra Novae Libero]

Policy comments
This proposal is foolish. The people who oppose legal personhood don't understand it. Let me state the concept as simply as possible. When natural persons unite and form an association -- that is, when they exercise their freedom of association -- the association that they form becomes their agent and acquires the power to exercise the rights of its individual members. For example, three natural persons, all possessing freedom of speech, join together and form an association. That association, drawing on the rights of its members, also possesses freedom of speech. The concept is not crazy or oppressive. It extends and enables personal liberty.

"Agreed wholeheartedly."