NationStates

Well, a quick google search definitions confirms more-or-less what I thought the GA proposal said:

a writ requiring a person under arrest to be brought before a judge or into court, especially to secure the person's release unless lawful grounds are shown for their detention.

So, this protects people from being arrested without breaking the law, but it doesn't exactly protect people who are arrested for breaking a law that is impossible to not break.
I mean, it might to an extant, but... if a court is judging strictly off of legality, which hypothetically would be the definition of an "impartial judicial body",
then technically anyone can be detained for breaking an easily breakable law and be prosecuted.
Unless I'm reading into this wrong. Which, I hope I am, but if I'm not...

I don't know which proposal you're alluding to or what that external definition has to do with the WA, but here is the WA resolution on Habeas Corpus (passed after some of the most boring succession of repeal/replace/repeal/replace ever). It's not particularly good but it at least put an end to the ping-ponging that was driving everyone crazy.

What you seem to be suggesting is that a nation might, in bad faith, pass laws against trivial transgressions, so they had an excuse to lock up their citizens. Which seems to meet the condition of being "arbitrary". If you're just going to ignore that word, and setting aside why they'd do that and whether a state with that kind of mindset would be otherwise able to remain in compliance with other WA resolutions, it's not a "loophole", because it's not something Habeas Corpus is intended to protect against.

Fair points! Many thanks for clarifying that.

I've read GA#23, which prohibits (in addition to slavery, forced labor, and human trafficking) refouling refugees fleeing servitude and ends investment in businesses and nations which practice slavery. Would it count as duplication to write a resolution prohibiting member nations and the people and corporations doing business therein from engaging in the slave trade?

Barfleur wrote:I've read GA#23, which prohibits (in addition to slavery, forced labor, and human trafficking) refouling refugees fleeing servitude and ends investment in businesses and nations which practice slavery. Would it count as duplication to write a resolution prohibiting member nations and the people and corporations doing business therein from engaging in the slave trade?

If you just prohibit member nations, their people and their corporations from engaging in the slave trade then that would be duplication. You wouldn’t be adding any substantial new mandates to member states.

Barfleur wrote:I've read GA#23, which prohibits (in addition to slavery, forced labor, and human trafficking) refouling refugees fleeing servitude and ends investment in businesses and nations which practice slavery. Would it count as duplication to write a resolution prohibiting member nations and the people and corporations doing business therein from engaging in the slave trade?

The resolution was intended to prevent that already:

Goods produced, in whole or in part, through servitude shall be permanently embargoed, and all investment and material support to nations, legal entities and persons practicing servitude immediately ended, except as transition assistance or compensated manumission to free people from such conditions;

If you don't think it successfully does that, there might be scope for a proposal on the subject. (Not to pimp my proposal unduly, but because Restrictions on Child Labor doesn't do that I've been seeking to legislate thereon.)

In the long run a repeal and replace might be better, though.

Graintfjall wrote:

Barfleur wrote:I've read GA#23, which prohibits (in addition to slavery, forced labor, and human trafficking) refouling refugees fleeing servitude and ends investment in businesses and nations which practice slavery. Would it count as duplication to write a resolution prohibiting member nations and the people and corporations doing business therein from engaging in the slave trade?

The resolution was intended to prevent that already:

Goods produced, in whole or in part, through servitude shall be permanently embargoed, and all investment and material support to nations, legal entities and persons practicing servitude immediately ended, except as transition assistance or compensated manumission to free people from such conditions;

If you don't think it successfully does that, there might be scope for a proposal on the subject. (Not to pimp my proposal unduly, but because Restrictions on Child Labor doesn't do that I've been seeking to legislate thereon.)

In the long run a repeal and replace might be better, though.

Now way I'm going to repeal "Ban on Slavery and Trafficking". What that clause does is prohibit member nations from purchasing slave-made goods, or investing or supporting slavers. It does not prohibit transporting a person against their will to a nation that practices slavery. Unless, of course, I'm misreading, which could very well be the case because I'm tired and sick.

Barfleur wrote:Now way I'm going to repeal "Ban on Slavery and Trafficking".

Why not? All things must pass.

Barfleur wrote:What that clause does is prohibit member nations from purchasing slave-made goods, or investing or supporting slavers. It does not prohibit transporting a person against their will to a nation that practices slavery. Unless, of course, I'm misreading, which could very well be the case because I'm tired and sick.

No, that's covered by the non-refoulement clause in Article 7...oh, wait. I see what you mean now. That covers escaped slaves, but not someone who's never been enslaved before. Interesting!

I guess I'd argue providing people to be enslaved does constitute 'material support', but there might be room for something.

Graintfjall wrote:

Barfleur wrote:Now way I'm going to repeal "Ban on Slavery and Trafficking".

Why not? All things must pass.

Barfleur wrote:What that clause does is prohibit member nations from purchasing slave-made goods, or investing or supporting slavers. It does not prohibit transporting a person against their will to a nation that practices slavery. Unless, of course, I'm misreading, which could very well be the case because I'm tired and sick.

No, that's covered by the non-refoulement clause in Article 7...oh, wait. I see what you mean now. That covers escaped slaves, but not someone who's never been enslaved before. Interesting!

I guess I'd argue providing people to be enslaved does constitute 'material support', but there might be room for something.

TBH I have a bunch of proposals I've been thinking about, so I have no idea if I plan on going along with this one. Whenever I think of an idea for a GA proposal, I first check to make sure there is no duplication/contradiction with existing law, and then I spend a couple days thinking about it. If after that time the proposal still sounds like a good idea, then I might write it.

Since it seems nobody answered this...

Jutsa wrote:No legislation covering b though?

You mean, allowing people to keep on breathing and eating and sleeping, etc.? Aside from Minimum Standards of Living, Patients' Rights Act and Charter of Civil Rights, no, because the resolutions are written with the Reasonable Nation Theory in mind, and no reasonable nation would ever require a law to allow for such basic necessities to life, WA or national.

As for the freedom to move around and meet with people, as we've recently seen in RL, that's not always a right when there is a national or global emergency such as a pandemic to deal with, even in nations that in RL have high civil liberties and which comply with RL human rights declarations.

Are there any resolutions which cover the use of deep-fake technology on social media?

Riverpost wrote:Are there any resolutions which cover the use of deep-fake technology on social media?

There are none that directly cover that topic, and I can’t see any extant resolutions which would include it in their scope, so it looks like a prime opportunity for new legislation.

Hey I want to esytablsih a new council. Is that illegal. I would call it the economic council and people could request funding and loans. What do you guys think

Grey County wrote:Hey I want to esytablsih a new council. Is that illegal. I would call it the economic council and people could request funding and loans. What do you guys think

You can write a resolution establishing a committee within the WA/GA from which people can "request funding and loans" (we've had a fair few over the years), but you cannot write one establishing the Economic Council as a third branch of the WA separate from the GA and the Other Place.

Tinhampton wrote:

Grey County wrote:Hey I want to esytablsih a new council. Is that illegal. I would call it the economic council and people could request funding and loans. What do you guys think

You can write a resolution establishing a committee within the WA/GA from which people can "request funding and loans" (we've had a fair few over the years), but you cannot write one establishing the Economic Council as a third branch of the WA separate from the GA and the Other Place.

Oh ok

Can I make a proposal to improve safety for people who are crossing streets?

Random Country 453632 wrote:Can I make a proposal to improve safety for people who are crossing streets?

I can’t see anything that would make that proposal illegal. However, some people might consider it micromanagement to legislate on such a local concern.

So this is just an idea and I am not sure if this already exists, but a law limiting the amount of fossil fuel use per capita and per corporation. Does a resolution like this already exist?

Prorescia wrote:So this is just an idea and I am not sure if this already exists, but a law limiting the amount of fossil fuel use per capita and per corporation. Does a resolution like this already exist?

Cap and Trade comes to mind, but there may be room to target corporations specifically.

Refuge Isle wrote:

Prorescia wrote:So this is just an idea and I am not sure if this already exists, but a law limiting the amount of fossil fuel use per capita and per corporation. Does a resolution like this already exist?

Cap and Trade comes to mind, but there may be room to target corporations specifically.

Given duplication/contradiction issues, what's left unlegislated on the topic might be too narrow to really warrant a separate resolution. I'd suggest thinking of something else.

Is there any resolution to regulate and strenghten the rules of local safety?

Random Country 453632 wrote:Is there any resolution to regulate and strenghten the rules of local safety?

What do you seek to make safe?

Random Country 453632 wrote:Is there any resolution to regulate and strenghten the rules of local safety?

"Local safety" sounds too much like micro-managing tbh.

Tinhampton wrote:

Random Country 453632 wrote:Is there any resolution to regulate and strenghten the rules of local safety?

What do you seek to make safe?

driving/crossing

Random Country 453632 wrote:driving/crossing

If crossing means crossing roads, like pedestrian crossing, then DEFINITELY a local issue, not international. Driving sounds also like a national issue with very few (if any) international reasons.