[DRAFT] Welfare of Wartime Orphans

[Separatist Peoples]

-snip-
"My home nation is not a member of the World Assembly.""

Then I do believe your input on this resolution's effects is moot. Thank you for your time.

"What the smart lady said."

[Elyreia]

"What the smart lady said."

Quite the flatterer, Ambassador. Do let me know if your government is interested in any SVTOL fighter-bombers, my cousins run the manufactury.

Regarding the draft, we will need more time to deliberate in the lenton before determining a stance or any objections or concerns. They're currently busy reforming the government or somesuch. We'll get back to you, but at this time no opposition from the Elyreian delegation.

[Separatist Peoples]

"What the smart lady said."

Quite the flatterer, Ambassador. Do let me know if your government is interested in any SVTOL fighter-bombers, my cousins run the manufactury.

Regarding the draft, we will need more time to deliberate in the lenton before determining a stance or any objections or concerns. They're currently busy reforming the government or somesuch. We'll get back to you, but at this time no opposition from the Elyreian delegation.

"Isn't flattery if it's true, ambassador. You agree with me, so it must be true.

"I'll hold off on submission until my other proposal is well enough away at vote that I can spare the attention."

[Separatist Peoples]

Bump

[Separatist Peoples]

"Then why have the clause requiring us to isolate children to a separate part of the house?" asks Inan. "If there are no pedophiles, then there is no risk."

"I must concur with Ambassador Gayan. If we can safely assume that all caretakers involved are properly examined for any characteristics or histories that would introduce danger to the children they are to take care of, then there is no value in mandating separate quarters for caretakers and children."

"It seems that I missed this line of questioning when the orcish ambassador decided to shout over the debate. Child abusers are, regrettably, very skilled at evading detection. Ensuring that caretakers sleep separately from their charges is my attempt at placing a hurdle between such abusers and naked abuse, pun unintended. I believe there is also a developmental value to children having their own space in which to feel safe and secure separate from adults.

"I don't expect this to prevent all abuse, but I hope that it cuts down on at least some opportunity for abuse. Even if it just ensures child abusers must work harder to cover their tracks, I feel that it is valuable."

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: This is slightly over 5000 characters, at 5018 according to Word.)

[Maowi]

2. Member states will ensure wherever possible that an adult of similar cultural or ethnic tradition continue the education of the child subject to these provisions until the child is either reunited with their kin or placed permanently in the care of a legal guardian. Placements with legal guardians pursuant to this clause will immediately confer upon the child all the domestic rights and protections given to children placed with legal guardians in the member state’s jurisdiction.

OOC: You're missing an article.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Both issues should be addressed.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Bump

[Honeydewistania]

OOC: Bump

One year bump

I support this, looks good

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Bump

One year bump

I support this, looks good

OOC: Despite my high proposal count, I am an infamously slow drafter. I may have passed the resolution with the longest drafting time in WA history...Alas, my writing is something I value about myself, so I am often insecure about proposals to the detriment of actually playing the game!

I appreciate the feedback.

[Kenmoria]

“I can see no flaws with the current draft, so it has my full support.”

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: With little more feedback, I intend to submit this as well. Trying to clear out my backlog of mostly finished resolutions to make way for less polished ones.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: With little more feedback, I intend to submit this as well. Trying to clear out my backlog of mostly finished resolutions to make way for less polished ones.

Ooc: since IBP passed, this is next up. Last call.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: With little more feedback, I intend to submit this as well. Trying to clear out my backlog of mostly finished resolutions to make way for less polished ones.

Ooc: since IBP passed, this is next up. Last call.

Ok, this is the last call, since events conspired to distract. I hope to submit this when my Real World homebrew is packed up into the fermenter.

[Imperium Anglorum]

With the following draft as what I'm looking at.

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley. I would condense the two sentences in section 1 into a single sentence directly talking about what member nations ought to provide, rather than introducing separate requirements about how orphans may not be left to their own resources. I also see that member nations have responsibilities for orphans which are created by conflicts between member nations and non-member nations. What are your views on the entrance of children to a member nation's jurisdiction? At times – drawing mostly from classical history – I would imagine it might be difficult tell who are orphans requiring assistance and who are unlawful combatants.

There are a few other areas where the prose might be updated or condensed without any significant loss of amenity. As to section 8, I would use 'or' instead of 'and': a practical purpose of refusal might be the fact that there is an on-going conflict in the waters separating one nation from another. Returning to the prose, I would condense sections 10 and 11; also reduce capitalisation of subsections 12(a)–(d). Beyond that, I'll take another look at the proposal some time soon.

Welfare of Wartime Orphans
Social Justice | Mild

---

Lamenting that the cruelties of war are often unavoidable, despite the best efforts of this august body;

Anguishing over the shattering of families during war, even where nations take utmost precautions;

Asserting that the jurisdictional uncertainty of conflict areas combined with the extreme risk to children during and following periods of conflict justify additional distinction within extant policies; and

Opining that the World Assembly must think of the children, trite turn of phrase notwithstanding;

The World Assembly enacts the following:

1. Member states must take necessary measures to ensure that children under the age of majority who are orphaned or separated from their families during an armed conflict to which the member state is party are not left to their own resources. Thus, member states must provide for the maintenance, health, sustenance, shelter, education, and eventual reunification of any child so affected who falls into their jurisdiction.
   
   
2. Member states will ensure wherever possible that an adult of similar cultural or ethnic tradition continue the education of the child subject to these provisions until the child is either reunited with their kin or placed permanently in the care of a legal guardian. Placements with legal guardians pursuant to this clause will immediately confer upon the child all the domestic rights and protections given to children placed with legal guardians in the member state’s jurisdiction.
   
   
3. Member states will ensure that children not yet placed with a permanent guardian are given adequate, livable quarters separate from those of adults.
   
   
4. Member states will endeavor to record the identity, place of origin, medically relevant information, discernible family information, and current location of any child subject to these provisions, to facilitate reunification with their kin.
   
   
5. Member states may not modify or destroy the records of any child subject to these provisions except to update with new information or to correct clerical errors. Notwithstanding the above, member states may destroy records of children subject to these provisions:
   
   
   1. Upon reaching the age of majority, the child gives explicit permission, in writing, to do so; or
      
      
   2. Twenty years following the death of the child.
6. Member states will consider what is in the best interests of the child for all decisions regarding health, education, and care.
   
   
7. Member states will hold the custodial rights of the child’s natural parents as superior to those of the legal guardian, unless the natural parents’ rights were legally terminated for reasons unconnected to the armed conflict that caused the initial separation.
   
   
8. Member states may, if it is in the child's best interest, transfer stewardship to the child's nation of origin when that nation's government is capable of meeting the obligations contained within this resolution. However, in no case may member states refuse to transfer stewardship to the child's nation of origin unless doing so is manifestly counter to the child's best interests and there is an objectively compelling and practical purpose for that refusal.
   
   
9. Member states will attempt to reunify any children subject to these provisions with their kin in the location their kin currently reside or, as circumstances require, in neutral territory.
   
   
10. Member states will create and adequately fund a national trust, with independent trustees, tasked with disbursing funds for the care and maintenance of any children subject to these provisions.
    
    
11. Member states may allow charitable organizations to contribute to the aforementioned trust.
    
    
12. Member states may delegate the maintenance and care of children subject to these provisions to nongovernmental organizations only if those organizations:
    
    
    1. Are equipped, staffed, and funded adequately to care and maintain those children to the extent of the authority delegated;
       
       
    2. Are lawfully able to engage in the delegated activity;
       
       
    3. Are charitable in nature, insofar as no members of the organization gain an equitable interest in the organization or derive pecuniary benefit from the organization’s efforts beyond reasonable compensation; and
       
       
    4. Do not indoctrinate children with any belief inconsistent with a proper education otherwise provided by the member state.
13. All member states will cooperate with any World Assembly entity involved in the care and reunification of children subject to these provisions, and will cooperate with other member states to reunify those children.
    
    
14. Member states must interpret the language of this resolution liberally to effectuate the policy goals of promoting the maintenance, health, sustenance, shelter, education, and eventual reunification of children covered by Clause 1.
    
    
15. Nothing in this resolution alters or contradicts the rights of orphans and separated children entirely within a member state’s territorial jurisdiction.

OOC: I am aware of Rights of the Orphaned Child. I maintain, as with most of my drafts regarding conflict, that the question of jurisdiction over conflict zones is muddy, and any resolutions addressing them fall under the exception to the Duplication rule.

[Separatist Peoples]

With the following draft as what I'm looking at.

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley. I would condense the two sentences in section 1 into a single sentence directly talking about what member nations ought to provide, rather than introducing separate requirements about how orphans may not be left to their own resources. I also see that member nations have responsibilities for orphans which are created by conflicts between member nations and non-member nations. What are your views on the entrance of children to a member nation's jurisdiction? At times – drawing mostly from classical history – I would imagine it might be difficult tell who are orphans requiring assistance and who are unlawful combatants.

"I have found that combining the sentences leads to a convoluted structure, and feel that the inclusion of an clarifying policy statement is useful. However, I am not opposed to restructuring that clause. Do you have any specific suggestions?

"I have remained silent on the 'import' of orphans because I did not want to regulate it directly. If a nation wishes to remove the orphan entirely from the war zone, so much the better for the child, but they are still governed by these provisions.

"As for the question of combatants...it is disappointing that there would be any such confusion, but I trust member states to make an adequate distinction where necessary."

There are a few other areas where the prose might be updated or condensed without any significant loss of amenity. As to section 8, I would use 'or' instead of 'and': a practical purpose of refusal might be the fact that there is an on-going conflict in the waters separating one nation from another.

"I will definitely consider this, ambassador. I would like to consider before committing to a change."

Returning to the prose, I would condense sections 10 and 11; also reduce capitalisation of subsections 12(a)–(d). Beyond that, I'll take another look at the proposal some time soon.

"I can agree to this, ambassador."

[Separatist Peoples]

There are a few other areas where the prose might be updated or condensed without any significant loss of amenity. As to section 8, I would use 'or' instead of 'and': a practical purpose of refusal might be the fact that there is an on-going conflict in the waters separating one nation from another.

"On retrospect, I must respectfully decline. The child's best interests should be considered as equal to the compelling practical purpose for the purpose of the analysis. Otherwise, member states may consider their own compelling purposes to override what is best for the child. Given the concerns regarding a CPP analysis in extant law, I am extremely hesitant to allow member states to treat orphans as casualties to policy."

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Any further comments on this?

[Old Hope]

There are a few other areas where the prose might be updated or condensed without any significant loss of amenity. As to section 8, I would use 'or' instead of 'and': a practical purpose of refusal might be the fact that there is an on-going conflict in the waters separating one nation from another.

"On retrospect, I must respectfully decline. The child's best interests should be considered as equal to the compelling practical purpose for the purpose of the analysis. Otherwise, member states may consider their own compelling purposes to override what is best for the child. Given the concerns regarding a CPP analysis in extant law, I am extremely hesitant to allow member states to treat orphans as casualties to policy."

Some sacrifices must be made, ambassador. It would not be reasonable to give back the child to a despotic non-member nation that would torture and kill the child on arrival, nor would it be reasonable to expect a member state to comply when doing so would endanger national security. Your approach is one size fits it all, ambassador.

[Separatist Peoples]

"On retrospect, I must respectfully decline. The child's best interests should be considered as equal to the compelling practical purpose for the purpose of the analysis. Otherwise, member states may consider their own compelling purposes to override what is best for the child. Given the concerns regarding a CPP analysis in extant law, I am extremely hesitant to allow member states to treat orphans as casualties to policy."

Some sacrifices must be made, ambassador. It would not be reasonable to give back the child to a despotic non-member nation that would torture and kill the child on arrival, nor would it be reasonable to expect a member state to comply when doing so would endanger national security. Your approach is one size fits it all, ambassador.

"I don't belive you've read the proposal or understand what the 'best interests of the child' standard is, ambassador. Morover I am disgusted, if unsurprised, that you would consider an orphan's life an expendable sacrifice for state policy goals. In fact, I find myself morbidly curious to see if you can name a single reasonable scenario where national security is invoked to prevent return of an orphan without violating the "best interests of the child" standard."

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: I’ve counted this at 4989 characters, and given that NS sometimes counts characters oddly, it might be worth checking to see if this exceeds the limit.)

[Separatist Peoples]

(OOC: I’ve counted this at 4989 characters, and given that NS sometimes counts characters oddly, it might be worth checking to see if this exceeds the limit.)

Ooc: thank you! I knew I was up there. I may be able to cut out some junk to get a good buffer.

[Imperium Anglorum]

NS counts every character submitted to the submission box ( list tags and bold tags included).

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: bump