[DRAFT] Defense of Property

[Tarnidia]

(Here's what I already have as an idea for this proposal. Give me feedback)

RECOGNIZING that the right to property is a fundamental human right that should be protected.

BEMOANING the oftentimes lax freedoms to protect one's property as one sees fit within the framework of a liberal commitment to rights and freedoms.

RESOLVING to allow property owners to defend their property and codifying it into law with certain restrictions.

----------------------------------------------

1) Permission is given to a property owner to defend their property from intrusion in a manner proportional to the character of the intrusion. Intrusions are classified as follows

a) Trepassing. Merely being in another person's property illegally while not engaging in any other forms of illegal activity.

b) Burglary. Being in another person's property with the intention to steal said person's valuables held within the property concerned.

c) Violent assault. Being in another person's property with the intention to engage in a violent crime against the other person, including rape, assault or even murder.

2) Permitting property owners to take action on said intrusions using the following framework.

a) The property owner may call the police and request the interloper to be evicted from the property.

b) and c) May violently subdue the interloper using whatever force deemed necessary.

3) Police forces of member nations must adopt these laws into their framework and develop proper response mechanisms.

[Separatist Peoples]

"I'm concerned with how you plan on assessing subjective intent of trespassers, and why you dont distinguish between various kinds of property. Frankly, this does nothing in nations with nationalized or socialized real property. I'm more concerned with your lack of a Category."

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: I’ve put some IC feedback in this..)

RECOGNIZING that the right to property is a fundamental human right that should be protected. First of all, what is the category and strength of this proposal? They should be written down somewhere.

BEMOANING the oftentimes lax freedoms to protect one's property as one sees fit within the framework of a liberal commitment to rights and freedoms.

RESOLVING to allow property owners to defend their property and codifying it into law with certain restrictions.

----------------------------------------------These dashes aren’t needed.

1) Permission is given to a property owner to defend their property from intrusion in a manner proportional to the character of the intrusion. Intrusions are classified as follows

a) Trepassing. Merely being in another person's property illegally while not engaging in any other forms of illegal activity. What is meant by being in someone’s property illegally? A corrupt government could easily say it is only illegal to do so while wearing a large hat, and negate this section of the proposal. This definition is circular.

b) Burglary. Being in another person's property with the intention to steal said person's valuables held within the property concerned. Merely the intent? So if I were to break into someone’s house wanting to commit a burglary, but then didn’t, that would still count?

c) Violent assault. Being in another person's property with the intention to engage in a violent crime against the other person, including rape, assault or even murder. Once again, only the intent.

2) Permitting property owners to take action on said intrusions using the following framework.

a) The property owner may call the police and request the interloper to be evicted from the property.

b) and c) May violently subdue the interloper using whatever force deemed necessary. Why is this subclaudes b and c? Surely just one is enough?

3) Police forces of member nations must adopt these laws into their framework and develop proper response mechanisms.

This is quite a good topic for a first draft, as it isn’t really covered by any other resolutions, to my knowledge. However, there are a few issues that needed to be sorted out before submission, which should come weeks from now.

[Tarnidia]

"I'm concerned with how you plan on assessing subjective intent of trespassers, and why you dont distinguish between various kinds of property. Frankly, this does nothing in nations with nationalized or socialized real property. I'm more concerned with your lack of a Category."

It would be noted that the proposal could be changed to include socially owned property or property given to an individual, as in a house an individual is allowed to live in.

[Tarnidia]

(OOC: I’ve put some IC feedback in this..)

RECOGNIZING that the right to property is a fundamental human right that should be protected. First of all, what is the category and strength of this proposal? They should be written down somewhere.

BEMOANING the oftentimes lax freedoms to protect one's property as one sees fit within the framework of a liberal commitment to rights and freedoms.

RESOLVING to allow property owners to defend their property and codifying it into law with certain restrictions.

----------------------------------------------These dashes aren’t needed.

1) Permission is given to a property owner to defend their property from intrusion in a manner proportional to the character of the intrusion. Intrusions are classified as follows

a) Trepassing. Merely being in another person's property illegally while not engaging in any other forms of illegal activity. What is meant by being in someone’s property illegally? A corrupt government could easily say it is only illegal to do so while wearing a large hat, and negate this section of the proposal. This definition is circular.

b) Burglary. Being in another person's property with the intention to steal said person's valuables held within the property concerned. Merely the intent? So if I were to break into someone’s house wanting to commit a burglary, but then didn’t, that would still count?

c) Violent assault. Being in another person's property with the intention to engage in a violent crime against the other person, including rape, assault or even murder. Once again, only the intent.

2) Permitting property owners to take action on said intrusions using the following framework.

a) The property owner may call the police and request the interloper to be evicted from the property.

b) and c) May violently subdue the interloper using whatever force deemed necessary. Why is this subclaudes b and c? Surely just one is enough?

3) Police forces of member nations must adopt these laws into their framework and develop proper response mechanisms.

This is quite a good topic for a first draft, as it isn’t really covered by any other resolutions, to my knowledge. However, there are a few issues that needed to be sorted out before submission, which should come weeks from now.

What do you mean by proposal strength? Also, yes, merely the intent to burglarize is enough.

[Xmara]

“1a is rather ambiguous. What defines being on someone’s property illegally?”

[Xmara]

(OOC: I’ve put some IC feedback in this..)

What do you mean by proposal strength? Also, yes, merely the intent to burglarize is enough.

Mallorea and Riva explains it best here.

Correct me if I’m wrong GA Secretariat (or someone much more knowledgeable about GA than I am), but I believe your proposal would be Category: Human Rights and Strength: Mild. I really don’t know.

[Tarnidia]

What do you mean by proposal strength? Also, yes, merely the intent to burglarize is enough.

Mallorea and Riva explains it best here.

Correct me if I’m wrong GA Secretariat (or someone much more knowledgeable about GA than I am), but I believe your proposal would be Category: Human Rights and Strength: Mild. I really don’t know.

I'll add that come time to send it.

[East Gondwana]

"Before continuing any further, this proposal must define "property". Many nations have different categories of "property" too, such as Public, Private, and Personal, to distinguish between things like resources and economic assets as opposed to personal property and dwellings. And some nations as mentioned before have fully socialised all forms of property, whilst others have partially socialised property.

For example, does a private mining company have the same right to "defend" the land under which is buried the natural resources it has been granted the right to extract, as an individual does to defend their home? If so, that could undermine the entire economic systems of some nations in a way that we feel would be difficult to justify to the international community at large.

Some points to consider, and we wish you luck with refining this draft."

[Araraukar]

I'll add that come time to send it.

OOC: Add it now so that proper feedback can be given.