[SUBTLY ABANDONED] For the Wellbeing of Future Generations

[Tinhampton]

This draft is on hold for the time being for several reasons (one of them being the CoCR question). I have not abandoned it... yet.

OOC: This is only a can of whoop-ass. I could have cracked open a hundred-gallon barrel here: February's WHO-UNICEF-Lancet Commission report states/implies (Figure 3) that - if the Umami Noodles' Convention on the Rights of the Child had the same force on RL nations as a WA resolution had on WA members - countries would be obliged to allow children to participate in "decision making, policies, programmes, and procedures, relating to HIV/AIDS policies, disabilities, health provisions, harmful practices and gender discrimination, indigenous children, children in street situations, immigration and asylum process, education, health, economy, environment, and care."

[Tinhampton]

Fifteen-month bump. Draft #4 now contains no explicit requirements from the World Assembly itself; this practice has many precedents in the WA's predecessor and in the modern General Assembly (see GA#50).

The above post and all posts on page 1 were in reference to Drafts 1-3.

[Clever Homo Sapiens]

"b. suggests that when forming any policy with a direct impact on any particular groups (including a policy that could reduce the personal, political, economic or cultural freedoms of that group), members hold meaningful consultations with, and take into account the best interests of, such groups;"

I don't know about anyone else, but to me, it seems that this could provide a path for hate groups and extremists to try to sway public policy in their favor and peddle their ideology to a wide demographic, especially if these "meaningful" consultations are broadcast or records of them are made publicly available. Besides, how do you have meaningful conversations with Nazis, let alone take into account their "best interests"?

[Wallenburg]

If this is a joke on "would somebody please think of the CHILDREN?" then I'm all for it.

[Tinhampton]

Kevin Mitchell: The Tinhamptonian delegation continues to hold that the World Assembly is the World Assembly, not the International Poverty Law Center. In any event, the scope of Article b has been narrowed to promote consultation with "groups possessing an arbitrary and reductive characteristic" especially. That is, at least, the best that I could word it at this time.

---

If this is a joke on "would somebody please think of the CHILDREN?" then I'm all for it.

[Bears Armed]

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=418495

[Clever Homo Sapiens]

The "best interests of" a group or groups is quite vague, and means different things to different cultures and nations. Further, a government could, with this resolution, be empowered to impose a religion or an ideology on a group or groups; after all, they could be claiming to preserve their morality and/or prevent their eternal damnation, which would be ostensibly in their best interests.

[Tinhampton]

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=418495

Pride and Prejudice '18 remains one of the best proposals I've ever voted for but this actually isn't inspired by that!

The "best interests of" a group or groups is quite vague, and means different things to different cultures and nations. Further, a government could, with this resolution, be empowered to impose a religion or an ideology on a group or groups; after all, they could be claiming to preserve their morality and/or prevent their eternal damnation, which would be ostensibly in their best interests.

Article b now makes reference to "the expressed best interests" of such groups as a stopgap measure.

[WayNeacTia]

Meaningless, feel good minutiae. I also have numerous questions on exactly how any of this increases democratic freedoms in any remote way.

[Trellania]

Dame Allania wanders in, only to pause and look at the legislation. She blinks a moment, then raises an eyebrow.

"I'm sorry, but isn't all of this already done by governments who actually care about their civilians? I don't see why this is a necessary piece of legislation."

[Tinfect]

OOC:
This doesn't have any actual effect and reads like a patronizing statement against Member-States one's nation doesn't like. There's no reason for it to be International Law.

[Araraukar]

For the Wellbeing of Future Generations

Category: Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Mild

The General Assembly hereby:

1. recommends that all member states and their political subdivisions ("members"), in the process of forming any policy, consider not only the effect that enacting that policy will have on their compliance with international law and the requirements of their current residents, but also any potential negative impacts that policy (and any requirements of their current residents it affects) may have on the requirements of their future residents, and
2. suggests that when forming any policy with a direct impact on any particular groups possessing an arbitrary and reductive characteristic (including a policy that could reduce the personal, political, economic or cultural freedoms of those groups), members hold meaningful consultations with members of, and take into account the expressed best interests of, such groups; subject to existing international laws and where such policies are not enacted to ensure compliance with those laws.

OOC: Isn't that still the same CoCR issue as before? Also, how is this Furtherment of Democracy?

IC: "Exactly how are you going to be talking with people who haven't been born yet? And what effect is this supposed to have? I doubt there are non-failed states that do not think their decisions beyond the moment of "now" to begin with."

OOC: The IC question of the intended effect is valid; you recommend ill effects be considered, but not avoided. And you suggest talking with minority people affected... and nothing needs come out of it? So what does this actually do?

And before you slap in mandates to give it some meaning, what if two different kinds of minorities were affected, and they wanted opposite things? Then what are the law-makers to do? Ignore both equally?

What's the actual problem you're trying to solve? You need much clearer clauses or a good explanatory preamble.