[DRAFT] Preservation of Rights

[Sanctaria]

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.

Yes, Ambassador, they are required to carry their passport, but the passport only says their age, not if that age is above their national age of majority/maturity. Since you cannot amend the SP Act and since you cannot enforce legislation regarding the clarification of the national age of majority on the passport in another sovereign State while that act is in place, your point is moot. It would still be impractical. It is worrying also that while you say that all these rights must be afforded, you are leaving behind massive loopholes, which I have already pointed out.

I must also note you ignored my point that based on their nationality, a different set of laws is applied which is discrimination - forbidden by a GA resolution.

Yours.,

[Linux and the X]

Yes, Ambassador, they are required to carry their passport, but the passport only says their age, not if that age is above their national age of majority/maturity. Since you cannot amend the SP Act and since you cannot enforce legislation regarding the clarification of the national age of majority on the passport in another sovereign State while that act is in place, your point is moot. It would still be impractical. It is worrying also that while you say that all these rights must be afforded, you are leaving behind massive loopholes, which I have already pointed out.

The Act does not need to be amended. It allows the GESTAPO to set passport standards, subject to a minimum of what is set in the Act. The GESTAPO is not limited to those standards only, however. Therefore, considering the importance of having such information on one's passport that this would create, the GESTAPO would almost certainly be smart enough to change their standards to require it. Of course, since proposals can add to the responsibilities of committees formed in previous resolutions, we could simply mandate that such information be added to the GESTAPO's standards.

I must also note you ignored my point that based on their nationality, a different set of laws is applied which is discrimination - forbidden by a GA resolution.

It is not based on their nationality, but rather whether they are considered adult by their home nation. However, note anyway that the CCR does make an exception for "compelling practical purposes".

[Sanctaria]

I must also note you ignored my point that based on their nationality, a different set of laws is applied which is discrimination - forbidden by a GA resolution.

It is not based on their nationality, but rather whether they are considered adult by their home nation. However, note anyway that the CCR does make an exception for "compelling practical purposes".

My dear Ambassador, I'm talking more about the nation hosting the tourists. There would be a set of laws governing the laws for the tourists under this proposal, and a different set of laws for the host nations own people. That's discriminatory based on nationality. That's illegal.

And it's hardly a "compelling practical purpose". There's nothing practical about what you are suggesting.

Yours.,

[Quadrimmina]

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.

We could easily add a section to a passport that says "Above Age of Consent" or "Below Age of Consent".

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.

We would gladly assist with any FFAC legislation that your delegation may pursue. In the meantime, legal and civil rights seems like a reasonable separation.

[Sanctaria]

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.

If the proposal was limited to guardianship and legal responsibility, this delegation would have no problem with the legislation, depending, of course, on the wording.

Yours.,

[Linux and the X]

My dear Ambassador, I'm talking more about the nation hosting the tourists. There would be a set of laws governing the laws for the tourists under this proposal, and a different set of laws for the host nations own people. That's discriminatory based on nationality. That's illegal.

It is not disrimination. The qualification for rights can be considered as "has the person reached the age of majority in their home nation?": if the answer is yes, they are granted full rights (or, if the assembly prefers, full legal and civil rights), if the answer is no, they are not.

We could easily add a section to a passport that says "Above Age of Consent" or "Below Age of Consent".

We do wish to clarify that this deals with the Age Majority, not consent, though in some nations they are the same.

In the meantime, legal and civil rights seems like a reasonable separation.

If the proposal was limited to guardianship and legal responsibility, this delegation would have no problem with the legislation, depending, of course, on the wording.

Would the Sanctarian Delegation approve of using "legal and civil rights" to cover such a thing? If so, we shall consider the comments above as representative of WA opinion. (OOC: This would essentially grant the same rights as IRL emancipated minors have in most states.)

[Sanctaria]

My dear Ambassador, I'm talking more about the nation hosting the tourists. There would be a set of laws governing the laws for the tourists under this proposal, and a different set of laws for the host nations own people. That's discriminatory based on nationality. That's illegal.

It is not disrimination. The qualification for rights can be considered as "has the person reached the age of majority in their home nation?": if the answer is yes, they are granted full rights (or, if the assembly prefers, full legal and civil rights), if the answer is no, they are not.

No, the laws would be different. Refering to my earlier example, the 16 year old Atopian would be allowed to drive or gamble, while the 16 year old Btopian would not, although they are both in Btopia. It is discrimination.

If the proposal was limited to guardianship and legal responsibility, this delegation would have no problem with the legislation, depending, of course, on the wording.

Would the Sanctarian Delegation approve of using "legal and civil rights" to cover such a thing? If so, we shall consider the comments above as representative of WA opinion. (OOC: This would essentially grant the same rights as IRL emancipated minors have in most states.)

I don't think guardianship and legal responsibility should come under 'civil rights', and 'legal rights' doesn't sound right. I would suggest a new term for the purposes of this definition and then to include a definition clause. ((I live in Ireland, emancipation doesn't happen.))

Yours.,

[Linux and the X]

No, the laws would be different. Refering to my earlier example, the 16 year old Atopian would be allowed to drive or gamble, while the 16 year old Btopian would not, although they are both in Btopia. It is discrimination.

The sixteen-year-old whose nation has decided they are mature enough for full rights would have those rights, and the sixteen-year-old whose nation has not decided such would not. It really is simply a different way to look at it, and I don't think either of us will convince the other to change.

I don't think guardianship and legal responsibility should come under 'civil rights', and 'legal rights' doesn't sound right.

If you can come up with something better than legal rights not "sounding right", a new term could be created. In our opinion, though, civil and legal rights covers quite well what it appears the majority of this Assembly desires.

[Sanctaria]

No, the laws would be different. Refering to my earlier example, the 16 year old Atopian would be allowed to drive or gamble, while the 16 year old Btopian would not, although they are both in Btopia. It is discrimination.

The sixteen-year-old whose nation has decided they are mature enough for full rights would have those rights, and the sixteen-year-old whose nation has not decided such would not. It really is simply a different way to look at it, and I don't think either of us will convince the other to change.

It's still discriminatory towards the host nations people, whatever way you look at it. And you'd be forcing every WA member state to put their trust in the competency of the government and legislature of another country, which I can assure you, not many WA members will agree to.

I don't think guardianship and legal responsibility should come under 'civil rights', and 'legal rights' doesn't sound right.

If you can come up with something better than legal rights not "sounding right", a new term could be created. In our opinion, though, civil and legal rights covers quite well what it appears the majority of this Assembly desires.

The majority of this Assembly has not commented on the matter, therefore it is naive and assumptive of you to say otherwise. You're the author of the proposal, it is not my duty to write it for you. I, along with the other delegations, am here to critique. However, I think using both guardianship and legal responsibilities is fine, a term is not needed to group them together.

Yours.,

[Quadrimmina]

We could easily add a section to a passport that says "Above Age of Consent" or "Below Age of Consent".

We do wish to clarify that this deals with the Age Majority, not consent, though in some nations they are the same.

In the meantime, legal and civil rights seems like a reasonable separation.

If the proposal was limited to guardianship and legal responsibility, this delegation would have no problem with the legislation, depending, of course, on the wording.

Would the Sanctarian Delegation approve of using "legal and civil rights" to cover such a thing? If so, we shall consider the comments above as representative of WA opinion. (OOC: This would essentially grant the same rights as IRL emancipated minors have in most states.)

Oh right, that was my bad. Still, adding a rider to the Standardized Passport Act as part of this resolution would clear up concerns very easily.

[Linux and the X]

The majority of this Assembly has not commented on the matter, therefore it is naive and assumptive of you to say otherwise.

I am aware that the majority has not commented. However, I am accepting the comments made thus far to be representative of the Assembly.

You're the author of the proposal, it is not my duty to write it for you. I, along with the other delegations, am here to critique. However, I think using both guardianship and legal responsibilities is fine, a term is not needed to group them together.

You have both misinterpreted and followed my request. I shall, for clarification, seperate the two.

Oh right, that was my bad. Still, adding a rider to the Standardized Passport Act as part of this resolution would clear up concerns very easily.

Quite alright; just something we want to be sure future ambassadors don't get into their heads. The change shall be made.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

In the three years in the WA, the idea of age of majority adjustment still remains gravely ridiculous, honoured ambassador from Linux and the X: anyone who visits or works in Charlotte Ryberg agrees to be bound by our national legislation and the general age of majority of 18, which applies to all, resident or visitor. I am not crying out NatSov here, but this draft will genuinely do more harm than good, not just resulting in discrimination, but in unrealistic bureaucracy of countless bouncers having to look up every nationality, even if any additional task is given to the General Passport Organization.

[Nieuw Zeeland]

The Theocracy of Nieuw Zeeland OPPOSES this proposal with a heavy heart.

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

So you are noting with dismay that a 16 year old from country A is not allowed to drive a car in country B? Or that they cannot drink alcohol in country B? Why does the Ambassador not respect that different nations have different rules and regulations?

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,

There exist nations that have the age of, say, 9 as the Age of Majority. Just to say that this can sometimes lead to absurd situations.

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,

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

Contradiction. So if the Assembly would set the age of 18 in a future Resolution, nations would still be able to vary this age for their own citizens, as long as this Resolution still exists.

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,

So for a nation in which the age of 9 is the age of majority: they would then be allowed to marry someone in our nation? That would be completely absurd, and create countless of legal conflicts.

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

useless line.

There is simply absolutely no way that the Theocracy of Nieuw Zeeland is going to accept such a resolution, ever. Not a single chance.

The Delegate of the Theocracy of Nieuw Zeeland yields the floor.

[Quadrimmina]

The Theocracy of Nieuw Zeeland OPPOSES this proposal with a heavy heart.

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

So you are noting with dismay that a 16 year old from country A is not allowed to drive a car in country B? Or that they cannot drink alcohol in country B? Why does the Ambassador not respect that different nations have different rules and regulations?

If a 16 year old from country A can freely travel to country B, but cannot freely travel from country B to country A to get home, that's a problem, wouldn't you think?

Also, if a 16 year old from country A is married in country A, and goes to country B with his/her spouse, and then gets into an accident and enters a coma, then the spouse should have medical proxy privilege, even if the age to marry is higher in country B.

There is a lot of age-based law that needs to be made flexible between nations. It's not just driving and drinking.

[Embolalia]

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,

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

Contradiction. So if the Assembly would set the age of 18 in a future Resolution, nations would still be able to vary this age for their own citizens, as long as this Resolution still exists.

This is actually the one good point you make. The rest are either complete misunderstandings or outright preposterous. Perhaps it would be better to just "CLARIFIES... ...from this Assembly or from member states,"

[Quadrimmina]

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,

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

Contradiction. So if the Assembly would set the age of 18 in a future Resolution, nations would still be able to vary this age for their own citizens, as long as this Resolution still exists.

This is actually the one good point you make. The rest are either complete misunderstandings or outright preposterous. Perhaps it would be better to just "CLARIFIES... ...from this Assembly or from member states,"

Perhaps. However, the ALLOWS clause states that the variance depends solely on court order, not legislation. Court orders are only needed when age isn't the problem, and it's mental capacity or family issues or something. Meanwhile, the CLARIFIES clause points to any Age of Majority as passed by the WA to be legal. However, this may interfere with Regional Law, so such an exemption would be much appreciated. Otherwise, we see no problem with the wording.

[Nieuw Zeeland]

If a 16 year old from country A can freely travel to country B, but cannot freely travel from country B to country A to get home, that's a problem, wouldn't you think?

To Quadrimmina,

The Theocracy of Nieuw Zeeland assumes that the 16 year old from A would have taken notice of the laws of country B, and take appropriate measures to ensure his safe return to country A, such as being accompanied with an older person, or acquiring the right documents, etc. Laws in individual nations are to be respected.

EDIT: To clarify this point: issues with the recognition of marriages can also pop up between nations when both are Majors in both nations, due to differences of laws, or the acknowledgement of a separation, or the very acknowledgments of marrages in different nations, etc.

Also, if a 16 year old from country A is married in country A, and goes to country B with his/her spouse, and then gets into an accident and enters a coma, then the spouse should have medical proxy privilege, even if the age to marry is higher in country B.

The Theocracy of Nieuw Zeeland imagines that these cases would indeed be a problem, but would be more appropriate to fall under a 'Recognition of Marriage Act' than this preposterous, bureaucracy-promoting Resolution.

To Ambassador LLwyd of Embolalia,

We would appreciate if the Ambassador would point out the points the Theocracy of Nieuw Zeeland misunderstood, or what points are so preposterous, and for what reason.

[Quadrimmina]

If a 16 year old from country A can freely travel to country B, but cannot freely travel from country B to country A to get home, that's a problem, wouldn't you think?

To Quadrimmina,

The Theocracy of Nieuw Zeeland assumes that the 16 year old from A would have taken notice of the laws of country B, and take appropriate measures to ensure his safe return to country A, such as being accompanied with an older person, or acquiring the right documents, etc. Laws in individual nations are to be respected.

EDIT: To clarify this point: issues with the recognition of marriages can also pop up between nations when both are Majors in both nations, due to differences of laws, or the acknowledgement of a separation, or the very acknowledgments of marrages in different nations, etc.

Also, if a 16 year old from country A is married in country A, and goes to country B with his/her spouse, and then gets into an accident and enters a coma, then the spouse should have medical proxy privilege, even if the age to marry is higher in country B.

The Theocracy of Nieuw Zeeland imagines that these cases would indeed be a problem, but would be more appropriate to fall under a 'Recognition of Marriage Act' than this preposterous, bureaucracy-promoting Resolution.

To Ambassador LLwyd of Embolalia,

We would appreciate if the Ambassador would point out the points the Theocracy of Nieuw Zeeland misunderstood, or what points are so preposterous, and for what reason.

If this 16 year old has the right to travel freely due to age of majority status in nation A, who is nation B to stop this person from traveling back home? Not to mention that if a relative were to be deceased in nation B and the person wanted to attend the funeral, they should have the right to return home from that.

Concerning your proposed 'Recognition of Marriage Act', these two are just mere examples of the numbers of problems that would be averted if such a resolution, albeit with some major modification, were passed.

[Quadrimmina]

We offer the following changes to our friends from Linux and the X, and hope they will be taken to heart:

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, provided that such an age must be after birth,

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,

CLARIFIES that this resolution does not remove the option to set such an age 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 legally endowed statuses given 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 member nation laws that refer to a specific age to be granted a right from declaring the age to declaring that any person who is declared above an age of majority is granted the right, when such age is less than or equivalent to the age of majority in that nation.

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

The REVISES clause seems appropriate considering that an easy way to subvert this resolution is to change laws from "age of majority" to declaring a certain age.

[Nieuw Zeeland]

If this 16 year old has the right to travel freely due to age of majority status in nation A, who is nation B to stop this person from traveling back home? Not to mention that if a relative were to be deceased in nation B and the person wanted to attend the funeral, they should have the right to return home from that.

As we said, they have no excuse not to have knowledge of the laws in country B. If they know that several things cannot be done in country B due to their age, they should take appropriate measures. The Theocracy of Nieuw Zeeland finds it very implausible that someone would be caught prison in country B; it is always possible to get permission papers from a person who IS major, get special papers, etc. We simply see way too little benefit in return to the many major problems this proposal would give.

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,

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

As the Theocracy of Nieuw Zeeland said earlier:
The ALLOWS clause automatically allows every member state to vary their Age of Majority, even if a new resolution is passed saying 'The Age of Majority in all Nations shall be 18.'.

[Quadrimmina]

If this 16 year old has the right to travel freely due to age of majority status in nation A, who is nation B to stop this person from traveling back home? Not to mention that if a relative were to be deceased in nation B and the person wanted to attend the funeral, they should have the right to return home from that.

As we said, they have no excuse not to have knowledge of the laws in country B. If they know that several things cannot be done in country B due to their age, they should take appropriate measures. The Theocracy of Nieuw Zeeland finds it very implausible that someone would be caught prison in country B; it is always possible to get permission papers from a person who IS major, get special papers, etc. We simply see way too little benefit in return to the many major problems this proposal would give.

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,

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

As the Theocracy of Nieuw Zeeland said earlier:
The ALLOWS clause automatically allows every member state to vary their Age of Majority, even if a new resolution is passed saying 'The Age of Majority in all Nations shall be 18.'.

What problems would the proposal give? And also, if there is no way to do so, a person is stuck. That's a problem. Whether the person was an idiot or not for going there, the WA should not stand by and let people be barred from their own homes by age of majority laws.

And as the Republic of Quadrimmina said earlier:
Perhaps. However, the ALLOWS clause states that the variance depends solely on court order, not legislation. Court orders are only needed when age isn't the problem, and it's mental capacity or family issues or emancipation of minors or something. Meanwhile, the CLARIFIES clause points to any Age of Majority as passed by the WA to be legal. However, this may interfere with Regional Law, so such an exemption would be much appreciated. Otherwise, we see no problem with the wording.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Honoured ambassador from Quadrimmina, it doesn't matter whether the "adult" is 15, 16, 17, 18 or 19: in Charlotte Ryberg no one can gamble, smoke in public or purchase alcohol until they're 18... period. Sticking indicators on passports isn't going to change our policy and we will oppose a draft that tries to do so.

What problems would the proposal give? And also, if there is no way to do so, a person is stuck. That's a problem. Whether the person was an idiot or not for going there, the WA should not stand by and let people be barred from their own homes by age of majority laws.

That's because the replacement emigration resolution I proposed, and failed at vote, is still on ice for that reason. Would it be a good idea if we tried again?

Or what about a resolution on children travelling alone?

[Quadrimmina]

Honoured ambassador from Quadrimmina, it doesn't matter whether the "adult" is 15, 16, 17, 18 or 19: in Charlotte Ryberg no one can gamble, smoke in public or purchase alcohol until they're 18... period. Sticking indicators on passports isn't going to change our policy and we will oppose a draft that tries to do so.

What problems would the proposal give? And also, if there is no way to do so, a person is stuck. That's a problem. Whether the person was an idiot or not for going there, the WA should not stand by and let people be barred from their own homes by age of majority laws.

That's because the replacement emigration resolution I proposed, and failed at vote, is still on ice for that reason. Would it be a good idea if we tried again?

Or what about a resolution on children travelling alone?

I suppose that's reasonable, honorable Ms. Harper. We understand that each nation has the right to regulate such matters. However, there are many problems, such as the problem of marriage, etc. Maybe we need more than 1 resolution to deal with them. Here's what I think we need to see:

*Universal acceptance of marriages in other nations.
*An international driver's license.
*Right to emigrate.
*Recognition of citizenship by blood.
*Recognition of parental rights.

All under a broad resolution. Thoughts, Ms. Harper, delegation from Linux and the X, and fellow nations? Or even additions?

[Glen-Rhodes]

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,

That's ridiculous.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Recognition of citizenship by blood may be quite tedious in cases where convicted war criminials were expelled from their native country, but that's nothing to do with age rights in this project. Emigration and Statelessness is however possible and the added plus is that only mental capacity needs to come into play (age might still be included as advisory clauses). When Ms. Harper discussed the death penalty before postponing the draft for other projects, it initially involved age of majority, and quickly it became clear as to how difficult it was to accomplish just on the basis of age.

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,

Not all member states grant political rights just by age. Some may require compulsory service (military or civil, but we don't. ).