[Legality Challenge] Pedagogical Freedom

[Attempted Socialism]

Proposal challenged:

Pedagogical Freedom
A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts.

Category: Educational and Creativity

Area of Effect: Educational

Proposed by: Tinhampton

[/align]

---

Believing that it ought to promote the right of parents to direct their children's education (rather than hindering it, i.e. by requiring homeschoolers to seek teacher supervision or completely outlawing homeschooling), the General Assembly resolves, with immediate effect, that:

1. Subject to prior and standing international law, member states and their political subdivisions ("members") must respect, in law and in practice:
   
   1. the right of parents, carers and guardians ("parents") of children to direct and guarantee, with regard to their sincerely-held moral beliefs, the education of their children, and
   2. the right of children to receive a full-time education which is adequate and appropriate to their age and ability.
2. Members are strongly urged to respect the right of adults to receive an education as described in Article a(ii).
3. This Compact must not be interpreted to necessarily require members to fully fund or partially subsidise schools; those judgments are reserved to the individual member states.
4. This Compact must not be interpreted to forbid members from requiring parents to enrol their children into a school, provided that they have a reasonable belief that those parents have failed to guarantee that their children receive an education as described in Article a(ii).

[/blocktext]

https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1600234439

As astutely noted in the draft thread itself:

How does this even boost education budgets?

It doesn't. There's nothing in the resolution that can plausibly increase education budgets (In fact, I would argue if anything it would tend to decrease them!). It doesn't improve education standards in other ways, either. The resolution does not fit the category effects or intended use, making it illegal under the rules.

My apologies for the late challenge, I must say I do not recall seeing the proposal before it was submitted a few days ago (And Honeydewistania only asked the question yesterday).

[Honeydewistania]

A much better fit would be Civil Rights (Mild). Anyways, I think the clause about affirming the right of a child to receive an adequate education (and maybe the one about urging ‘members’ to respect adults right to education) could be construed as increasing education budgets, but I’m not GenSec.

[Attempted Socialism]

The right to an education is already established, and to a much higher standard, in other resolutions. What mandates here would get states to increase education budgets?

I tentatively agree that Civil Rights would be better -- after all, this is giving parents the questionable right to harm their children.

[Honeydewistania]

The right to an education is already established, and to a much higher standard, in other resolutions. What mandates here would get states to increase education budgets?

Yeah that's what I thought, so I think this is illegal. Hopefully the Secretariat can come to a quick decision.

[Bananaistan]

I considered this before marking the proposal legal in queue.

Recent precedent is relevant. Sections a(ii) and b are more than merely trivial in how they would promote funding and development of education.

[Separatist Peoples]

I considered this before marking the proposal legal in queue.

Recent precedent is relevant. Sections a(ii) and b are more than merely trivial in how they would promote funding and development of education.

Likewise. I'd be happy to accept this case if the challenger can articulate an illegality in light of the updated precedent.

[Attempted Socialism]

I honestly thought it was obvious (a(ii) does not commit states to any new spending, b is a mere urging to do what other resolutions already do, while c and d do not increase education spending either). However, as I didn't and currently don't have time to really argue this, especially now it has gone to the floor, I'll retract my challenge.