[DRAFT] Right To A Last Will

[Daarwyrth]

Right To A Last Will
Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Mild

---

Applauding the many rights and protections that this august and international body grants to and bestows upon all individuals across member nations, but dismayed to see that the right to a last will is not yet guaranteed by law of the General Assembly, and

Cognizant of every individual's right to live a life according to their own free choices, and equally aware of the need for the same to apply to an individual's death and the passing on of their material and immaterial possessions in the form of an inheritance, and thus

Adamant to undo the extant hole in legislation on the subject of last wills, so as to ensure that every individual will be able to pass on in peace, knowing their death will not spark unnecessary strife or conflict over the inheritance that is to be left behind,

The General Assembly hereby:

1. Defines for the purposes of this resolution:
   
   
   1. an "estate" as the sum of a natural person's material and immaterial assets, such as but not limited to legal rights, interests, entitlements to property or lands of any kind, hereditary titles of nobility, tenement, and hereditaments; and
      
      
   2. a "will" as a legal declaration in which a natural person specifies the method to be applied in the management and distribution of the entirety of their estate upon the death of that natural person; and
      
      
   3. "legal competence" as the ability to make informed decisions independently as a natural person, who has also attained the legal age of majority in their member state;
   
   
2. Grants all legally competent individuals in member nations the right to formulate a will on the entirety of their estate, within the confines of the national laws that individual is subject to, and within the scope of previously passed World Assembly resolutions,
   
   
3. Further grants the inheritor of a natural person's estate the right to freely and without coercion refuse their inheritance, and the ability to appoint a different inheritor along the same conditions as specified under Clause 2, or, if such is applicable due to a lack of legal competence, to have a parent, guardian or caretaker appoint a different inheritor,
   
   
4. Requires all member nations to ensure that the will of an individual is legally recognised and enacted in its entirety upon that individual's death, within the confines of a member nation's national laws, and extant World Assembly resolutions,
   
   
5. Prohibits any individual or entity other than the person forming their own will from placing instructions, directions, restrictions, prohibitions, conditions, or any form of coercion on the formation or execution of their will, except in cases where such would be necessary for the prevention or stopping of illegal and/or criminal activities, or to remain compliant with previously passed World Assembly resolutions.

Co-authored with Adezku.

[Daarwyrth]

DRAFT 1:

Right To A Last Will
Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Mild

---

Applauding the many rights and protections that this august and international body grants to and bestows upon all individuals across member nations, but dismayed to see that the right to a last will is not yet guaranteed by law of the General Assembly, and

Cognizant of every individual's right to live a life according to their own free choices, and equally aware of the need for the same to apply to an individual's death and the passing on of their material and immaterial possessions in the form of an inheritance, and thus

Adamant to undo the extant hole in legislation on the subject of last wills, so as to ensure that every individual will be able to pass on in peace, knowing their death will not spark unnecessary strive or conflict over the inheritance that is to be left behind,

The General Assembly hereby:

1. Defines for the purposes of this resolution:
   
   
   1. an "estate" as the sum of a natural person's material and immaterial assets, such as but not limited to legal rights, interests, entitlements to property or lands of any kind, hereditary titles of nobility, tenement, and hereditaments; and
      
      
   2. a "will" as a legal declaration in which a natural person specifies the method to be applied in the management and distribution of the entirety of their estate upon the death of that natural person;
   
   
2. Grants all legally competent individuals in member nations the right to formulate a will on the entirety of their estate, within the confines of the national laws that individual is subject to, and within the scope of previously passed World Assembly resolutions,
   
   
3. Requires all member nations to ensure that the will of an individual is legally recognised and enacted in its entirety upon that individual's death, within the confines of a member nation's national laws, and previously passed World Assembly resolutions,
   
   
4. Prohibits any individual or entity other than the person forming their own will from placing instructions, directions, restrictions, conditions or any form of coercion on the formation or execution of their will, except in cases where such would be necessary for the prevention or stopping of illegal and/or criminal activities, or to remain compliant with previously passed World Assembly resolutions.

Co-authored with Adezku.

[Adezku]

The tall yet ageing figure of Baron Zakharin Makarovich, the Adezkan representative to the General Assembly, stood at the edge of the room, his red military uniform complimented by a dark blue sash and an array of medals pinned on his chest. Arms crossed, the bearded man spoke:

"Having co-authored the proposal with the Royal State of Daarwyrth, the Grand Duchy of Adezku finds itself in agreement and support of the aforementioned and presented proposal."

He gave a glance across the room before going silent again.

[Araraukar]

OOC: How is it Civil Rights? The dead have no rights after they've died and you're giving their posterity no rights. Just calling something a right does not make it a right.

Also the very necessary inclusion of national laws means that the will can be total nonsense if, for example, all possessions need to be sold to offset the debts of the deceased. They can want to leave the rights to Ravel's Bolero to their offspring all they want, but that doesn't mean their inheritors will actually get those rights.

And how is this an international issue? And if will writer and inheritors live in different nations with different inheritance taxes, which nation's laws are applied? And lastly, the inheritor should absolutely have the right to refuse to inherit something they don't want.

[Daarwyrth]

OOC: How is it Civil Rights? The dead have no rights after they've died and you're giving their posterity no rights. Just calling something a right does not make it a right.

OOC: A will is formed and written while someone is alive. As such, the ability to write and form such a will is a right that can be guaranteed by the WA to the living.

Also the very necessary inclusion of national laws means that the will can be total nonsense if, for example, all possessions need to be sold to offset the debts of the deceased. They can want to leave the rights to Ravel's Bolero to their offspring all they want, but that doesn't mean their inheritors will actually get those rights.

Hence the inclusion of "national laws". Yet the person in question should have the right and ability to formulate and set up a will, even if its execution will be subject to national law mandating a different outcome. The situation you describe will not always be the case, as I assume most of the time there won't be such an issue.

And how is this an international issue? And if will writer and inheritors live in different nations with different inheritance taxes, which nation's laws are applied? And lastly, the inheritor should absolutely have the right to refuse to inherit something they don't want.

The World Assembly has guaranteed rights like this in the past, I don't see why this couldn't fit in with those The question of the inheritance taxes is a valid concern, yet as far I know then the WA can't involve itself with the tax systems of member nations? As such, if there was such an issue as you describe, I imagine the member nations would resolve such between themselves. A line on that along the lines of "reserves the right to member nations to resolve... in alignment with previously passed World Assembly resolutions," could be added, of course. And yes, absolutely, good catch. The right for an inheritor to refuse the inheritance should absolutely included, and we'll do so in the next draft!

[Tinhampton]

Is this an attempt to stop IA's titles thing from becoming law?

Support on first readthru. Adezku looks like a rising star in the world of the GA and I wish them the best of luck, too.

[Daarwyrth]

Is this an attempt to stop IA's titles thing from becoming law?

Support on first readthru. Adezku looks like a rising star in the world of the GA and I wish them the best of luck, too.

Well, there is a gap in legislation regarding an individual's right to form a will, which needs to be filled, we believe

And thanks! I'm very glad I was able to convince Adezku to start playing NS and join the GA

[Trellania]

Dame Allania Trueblood wanders in, still carrying that ever-present pile of scrolls. She then sighs a moment as she looks around.

"I swear, the sign said this was the way to go for the ladies room."

Then, she stops to lean down and read the proposal, reading over it carefully before leaning back up.

"I would support this, but I question how this interacts with questions of debt and taxation. Will nations under this be allowed to collect debts from the estate of the deceased that the deceased incurred in life? And can a nation tax the portions of an estate of monetary and material value?"

[Daarwyrth]

Dame Allania Trueblood wanders in, still carrying that ever-present pile of scrolls. She then sighs a moment as she looks around.

"I swear, the sign said this was the way to go for the ladies room."

Then, she stops to lean down and read the proposal, reading over it carefully before leaning back up.

"I would support this, but I question how this interacts with questions of debt and taxation. Will nations under this be allowed to collect debts from the estate of the deceased that the deceased incurred in life? And can a nation tax the portions of an estate of monetary and material value?"

Maria vyn Nysen smiles friendly. "That's where the 'within the confines of the national laws' lines come into play, Ambassador. As per previous WA legislation, this proposal does not seek to meddle with national taxation systems and laws. For example, member nations remain free to regulate inheritance taxation in a manner that they see fit, and this also applies to events wherein someone would inherit estate from abroad. A nation can choose not to apply any taxation to it, or it can choose to do so. As such, under this proposal everyone will have a right to a will, but the legal declaration will have to be formed within the confines of existing legislation in a member nation. The same goes for the execution of the will, as this is also to happen within the confines of national law."

[Trellania]

Maria vyn Nysen smiles friendly. "That's where the 'within the confines of the national laws' lines come into play, Ambassador. As per previous WA legislation, this proposal does not seek to meddle with national taxation systems and laws. For example, member nations remain free to regulate inheritance taxation in a manner that they see fit, and this also applies to events wherein someone would inherit estate from abroad. A nation can choose not to apply any taxation to it, or it can choose to do so. As such, under this proposal everyone will have a right to a will, but the legal declaration will have to be formed within the confines of existing legislation in a member nation. The same goes for the execution of the will, as this is also to happen within the confines of national law."

Dame Allania nods. "Thank you. I wanted to make certain my interpretation of the text is correct. You have Trellania's full support."

[Daarwyrth]

Dame Allania nods. "Thank you. I wanted to make certain my interpretation of the text is correct. You have Trellania's full support."

Vyn Nysen: "We're happy to be of service in answering any and all questions regarding this proposal draft, Ambassador."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Why should anyone inherit wealth?

[Daarwyrth]

Why should anyone inherit wealth?

OOC: If someone really doesn't want to inherit, then by the text of this proposal they are absolutely free to refuse but I imagine most people would love to hear they inherited some wealth from someone (as crude as it sounds). And I can also imagine someone who amassed a lot of possessions wouldn't want to see it simply gone, but entrust it with someone.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Why should anyone inherit wealth?

OOC: If someone really doesn't want to inherit, then by the text of this proposal they are absolutely free to refuse but I imagine most people would love to hear they inherited some wealth from someone (as crude as it sounds). And I can also imagine someone who amassed a lot of possessions wouldn't want to see it simply gone, but entrust it with someone.

Okay, "people might want to bequeath it" in no way answers my question of why anyone should inherit wealth.

[Adezku]

OOC: If someone really doesn't want to inherit, then by the text of this proposal they are absolutely free to refuse but I imagine most people would love to hear they inherited some wealth from someone (as crude as it sounds). And I can also imagine someone who amassed a lot of possessions wouldn't want to see it simply gone, but entrust it with someone.

Okay, "people might want to bequeath it" in no way answers my question of why anyone should inherit wealth.

OOC: One should be able to inherit wealth for, in my mind, three main reasons:

• It is the right of the deceased to have bequeathed their material possessions to another to not let what may have been their life's work go to waste; also in this way those living can profit from the past's labours; it allows them to appreciate the work and effort of those who came before them.
• It is a boost to an individual's or family's private wealth, which allows them the ability to contribute to economical growth through investment or the like, which benefits the state and thereby each individual citizen; rather than that the money disappears into the vaults of the state or simply remains idle and locked away, it still contributes to the economy.
• Inheriting wealth is an opportunity to establish a (financial) future that has both long- and short-term benefits; also it offers a degree of security and protection through financial stability.

[Honeydewistania]

Just curious, what nations out there are stopping people from formulating their wills?

[Separatist Peoples]

"This seems to overlap considerably with spilllover trusts and, oddly, appears to allow heirs to appoint recipients once passed over rather than allows the estate to follow the next level of parentella or escheat to the state. Overall, this does not seem to be a right denied to individuals, as all rights herein are subject to national law. We oppose this measure."

[Separatist Peoples]

Okay, "people might want to bequeath it" in no way answers my question of why anyone should inherit wealth.

OOC: One should be able to inherit wealth for, in my mind, three main reasons:

• It is the right of the deceased to have bequeathed their material possessions to another to not let what may have been their life's work go to waste; also in this way those living can profit from the past's labours; it allows them to appreciate the work and effort of those who came before them.
• It is a boost to an individual's or family's private wealth, which allows them the ability to contribute to economical growth through investment or the like, which benefits the state and thereby each individual citizen; rather than that the money disappears into the vaults of the state or simply remains idle and locked away, it still contributes to the economy.
• Inheriting wealth is an opportunity to establish a (financial) future that has both long- and short-term benefits; also it offers a degree of security and protection through financial stability.

"This claim presents several errors.

"Initially, while disposition of property is an important factor of property rights, the efficiency or needs of the living should be able to override waste and unduly restrictive limits. There is no need to allow a dead hand to control the choices of those still living.

"Next, the assumption private inheritance stimulates economic activity while state use does not is absurd. There is nothing to suggest state use of funds is not as efficient and as productive as private use. Nor either is there any indication that private inheritors will not allow money to remain in a 'vault' unused more so than the state would. This delegation respectfully puts the ambassador to their proof to prove this claim."

"Finally, it is not clear why the fiscal security of inheritors exceeds alternate interests. That is, it is not clear why making an heir more wealthy is a greater interest to states than using that same money to benefit the public writ large, or to address an inequity within the inheriting family otherwise unprovisioned in the will, such as bypassing a surviving spouse entirely. This delegation respectfully puts the ambassador to their proof to prove this claim as well."

[Trellania]

"This claim presents several errors.

"Initially, while disposition of property is an important factor of property rights, the efficiency or needs of the living should be able to override waste and unduly restrictive limits. There is no need to allow a dead hand to control the choices of those still living.

"Next, the assumption private inheritance stimulates economic activity while state use does not is absurd. There is nothing to suggest state use of funds is not as efficient and as productive as private use. Nor either is there any indication that private inheritors will not allow money to remain in a 'vault' unused more so than the state would. This delegation respectfully puts the ambassador to their proof to prove this claim."

"Finally, it is not clear why the fiscal security of inheritors exceeds alternate interests. That is, it is not clear why making an heir more wealthy is a greater interest to states than using that same money to benefit the public writ large, or to address an inequity within the inheriting family otherwise unprovisioned in the will, such as bypassing a surviving spouse entirely. This delegation respectfully puts the ambassador to their proof to prove this claim as well."

"Does your nation not have laws written by people who are now deceased, Ambassador? Or do you automatically repeal them and write new ones as soon as that happens? If those laws are in place, a dead hand controls the choices of those still living even in your nation.

"And we have found the opposite related to inheritted wealth. Those who are wealthy and from wealthy families end up approximately the same either way; the primary source of their wealth is their connections and the results of those connections. But taking and redistributing property has, from what we have seen, caused distress to the poor by denying them inheritted wealth, often forcing the next generation to start off with almost nothing. It is they who this law impacts the most.

"But I will note neither your nation nor mine are the standard nation for most. We should not be trying to dictate this legislation. Step back and let those who are more standard speak up."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Does your nation not have laws written by people who are now deceased, Ambassador? Or do you automatically repeal them and write new ones as soon as that happens? If those laws are in place, a dead hand controls the choices of those still living even in your nation.

"This is a fascile argument, ambassador. Wills dispose of specific property to specific persons using a legal mechanism enforced by the state. Laws are broad policies applicable to society writ large governing the dynamics of that society moving forward from passage. Wills are not subject to revision after the death of the decedent. Laws are. Please dispense with poor faith arguments and we can get to the meat of this more readily."

"And we have found the opposite related to inheritted wealth. Those who are wealthy and from wealthy families end up approximately the same either way; the primary source of their wealth is their connections and the results of those connections. But taking and redistributing property has, from what we have seen, caused distress to the poor by denying them inheritted wealth, often forcing the next generation to start off with almost nothing. It is they who this law impacts the most.

"This highlights my concern. Your evidence is, essentially, anecdotal. There is no evidence provided that the claim that inheritance is inherently more productive when concentrated is true. There is also no implication to the contrary. Absent evidence to that effect, the claim is too absolute to survive. Where this is the case, a better solution is to leave the matter to member states without interference."

"But I will note neither your nation nor mine are the standard nation for most. We should not be trying to dictate this legislation. Step back and let those who are more standard speak up."

"I am not sure, ambassador, what you are trying to argue here? Are you suggesting that in a drafting room, ambassadors ought not provide feedback?"

[Trellania]

"This is a fascile argument, ambassador. Wills dispose of specific property to specific persons using a legal mechanism enforced by the state. Laws are broad policies applicable to society writ large governing the dynamics of that society moving forward from passage. Wills are not subject to revision after the death of the decedent. Laws are. Please dispense with poor faith arguments and we can get to the meat of this more readily."

"A statement lacking veracity, ambassador. This very proposal provides a method by which the will may be modified after the one who penned it is deceased. And the point of bringing it up is to highlight the hypocrisy in voicing complaint with the dead dictating to the living in one arena, but to be comfortable with it in another. Had you limited your argument to just the issue of modification, it would have merit worth discussion."

"This highlights my concern. Your evidence is, essentially, anecdotal. There is no evidence provided that the claim that inheritance is inherently more productive when concentrated is true. There is also no implication to the contrary. Absent evidence to that effect, the claim is too absolute to survive. Where this is the case, a better solution is to leave the matter to member states without interference."

"And your challenge is based on anecdotal evidence and the belief those anecdotes are powerful enough to dictate law to the international community. If anecdotes have no merit in discussion, I do not see why you waste the time of those involved with empty words. Absent evidence that your challenge has any foundation in reality, it is without any logical foundation for consideration and should be rejected as drivel. Especially when you reject the experiences of other nations as though your own is somehow a better judge of what is and is not real."

"I am not sure, ambassador, what you are trying to argue here? Are you suggesting that in a drafting room, ambassadors ought not provide feedback?"

"No, ambassador. I was recognizing that the inherent differences of two nations compared to most may limit the reasonableness of their arguments as compared to what the average nation would be experiencing. There is feedback to be had, but it should not be of the kind that attempts to impose the wills of nations who are far from the standard on others. That is not how an organization like this should work."

OOC: It is amusing to RP an ambassador arguing that their own voice should have limited impact on an issue.

[Daarwyrth]

"This seems to overlap considerably with spilllover trusts and, oddly, appears to allow heirs to appoint recipients once passed over rather than allows the estate to follow the next level of parentella or escheat to the state. Overall, this does not seem to be a right denied to individuals, as all rights herein are subject to national law. We oppose this measure."

Vyn Nysen: "Apologies, but do you mean to say there is a specific WA resolution on spillover trusts? I have sent out my aides to try to find a mention of "spillover trusts" but there seems to be no resolution that mentions it. Are we searching incorrectly or did you mean something entirely else with this statement, Ambassador?

The Clause speaking of the heir being able to appoint another heir can be mended, of course, to either pass over to the next in line for the inheritance or to the state, if such would be the chain of events. Nonetheless, our delegations believe it would be good to implement this in a preventive measure. Seas forbid someone would want to restrict the way in which a certain type of people would be able to handle their inheritance after their death simply because they are allowed to inherit. Surely something of the sorts would be undesirable. Well, in the hopes of preventing such pre-emptively, our delegations have devised this proposal draft."

"Initially, while disposition of property is an important factor of property rights, the efficiency or needs of the living should be able to override waste and unduly restrictive limits. There is no need to allow a dead hand to control the choices of those still living.

"Yet the hand that writes the will is not dead, Ambassador, otherwise they would have been no will. The author of a will is alive during the process of its formation, and in most cases also has the ability to alter the will as time progresses. As such, wills aren't set in stone until their authors are deceased. I find it difficult to imagine that the author of a will would not factor in existing circumstances during the formation of their will, and its subsequent alterations. And if circumstances are such that a living person would have trouble receiving the inheritance, then they have the right to refuse the inheritance, and thus assure that their needs are met. The proposal grants member states room to create an efficient system regarding inheritance, but it demands that such a system be put in place."

"Next, the assumption private inheritance stimulates economic activity while state use does not is absurd. There is nothing to suggest state use of funds is not as efficient and as productive as private use. Nor either is there any indication that private inheritors will not allow money to remain in a 'vault' unused more so than the state would. This delegation respectfully puts the ambassador to their proof to prove this claim."

"You may have a point, Ambassador, yet the choice of the disposition of that wealth should be left to the individuals involved themselves. If an individual has earned a fortune, I see little reason why that person shouldn't have the freedom to leave that wealth to an heir of their choice in a will. The implementation of this right will ensure that all individuals will be in possession of the right to leave behind an inheritance, and this is not only about wealth. Imagine families of smaller means, yet with an heirloom of specific value. This right would ensure that in all cases, in all member states, an individual would be able to leave behind that heirloom to their children should they so choose. I feel the focus here is placed too much on larger concentrations of wealth, when in fact this proposal is meant to affect all individuals in member states, of modest means or not."

"Finally, it is not clear why the fiscal security of inheritors exceeds alternate interests. That is, it is not clear why making an heir more wealthy is a greater interest to states than using that same money to benefit the public writ large, or to address an inequity within the inheriting family otherwise unprovisioned in the will, such as bypassing a surviving spouse entirely. This delegation respectfully puts the ambassador to their proof to prove this claim as well."

"What alternate interests are you thinking of, Ambassador? Why should the wealth of someone who has worked hard for it their entire lives be passed onto other interests, than for example the wellbeing of that individual's child? A parent may be working hard to build up an estate to leave behind for their children, and if that is the intent of that parent, why should their wealth serve another interest than what they had intended it for? I understand the need for social equality and to promote greater economic equality as well, yet taking the entire wealth of a person and redistributing it seems hardly fair. Yet that is why many nations impose inheritance taxes, to ensure that at least a portion of the wealth being inherited also is diverted to ensuring greater wellbeing for the whole of the state. This proposal absolutely does not thwart a member nation's ability to impose such taxes onto inheritances, and so wider interests of public wellbeing can be served, without using an individual's entire wealth or estate for such."

[Separatist Peoples]

"A statement lacking veracity, ambassador.

"No, it isn't. For one, a will is created by the decedent while law is created by a government entity, generally a legislature. Further, wills are governed by law, not vice versa, suggested an inherent subordination between the two that indicates a fundamental difference. Notably, a will is a private document that evades the probate process, which is another system established by law, indicating, again, a fundamental difference between the two. Ultimately, wills are the directive of an individual to dispose of property. Given that the two are, at their essential core, different, it is absolutely inane to conflate the two, especially when the 'dead hand' policy I describe is an essential policy consideration to justify imposing policy over wills. Pretending that the two are comparable by more than their general status as texts relevant to lawyers reveals a shocking ignorance of your own field."

OOC: In fact, lets just slap on to this statement as a further bolster that I've worked a spell as a wills and estates attorney and can tell you that the two are demonstrably different as a matter of substance, application, philosophy, and, yes, even policy.

This very proposal provides a method by which the will may be modified after the one who penned it is deceased. And the point of bringing it up is to highlight the hypocrisy in voicing complaint with the dead dictating to the living in one arena, but to be comfortable with it in another. Had you limited your argument to just the issue of modification, it would have merit worth discussion."

"Hardly. The entire point of policy is for the upkeep and general efficiency of society. THe point of a will is to further the interests of the decedent. Comparing the two, again, indicates an ignorance over the topic and, indeed, the very role of government in society."

"And your challenge is based on anecdotal evidence and the belief those anecdotes are powerful enough to dictate law to the international community.

"No, ambassador. I offered no factual evidence. I noted the counterpoint and observed that there was no evidence, either factual or based on analytical reasoning, to support the claim made. A subtle difference, but generally not too subtle for legal experts.

Absent evidence that your challenge has any foundation in reality, it is without any logical foundation for consideration and should be rejected as drivel. Especially when you reject the experiences of other nations as though your own is somehow a better judge of what is and is not real."

"I make little argument that I am a better judge of reality than others, ambassador, but it seems that I am the superior judge on how wills work based on your responses."

"No, ambassador. I was recognizing that the inherent differences of two nations compared to most may limit the reasonableness of their arguments as compared to what the average nation would be experiencing. There is feedback to be had, but it should not be of the kind that attempts to impose the wills of nations who are far from the standard on others. That is not how an organization like this should work."

"The World Assembly is essentially a direct democracy. The 'average' will always impose its assessment of policy on radical minorities. It is, in fact, the radical minorities that needn't be considered, as their power to resist is negligible."

OOC: It is amusing to RP an ambassador arguing that their own voice should have limited impact on an issue.

OOC: Amusing is not the term I'd use.

Vyn Nysen: "Apologies, but do you mean to say there is a specific WA resolution on spillover trusts? I have sent out my aides to try to find a mention of "spillover trusts" but there seems to be no resolution that mentions it. Are we searching incorrectly or did you mean something entirely else with this statement, Ambassador?

"Spillover trusts are an alternate mechanism of disposing of property to wills. Your definition of will would include that mechanism by my reading, which would negatively effect those with such estate plans.

OOC: I have, like, three trusts, all of which would be bungled by this in the Real World(tm), but I admit that i have no idea if my use of the term is specific to the US only.

"Yet the hand that writes the will is not dead, Ambassador, otherwise they would have been no will.

"That is not how that term is used. The dead hand policy is meant to describe how the requirements of a will can manage property long after the death of the decedent, regardless of novel circumstances. This seems a particularly weak rejoinder."

The author of a will is alive during the process of its formation, and in most cases also has the ability to alter the will as time progresses. As such, wills aren't set in stone until their authors are deceased.

"Yes, this is generally the problem."

I find it difficult to imagine that the author of a will would not factor in existing circumstances during the formation of their will, and its subsequent alterations.

"This is, quite literally, the entire reason there exists a probate system in many states.
OOC: I think I have an 800 page textbook full of cases that prove the exact opposite of this is true!

And if circumstances are such that a living person would have trouble receiving the inheritance, then they have the right to refuse the inheritance, and thus assure that their needs are met. The proposal grants member states room to create an efficient system regarding inheritance, but it demands that such a system be put in place."

"I'm not certain, ambassador, why the system needs to exist if the system will circumvent the entire policy of disposition of property after death that you seek to impose. It is rather like banning whistling except where states allow it., which is the thrust of my complaint."

"You may have a point, Ambassador, yet the choice of the disposition of that wealth should be left to the individuals involved themselvesIf an individual has earned a fortune, I see little reason why that person shouldn't have the freedom to leave that wealth to an heir of their choice in a will.

"Leaving aside my personal beliefs on this, why? Why should the state permit waste at the expense of the living?"

The implementation of this right will ensure that all individuals will be in possession of the right to leave behind an inheritance, and this is not only about wealth. Imagine families of smaller means, yet with an heirloom of specific value. This right would ensure that in all cases, in all member states, an individual would be able to leave behind that heirloom to their children should they so choose. I feel the focus here is placed too much on larger concentrations of wealth, when in fact this proposal is meant to affect all individuals in member states, of modest means or not."

"Herein we find the problem with this approach. It is easy to cover this in terms of what a low-value estate of only a few hundred thousand greenbacks without looking to the multi-million greenback estates that are often the source of this contentious transfer. But your proposal makes no distinction between the two. And, indeed, couldn't, given that the line between the two is not an objective amount. Another reason this more properly belongs in the hands of member states and not the World Assembly. You cannot effectively craft a policy that is both effective and appropriately inclusive at this scale."

"What alternate interests are you thinking of, Ambassador? Why should the wealth of someone who has worked hard for it their entire lives be passed onto other interests, than for example the wellbeing of that individual's child?

"Initially, you assume any inherited wealth is itself something the inheritor earned through labor. For another, you assume, inherently in this aspect of your policy, that societal interests are, by definition, subordinate to the mere desires of the individual. This is not a universal truth, especially relative to property disposition."

A parent may be working hard to build up an estate to leave behind for their children, and if that is the intent of that parent, why should their wealth serve another interest than what they had intended it for?

"One may argue, ambassador, that the desires of one who is no longer alive are of less concern than the concerns of those still living."

I understand the need for social equality and to promote greater economic equality as well, yet taking the entire wealth of a person and redistributing it seems hardly fair.

"Here we again run into the question of scale. Under your conception, you are locked into an either-or arrangement, when individual states could readily make accommodations specific to their interests and values."

Yet that is why many nations impose inheritance taxes, to ensure that at least a portion of the wealth being inherited also is diverted to ensuring greater wellbeing for the whole of the state.

"Inheritance tax rarely helps the disowned child, the neglected spouse, or any number of scenarios where an individual with an equitable interest in the estate is left out, regardless of the interests of the state in ensuring those individuals are cared for or any reliance and sacrifice of that individual on the expectation of receiving a share.

OOC: to expand on that last part, the expectation of a surviving spouse who is disinherited despite his or her equitable expectation (say they were a caretaker in the twilight years) in favor of a child from a prior marriage is a very common point of litigation.

This proposal absolutely does not thwart a member nation's ability to impose such taxes onto inheritances, and so wider interests of public wellbeing can be served, without using an individual's entire wealth or estate for such."

"To the extent your proposal creates a right that does not exist, it either limits that right so much as to make your proposal toothless or it does it so aggressively as to wipe out any of the nuance domestic will and estate policies have been able to address. This is a matter best left entirely to individual states."

[Trellania]

"No, it isn't. For one, a will is created by the decedent while law is created by a government entity, generally a legislature. Further, wills are governed by law, not vice versa, suggested an inherent subordination between the two that indicates a fundamental difference. Notably, a will is a private document that evades the probate process, which is another system established by law, indicating, again, a fundamental difference between the two. Ultimately, wills are the directive of an individual to dispose of property. Given that the two are, at their essential core, different, it is absolutely inane to conflate the two, especially when the 'dead hand' policy I describe is an essential policy consideration to justify imposing policy over wills. Pretending that the two are comparable by more than their general status as texts relevant to lawyers reveals a shocking ignorance of your own field."

OOC: In fact, lets just slap on to this statement as a further bolster that I've worked a spell as a wills and estates attorney and can tell you that the two are demonstrably different as a matter of substance, application, philosophy, and, yes, even policy.

"That sounds like a problem with your laws, Ambassador. I do not see why you need this assembly to bow to what is essentially an internal problem. Nor does it disprove my statement. And it also sounds like you have a complete lack of legal documents as to how laws will be passed, making me wonder exactly what the process is."

OOC: Depends also on the state, at least within the U.S. State laws on wills and estates vary massively. Some states, you will guarantee probate with wills; it's why my family never uses them, but does direct transfer of belongings and wealth while the person about to die is still alive.

"Hardly. The entire point of policy is for the upkeep and general efficiency of society. THe point of a will is to further the interests of the decedent. Comparing the two, again, indicates an ignorance over the topic and, indeed, the very role of government in society."

"The role of government in society is to provide regulation, stability, and continuance of the society. General efficiency and upkeep can both be sacrificed as necessary for the good of those three items. Upkeep in particular, as tossing out traditions and laws that prove a hindrance allow for a society to both deal with challenges to it and to maintain stability and continuance as circumstances dictate new needs."

"No, ambassador. I offered no factual evidence. I noted the counterpoint and observed that there was no evidence, either factual or based on analytical reasoning, to support the claim made. A subtle difference, but generally not too subtle for legal experts."

"I have yet to see this factual evidence presented. Merely assumption that anecdote is fact."

"I make little argument that I am a better judge of reality than others, ambassador, but it seems that I am the superior judge on how wills work based on your responses."

"No, you merely assume your own internal problems are shared by the world, ambassador. A mistake even a nation as new to the international scene as my own doesn't make."

"The World Assembly is essentially a direct democracy. The 'average' will always impose its assessment of policy on radical minorities. It is, in fact, the radical minorities that needn't be considered, as their power to resist is negligible."

"So you concede my point."

OOC: Amusing is not the term I'd use.

OOC: I find it at least somewhat amusing. It's ironic that a person from an absolute monarchy is arguing from a more democratic stance than you'd expect.

[Separatist Peoples]

"That sounds like a problem with your laws, Ambassador. I do not see why you need this assembly to bow to what is essentially an internal problem. Nor does it disprove my statement. And it also sounds like you have a complete lack of legal documents as to how laws will be passed, making me wonder exactly what the process is."

"Ambassador, I have never once argued that the World Assembly needs to conform to C.D.S.P. laws. My entire argument has been, and clearly so, that this is a one-size-fits-all approach that makes unsupported assumptions and fails to accommodate the need for nuance in this field."

OOC: Depends also on the state, at least within the U.S. State laws on wills and estates vary massively. Some states, you will guarantee probate with wills; it's why my family never uses them, but does direct transfer of belongings and wealth while the person about to die is still alive.

OOC: Not nearly as much as you suggest, and that is literally the worst way to handle transfer of belongings that I can possibly come up with. You deliberately incur a capital gains liability when any risk of an estate tax is, axiomatically, lower, and you are inviting the kind of subjective assessments of intent inherent in inter vivos transfers when in poor health.

"The role of government in society is to provide regulation, stability, and continuance of the society. General efficiency and upkeep can both be sacrificed as necessary for the good of those three items. Upkeep in particular, as tossing out traditions and laws that prove a hindrance allow for a society to both deal with challenges to it and to maintain stability and continuance as circumstances dictate new needs."

"Ambassador, at no point have I argued that policy should be subordinate to wills. I have argued the opposite. You have misconstrued my argument against the Dead Hand Policy idea and somehow mistook it for an argument against government regulation of private legal constructs. This is a special kind of inane."

"I have yet to see this factual evidence presented. Merely assumption that anecdote is fact."

"Anecdote is itself assertion of subjective fact as evidence. I have admitted, twice now, that I am not offering anecdote. I am challenging the original commenter's assertion of fact."

"No, you merely assume your own internal problems are shared by the world, ambassador. A mistake even a nation as new to the international scene as my own doesn't make."

"I think you are continuing to mistake my identification of the shortcomings of this proposal as waxing poetic on the woes of the C.D.S.P.'s estate system. This is not the case. I have made no comment as to my national or subnational law."

"So you concede my point."

"Ambassador, I don't believe you have a point to make."