[DRAFT] Responsible Animal Agriculture Act

[Latidonia]

Category: Environment
Area of effect: Agriculture

The World Assembly;

Realising that incautiously organised animal agriculture can contribute to the spread of disease, both between herds and across species;

Highlighting that improper and unhygienic conditions in animal agriculture can produce new disease, which may cause cross-species infection with devastating consequences;

Emphasising that the administration of antibiotics as preventative treatment or as growth agents to livestock are a factor in pathogens developing resistance to antibiotics;

Noting that the welfare of livestock is often overlooked in food and commodity production;

Seeking to create acceptable and safe standards for animal agriculture, hereby;

1. Defines for the purpose of this resolution;

1. Animal as sentient, but not sapient vertebrates, excluding fish.
2. Livestock as animals raised for food or other animal-derived commodities and products, such as fur, wool and leather.
3. Preventative treatment as the administration of antibiotics to livestock in the absence of infectious disease in the herd.

2. Enacts the following;

1. Facilities raising livestock must adequately fulfill the basic needs of production animals, such as food, drink, shelter, natural behaviour and hygiene.
   
2. Livestock must be provided a decent, regularly cleaned and hygienic living environment, which permits the production animals to be separate from their waste.
   
3. The administration of antibiotics as growth agents or as preventative treatment is prohibited.
   
4. The slaughtering of livestock must occur in a separate space from their standard living environment.
   
5. The slaughtering of livestock must happen humanely, avoiding unnecessary suffering or distress, and must follow a two-stage procedure, where the animals are rendered unconscious prior to being killed.
   
6. Livestock must be humanely put down, if, due to untreatable illness or injury, keeping them alive would be evidently cruel.
   
7. Facilities handling livestock must abstain from any procedures, which are malicious or cruel or otherwise cause unnecessary suffering or distress.

3. Mandates that member nations may not import animal-derived products and commodities which have not been produced in accordance with this act, excluding those demonstrably manufactured prior to this act's entry into force.

Category: Environment
Area of effect: Agriculture

The World Assembly;

Alarmed by the present lack of legislation on animal agriculture;

Noting that the welfare of livestock is often overlooked in food and commodity production;

Realising that incautiously organised animal agriculture can produce dangerous disease, which may cause cross-species infection with disastrous effect;

Seeking to prevent cruelty and the spread of disease;

1. Defines for the purpose of this resolution;
   
   
   1. Animal as sentient, but not sapient vertebrates, excluding fish from this definition.
      
   2. Livestock as animals raised for food and for other animal-derived commodities and products, such as fur, wool and leather.
2. Decrees the following, to be applied as far as reasonable and practicable, to ensure the responsibility of animal agriculture;
   
   
   1. Facilities handing livestock must adequately fulfill the basic needs of production animals, such as food, drink, shelter, natural behaviour and hygiene.
      
   2. Livestock must be provided a decent and hygienic living environment, which permits the animals to be separate from their waste.
      
   3. Livestock may not be subject to suffering, unless necessary and temporary, unnecessary distress, or otherwise cruel or malicious treatment.
      
   4. If slaughtered, livestock must be given a humane death, where they are not subject to suffering or unnecessary fear, and are to be rendered unconscious prior to being killed.
      
   5. Livestock must be humanely put down, if, due to untreatable illness or injury, keeping them alive would be evidently cruel.
3. Mandates that member nations may not import animal-derived products and commodities which have not been produced in accordance with this act, excluding those demonstrably manufactured prior to this act's entry into force.

Category: Moral decency
Strength: Significant

The World Assembly;

Distressed by the present lack of legislation on the treatment of livestock;

Alarmed that such a vacuum of international legislation allows animals to be treated with absolute apathy or even outright antipathy;

Emphasising that animals generally raised for food and commodity production, such as pigs, cattle, ducks, sheep, and poultry, are capable of feeling suffering and distress;

Noting that such animals, much like sapient beings, are intelligent and social beings also capable of positive feelings;

Saddened that the welfare of these creatures is too often overlooked in food and commodity production;

Highlighting that the overwhelming majority of livestock are subject to intensive farming methods, otherwise known as factory farming;

Regretting that especially in intensive farming, the efficiency of production and economic interests too often outweigh the wellbeing of these creatures, and as such, they are subject to severe distress and suffering, and their welfare is treated with apathy;

Lamenting that ethically questionable or outright immoral practices are too commonplace in the livestock industry, such as: the slaughtering of animals without stunning and in view of other animals, the live plucking of feathers from birds without anesthesia, and the live skinning of animals;

Acknowledging that indifference towards animal suffering is extremely unethical;

Seeking to establish regulations on the treatment of livestock so that such indifference can no longer persist;

Hereby;

1. Defines for the purpose of this specific resolution;
   
   
   1. Animal as sentient, but not sapient creatures.
      
   2. Livestock as (a) animals raised for food consumption, such as cattle, pigs, fish and poultry, and (b) animals, such as sheep, minks and foxes, which are raised for other animal-derived commodities and products, such as fur, wool and leather.
2. Decrees the following in World Assembly member nations, to ensure the wellbeing of livestock;
   
   
   1. Livestock have a right to physical and mental wellbeing, as far as possible and practicable.
      
   2. Livestock have a right to natural behaviour, as far as reasonable.
      
   3. Livestock have a right to have their basic needs adequately fulfilled, as far as possible and practicable.
      
   4. Livestock have a right to a decent living environment, free from overcrowding and untreated waste.
      
   5. Livestock have a right not be subject to suffering, unneeded distress, or malicious or antipathic treatment.
      
   6. If slaughtered, Livestock have a right to a humane death, where they are not subject to suffering or unnecessary fear, and are to be rendered unconscious prior to being killed.
      
   7. Livestock have a right to be humanely put down, if, due to untreatable illness or injury, keeping them alive would be evidently cruel.
3. Mandates that facilities raising or otherwise handling livestock must comply with the provisions in section 2.
   
4. Mandates that member nations may not import animal derived products and commodities which have not been produced in accordance with the provisions in section 2.
   
5. Establishes the Animal Welfare Commissioner, whose office's responsibilities are to concern overseeing member nations establish functioning organs and systems to ensure the realisation of this act.

Category: Moral decency
Strength: Significant

The World Assembly;

Distressed by the present lack of legislation on the treatment of livestock;

Alarmed that such a vacuum of international legislation allows animals to be treated with absolute apathy or even outright antipathy;

Emphasising that animals generally raised for food and commodity production, such as pigs, cattle, ducks, sheep, and poultry, are capable of feeling suffering and distress;

Noting that such animals, much like sapient beings, are intelligent and social beings also capable of positive feelings;

Saddened that the welfare of these creatures is too often overlooked in food and commodity production;

Highlighting that the overwhelming majority of livestock are subject to intensive farming methods, otherwise known as factory farming;

Regretting that especially in intensive farming, the efficiency of production and economic interests too often outweigh the wellbeing of these creatures, and as such, they are subject to severe distress and suffering, and their welfare is treated with apathy;

Lamenting that ethically questionable or outright immoral practices are too commonplace in the livestock industry, such as: the slaughtering of animals without stunning and in view of other animals, the live plucking of feathers from birds without anesthesia, and the live skinning of animals;

Acknowledging that indifference towards animal suffering is extremely unethical;

Seeking to establish regulations on the treatment of livestock so that such indifference can no longer persist;

Hereby;

1. Defines for the purpose of this specific resolution;
   
   
   1. Animal as sentient, but not sapient creatures.
      
   2. Livestock as (a) animals raised for food consumption, such as cattle, pigs, fish and poultry, and (b) animals, such as sheep, minks and foxes, which are raised for other animal-derived commodities and products, such as fur, wool and leather.
2. Decrees the following in World Assembly member nations, to ensure the wellbeing of livestock;
   
   
   1. Animals have a right to physical and mental wellbeing, as far as possible and practicable.
      
   2. Animals have a right to natural behaviour, as far as reasonable.
      
   3. Animals have a right to have their basic needs adequately fulfilled, as far as possible and practicable.
      
   4. Animals have a right to a decent living environment, free from overcrowding and untreated waste.
      
   5. Animals have a right not be subject to suffering, unneeded distress, or malicious or antipathic treatment.
      
   6. Slaughtered animals have a right to a humane death, where they are not subject to suffering or unnecessary fear, and are to be rendered unconscious prior to being killed.
      
   7. Animals have a right to be humanely put down, if, due to untreatable illness or injury, keeping them alive would be evidently cruel.
3. Mandates that facilities raising or otherwise handling livestock must comply with the provisions in section 2.
   
4. Mandates that member nations may not import animal derived products and commodities which have not been produced in accordance with this act.
   
5. Establishes the Animal Welfare Commissioner, whose office's responsibilities are to concern overseeing member nations establish functioning organs and systems to ensure the realisation of this act.

[Aprenencia]

This is a good start. I would recommend moving the clause about establishing the Animal Welfare Commissioner to the beginning. After that clause, I would list out what rules the AWC will enforce upon individual WA nations to ensure the ethical treatment of animals.

[Tinhampton]

Why are you attempting to protect livestock - a particular category of animals - by enshrining safeguards in law for all animals?

[Separatist Peoples]

"I struggle to see how the treatment of animals is of concern to the international community except insofar as it prevents the spread of disease, either between herds or to people. Harsh? No doubt. But just because something is 'bad' does not place the duty to act on the World Assembly."

[Latidonia]

This is a good start. I would recommend moving the clause about establishing the Animal Welfare Commissioner to the beginning. After that clause, I would list out what rules the AWC will enforce upon individual WA nations to ensure the ethical treatment of animals.

Thank you for the input!

I will definitely consider this when reformatting the draft.

Why are you attempting to protect livestock - a particular category of animals - by enshrining safeguards in law for all animals?

I graciously accept your input.

Our initial conception was, that when the act is treated as one entirety, the reading of section 2 and section 3 together clarifies, that whereas the act's language could be understood as granting animals rights as a whole, these rights, in fact, only apply to those animals handled by facilities which operate livestock. Perhaps the proposal should do away with this ambiguity, and section 2 could be reworded from animals having rights to livestock having rights.

Thank you.

"I struggle to see how the treatment of animals is of concern to the international community except insofar as it prevents the spread of disease, either between herds or to people. Harsh? No doubt. But just because something is 'bad' does not place the duty to act on the World Assembly."

This input is definitely welcome as well.

I understand the question posed as concerning the sphere of international law as realised under the World Assembly. International law, as I see it, is fairly boundless. International agreements can indeed touch upon matters beyond those purely related to international relations. Should international law only concern strictly international relations, international law would, I argue, only legislate matters such as trade, war, diplomacy, not matters such as human rights, civil rights or children's rights. This is not to say, that every organ of international law should concern itself with matters beyond international relations. So, where does the World Assembly stand?

Legislation of matters pertaining to morality, ethics and moral decency appear to be a strong institution of the World Assembly (Eg. GAR #4, Restrictions On Child Labor ("Believing that it is morally reprehensible [...] to force children into any situation that is likely to cause them harm[.]"), GAR #9, Prevention Of Torture ("Recognising the universal right to freedom from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment[.]"), GAR #300, Child Pornography Ban ("BELIEVING that the children of the world need safeguarding from physical abuse and emotional cruelty[.]")). Please excuse me, if this is an incorrect estimation of your words, but very recently, you yourself have supported prohibition of capital punishment. I mean no disrespect. Social justice appear to be of significant importance to this body and its members.

In answering, whether the scope of World Assembly legislation ought to extend to animal welfare, I first want to pose a question; Why is it, that the World Assembly has legislated on questions of the wellbeing of sapient beings, even if this does not pertain to international relations? Because it is right. Because it would be 'bad', for the international community to allow morally reprehensible and extremely unethical situations to persist. Because it is a good thing, that people do not have to suffer. And if the World Assembly can stop this suffering, then it quite certainly should. As it stands, however, there appear to be little to no restrictions on how we treat those species lesser to us in intellect, yet for many parts equal in their capacity to feel both suffering and joy. A vacuum of law on how we treat livestock, the largest share of the non-sapient but sentient biomass in this world, allows unimaginably reprehensible treatment to persist. I understand that the World Assembly should be careful in treading the sovereignty of its member nations, especially in matters somewhat divisive, such as this. Nonetheless, I also believe that the international community should take steps to ensure that the manner in which we treat livestock is acceptable. We view the freedom from "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" as "universal" (GAR #9), but is the freedom to subject animals to the very same terrible treatment a freedom we should protect?

In defining whether the scope of World Assembly legislation factually extends to the wellbeing of animals, I cite General Assembly Resolution #267, "Sensible Limits On Hunting". As you certainly know, this a resolution authored by current member of GenSec, Bears Armed. This resolution does certainly regulate the international trade of 'bushmeat'. However, among other things, the resolution also regulates over-hunting, seeks to prevent extinction of species and also urges member nations to ban hunting methods which are unnecessarily cruel. "7. Urges member nations to ban any hunting methods that are unnecessarily cruel, and the trade in meat or other goods gained using those methods[.]" Neither the extinction of species nor the cruelty of hunting methods are matters of international relations, I would claim. These are matters of animal wellbeing.

I digress, animal rights appear to be a divisive topic, as evidence from the repeals resolutions concerning this area of law have faced. For example, GAR #477, Convention On Animal Testing, was repealed by GAR #479). Nonetheless, GAR #477 is also a resolution which has been repealed not for reasons concerning the World Assembly's competence to legislate topics of animal welfare, but for reasons of faulty legislation. In fact, GAR #479 highlights the intentions of GAR #477 as "well-meaning" but sees the resolution as faulty in its definition of ethical testing and otherwise too open. In fact, it appears that GAR #479 is concerned that GAR #477's wording would permit unethical, malicious, distressing and painful treatment of animals.

Hence it appears that: 1. International law is concerned with matters ethical; 2. The World Assembly has previously concerned itself with matters ethical; 3. The World Assembly ought to concern itself with matters ethical in relation to how we treat animals and indeed has previously concerned itself with these matters in the past.

All this being said, I view matters pertaining to justice, ethics, morality and decency as questions the World Assembly has concerned itself with since its very inception and should indeed continue to do so. I argue that animal rights fit within that category. In any case, I appreciate the feedback and I recognise that this is, regrettably, a divisive topic. Nonetheless, as I look back on history, it appears that the morals we see as almost self-evident today, have been divisive in the past.

Thank you.

EDIT: Fixed a broken link.

[Kenmoria]

“Clause 2v appears to suggest that animals are supposed to be raised in an environment free from all suffering, which is certainly impossible in any Kenmorian farms.”

[Separatist Peoples]

This is a good start. I would recommend moving the clause about establishing the Animal Welfare Commissioner to the beginning. After that clause, I would list out what rules the AWC will enforce upon individual WA nations to ensure the ethical treatment of animals.

Thank you for the input!

I will definitely consider this when reformatting the draft.

Why are you attempting to protect livestock - a particular category of animals - by enshrining safeguards in law for all animals?

I graciously accept your input.

Our initial conception was, that when the act is treated as one entirety, the reading of section 2 and section 3 together clarifies, that whereas the act's language could be understood as granting animals rights as a whole, these rights, in fact, only apply to those animals handled by facilities which operate livestock. Perhaps the proposal should do away with this ambiguity, and section 2 could be reworded from animals having rights to livestock having rights.

Thank you.

"I struggle to see how the treatment of animals is of concern to the international community except insofar as it prevents the spread of disease, either between herds or to people. Harsh? No doubt. But just because something is 'bad' does not place the duty to act on the World Assembly."

This input is definitely welcome as well.

I understand the question posed as concerning the sphere of international law as realised under the World Assembly. International law, as I see it, is fairly boundless. International agreements can indeed touch upon matters beyond those purely related to international relations. Should international law only concern strictly international relations, international law would, I argue, only legislate matters such as trade, war, diplomacy, not matters such as human rights, civil rights or children's rights. This is not to say, that every organ of international law should concern itself with matters beyond international relations. So, where does the World Assembly stand?

Legislation of matters pertaining to morality, ethics and moral decency appear to be a strong institution of the World Assembly (Eg. GAR #4, Restrictions On Child Labor ("Believing that it is morally reprehensible [...] to force children into any situation that is likely to cause them harm[.]"), GAR #9, Prevention Of Torture ("Recognising the universal right to freedom from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment[.]"), GAR #300, Child Pornography Ban ("BELIEVING that the children of the world need safeguarding from physical abuse and emotional cruelty[.]")). Please excuse me, if this is an incorrect estimation of your words, but very recently, you yourself have supported prohibition of capital punishment. I mean no disrespect. Social justice appear to be of significant importance to this body and its members.

In answering, whether the scope of World Assembly legislation ought to extend to animal welfare, I first want to pose a question; Why is it, that the World Assembly has legislated on questions of the wellbeing of sapient beings, even if this does not pertain to international relations? Because it is right. Because it would be 'bad', for the international community to allow morally reprehensible and extremely unethical situations to persist. Because it is a good thing, that people do not have to suffer. And if the World Assembly can stop this suffering, then it quite certainly should. As it stands, however, there appear to be little to no restrictions on how we treat those species lesser to us in intellect, yet for many parts equal in their capacity to feel both suffering and joy. A vacuum of law on how we treat livestock, the largest share of the non-sapient but sentient biomass in this world, allows unimaginably reprehensible treatment to persist. I understand that the World Assembly should be careful in treading the sovereignty of its member nations, especially in matters somewhat divisive, such as this. Nonetheless, I also believe that the international community should take steps to ensure that the manner in which we treat livestock is acceptable. We view the freedom from "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" as "universal" (GAR #9), but is the freedom to subject animals to the very same terrible treatment a freedom we should protect?

In defining whether the scope of World Assembly legislation factually extends to the wellbeing of animals, I cite General Assembly Resolution #267, "Sensible Limits On Hunting". As you certainly know, this a resolution authored by current member of GenSec, Bears Armed. This resolution does certainly regulate the international trade of 'bushmeat'. However, among other things, the resolution also regulates over-hunting, seeks to prevent extinction of species and also urges member nations to ban hunting methods which are unnecessarily cruel. "7. Urges member nations to ban any hunting methods that are unnecessarily cruel, and the trade in meat or other goods gained using those methods[.]" Neither the extinction of species nor the cruelty of hunting methods are matters of international relations, I would claim. These are matters of animal wellbeing.

I digress, animal rights appear to be a divisive topic, as evidence from the repeals resolutions concerning this area of law have faced. For example, GAR #477, Convention On Animal Testing, was repealed by GAR #479). Nonetheless, GAR #477 is also a resolution which has been repealed not for reasons concerning the World Assembly's competence to legislate topics of animal welfare, but for reasons of faulty legislation. In fact, GAR #479 highlights the intentions of GAR #477 as "well-meaning" but sees the resolution as faulty in its definition of ethical testing and otherwise too open. In fact, it appears that GAR #479 is concerned that GAR #477's wording would permit unethical, malicious, distressing and painful treatment of animals.

Hence it appears that: 1. International law is concerned with matters ethical; 2. The World Assembly has previously concerned itself with matters ethical; 3. The World Assembly ought to concern itself with matters ethical in relation to how we treat animals and indeed has previously concerned itself with these matters in the past.

All this being said, I view matters pertaining to justice, ethics, morality and decency as questions the World Assembly has concerned itself with since its very inception and should indeed continue to do so. I argue that animal rights fit within that category. In any case, I appreciate the feedback and I recognise that this is, regrettably, a divisive topic. Nonetheless, as I look back on history, it appears that the morals we see as almost self-evident today, have been divisive in the past.

Thank you.

EDIT: Fixed a broken link.

"Your cited examples of moral supremacy are themseves international issues. None of us are free from abuse unless all of us are free from abuse. The same does not apply to cows. I maintain that this issue is not of international importance to justify regulation. Merely because the World Assembly can does not mean it should. As such, this will face my opposition upon submission."

[Latidonia]

“Clause 2v appears to suggest that animals are supposed to be raised in an environment free from all suffering, which is certainly impossible in any Kenmorian farms.”

"Thank you for the input.

Perhaps the clause ought to be clarified, as to avoid ambiguity or unwanted strictness in how the resolution would be applied. Here is an example."

v. Livestock have a right not be subject to suffering, unneeded distress, or malicious or antipathic treatment.
->
v. Livestock have a right not to be subject to evidently unnecessary suffering, unneeded distress, or otherwise malicious or antipathic treatment.

"Your cited examples of moral supremacy are themseves international issues. None of us are free from abuse unless all of us are free from abuse. The same does not apply to cows. I maintain that this issue is not of international importance to justify regulation. Merely because the World Assembly can does not mean it should. As such, this will face my opposition upon submission."

"Thank you for responding.

I fear there is little I can say to convince you.

In truth, the suffering or death of those on the other side of the world does not, I argue, truly affect my freedom. Despite their hardships, I have the liberty to do as I please and live as I please. I choose to extend my arm to those drowning, not to save myself, but to save them. But should they drown, it would not deprive me of my freedom. I believe we have chosen to act upon these issues not to safeguard our own wellbeing and freedom, but to protect others. But if I am wrong, perhaps the freedom of others you see as a prerequisite for your own freedom, ought to be extended beyond the realm of sapience - at least in part. Perhaps it is not just marvelous intellect or the capacity to govern, which constitutes the right to be free from absolute cruelty, violence, or suffering. Perhaps the simplicity or inferiority of others does not permit me to impose unspeakable pain upon them.

Alas, it appears we are in hopeless and incurable disagreement. Nonetheless I thank you for your contribution."

[Araraukar]

OOC post.

Distressed by the present lack of legislation on the treatment of livestock;

"Distressed" is perhaps not the best word if you want to open with this. It creates a certain kind of mental image of you as the author, and it's not necessarily a positive one. You might instead go for the "alarmed" that you've used in the second one.

Alarmed that such a vacuum of international legislation allows animals to be treated with absolute apathy or even outright antipathy;

And this you should leave out entirely, because it's unlikely that a reasonable nation wouldn't have any kind of national legislation on the matter, so there not being international legislation does not mean a complete vacuum or indeed that it'd mean mistreatment of animals would be a thing everywhere.

Emphasising that animals generally raised for food and commodity production, such as pigs, cattle, ducks, sheep, and poultry, are capable of feeling suffering and distress;

What about crickets? Fly larvae? Ants? Vertebrates aren't the only animals that people eat, and your "such as" suggests that all animals raised for food (since it's just an example list) fall under this. If you want this to only apply to vertebrates, you need to specify that.

Noting that such animals, much like sapient beings, are intelligent and social beings also capable of positive feelings;

No, bad proposal. Don't mix sapient rights into this. You'll sound even more like a rabid PETA supporter or something similar, easily causing a knee-jerk reaction to the opposite direction from the voters. Also, why positive feelings? Aren't you trying to regulate things because of the animals' negative feelings? In any case, you should leave these things to your definitions and instead try to use the preamble to explain why you need international legislation to address this. Try to think of a reason that isn't "becuz fluffy animals need rights too". That is, a practical reason instead of a moral one.

Saddened that the welfare of these creatures is too often overlooked in food and commodity production;

If you dropped "too" and replaced "creatures" with "production animals" then this would actually work.

Highlighting that the overwhelming majority of livestock are subject to intensive farming methods, otherwise known as factory farming;

In RL western nations, sure. But if counting the entire globe in RL, quite a lot (not sure if majority, but certainly not overwhelming majority) of the production animals are going to turn out to be owned by subsistence farmers, who are more likely to have 12 chickens than 1200 chickens. So please be aware of "what's true in PETA news is not necessarily true everywhere". Especially with NS, where you might have nations producing meat only in a lab, with no actual animals involved at all, or nations with only small-scale subsistence farming.

Regretting that especially in intensive farming, the efficiency of production and economic interests too often outweigh the wellbeing of these creatures, and as such, they are subject to severe distress and suffering, and their welfare is treated with apathy;

You're just repeating yourself. Unnecessarily repeating things is unnecessary.

Lamenting that ethically questionable or outright immoral practices are too commonplace in the livestock industry, such as: the slaughtering of animals without stunning and in view of other animals, the live plucking of feathers from birds without anesthesia, and the live skinning of animals;

...and what of the many places where that isn't a thing?

Acknowledging that indifference towards animal suffering is extremely unethical;

According to who?

Seeking to establish regulations on the treatment of livestock so that such indifference can no longer persist;

Why? You have a whole preamble full of bleeding-heart pleas more suitable for a PETA poster than any actual reasons for why you need international legislation for this. Just implement the laws in your nation - campaign for them in your RL nation, if you want - but why should other nations bow to your particular view of what you think production animals should have?

Livestock as (a) animals raised for food consumption, such as cattle, pigs, fish and poultry, and (b) animals, such as sheep, minks and foxes, which are raised for other animal-derived commodities and products, such as fur, wool and leather.

Drop the (a) and (b), and all mentions of specific animals. You want your definitions to be as precise as possible. Dropping the mentions of specific animals makes your definition tighter.

Decrees the following in World Assembly member nations, to ensure the wellbeing of livestock;

You don't need the "in World Assembly member nations" in there, because you can only affect WA member nations to begin with.

Livestock have a right to physical and mental wellbeing, as far as possible and practicable.

...how do you determine the mental wellbeing of a tilapia?

Livestock have a right to natural behaviour, as far as reasonable.

Given that you repeat some variation of "as far as possible" at the end of all of these, consider putting it in the main clause instead to avoid repetition.

Livestock have a right to have their basic needs adequately fulfilled, as far as possible and practicable.

...either have only this, or have all the others without this, because everything up to the bit about slaughtering is "basic needs".

Livestock have a right to a decent living environment, free from overcrowding and untreated waste.

And what counts as "decent living environment"? What counts as "overcrowding"? I'm not asking for animals per square metre, I'm asking for the reasoning behind such limits in RL. And untreated waste tends to be produced by the animals, and short of making them all stand on some kind of netting (which is usually considered a cruelty in itself), you're unlikely to be able to keep them completely separate from their own poop. And what are you going to do about tilapia in a pool? How are you going to keep them separate from their own waste?

Livestock have a right not be subject to suffering, unneeded distress, or malicious or antipathic treatment.

Are non-sapient things capable of suffering? Pain, probably, but suffering?

If slaughtered, Livestock have a right to a humane death, where they are not subject to suffering or unnecessary fear, and are to be rendered unconscious prior to being killed.

Random capitalizing of Noun there.

Livestock have a right to be humanely put down, if, due to untreatable illness or injury, keeping them alive would be evidently cruel.

Evidently in whose opinion?

Mandates that facilities raising or otherwise handling livestock must comply with the provisions in section 2.

...that goes without saying. Unnecessary repetition.

Mandates that member nations may not import animal derived products and commodities which have not been produced in accordance with the provisions in section 2.

Even historical artefacts? For an RL example, see elephant ivory products that were made before the international ban on ivory hunting came into effect.

Establishes the Animal Welfare Commissioner, whose office's responsibilities are to concern overseeing member nations establish functioning organs and systems to ensure the realisation of this act.

Why? You're making member nations do everything. You don't need a committee or whatever this is supposed to be.

All in all I have to say that this doesn't currently seem to really fit in Moral Decency, which is about restricting individuals' actions. Not giving animals more comfy living conditions. Basically most of your clauses are written in a positive sense, while, to fit the category, they would need to be written in the negative sense, where you'd punish individuals for failing to do so. Or something similar.

[Latidonia]

OOC post.

OOC:

Hey, thank you for the well-structured response. The way you've basically deconstructed every line of the proposal with a suggestion or critique is very helpful, and I will definitely use this, when I remodel the draft. But I just want to say that this is my first proposal. I feel like it's a bit disheartening, to be called me a rabid PETA supporter. But excuse me if I've somehow misunderstood your words.

But let's not dwell on that. As I said your response is helpful. When I originally drafted this in 2019, I ran it by Bears Armed, who suggested that I add the part about the act only applying to WA members. I also had some issues with choosing the category of the draft, and he called moral decency "a safe bet".

As for the language of the preamble; When I first wrote this draft, I questioned whether the language was too inflammatory. I wondered if I should add something about animal agriculture being important or cut down on the harshness. I think your response and especially the part about how such critical language can cause a negative knee-jerk reaction in the reader was helpful in the sense, and I will absolutely reword the preamble, as to be less reminiscent of "bleeding-hearts".

You asked about the part referring to evident cruelty. Do correct me if I'm mistaken in doing this, but in using of 'evident' as a condition for filling the criterion of cruelty, I've intended to raise the threshold of the constituent element being fulfilled. Ie. The threshold of something constituting cruelty. I know that this is something done in RL legislation.

You also mentioned tilapias. Thank you for that! I should've definitely clarified the definition of animals, so it would not apply to insects or fishes. Thank you for also bringing up historical artefacts. That is a thing that must be clarified as well.

All in all, I found your post very, very helpful. I hope you will also read the draft, when I update it. Thank you for the advice!

EDIT(s): What would you think about the newest draft? I've tried to remodel it based on your feedback.

[Purple Rats]

OOC:

Animal can feel stress as well, not only pain. Pain and stress- suffering. (to Araraukar)

To OP: I fully support this. Only problem with it is that if we say "basics needs" and "humane killing" then this is not actually telling anything. That just gives possibility to make rules which would be "basic needs" and "human" for them, but actually doesn't mean anything for animal well being. There should be some certain measures how big is the space they need for example.

[Latidonia]

OOC:

Animal can feel stress as well, not only pain. Pain and stress- suffering. (to Araraukar)

To OP: I fully support this. Only problem with it is that if we say "basics needs" and "humane killing" then this is not actually telling anything. That just gives possibility to make rules which would be "basic needs" and "human" for them, but actually doesn't mean anything for animal well being. There should be some certain measures how big is the space they need for example.

OOC:

Thank you for the response.

I am grateful for your support. I believe that the reading of clause 2.i. as an entirety does explain the content of basic needs fairly well. "[A]dequately fulfill their basic needs, such as food, drink, shelter, natural behaviour and hygiene." I'm not a professional of the WA, so I might be mistaken, however. I think that defining basic needs by giving out examples clarifies the contents.

As for for the concept of a humane death; I think the clause is sort of self-explanatory. "[H]umane death, where they are not subject to suffering or unnecessary fear, and are to be rendered unconscious prior to being killed." Through these examples, I would argue, that the concept of 'humane' death or killing is tied to the lack of suffering, fear and also requires the slaughtering to be two-stages, eg. stunning + slaughter, as is in a lot of countries IRL.

My understanding is also, that WA member states are required to carry out WA legislation in good faith. General Assembly Resolution # 2, Rights and duties of WA States: "Article 9 § Every WA Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, including this World Assembly, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty." I want to reassert that I'm not a WA professional. I might be understanding that wrong, but I would argue, that the cited article would, for the most part, bar member nations from interpreting humane as something evidently inhumane. Alas, it does appear that GAR #477, Convention On Animal Testing, was repealed by GAR #479, because GAR #477's definition of 'ethical' testing was inadequate, and would've allowed interpretation in bad faith.

However, I'm thankful for your response! How do you think, that the definitions of 'humane death' and 'basic needs' should be clarified, as to avoid ambiguity? Thank you very much.

[Araraukar]

OOC post.

But I just want to say that this is my first proposal.

I'm aware, hence the detailed feedback, rather than an unhelpful in-character pffting by my character.

I feel like it's a bit disheartening, to be called me a rabid PETA supporter.

My apologies for wording it in a way that didn't make it clear that you would appear to be one, if you submitted it in the form it was.

When I originally drafted this in 2019, I ran it by Bears Armed, who suggested that I add the part about the act only applying to WA members.

The way that is ruled is that if you don't use both "all nations" and "member nations", then any reference to "nations" or "all nations" - or none at all as well - is treated as a reference to only member nations, because the WA can't legally legislate for non-members.

I also had some issues with choosing the category of the draft, and he called moral decency "a safe bet".

Not entirely certain why he gave that advice, but the categories and their descriptions can all be found here: viewtopic.php?p=8133611#p8133611 You can see for yourself if something else would suit it better. It depends very much on how the proposal is worded - something like this can be written to be both Moral Decency and Environmental (since it puts restrictions on agriculture), depending entirely on the exact wording of the active clauses.

You also mentioned tilapias. Thank you for that!

They're farmed worldwide as animal protein in poor countries, so it made sense to mention them... and also in IC (that means in-character, as in the roleplayed reality) more than 99% of Araraukarians get their animal protein from farmed insects and fish, so it's a subject I've studied.

EDIT(s): What would you think about the newest draft? I've tried to remodel it based on your feedback.

I'll give it a proper look a bit later, if that's ok. Right now too hungry to think straight so need to make food...

[Latidonia]

OOC post.

OOC:

Thank you for the response! Maybe I just got a bit flustered, since I'm not used to such direct criticism, but often it's a lot better to not sugarcoat feedback.

Environmental would probably be a good category for the proposal with agriculture as the aoe. I'm thinking I'd put something about antibiotics use on the resolution and tone down the cruelty-part, although that's something I still want to include to a degree. But a resolution directed at avoiding antiobiotics-resistance and overall spread of disease, both between herds and cross-species, would probably be far more acceptable, than a resolution solely about cruelty. Altogether I feel that would be more acceptable to internationally legislate, since disease knows no borders. Thanks!

[WA Kitty Kops]

But a resolution directed at avoiding antiobiotics-resistance

OOC: Fairly sure that already exists. And sorry for no kitty speech, but I don't think the kitten would actually care about antibiotics, other than wanting to vanish if vet visits are mentioned...