Page 1 of 5

[DRAFT] Welfare of Wartime Orphans

PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2018 2:55 pm
by Separatist Peoples
Welfare of Wartime Orphans
Social Justice | Mild



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

Anguished 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. Such children must be roomed separate from 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. Member states may allow charitable organizations to contribute to the aforementioned trust.

  11. 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.
  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2018 1:06 am
by Kenmoria
“This draft looks very good with regards to content, I cant see anything that requires alteration. Formatting-wise however, the draft looks rather blocky due to the lack of line breaks between any of the active clauses, could those be added in please.”

PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2018 3:26 am
by Araraukar
"Just one question right off the bat, does this only apply to the legal inhabitants of a member nation? Because I can foresee quite a few issues with relocations of children of a non-member nation the member nation is at war with. They would likely be called kidnappings regardless of intent, even given the bit about the parents having custodial rights of the child, and it's not a good idea to mandate such WA-wide. Well, at least for WA nations who fear further attacks from non-WA nations. Obviously the sanest option is to just not have wars, but the Grand Nation of Araraukar understands that not all nations are that advanced yet."

While Johan spoke, he was also typing in a text message to Mr. Bell, as there were some things he knew would compromise his continued good health if he said them out loud:
"This would easily let Araraukar clear our contested border zone of children, ours and theirs, and hold them ransom to gain control of the area permanently. Just so you know."

PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2018 7:13 am
by Separatist Peoples
Araraukar wrote:"Just one question right off the bat, does this only apply to the legal inhabitants of a member nation? Because I can foresee quite a few issues with relocations of children of a non-member nation the member nation is at war with. They would likely be called kidnappings regardless of intent, even given the bit about the parents having custodial rights of the child, and it's not a good idea to mandate such WA-wide. Well, at least for WA nations who fear further attacks from non-WA nations. Obviously the sanest option is to just not have wars, but the Grand Nation of Araraukar understands that not all nations are that advanced yet."

While Johan spoke, he was also typing in a text message to Mr. Bell, as there were some things he knew would compromise his continued good health if he said them out loud:
"This would easily let Araraukar clear our contested border zone of children, ours and theirs, and hold them ransom to gain control of the area permanently. Just so you know."


"I suspect that this interpretation would be illegal based on the second to last clause, which requires a liberal construction in keeping with the ultimate policy goal of reunification. This had occurred to me while drafting, and I endeavored to limit interpretations that allow this action."

PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 11:22 pm
by Kowani
Clause 5, Subclause 2 basically allows the government to erase all record of a genocide 20 years afterwards. (OOC: Do you want to be Turkey?)

PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 3:26 am
by Separatist Peoples
Kowani wrote:Clause 5, Subclause 2 basically allows the government to erase all record of a genocide 20 years afterwards. (OOC: Do you want to be Turkey?)

"What on earth makes you think purpetrstors of genocide wouldn't destroy records regardless the law, ambassador?"

PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 6:18 am
by Araraukar
Separatist Peoples wrote:"What on earth makes you think purpetrstors of genocide wouldn't destroy records regardless the law, ambassador?"

OOC: Lack of AutoCorrection? :P

PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 6:24 am
by Wrapper
Araraukar wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:"What on earth makes you think purpetrstors of genocide wouldn't destroy records regardless the law, ambassador?"

OOC: Lack of AutoCorrection? :P

OOC: I guess Bell's been hitting the methanol after hours again.

PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 6:32 am
by Aclion
Separatist Peoples wrote:
Kowani wrote:Clause 5, Subclause 2 basically allows the government to erase all record of a genocide 20 years afterwards. (OOC: Do you want to be Turkey?)

"What on earth makes you think purpetrstors of genocide wouldn't destroy records regardless the law, ambassador?"

"noncompliance notwithstanding it means that the WA will not be able to require the retention of those records for future prosecutions."

PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 7:29 am
by Separatist Peoples
Aclion wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:"What on earth makes you think purpetrstors of genocide wouldn't destroy records regardless the law, ambassador?"

"noncompliance notwithstanding it means that the WA will not be able to require the retention of those records for future prosecutions."

"Twenty years seems a reasonable time frame in which to bring legal action. Nations need not keep records forever, after all."

PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 7:50 am
by Aclion
Separatist Peoples wrote:
Aclion wrote:"noncompliance notwithstanding it means that the WA will not be able to require the retention of those records for future prosecutions."

"Twenty years seems a reasonable time frame in which to bring legal action. Nations need not keep records forever, after all."

"it might seems so, but it is not. Tracking down perpetrators and evidence can be extremely difficult, especially if a government has assisted them in covering their crimes or going into hiding. It can take decades even when every government with evidence feels like cooperating, and they often don't."
OOC: we're still prosecuting nazis for their involvement in the holocaust for example.

PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 7:54 am
by Bears Armed
Separatist Peoples wrote:
Aclion wrote:"noncompliance notwithstanding it means that the WA will not be able to require the retention of those records for future prosecutions."

"Twenty years seems a reasonable time frame in which to bring legal action. Nations need not keep records forever, after all."

"However, we do have a resolution saying that no time limit can be set for such prosecutions..."

Hwa Sue,
Legal Attaché,
Bears Armed Mission to the World Assembly
(and anthropomorphic male Giant Panda).

PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 10:45 am
by Araraukar
Bears Armed wrote:"However, we do have a resolution saying that no time limit can be set for such prosecutions..."

"No time limit for prosecution, yes, but nothing is said about keeping records forever just waiting for someone to bother to prosecute. However, I'd like to ask if the proposal at hand doesn't get in trouble with the Patient's Rights Act with clause 4? Especially in the absence of the children's legal guardians."

PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 2:45 pm
by Separatist Peoples
Araraukar wrote:
Bears Armed wrote:"However, we do have a resolution saying that no time limit can be set for such prosecutions..."

"No time limit for prosecution, yes, but nothing is said about keeping records forever just waiting for someone to bother to prosecute. However, I'd like to ask if the proposal at hand doesn't get in trouble with the Patient's Rights Act with clause 4? Especially in the absence of the children's legal guardians."

"I don't see how. Nothing says the records need to be distributed publicly. Merely that they need to be kept. Rationally, they would be accessed by those members of the government who need to organize or retrieve files, who care for the children as a legal guardian or legal guardian pro tem, or their medical providers. Legal guardianship comes with a legal instrument, generally a judicial order, which satisfies the requirements under the PRA."

PostPosted: Sat Dec 15, 2018 4:12 pm
by Separatist Peoples
OOC: Bump

PostPosted: Sat Dec 15, 2018 5:37 pm
by Old Hope
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 only destroy records of children subject to these provisions when:

upon reaching the age of majority, those children give their explicit permission, in writing, to do so,or

twenty years following the death of the child., or

to follow necessary medical safety measures for the general public such as destroying records that have been contaminated with a deadly disease


The colored changes are our suggestions.

PostPosted: Sat Dec 15, 2018 5:42 pm
by Separatist Peoples
Old Hope wrote:
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 only destroy records of children subject to these provisions when:

upon reaching the age of majority, those children give their explicit permission, in writing, to do so,or

twenty years following the death of the child., or

to follow necessary medical safety measures for the general public such as destroying records that have been contaminated with a deadly disease


The colored changes are our suggestions.

OOC: No.

PostPosted: Sat Dec 15, 2018 5:43 pm
by Old Hope
Separatist Peoples wrote:
Old Hope wrote:The colored changes are our suggestions.

OOC: No.

OOC: Why not?

PostPosted: Sat Dec 15, 2018 6:15 pm
by Separatist Peoples
Old Hope wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: No.

OOC: Why not?

OOC: If the records are infected, member states can duplicate them and destroy the infected version. That is not destruction of records under the plain meaning interpretation of the phrase, and there needn't be more hair splitting than already necessary.

PostPosted: Sat Dec 15, 2018 6:38 pm
by Old Hope
Separatist Peoples wrote:
Old Hope wrote:OOC: Why not?

OOC: If the records are infected, member states can duplicate them and destroy the infected version. That is not destruction of records under the plain meaning interpretation of the phrase, and there needn't be more hair splitting than already necessary.

OOC:Good reason.

PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:07 am
by Wallenburg
"Against. We hate orphans and love separating children from their families."

PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2018 4:00 am
by Old Hope
Wallenburg wrote:"Against. We hate orphans and love separating children from their families."

So it is a love for cruelity and irrational hate against children who have no living biological parents that drives your vote. This will not change our intended vote - for; nor will it change the vote of the majority.

PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2018 3:52 pm
by Essu Beti
Separatist Peoples wrote:Member states will ensure that children not yet under the care of a permanent guardian are given adequate, livable quarters separate from those of adults.


“I disagree with this part,” says Inan, the acting-ambassador while Iksana is away. “In Essu Beti, it is common for most or all of the family to sleep in the same room. This policy comes across as being isolating and as forming a barrier, both mental and physical, between war orphans and their foster families.”

PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2018 4:00 pm
by Separatist Peoples
Essu Beti wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:Member states will ensure that children not yet under the care of a permanent guardian are given adequate, livable quarters separate from those of adults.


“I disagree with this part,” says Inan, the acting-ambassador while Iksana is away. “In Essu Beti, it is common for most or all of the family to sleep in the same room. This policy comes across as being isolating and as forming a barrier, both mental and physical, between war orphans and their foster families.”

"That applies to minors not yet placed with legal guardians. Not foster families acting as legal guardians."

PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2019 9:26 am
by Separatist Peoples
"Last call."