[DRAFT] Preservation of Rights

[Linux and the X]

We thank Dr. Lewis for his contributions. We have incorporated the majority of them, with the exception of requiring the age of majority to be posterior to birth. While we understand the purpose of that requirement, we are concerned about the Shakespearean issue of how that would affect those individuals or species who are not "born". We have also attempted to clarify the Assembly's right to set an age of majority and the nation's right to vary it. If the Ambassador from Nieuw Zeeland would inform us if this is sufficient for their concerns? We do wish to remind everyone, however, that legislation currently exists that prevents the Assembly from setting an age of majority, and that it is unlikely it will be repealed; this resolution is simply preparing for that unlikely event.

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

It is a rare nation indeed that grants visitors political rights.

[Sanctaria]

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?

Honoured Ambassador, I'm sure if you read over the debate transcripts, you'll see that I have tried, at lengths, to inform the author of this. I am comforted to see that you too will be opposing such a draft.

Yours.,

[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?

Honoured Ambassador, I'm sure if you read over the debate transcripts, you'll see that I have tried, at lengths, to inform the author of this. I am comforted to see that you too will be opposing such a draft.

Yours.,

I would be lukewarm about such a draft, but feel that the five steps I highlighted not too long ago plus whatever other things we can think about in an omnibus "international FFAC" resolution would be the best.

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

The Recognition of citizenship by blood, as pointed out by Charlotte Ryberg's Ms. Harper, may have problems with war criminals, but those ousted from the nation are theoretically stateless, and would not be given the host nation's citizenship.

[Glen-Rhodes]

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

If you're suggesting that a single resolution can and should handle this laundry list of legislation, I must warn you that you are mistaken.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Quadrimmina]

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

If you're suggesting that a single resolution can and should handle this laundry list of legislation, I must warn you that you are mistaken.

- Dr. B. Castro

Either as one or as five, it's worth it in the end. Do you have any additions Dr. Castro?

[Quelesh]

I am in favor of the general idea, Ambassador, of ensuring that people do not lose their rights, purely on account of their age, when they travel from one nation to another. However, I have a few concerns:

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

This clause is unneeded. If this passes, it's obvious that the WA believed that its role allows it to offer a solution to this issue; otherwise, it wouldn't have passed.

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

What is the justification for this clause? Why is it included? If a nation does not have an age of majority, it stands to reason that this nation does not grant rights on the basis of age anyway, and this proposal would not (need to) apply to them.

I dislike the idea of requiring nations that do not discriminate on the basis of age to create a national age of majority.

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

I'm not sure why this clause is here either. I think it's pretty clear at this point that the WA is not going to mandate a particular age of majority in all member states, nor should it.

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,

This is good, but perhaps it would be in order to define more clearly what rights are covered. It could also be construed to require states to grant voting rights to visitors who have reached their home nation's age of majority.

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,

The wording here could be problematic. All legally endowed statuses, with no mention of age. So, if a person has been declared a criminal by their home nation, must Quelesh also treat them as a criminal, even if the "crime" that they committed in their home nation is something like possession of marijuana, which is legal in Quelesh? Even though Quelesh would never extradite this person to their home nation to be locked up for possessing cannabis, this clause would seem to require us to treat him as a criminal ourselves.

One could imagine many other "statuses" that a nation could "legally endow" a person with that would be extremely inconvenient or harmful for a host nation to be forced to grant.

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.

The language here is also quite problematic. First, "an age of majority" is confusing. Does this mean that the right is conferred upon reaching any age of majority? Or only the age of majority of the nation in question? Or the age of majority of the person's home nation? Or whichever is lower?

Also, this clause is too broad, and could have unintended and negative consequences. For example, let us say that Nation A has an age of majority of 18. A-ians are allowed to drink alcohol and obtain a license to operate motor vehicles at 16, and the age of sexual consent is 14. This clause would raise the drinking age, driving age and age of consent to 18 in Nation A, because all laws that grant a right at a specific age are revised to make that age the age of majority instead. If the drinking age in Nation A were 21 instead of 16, then this clause would lower the drinking age to 18 in Nation A. Furthermore, if Nation A has a national welfare system for retired workers, and allows people to begin receiving benefits at age 65, that age would also be lowered to 18.

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

This clause is useless and could be safely excised.

I hope the ambassador from Linux and the X does not misintrepret my critique here as opposition to the idea of this proposal; nothing could be further from the truth. I'm simply trying to make the proposal better.

Whew. I'm certainly glad that Quelesh doesn't have to worry about these kinds of silly age-based laws.

[Enn]

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

It is a rare nation indeed that grants visitors political rights.

OOC: Try New Zealand. Citizenship is not required to vote.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

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

It is a rare nation indeed that grants visitors political rights.

OOC: Try New Zealand. Citizenship is not required to vote.

Our specification for nationality is basically 12 months residence and 24 months for citizenship, honoured ambassador.

[Glen-Rhodes]

OOC: Try New Zealand. Citizenship is not required to vote.

OOC: Which is the only democracy to do so, so it certainly is rare.

[Linux and the X]

OOC: Try New Zealand. Citizenship is not required to vote.

OOC: Which is the only democracy to do so, so it certainly is rare.

OOC: It probably is more common amongst WA members, since there are almost sixty times as many WA member states as RL countries, and many NS governments are more idealistic than RL countries.

[Nieuw Zeeland]

The Theocracy of Nieuw Zeeland finds the idea of handling the stated five points under one resolution (be it this one, or any other) ridiculous. But we have issues with some of them as well:


*Universal acceptance of marriages in other nations.
- The Theocracy of Nieuw Zeeland is of the opinion that Marriage is the holy bond between Man and Woman, and have no interests to be forced to reckognize other types of 'marriage' just for visitors.

*An international driver's license.
- The Theocracy of Nieuw Zeeland would not want to let anyone with a driver's licence of any country drive on Nieuw Zeeland's roads, because the driver's education in other countries might not be up to par with Nieuw Zeeland standards, leading to dangerous traffic situations. Let alone letting minors (according to Nieuw Zeeland law) drive a vehicle because of this preposterous resolution!

[Meekinos]

The Theocracy of Nieuw Zeeland finds the idea of handling the stated five points under one resolution (be it this one, or any other) ridiculous. But we have issues with some of them as well:


*Universal acceptance of marriages in other nations.
- The Theocracy of Nieuw Zeeland is of the opinion that Marriage is the holy bond between Man and Woman, and have no interests to be forced to reckognize other types of 'marriage' just for visitors.

*An international driver's license.
- The Theocracy of Nieuw Zeeland would not want to let anyone with a driver's licence of any country drive on Nieuw Zeeland's roads, because the driver's education in other countries might not be up to par with Nieuw Zeeland standards, leading to dangerous traffic situations. Let alone letting minors (according to Nieuw Zeeland law) drive a vehicle because of this preposterous resolution!

Your nation may hold THAT particular opinion, however, as your nation is a member of the World Assembly, it is BOUND to to all resolutions passed by the World Assembly and as a result is already forced to recognize at the very least 'gay marriage'. We refer the ambassador to resolution #15: Freedom of Marriage Act and render that particular objection invalid as your nation is already forced to acknowledge and recognize unions which are not strictly between individuals of the opposite sex.

ooc: Oh and any attempt to repeal will inevitably fail as any objections raises will most likely be rooted in religion, which falls into the category of 'national sovereignty' as it is little more than saying, "well, we don't like it and find it icky.".

[Quadrimmina]

The Theocracy of Nieuw Zeeland finds the idea of handling the stated five points under one resolution (be it this one, or any other) ridiculous. But we have issues with some of them as well:


*Universal acceptance of marriages in other nations.
- The Theocracy of Nieuw Zeeland is of the opinion that Marriage is the holy bond between Man and Woman, and have no interests to be forced to reckognize other types of 'marriage' just for visitors.

*An international driver's license.
- The Theocracy of Nieuw Zeeland would not want to let anyone with a driver's licence of any country drive on Nieuw Zeeland's roads, because the driver's education in other countries might not be up to par with Nieuw Zeeland standards, leading to dangerous traffic situations. Let alone letting minors (according to Nieuw Zeeland law) drive a vehicle because of this preposterous resolution!

Your nation may hold THAT particular opinion, however, as your nation is a member of the World Assembly, it is BOUND to to all resolutions passed by the World Assembly and as a result is already forced to recognize at the very least 'gay marriage'. We refer the ambassador to resolution #15: Freedom of Marriage Act and render that particular objection invalid as your nation is already forced to acknowledge and recognize unions which are not strictly between individuals of the opposite sex.

ooc: Oh and any attempt to repeal will inevitably fail as any objections raises will most likely be rooted in religion, which falls into the category of 'national sovereignty' as it is little more than saying, "well, we don't like it and find it icky.".

Agreed. 100%.

[Nieuw Zeeland]

To the Ambassador of Quadrimmia,

We have taken notice of what the honourable Ambassador Antoniou has said, and there is no need to requote their statements.

To Ambassador Antoniou,

The Theocracy of Nieuw Zeeland feels that it is unnecessary to discuss Nieuw Zeeland legislation here and how it adheres to WA Resolutions. Obviously we already knew of the existence of that Resolution, if that's what you were after.

In any case, it is not strictly bound to what the Ambassador refers to as 'gay marriage', but also, for example, to marriages of two minors, or a major and a minor, which we find repulsive and would not want to be forced to acknowledge under any resolution.

[Quadrimmina]

To the Ambassador of Quadrimmia,

We have taken notice of what the honourable Ambassador Antoniou has said, and there is no need to requote their statements.

To Ambassador Antoniou,

The Theocracy of Nieuw Zeeland feels that it is unnecessary to discuss Nieuw Zeeland legislation here and how it adheres to WA Resolutions. Obviously we already knew of the existence of that Resolution, if that's what you were after.

In any case, it is not strictly bound to what the Ambassador refers to as 'gay marriage', but also, for example, to marriages of two minors, or a major and a minor, which we find repulsive and would not want to be forced to acknowledge under any resolution.

At the same time, if there are two persons married in one nation, nations such as yours should offer those persons spousal privileges if they are visitors or immigrants.

[Linux and the X]

I have attempted to incorporate some of the changes suggested by the Ambassador from Quelesh. Do the changes meet your concerns, Ambassador?

Also, if any Delegation would be willing to support this "if only...", please let us know.

[Sanctaria]

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

I'm still against this proposal for because of the above clause. I don't want to reiterate my stance, but I am still of the opinion that with this clause, the proposal is illegal. The Charter of Civil Rights forbids discrimination based on nationality and the above clause contradicts that. Furthermore, it's not a practical or compelling reason as I'm only too aware that the author is trying to fob off my claims under that provision set out in the aforementioned resolution.

I suggest that the author, if he wishes to assuage my opposition, seek clarification on the legality of the above clause.

Yours.,

[Quelesh]

The draft is improved, but I still have a few comments.

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

I am still baffled as to why this clause is present, especially in a proposal authored by you. Sure, non-ageist nations can simply set the age of majority at zero and be done with it, but even the inclusion of the clause is a further enshrining of the concept of majority/minority in international law.

Is the purpose of the clause to be paired with the REVISES clause, thus changing the age limits in many member states?

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,

The wording of this clause is confusing. I think you mean something like: "Allows member states to have a judicial process which allows their own citizens or nationals to be declared to have reached majority and entitled to the rights and responsibilities thereof, even if they have not actually reached the age of majority. Also allows member states to have a judicial process which allows their own citizens or nationals to be declared under the status of minority and not entitled to the rights and responsibilities of majority, even if they have in fact actually reached the age of majority. Also requires all member states to consider a person who has been granted majority by such a judicial process in their home nation to have reached the age of majority, even though they have not actually reached the age of majority in their home nation. Also requires all member states to consider a person who has been declared under the status of minority by such a judicial process in their home nation to have not reached the age of majority, even though they have in fact actually reached the age of majority in their home nation."

Is that basically what you mean? Obviously, what I wrote above is way too wordy, but your wording is unclear, and I'm honestly not sure if that's what you mean.

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

This one, too, baffles me. I don't even think it would be a good idea to include this to gain additional support, since I don't think many people support having the WA specify a particular age of majority in all member states.

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,

This is somewhat improved by the "where that age is or is close to" language, but could still cause harmful effects. For example, the driving and drinking ages, and possibly the age of consent, in my Nation A example in my previous post, would still be revised, since 16, and possibly 14, is "close to" 18. Although "close to" is very ambiguous and open to wide interpretation. It would still raise many age limits in many nations (it would lower some too, but probably raise more than lower).

Is the intent to require all, or most, age restrictions in a nation to be the same age? Is this to make it easier for member states to determine exactly which rights it must grant to visitors who have reached their home nation's age of majority?

[Enn]

Whatever happened to expecting your citizens to do a bit of research into the nations they are visiting, to find out what they will be able to do there? This is surely an excuse for extreme laziness, not something I could ever support.

However, there is a far deeper problem with this proposal. Should this be in place, then nations will not be able to maintain separate laws. They will have no way to protect their solidarity from the vagaries of transnational laws. How could a nation justifiably deny its own citizens something granted to foreigners? This is, I find, an insidious attack on the very concept of national sovereignty.

I am disgusted that my fellow ambassadors are even contemplating putting this in place, let alone contributing to it. If this is the direction that the WA takes, then Enn shall have to reconsider its membership. This is not something we take lightly.

Angelo Lanerik,
Acting WA Ambassador for Enn

[Krioval]

Whatever happened to expecting your citizens to do a bit of research into the nations they are visiting, to find out what they will be able to do there? This is surely an excuse for extreme laziness, not something I could ever support.

However, there is a far deeper problem with this proposal. Should this be in place, then nations will not be able to maintain separate laws. They will have no way to protect their solidarity from the vagaries of transnational laws. How could a nation justifiably deny its own citizens something granted to foreigners? This is, I find, an insidious attack on the very concept of national sovereignty.

I am disgusted that my fellow ambassadors are even contemplating putting this in place, let alone contributing to it. If this is the direction that the WA takes, then Enn shall have to reconsider its membership. This is not something we take lightly.

Angelo Lanerik,
Acting WA Ambassador for Enn

I am glad to see another voice of reason in this Assembly. Kriovallers enact our laws to reflect our societal values. In cases where Kriovallers travel abroad, they are encouraged to verify their legal status before departing, and if questions arise, to contact either our government or that of the intended destination. This is another reason why we maintain networks of embassies and consulates. Traveling in ignorance seldom results in anything positive.

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

[Sanctaria]

Whatever happened to expecting your citizens to do a bit of research into the nations they are visiting, to find out what they will be able to do there? This is surely an excuse for extreme laziness, not something I could ever support.

However, there is a far deeper problem with this proposal. Should this be in place, then nations will not be able to maintain separate laws. They will have no way to protect their solidarity from the vagaries of transnational laws. How could a nation justifiably deny its own citizens something granted to foreigners? This is, I find, an insidious attack on the very concept of national sovereignty.

I am disgusted that my fellow ambassadors are even contemplating putting this in place, let alone contributing to it. If this is the direction that the WA takes, then Enn shall have to reconsider its membership. This is not something we take lightly.

Angelo Lanerik,
Acting WA Ambassador for Enn

My honoured Ambassador, I have been arguing along the same lines. It would be a travesty if this was even submitted, let alone reaching the floor.

Yours.,

[NERVUN]

The Office of the Secretariat notes that the request for a legal opinion has been granted and posted for the consideration of the members of the General Assembly in their deliberations about this draft.

[Sanctaria]

The Office of the Secretariat notes that the request for a legal opinion has been granted and posted for the consideration of the members of the General Assembly in their deliberations about this draft.

This Ambassador would like to thank the Secretariat and would like to say the following to the author: Now aren't you glad I point out the illegality!

Yours.,