[DRAFT] Preservation of Rights

[Linux and the X]

(Human rights; significant)

NOTICING that nations do set different ages to receive full rights, known as an "age of majority",

NOTING WITH DISMAY that if a person from a nation with a lower age to receive rights travels to a nation with a higher age, they may lose some rights, perhaps even the right to return home, and

BELIEVING that it is within its role to offer a solution.

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY

DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, "Age of Majority" as the age set by a nation to receive full guardianship, legal, and civil rights,

REQUIRES that each member nation passes an act to establish an age of majority in their nation,

ALLOWS member States to vary this age on an individual for their own citizens or nationals via court order, the variance to be accepted in all member States,

CLARIFIES that this resolution does not remove the option to set such an age on a general basis from this Assembly,

ORDERS that member States grant full guardianship, legal, and civil rights to all persons within their nation who are over the Age of Majority in their country of citizenship or nationality, as they would to a person over their own Age of Majority,

ALSO ORDERS that land under international jurisdiction shall be subject to the same requirements,

TASKS the Global Emigration, Security, Travel And Passport Organisation with updating passport standards to include a designation of whether a person is older or younger than the Age of Majority in the issuing nation, whether such a designation would be a result of age or court order,

PERMITS persons holding multiple citizenships or nationalities to choose, for the purposes of this resolution, which one shall be considered,

EXPECTS member nations to hold all statuses legally endowed on account of reaching the Age of Majority to a person by their home nation as valid under their nation's law, even if such status could not be granted to the person in the member nation,

REVISES all laws in member nations that grant a right to persons based upon a specific age, where that age is or is close to the Age of Majority, to instead grant such rights based upon that nation's Age of Majority,

HOPES that non-member States shall voluntarily comply with the standards set forth in this resolution.

(2270 chars)

[Manticore Reborn]

My government's only concern with this legislation is that it does not adequately deal with persons who by court order due to lack of competency declared to not be of majority and placed into the care of the state or family member.

[Linux and the X]

My government's only concern with this legislation is that it does not adequately deal with persons who by court order due to lack of competency declared to not be of majority and placed into the care of the state or family member.

It doesn't?

ALLOWS member States to vary this age for their own citizens or nationals via court order, and that those subject to such a court order shall be considered over the Age of Majority,

[Fola Nua]

OOC: Change of heart on this, I was a little out of it when reading, we no longer support this

[Manticore Reborn]

It doesn't?

ALLOWS member States to vary this age for their own citizens or nationals via court order, and that those subject to such a court order shall be considered over the Age of Majority,

No it doesn't as you can see from the highlighted section.

[Linux and the X]

It doesn't?

ALLOWS member States to vary this age for their own citizens or nationals via court order, and that those subject to such a court order shall be considered over the Age of Majority,

No it doesn't as you can see from the highlighted section.

Ah! And that's why we having drafting discussions! I'll fix that.

[Linux and the X]

While we are happy to see support from delegate so far, we do know better than to go from drafting to proposal in four hours.

[Bears Armed]

ALLOWS member States to vary this age for their own citizens or nationals via court order, the variance to be accepted in all member States,

So you give governments (with access to compliant judges) the power to define any people within their nations whom they dislike as underage, thus depriving those people of the legal rights that they would otherwise possess as adults there, with this new law over-ruling (as GA resolutions do) any constitutional protections that would previously have applied?!?

This definitely still needs work...

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I cannot see how this would work: for example, in Charlotte Ryberg the age of majority (or voting age) is 18, regardless of where people come from. This is because it is our responsibility to ensure that all children are cared for in a satisfactorily manner.

This draft would force us to treat a 14-year old child from some random country as an adult because that country's age of majority was 14, even though by optimal childhood standards a 14 year old is supposed to be in full-time education (EDIT: if they were resident).

[Canadai WA Embassy]

I cannot see how this would work: for example, in Charlotte Ryberg the age of majority (or voting age) is 18, regardless of where people come from. This is because it is our responsibility to ensure that all children are cared for in a satisfactorily manner.

This draft would force us to treat a 14-year old child from some random country as an adult because that country's age of majority was 14, even though by optimal childhood standards a 14 year old is supposed to be in full-time education.

So instead of treating a 14 year old tourist as an adult, you would abduct them and force them into your nation's childcare system?

[Sanctaria]

I cannot see how this would work: for example, in Charlotte Ryberg the age of majority (or voting age) is 18, regardless of where people come from. This is because it is our responsibility to ensure that all children are cared for in a satisfactorily manner.

This draft would force us to treat a 14-year old child from some random country as an adult because that country's age of majority was 14, even though by optimal childhood standards a 14 year old is supposed to be in full-time education.

So instead of treating a 14 year old tourist as an adult, you would abduct them and force them into your nation's childcare system?

I believe what the honoured Ambassador was saying is if they moved to her nation.

But I would disagree with treating a 14 year old tourist as an adult. Our age of maturity, or majority, is 17. My nation would not allow a 14 year old tourist to drink alcohol, drive a car, gamble or be tried as an adult if they broke one of our laws. That would be regardless of whether that 14 year old is an adult, by being over the age of majority, in their home nation.

Yours.,

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I cannot see how this would work: for example, in Charlotte Ryberg the age of majority (or voting age) is 18, regardless of where people come from. This is because it is our responsibility to ensure that all children are cared for in a satisfactorily manner.

This draft would force us to treat a 14-year old child from some random country as an adult because that country's age of majority was 14, even though by optimal childhood standards a 14 year old is supposed to be in full-time education.

So instead of treating a 14 year old tourist as an adult, you would abduct them and force them into your nation's childcare system?

I believe what the honoured Ambassador was saying is if they moved to her nation.

But I would disagree with treating a 14 year old tourist as an adult. Our age of maturity, or majority, is 17. My nation would not allow a 14 year old tourist to drink alcohol, drive a car, gamble or be tried as an adult if they broke one of our laws. That would be regardless of whether that 14 year old is an adult, by being over the age of majority, in their home nation.

Yours.,

That is correct, honoured ambassador. Allowing a 15 year old tourist to smoke in public, besides the fact that is illegal in Charlotte Ryberg to smoke until 18, would set an extremely bad example for public health, for example.

[Linux and the X]

ALLOWS member States to vary this age for their own citizens or nationals via court order, the variance to be accepted in all member States,

So you give governments (with access to compliant judges) the power to define any people within their nations whom they dislike as underage, thus depriving those people of the legal rights that they would otherwise possess as adults there, with this new law over-ruling (as GA resolutions do) any constitutional protections that would previously have applied?!?

A government that wanted to use court orders in such a way would be capable of amending their constitution to allow it. However, I would be willing to change the wording to allow nations to decide for themselves whether or not to have such court orders, merely requiring that they are recognised in all member States, if you find such wording preferable.
I may also return to the original wording (only requiring court orders to vary the Age of Majority to something lower). Having had more time to consider the objection raised by the delegation from Manticore Reborn, I ask them if they would be willing to accept this, considering that someone under care would not likely be permitted to leave their home nation.

This definitely still needs work...

It has been in the drafting phase for approximately four hours at this point. A proper drafting thread generally takes at least a week. Saying that this needs works is akin to saying that water is wet.

So instead of treating a 14 year old tourist as an adult, you would abduct them and force them into your nation's childcare system?

That is indeed exactly what this proposal is trying to prevent. We do not like the idea that a person, who may have enjoyed the rights of full age for several years in their own nation, being subject to abduction by a nation they are visiting and forced into child care. This is particularly bad as they may be forbidden from returning to their home country!

That is correct, honoured ambassador. Allowing a 15 year old tourist to smoke in public, besides the fact that is illegal in Charlotte Ryberg to smoke until 18, would set an extremely bad example for public health, for example.

Moreso than someone over eighteen? In any case, this does not forbid having visa requirements. It simply requires that someone travelling to your country does not suddenly lose the rights of age merely by crossing the border. Remember that, as they are an adult in their home nation, they may be travelling alone and not have their parents around to care for them.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I am concerned that although we do not have age restrictions for entry into Charlotte Ryberg, member states may set the age majority too low so as to force us to treat a child soldier who escaped into our country, as an adult.

[Sanctaria]

It simply requires that someone travelling to your country does not suddenly lose the rights of age merely by crossing the border.

Ambassador, that simply does not make sense. A tourist is required to respect the laws of the nation it is visiting. If the age to drink alcohol in their home nation is 16 and they visit my nation, where it is 17, your argument is that they should be allowed drink lest they lose their privileges of being an adult in their home country. Laws and customs differ by "crossing the border". And please be reminded Ambassador, that the host country places restrictions on those who can enter their country. If it is a requirement that all those under a certain age, for example 17, need someone over that age to accompany them into the country, then they need to follow that requirement. Otherwise they don't get in.

Furthermore, your argument for "oh just throw it under visa requirements" is a massive loophole and a fundamental undermining of your entire proposal. I humbly suggest that the Ambassador review all grievences carefully and not resort to throw away remarks that he may regret. This Ambassador cannot and will not support this proposal in its current form.

Yours.,

[Quadrimmina]

While we are happy to see support from delegate so far, we do know better than to go from drafting to proposal in four hours.

We are curious as to how a "court order" determines age of majority. The Republic of Quadrimmina does so by appropriate legislation, namely the "Age of Majority and Sexual Maturity Act".

[Linux and the X]

Ambassador, that simply does not make sense. A tourist is required to respect the laws of the nation it is visiting. If the age to drink alcohol in their home nation is 16 and they visit my nation, where it is 17, your argument is that they should be allowed drink lest they lose their privileges of being an adult in their home country.

It is not merely a matter of alcohol. There are much more important rights that this protects: the right to be considered one's own guardian, to be allowed to participate in business, to sign contracts, to walk the streets at night, or to get a hotel room, among them.

While we are happy to see support from delegate so far, we do know better than to go from drafting to proposal in four hours.

We are curious as to how a "court order" determines age of majority. The Republic of Quadrimmina does so by appropriate legislation, namely the "Age of Majority and Sexual Maturity Act".

As an OOC example, consider emancipation or declarations of mental inability.

[Sanctaria]

Ambassador, that simply does not make sense. A tourist is required to respect the laws of the nation it is visiting. If the age to drink alcohol in their home nation is 16 and they visit my nation, where it is 17, your argument is that they should be allowed drink lest they lose their privileges of being an adult in their home country.

It is not merely a matter of alcohol. There are much more important rights that this protects: the right to be considered one's own guardian, to be allowed to participate in business, to sign contracts, to walk the streets at night, or to get a hotel room, among them.

Alcohol was an example. If you have to be a certain age to do something in another country, then you must obey the laws of that country while you are there as a tourist or as a resident. You're missing that point. As I said already, if a country says that all persons under the age of 40, for example, must be accompanied by someone over that age, then you need to have someone over that age to get in. That person over the age can then book a hotel room for and sign contracts on behalf of the people they are accompaning.

Yes, it is not merely a matter of alcohol, but you have to think of the consequences this proposal would have. It would allow tourists to break the laws of the nation they are in and get away with it. I cannot support that.

Yours.,

[Linux and the X]

As I said already, if a country says that all persons under the age of 40, for example, must be accompanied by someone over that age, then you need to have someone over that age to get in.

That's rather the point of this proposal. If your nation has such a requirement, you will have to either not let them in without an escort, or, if you do let them in anyway, give them full rights, rather than imprisoning them within your care system without even a choice to return home.

[Sanctaria]

As I said already, if a country says that all persons under the age of 40, for example, must be accompanied by someone over that age, then you need to have someone over that age to get in.

That's rather the point of this proposal. If your nation has such a requirement, you will have to either not let them in without an escort, or, if you do let them in anyway, give them full rights, rather than imprisoning them within your care system without even a choice to return home.

Getting rid of that requirement is one thing, but awarding them "full rights" is another. Allowing them to be adults in host nation if they are not adults by the nation's laws is wrong, as well as impractical. This proposal is basically allowing tourists to break laws, why can't you see this? Again, I feel the need to spell it out for the Ambassador:

The age of majority/maturity in Atopia is 21. The age of majority/maturity in Btopia is 14. A 16 year old Btopian travels to Atopia for their holiday. With this proposal, in a land where you have to be 21 to drive (for example), you would give this 16 year old a car. In the land where you have to be 21 to gamble, you let this 16 year old into a casino. In a land where you have to be 21 to buy drugs (alcohol, tobacco etc), you would let a 16 year old purchase them.

Also, as I said, it's impractical. You expect every shopkeeper, hotelier, car dealer, business-man etc to know the age of majority in every nation in the WA just incase a tourist from that nation comes and you have to treat them like an adult, even though they're not an adult by that host nation's law. Either that or expect the aforementioned to trust the complete stranger.

Perhaps a proposal protecting the right of a tourist to leave a country they have visited would be more apt for your ideals.

Yours.,

[Quadrimmina]

Ambassador, that simply does not make sense. A tourist is required to respect the laws of the nation it is visiting. If the age to drink alcohol in their home nation is 16 and they visit my nation, where it is 17, your argument is that they should be allowed drink lest they lose their privileges of being an adult in their home country.

It is not merely a matter of alcohol. There are much more important rights that this protects: the right to be considered one's own guardian, to be allowed to participate in business, to sign contracts, to walk the streets at night, or to get a hotel room, among them.

While we are happy to see support from delegate so far, we do know better than to go from drafting to proposal in four hours.

We are curious as to how a "court order" determines age of majority. The Republic of Quadrimmina does so by appropriate legislation, namely the "Age of Majority and Sexual Maturity Act".

As an OOC example, consider emancipation or declarations of mental inability.

So essentially, nations must declare on a case-by-case basis whether or not to allow the person adulthood in certain extreme cases?

You may need to define the judicial process to this better, considering many nations may not even have judicial systems.

[Quadrimmina]

As I said already, if a country says that all persons under the age of 40, for example, must be accompanied by someone over that age, then you need to have someone over that age to get in.

That's rather the point of this proposal. If your nation has such a requirement, you will have to either not let them in without an escort, or, if you do let them in anyway, give them full rights, rather than imprisoning them within your care system without even a choice to return home.

Getting rid of that requirement is one thing, but awarding them "full rights" is another. Allowing them to be adults in host nation if they are not adults by the nation's laws is wrong, as well as impractical. This proposal is basically allowing tourists to break laws, why can't you see this? Again, I feel the need to spell it out for the Ambassador:

The age of majority/maturity in Atopia is 21. The age of majority/maturity in Btopia is 14. A 16 year old Btopian travels to Atopia for their holiday. With this proposal, in a land where you have to be 21 to drive (for example), you would give this 16 year old a car. In the land where you have to be 21 to gamble, you let this 16 year old into a casino. In a land where you have to be 21 to buy drugs (alcohol, tobacco etc), you would let a 16 year old purchase them.

Also, as I said, it's impractical. You expect every shopkeeper, hotelier, car dealer, business-man etc to know the age of majority in every nation in the WA just incase a tourist from that nation comes and you have to treat them like an adult, even though they're not an adult by that host nation's law. Either that or expect the aforementioned to trust the complete stranger.

Perhaps a proposal protecting the right of a tourist to leave a country they have visited would be more apt for your ideals.

Yours.,

We disagree that it would be confusing. What if the identification that shows the age says whether they are above or below the age of majority>?

[Sanctaria]

As I said already, if a country says that all persons under the age of 40, for example, must be accompanied by someone over that age, then you need to have someone over that age to get in.

That's rather the point of this proposal. If your nation has such a requirement, you will have to either not let them in without an escort, or, if you do let them in anyway, give them full rights, rather than imprisoning them within your care system without even a choice to return home.

Getting rid of that requirement is one thing, but awarding them "full rights" is another. Allowing them to be adults in host nation if they are not adults by the nation's laws is wrong, as well as impractical. This proposal is basically allowing tourists to break laws, why can't you see this? Again, I feel the need to spell it out for the Ambassador:

The age of majority/maturity in Atopia is 21. The age of majority/maturity in Btopia is 14. A 16 year old Btopian travels to Atopia for their holiday. With this proposal, in a land where you have to be 21 to drive (for example), you would give this 16 year old a car. In the land where you have to be 21 to gamble, you let this 16 year old into a casino. In a land where you have to be 21 to buy drugs (alcohol, tobacco etc), you would let a 16 year old purchase them.

Also, as I said, it's impractical. You expect every shopkeeper, hotelier, car dealer, business-man etc to know the age of majority in every nation in the WA just incase a tourist from that nation comes and you have to treat them like an adult, even though they're not an adult by that host nation's law. Either that or expect the aforementioned to trust the complete stranger.

Perhaps a proposal protecting the right of a tourist to leave a country they have visited would be more apt for your ideals.

Yours.,

We disagree that it would be confusing. What if the identification that shows the age says whether they are above or below the age of majority>?

That would require a change to the passport of the tourist and/or the issuing of a special sort of photographic identification, neither of which this proposal covers.

The impracticality is just a side issue, the fact is most nations, and I'm taking the liberty of an assumption here, do not want tourists breaking their laws. You can't have one set of laws for one person, and another set for someone else. That's discrimination on the basis of nationality and I'm pretty sure that it's forbidden under:

c ) All inhabitants of member states have the right not to be and indeed must not be discriminated against on grounds including sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical or mental disability or condition, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or sexual identity, or any other arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation which may be used for the purposes of discrimination, except for compelling practical purposes, such as hiring only female staff to work with battered women who have sought refuge from their abusers.

Yours.,

[Quadrimmina]

As I said already, if a country says that all persons under the age of 40, for example, must be accompanied by someone over that age, then you need to have someone over that age to get in.

That's rather the point of this proposal. If your nation has such a requirement, you will have to either not let them in without an escort, or, if you do let them in anyway, give them full rights, rather than imprisoning them within your care system without even a choice to return home.

Getting rid of that requirement is one thing, but awarding them "full rights" is another. Allowing them to be adults in host nation if they are not adults by the nation's laws is wrong, as well as impractical. This proposal is basically allowing tourists to break laws, why can't you see this? Again, I feel the need to spell it out for the Ambassador:

The age of majority/maturity in Atopia is 21. The age of majority/maturity in Btopia is 14. A 16 year old Btopian travels to Atopia for their holiday. With this proposal, in a land where you have to be 21 to drive (for example), you would give this 16 year old a car. In the land where you have to be 21 to gamble, you let this 16 year old into a casino. In a land where you have to be 21 to buy drugs (alcohol, tobacco etc), you would let a 16 year old purchase them.

Also, as I said, it's impractical. You expect every shopkeeper, hotelier, car dealer, business-man etc to know the age of majority in every nation in the WA just incase a tourist from that nation comes and you have to treat them like an adult, even though they're not an adult by that host nation's law. Either that or expect the aforementioned to trust the complete stranger.

Perhaps a proposal protecting the right of a tourist to leave a country they have visited would be more apt for your ideals.

Yours.,

We disagree that it would be confusing. What if the identification that shows the age says whether they are above or below the age of majority>?

That would require a change to the passport of the tourist and/or the issuing of a special sort of photographic identification, neither of which this proposal covers.

The impracticality is just a side issue, the fact is most nations, and I'm taking the liberty of an assumption here, do not want tourists breaking their laws. You can't have one set of laws for one person, and another set for someone else. That's discrimination on the basis of nationality and I'm pretty sure that it's forbidden under:

c ) All inhabitants of member states have the right not to be and indeed must not be discriminated against on grounds including sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical or mental disability or condition, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or sexual identity, or any other arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation which may be used for the purposes of discrimination, except for compelling practical purposes, such as hiring only female staff to work with battered women who have sought refuge from their abusers.

Yours.,

Well, how about an international "full faith and credit" resolution that includes majority?

[Linux and the X]

Also, as I said, it's impractical. You expect every shopkeeper, hotelier, car dealer, business-man etc to know the age of majority in every nation in the WA just incase a tourist from that nation comes and you have to treat them like an adult, even though they're not an adult by that host nation's law. Either that or expect the aforementioned to trust the complete stranger.

Most businesses reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. However, assuming they do want to provide service, they need merely check the individual's passport (which, under the Standardised Passport Act, must be carried while travelling anyway) which would identify them as an adult. The GESTAPO is tasked with setting minimum standards for passports, and would presumably wish to include such information.

Ambassador, that simply does not make sense. A tourist is required to respect the laws of the nation it is visiting. If the age to drink alcohol in their home nation is 16 and they visit my nation, where it is 17, your argument is that they should be allowed drink lest they lose their privileges of being an adult in their home country.

It is not merely a matter of alcohol. There are much more important rights that this protects: the right to be considered one's own guardian, to be allowed to participate in business, to sign contracts, to walk the streets at night, or to get a hotel room, among them.

While we are happy to see support from delegate so far, we do know better than to go from drafting to proposal in four hours.

We are curious as to how a "court order" determines age of majority. The Republic of Quadrimmina does so by appropriate legislation, namely the "Age of Majority and Sexual Maturity Act".

As an OOC example, consider emancipation or declarations of mental inability.

So essentially, nations must declare on a case-by-case basis whether or not to allow the person adulthood in certain extreme cases?

You may need to define the judicial process to this better, considering many nations may not even have judicial systems.

That is outside the scope of this proposal. However, we would likely support such a proposal, depending on the details, should you or any other delegation wish to draft it.

Well, how about an international "full faith and credit" resolution that includes majority?

This may be possible. We are, however, concerned that it may conflict with other legislation.


Noting opposition, we are willing to change the text to only reference legal and civil rights. This would limit the recognition of rights to things such as guardianship, legal responsibility, and the like.