[DRAFT] Trespassers get nothing

[Imperium Anglorum]

Reform of torts in this fashion would marginally reduce the costs of doing business internationally and lower scope of disparate treatment of similar activities in different civil jurisdictions, simplifying the legal rules by which a legal person may be bound. That's what the tort reform category is meant to do.

[Forensatha]

Reform of torts in this fashion would marginally reduce the costs of doing business internationally and lower scope of disparate treatment of similar activities in different civil jurisdictions, simplifying the legal rules by which a legal person may be bound. That's what the tort reform category is meant to do.

What if my jurisdiction already has similar legislation? Then it would be superceded by this WA resolution?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Reform of torts in this fashion would marginally reduce the costs of doing business internationally and lower scope of disparate treatment of similar activities in different civil jurisdictions, simplifying the legal rules by which a legal person may be bound. That's what the tort reform category is meant to do.

What if my jurisdiction already has similar legislation? Then it would be superceded by this WA resolution?

If a jurisdiction already complies with the proposed tort reform, there would be no effect of the proposal. I don't see what you're trying to get at.

But, if it is that all proposals must have a statistical effect, riddle me this: if nations already banned genocide, what purpose does the genocide resolution serve?

[Kenmoria]

Like some of the legislation on the books, this resolution would violate my national sovereignty if passed.

(OOC: Nations give up their national sovereignty when they join the World Assembly. Also, IA, I agree with Losthaven that unintentional trespassing, and/or cases where the actions taken by the trespassee were maliciously negligent, should not be covered by this.

Reform of torts in this fashion would marginally reduce the costs of doing business internationally and lower scope of disparate treatment of similar activities in different civil jurisdictions, simplifying the legal rules by which a legal person may be bound. That's what the tort reform category is meant to do.

What if my jurisdiction already has similar legislation? Then it would be superceded by this WA resolution?

If you have the exact same laws, then nothing would change. If you go further than the WA legislation, then nothing will also change. If you have less strict laws, then you will have to adopt the GA standard.)

[Losthaven]

[snip] I'll share just one obvious problem: even if we accept your principle that intentional trespassers generally should be unable to recover for their wrongs (the classic example is the burglar who falls from the skylight and cuts his hand on a knife left out in the kitchen), what do we do with unintentional trespassers, such as a wanderer on state land who inadvertently walks onto private property.

Again, such brevity in proposals has serious downsides, including an inability to capture nuance.

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley: That's fully intentional. Our delegation does not want trespassers to recover anything of any sort from any negligent action or inaction taken by a person in seisin.

That doesn't seem particularly just. Opposed.

[Forensatha]

Like some of the legislation on the books, this resolution would violate my national sovereignty if passed.

(OOC: Nations give up their national sovereignty when they join the World Assembly. Also, IA, I agree with Losthaven that unintentional trespassing, and/or cases where the actions taken by the trespassee were maliciously negligent, should not be covered by this.

What if my jurisdiction already has similar legislation? Then it would be superceded by this WA resolution?

If you have the exact same laws, then nothing would change. If you go further than the WA legislation, then nothing will also change. If you have less strict laws, then you will have to adopt the GA standard.)

That isn't entirely true. Nations give up "absolute" sovereignty. They dont give it up altogether.

[Refuge Isle]

That isn't entirely true. Nations give up "absolute" sovereignty. They dont give it up altogether.

You...don't get to pick what sections of WA law you follow and don't unless you're outside the WA. What are you trying to say here?

[Forensatha]

What if my jurisdiction already has similar legislation? Then it would be superceded by this WA resolution?

If a jurisdiction already complies with the proposed tort reform, there would be no effect of the proposal. I don't see what you're trying to get at.

But, if it is that all proposals must have a statistical effect, riddle me this: if nations already banned genocide, what purpose does the genocide resolution serve?

If your talking about a scenario where every nation has banned genocide then the resolution would be largely useless, that is if you're talking in pure ideals.

[Marxist Germany]

That isn't entirely true. Nations give up "absolute" sovereignty. They dont give it up altogether.

You...don't get to pick what sections of WA law you follow and don't unless you're outside the WA. What are you trying to say here?

OOC: That this isnt an international issue.

[Imperium Anglorum]

[snip] I'll share just one obvious problem: even if we accept your principle that intentional trespassers generally should be unable to recover for their wrongs (the classic example is the burglar who falls from the skylight and cuts his hand on a knife left out in the kitchen), what do we do with unintentional trespassers, such as a wanderer on state land who inadvertently walks onto private property.

Again, such brevity in proposals has serious downsides, including an inability to capture nuance.

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley: That's fully intentional. Our delegation does not want trespassers to recover anything of any sort from any negligent action or inaction taken by a person in seisin.

That doesn't seem particularly just. Opposed.

E Mortimer Wellesley: Why ought lawbreakers be able to sue people by wilfully putting themselves in possible danger by trespassing on other people's land?

[Forensatha]

That isn't entirely true. Nations give up "absolute" sovereignty. They dont give it up altogether.

You...don't get to pick what sections of WA law you follow and don't unless you're outside the WA. What are you trying to say here?

I'm not trying to pick what to follow and what to not follow. I'm saying that some of these pieces of legislation are flawed and infringe too much on members. Making a law for a good reason to address something like genocide is one thing. It is entirely another to make a law that micromanages a crucial aspect of a member state that would otherwise be left to the national unit.

[Marxist Germany]

That doesn't seem particularly just. Opposed.

Why ought lawbreakers be able to sue people by wilfully putting themselves in possible danger by trespassing on other people's land?

OOC: What if the trespassing is unintentional?

[Imperium Anglorum]

E Mortimer Wellesley: I struggle to see how one can unintentionally trespass. One knows the land they own or have permission to enter: don't enter land that does not fall within that set.

[edit]
E Mortimer Wellesley: We, however, have come to recognise that boundary markers might not be entirely clear to a person lacking the prerequisite geographical knowledge. We are willing to make modifications to our stance based on that factual determination.

OOC. And before you go complain about IC responses, one could easily imagine this is a response to earlier statements by Losthaven.

[Wallenburg]

Wholly against this.

[Linux and the X]

To clarify, clause (b) intentionally protects against negligence claims only, yes? Trespassers could still sue for malicious acts?

That is what the current phrasing says.

Obviously. Our question is whether your intention is to retain that limitation or not.

[Anglia-Saxia]

OOC: I wont go into criticising the actual proposal yet, I will stick to the title for now. "Trespassers get nothing." Is a badly worded sentence, what do trespassers get nothing of? Why is this used as a title? I suggest something on the grounds of "Trespassing Regulation Act".

I agree,I thought this was an in-draft issue

[Tinfect]

OOC:
Wayneactia/Sep and Banana are right here. This isn't remotely an issue of international import and it's a bad idea besides.

Oh, and the way you've formatted this makes it incredibly difficult to tell what exactly is being done. Please format it in a way that can't be read as completely meaningless and ineffectual.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"We could not support this without some exception for certain minors and so-called 'attractive nuisances.' Like when a small child who knows no better enters marked but unfenced private land and drowns in a swimming pool. Or gets dismembered by festively-colored, cartoon-festooned farm equipment. Or climbs up an unattended ladder and falls off the roof. Or similar."

"To the extent that this is even remotely an international issue, some provision for that kind of thing is necessary."