[ABANDONED] On Political Rights during Territorial Purchases

[Great Robertia]

CURRENT DRAFT:

On Political Rights during Territorial Purchases
Category: Furtherment of Democracy | Strength: Significant

---

The World Assembly,

Applauding the efforts made by the international community to further the political rights of sentient beings everywhere;

Understanding that there are many areas within this field of international law that require attention, and thus can not be regulated in a single, all-encompassing resolution;

Further understanding that member states may want to expand their national boundaries through the purchase of territories from other member nations, or non-member sovereign entities;

Concerned by the lack of international law regarding the stable transition of political rights that sentient beings affected by any and all territorial acquisition through purchase hold;

Hereby:

1. Defines for the purposes of this resolution:
   
   1. 'territorial purchase' as any economic activity between two sovereign entities, wherein one party acquires territorial concessions from the other party, and in which the latter receives any form of compensation for the territorial loss from the former;
   2. 'political rights' as any and all rights that entitle citizens who have attained legal majority to participate directly and indirectly in the administration of a sovereign entity;
2. Affirms the right of member states to engage in the act of territorial purchase with other member nations as well as other non-member sovereign entities;
   
   
3. Establishes the Committee for the Oversight of Territorial Purchases (COTP) to oversee any and all territorial purchases between member states and other sovereign entities as an independent third observer, with the following responsibilities:
   
   1. assessing the losses and gains in political rights that citizens affected by territorial purchases will be forced to endure;
   2. providing fair estimates, and comprehensive information to all the involved parties on how the citizens affected by territorial purchases will be impacted in their political rights;
   3. overseeing that any territorial purchase arrangement contains clauses on a reasonable and fair transitional period;
   4. confirming that any agreed upon transitional periods are complied with by both the selling, and buying parties;
   5. facilitating comprehensible and fair communication between the citizens affected by the territorial purchase, the buying party, and the selling party;
   6. ensuring that non-compliance with this resolution will result in the termination, and nullification of the territorial purchase arrangement, after reasonable attempts to return to a state of compliance have failed; and
   7. further ensuring that in the event of non-compliance with this resolution, the state that existed directly prior to the enactment of any territorial purchase will be restored;
4. Mandates that member states implement a lenient transitional period of reasonable duration, wherein any and all citizens acquired during a territorial purchase will be aided in acclimatizing to the loss of old, and acquisition of new political rights, whenever they are the buying party in a territorial purchase;
   
   
5. Further mandates that member states participate wholly and unobtrusively in any transitional period implemented by a member nation or non-member sovereign entity, wherein any and all citizens that are being given over will be aided in acclimatizing to the loss of old, and acquisition of new political rights, when they are a selling party in a territorial purchase;
   
   
6. Forbids member states to treat or regard the sapient beings acquired, or given away during a territorial purchase worse than their own citizens, either during or after the transitional period as described in Articles 4 and 5;
   
   
7. Grants the COTP the power to prohibit a member state from engaging in a territorial purchase with another member nation or non-member sovereign entity, if a conclusive and irrefutable assessment would indicate that the political rights of the citizens affected by a territorial purchase would be impacted most negatively, provided that any and all alternatives have been exhausted in the pursuit of a fair and reasonable agreement of territorial purchase beforehand;
   
   
8. Commands member states to actively and unobtrusively collaborate with the COTP, when engaging in any territorial purchases with another member nation or non-member sovereign entity; and
   
   
9. Further commands the COTP to respect and keep intact the sovereignty of any member state or non-member nation, when overseeing any and all territorial purchases.

OOC: This draft is an attempt at a heavily revised, and hopefully more refined version of my previous idea on this topic, namely "On Territorial Acquisition through Purchase". While I am not adverse to IC conversation regarding this subject, I will primarily be interested in OOC feedback and commentary on how to improve this resolution draft, in order to make it work satisfactorily

[Separatist Peoples]

"The general policy behind this is something I could support. I would like to see provisions that provide for individuals who wish to relocate, grandfathered exemptions to local land use regulation for existing nonconforming use, and fair travel rights for those individuals with familial or community ties riven by the transaction before I offer formal support."

[Tinfect]

[*] Grants the COTP the power to prohibit a member state from engaging in a territorial purchase with another member nation or non-member sovereign entity, if a conclusive and irrefutable assessment would indicate that the political rights of the citizens affected by a territorial purchase would be impacted most negatively, provided that any and all alternatives have been exhausted in the pursuit of a fair and reasonable agreement of territorial purchase beforehand;

"Again, your Government seems to be greatly concerned with privileging certain Member-States over others. The World Assembly has never treated democratic states any differently from those with more sensible governments; we see little reason to support any legislation that would enable it to start."

[Great Robertia]

"The general policy behind this is something I could support. I would like to see provisions that provide for individuals who wish to relocate, grandfathered exemptions to local land use regulation for existing nonconforming use, and fair travel rights for those individuals with familial or community ties riven by the transaction before I offer formal support."

"Ambassador, we are grateful for your suggestions, and we'll implement them in the next version of this resolution draft, once we have collected more commentary."

"Again, your Government seems to be greatly concerned with privileging certain Member-States over others. The World Assembly has never treated democratic states any differently from those with more sensible governments; we see little reason to support any legislation that would enable it to start."

"Ambassador, I fail to see how this clause privileges one member state over another. If you study the wording closely, it should signal to you that this is a measure to prevent territorial purchases in extreme circumstances, wherein there would be a grave and severe impact to the political rights of the citizens affected by the transfer. Seeing as how the WA already safeguards the political and civil rights of the citizens of its member states to a certain degree, I doubt this clause will come into effect frequently. However, as a safeguard against extreme circumstances, I think it is warranted that this clause is included. Not to privilege one member state over another, or one form of government over another, but to protect citizens from being forced into harmful circumstances."

[Honeydewistania]

Drop the 'on' title, make it something like 'Protecting Political Rights during Territorial Purchase'

[Kenmoria]

“This looks to be a good proposal. I do have a question - why do you require that member states must cooperate with COTP in an unobtrusive manner? I don’t see what harm could be caused by a conspicuous positive relationship between committee and state.”

[Honeydewistania]

What about if a nation gifts land for free?

[Separatist Peoples]

What about if a nation gifts land for free?

"Alternatively, require all land sales of this nature be accompanied by sufficient (not adequate) consideration and allow transactions for nominal amounts. One greenback per hectare! One greenback for the lot of it!"

[Tinfect]

"Ambassador, I fail to see how this clause privileges one member state over another. If you study the wording closely, it should signal to you that this is a measure to prevent territorial purchases in extreme circumstances, wherein there would be a grave and severe impact to the political rights of the citizens affected by the transfer. [...] Not to privilege one member state over another, or one form of government over another, but to protect citizens from being forced into harmful circumstances."

"I will remind you, Ambassador, of your own definition;"

Defines for the purposes of this resolution:
'political rights' as any and all rights that entitle citizens who have attained legal majority to participate directly and indirectly in the administration of a sovereign entity;

"Answer a simple question; if the Imperium were to purchase a territory from a 'democratic' Member-State, would this transition be considered a 'most negative' impact on 'poltiical rights'?"

[Great Robertia]

"I will remind you, Ambassador, of your own definition;"

Defines for the purposes of this resolution:
'political rights' as any and all rights that entitle citizens who have attained legal majority to participate directly and indirectly in the administration of a sovereign entity;

"Answer a simple question; if the Imperium were to purchase a territory from a 'democratic' Member-State, would this transition be considered a 'most negative' impact on 'poltiical rights'?"

"Such a balance of losses and gains in political rights would have to be evaluated by the committee that this resolution draft seeks to create. However, seeing as your Imperium is a part of the WA, I assume it remains compliant with its legislation that also works to protect and safeguard the rights of citizens. Unless, Ambassador, you mean to say this is not the case?

Is it possible that this resolution may stop a territorial purchase from occurring between one sovereign entity and your Imperium? I do not exclude the possibility of such an occurrence arising. Yet if I am not mistaken, then there is no WA legislation that says that every single resolution that is being proposed or passed needs to cater to your Imperium's system of government or ideology. I assume every member nation of the WA will eventually come, or already has reached the point, where legislation is being passed it disagrees with."

“This looks to be a good proposal. I do have a question - why do you require that member states must cooperate with COTP in an unobtrusive manner? I don’t see what harm could be caused by a conspicuous positive relationship between committee and state.”

"Our apologies, Ambassador, this was an oversight that we didn't catch during the writing process. Instead of "unobtrusive" we meant "unobstructed". We will seek to mend this in the redrafted version of this resolution proposal."

"grandfathered exemptions to local land use regulation for existing nonconforming use"

"My apologies in advance, Ambassador, but might I ask for a brief example of what you mean here? I'd like to make sure that I understand your suggestion properly."

[Tinfect]

"Such a balance of losses and gains in political rights would have to be evaluated by the committee that this resolution draft seeks to create. However, seeing as your Imperium is a part of the WA, I assume it remains compliant with its legislation that also works to protect and safeguard the rights of citizens. Unless, Ambassador, you mean to say this is not the case?

"Rather than insinuate that the Imperium is not in compliance, you could, if you would, actually answer the question. The Imperium is not a 'democratic' state, and there is nothing in World Assembly Law that would require it to be such. It's a very simple question; in your opinion, would the transition from a 'democratic' state, to the Imperium, constitute a loss of political rights, such that the World Assembly would be obligated to prohibit it?"

[Araraukar]

"Such a balance of losses and gains in political rights would have to be evaluated by the committee that this resolution draft seeks to create. However, seeing as your Imperium is a part of the WA, I assume it remains compliant with its legislation that also works to protect and safeguard the rights of citizens. Unless, Ambassador, you mean to say this is not the case?

"Rather than insinuate that the Imperium is not in compliance, you could, if you would, actually answer the question. The Imperium is not a 'democratic' state, and there is nothing in World Assembly Law that would require it to be such. It's a very simple question; in your opinion, would the transition from a 'democratic' state, to the Imperium, constitute a loss of political rights, such that the World Assembly would be obligated to prohibit it?"

IC: "Of course not, don't be silly. It just means they can't have fewer rights than the citizens you already have."

OOC: Anything else would basically be an ideology ban against non-democratic nations. I think the author should clarify that, though.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC: Anything else would basically be an ideology ban against non-democratic nations. I think the author should clarify that, though.

OOC: How is a ban on large reductions in political rights in purchased territory an ideological ban? The nation that's been stopped from making the purchase can still acquire the territory by (among other things) conquest, legal shenanigans, or last will and testament of an absolute ruler. Only if those things were prohibited by the WA could you even begin to make the IB argument, and even then it wouldn't be a ban on the ideology, it would be a ban on nations with that and many other very different ideologies acquiring new territory only.

[Great Robertia]

"Rather than insinuate that the Imperium is not in compliance, you could, if you would, actually answer the question. The Imperium is not a 'democratic' state, and there is nothing in World Assembly Law that would require it to be such. It's a very simple question; in your opinion, would the transition from a 'democratic' state, to the Imperium, constitute a loss of political rights, such that the World Assembly would be obligated to prohibit it?"

"Dear Ambassador, I have already given you an answer. If it's not the answer you wanted, then frankly that is your problem and not mine. A committee of qualified individuals will have to determine whether the advantages of becoming part of your Imperium balance out the loss of political rights that you claim would occur in such a situation. I am not an expert on your country, so frankly I don't consider myself the proper person to make a judgement like that right now. It will require research, analysis, and evaluation on the part of the committee that this resolution intends to create.

As I said before, this article is meant as a safeguard against extreme situations. While I can imagine that a transfer from a democratic society to a non-democratic one might be drastic, if there are enough advantages that offset this then you have nothing to fear. What do I understand under "extreme situations"? A case wherein a transfer of territory would mean that newly acquired citizens are directly or indirectly purged, slaughtered, enslaved or otherwise treated as second-class citizens and made to suffer as a result. I can't imagine any of those descriptions would apply to your nation, Ambassador."

OOC: Thank you Sierra Lyricalia, that's exactly where my thoughts lay when writing this resolution draft, and specifically that clause. It's meant as a safeguard against extreme situations, and is not an ideological ban. If I wanted to introduce any sort of ideological ban - which I don't, since Great Robertia doesn't have elections either but instead practices sortition - it would have been plain, clear and overtly stated.

[Tinfect]

"A case wherein a transfer of territory would mean that newly acquired citizens are directly or indirectly purged, slaughtered, enslaved or otherwise treated as second-class citizens and made to suffer as a result. I can't imagine any of those descriptions would apply to your nation, Ambassador."

"Now was that so hard? State that in the draft; else the Committee may be making quite unintended decisions."

[Separatist Peoples]

Applauding the efforts made by the international communityinternational community's efforts to further the sentient beings' political rights of sentient beings everywhere;

Understanding that there are many areas within this field of of international law that require attention, and thus can not be regulated in bya single, all-encompassing resolution;

Further understanding that member states may want to expand their national boundaries through the purchase of territories from other member nations, or non-member sovereign entities;

Concerned by the lack of international law regarding about the stable transition of political rights that sentient beings affected by any and all territorial acquisition through purchase hold;

Hereby:

"Terrible drafting. Lets cut unnecessary words and use active voice."

Defines for the purposes of this resolution:

'tTerritorial purchase' as isany economic activity between two sovereign entities, wherein one party acquires territorial concessions from the other party, and in which the latter receives any form of compensation for the territorial loss from the former;
[*] 'political rights' as any and all rights that entitle citizens who have attained legal majority to participate directly and indirectly in the administration of a sovereign entity;

"The blue highlight is just terrible policy. The sale of land is a contractual matter. Use precise contractual concepts. It is not economic activity, it is an exchange for value. Compensation is too vague. In exchange for the sovereign title to the land, the seller is receiving consideration. It need not be cash.

The second definition didn't even receive language workshopping. This is a terrible definition of rights, not the least of which because it excludes those rights owed to minors. It also does not consider the difference between administration and governance. One often participates in governance through what we understand as the democratic process. Administration is generally a countermajoritarian policy execution not subject directly to popular oversight. A legislator may engage in governance, but a tax accountant administrates."

Affirms the right of member states to engage in the act of territorial purchase with othermember nations as well as other non-member sovereign entities;

"If you can engage in X with A and B, and A and B are mutually exclusive parts of the entirety, then you can just say that you can engage in X."

Establishes the Committee for the Oversight of Territorial Purchases (COTP) to oversee any and all territorial purchases between member states and other sovereign entities as an independent third observer, with the following responsibilities:

"What does "any" add that "all" does not cover?"

assessing the losses and gains in changed topolitical rights that affected citizens affected by territorial purchases will be forced to will endure;

"Do not mistake complexity for quality."

[*] providing fair estimates, and comprehensive information to all the involved parties on how the citizens affected by territorial purchases will be impacted in their political rights;

"This clause brings up many problems with your writing, ambassador. For one, you nominalize the verbs at the start of each bullet. Providing fair estimates? You could have broken down the phrasing as:

"Tasks the COMMITTEE to:

*Assess changes
*Estimate and promulgate impacts
*etc. and so on."

"Worse, it makes it impossible to readily address these bullet points for grammar. The proper phasing for this point would look more like:

"estimate and promulgate information to involved parties on the legal impact of territorial purchase on citizen rights."

"This is 118 characters, 17 words, compared to 180 characters and 26 words. For the same statement."

[*] overseeing Ensurethat any territorial purchase arrangement contains clauses ona reasonable and fair transitional period;

"This is a requirement for the parties involved, and should be an active requirement on member states, not a duty for the committee."

[*] confirming that any agreed upon transitional periods are complied with by both the selling, and buying parties;

"Delete this requirement. Noncompliance with transitional periods is...noncompliance! We have a committee for that."

[*] facilitating comprehensible and fairfacilitate communication between the affected citizens affected by the territorial purchase, the buying party, and the selling party and the contracting governments;

"Would that I could comprehend this clause. I won't even try to reformat it, I'll just improve what you have to make the point."

ensuring that non-compliance with this resolution will result in the termination, and nullification of the territorial purchase arrangement, after reasonable attempts to return to a state of compliance have failed; and
further ensuring that in the event of non-compliance with this resolution, the state that existed directly prior to the enactment of any territorial purchase will be restored;

"Many, many problems here, ambassador. Termination and nullification? Which is it? Termination implies the contract is completed. Nullification implies that the contract was rescinded such that it never existed. You should 'void' the agreement if you want to treat it as though the parties never validly contracted. You should also take this opportunity to address the nominalization and passive voice I marked elsewhere. This can be your practice section."

Mandates that member states must implement a lenient transitional period of reasonable duration, wherein any and all citizens acquired during a territorial purchase will be aided in acclimatizing to the loss of old, and acquisition of new political rights, whenever they are the buying party in a territorial purchase;

Bell pinches the bridge of his nose. "A lenient transitional period of reasonable duration...an unreasonable duration isn't reasonable, now is it? Any and all again? Be aided and acclimatized? Start this section over. Do not edit it, rewrite it, for the love of Odin."

[*] Further mandates thatMember states selling territory must participate wholly and unobtrusively in any transitional period implemented by a member nation or non-member sovereign entity, whereinto aidany and all affected citizens that are being given over will be aided in acclimatizing to the loss of old, and acquisition of new political rights, when they are a selling party in a territorial purchase relative to their new political rights;

"What is wholly and unobtrusively? How does one participate in a way that is 'whole' without intruding? You needn't address which entities have enacted the transitional period. You are using two exclusive entities that make up the entirety of possible entities again.

Forbids mMember states must nottotreat or regardthe sapient beings acquired, or given away during a territorial purchase worse than their own citizens, either during or after the transitional period as described in Articles 4 and 5;

"You need not clarify before or after if the requirement is absolute. Further, I am increasingly concerned with your treatment of sapient beings as commodities to acquire. They are individuals with dignity and rights, not widgets to be exchanged. I am concerned, as a matter of policy, that you envision the sale of property to excommunicate the tenants from their prior citizenship, when that should have little bearing in this case."

Grants tThe COTP may the power to prohibit a member state from engaging in a territorial purchase with another member nation or non-member sovereign entity, territorial purchase if a conclusive and irrefutable assessment would indicate that the political rights of the citizens affected by a territorial purchase would be impacted most negatively, provided that any and all alternatives have been exhausted in the pursuit of a fair and reasonable agreement of territorial purchase beforehand;

"You are clearly creating a legal test here. The committee may prohibit purchase if the political rights of citizens in the purchased territory are conclusively and irrefutably negatively impacted. And yet you also seem to require that states chose the least negative outcome after alternatives are exhausted. Frankly, this is a mess. Chose a legal test. Pick the evidentiary standard, pick the factors you want assessed, and stick to them. Blow this section up with C4."

Commands mMember states must to actively and unobtrusively collaborate with the COTP, when engaging in any territorial purchases with another member nation or non-member sovereign entity when purchasing territory; and

Further commands the COTP to respect and keep intact the sovereignty of any member state or non-member nation, when overseeing any and all territorial purchases.

"This clause essentially neuters the COTP from actually doing its job, since respecting sovereignty of an entity in a sale would require not enforcing any requirements not already part of the sale.

"This is a disappointing draft."

[Great Robertia]

"This is a disappointing draft."

"Thank you, Ambassador, for your candid commentary and for making it clear to me that the path of WA legislator is not one I should walk. While an unpleasant realisation, it is better this has been pointed out to me during the drafting process, rather than at a later stage. It limits the amount of embarrassment, I hope.

Should other, more experienced legislators seek to continue this idea, please, do not hesitate to do so. While it may be flawed, perhaps there is a potential basis at its core."

OOC: After several tries, I don't think resolution drafting is something for me. It has reached the point where it is more tiring than fun, so I don't think I am cut out for this sort of writing. I think it's best if I stick to issue writing/drafting nonetheless, thank you for the feedback! The remarks you made won't go to waste, as I believe I can apply much of the commentary in issue drafting.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Anything else would basically be an ideology ban against non-democratic nations. I think the author should clarify that, though.

OOC: How is a ban on large reductions in political rights in purchased territory an ideological ban?

OOC: People of Nation A have voting rights because Nation A is a democracy. People of Nation B do not have voting rights becaue Nation B is not a democracy. Nation B purchases an area of land from Nation A. Now Nation B has to ensure the people living on the purchased land continue to have their voting rights. How does that work in a non-democracy? Requiring Nation B to become a democracy to have the same rights (of land purchase) as democratic nations, would be an ideology ban on non-democratic nations.

Thus the only sensible solution to the problem is the one I mentioned in IC.

OOC: After several tries, I don't think resolution drafting is something for me.

This is the hardest part of the game to get a grasp of, so don't worry about it. You can always partake the drafting threads of others, instead of trying to write one of your own. It's pretty much the best way to learn, too.

[Graintfjall]

OOC: After several tries, I don't think resolution drafting is something for me. It has reached the point where it is more tiring than fun, so I don't think I am cut out for this sort of writing. I think it's best if I stick to issue writing/drafting nonetheless, thank you for the feedback! The remarks you made won't go to waste, as I believe I can apply much of the commentary in issue drafting.

OOC: That is a shame. It's just a game, lol, it's meant to be fun. Hard to see how new players are going to stick with the miserable experience that is the forum now.