Advertisement
by Charlotte Ryberg » Mon Aug 03, 2009 4:55 am
by Glen-Rhodes » Mon Aug 03, 2009 5:23 pm
Charlotte Ryberg wrote:And, some big news: As result of this discussion this draft is proud to finally take up formatting tags. This has allowed me primarily to replace capitals with bolded text. Hopefully by the time the proposal is submitted the feature will be in full swing.
by Unibot » Mon Aug 03, 2009 6:03 pm
Flibbleites wrote:OOC: Amendments have been brought up multiple times, to the point where Fris wrote a post explaining exactly why they're illegal. The post can be viewed here.
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
by Charlotte Ryberg » Tue Aug 04, 2009 11:31 am
Glen-Rhodes wrote:(OOC: Might I suggest not using bold text? There's really no need for it, here: you aren't using headers. Also, italics are used for emphasis, not underlines. :\ )
by New Rockport » Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:56 am
by Travancore-Cochin » Mon Aug 17, 2009 8:24 am
by Charlotte Ryberg » Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:10 am
New Rockport wrote:I recommend replacing decay with decline in Section 4. Other than that, this proposal has the support of my government and I will approve it when it is proposed.
Travancore-Cochin wrote:Since Refugee Protection is all set to become the WA's General Assembly Resolution # 57, I suggest that you strike out articles/clauses in Section 5 that will be made redundant by the said resolution, Ms. Harper.
by Charlotte Ryberg » Thu Aug 20, 2009 7:43 am
by Domnonia » Thu Aug 20, 2009 9:52 pm
by Charlotte Ryberg » Fri Aug 21, 2009 2:55 am
Travancore-Cochin wrote:But we have to say, we concur with the Honoured Ambassador from Laysley. There has to be a clause about nations facing population crises and we implore the Hon. Ambassador from Charlotte Ryberg, Ms. Sarah Harper, to look into the issue. If we overlook that minor flaw, we feel that this resolution is reasonable.
A. Parameswaran Nair
Ambassador from Travancore-Cochin to the World Assembly
by Domnonia » Fri Aug 21, 2009 4:01 pm
Charlotte Ryberg wrote:The honoured ambassador to Travancore-Cochin appear to have suggested the inclusion of section 4.Travancore-Cochin wrote:But we have to say, we concur with the Honoured Ambassador from Laysley. There has to be a clause about nations facing population crises and we implore the Hon. Ambassador from Charlotte Ryberg, Ms. Sarah Harper, to look into the issue. If we overlook that minor flaw, we feel that this resolution is reasonable.
A. Parameswaran Nair
Ambassador from Travancore-Cochin to the World Assembly
However, I am starting to feel concerned that this part may actually allow member states to do the opposite of what this resolution intended to do, which may imply contradiction. I have been forced to rule out a task force earlier due to the fact that it could be used to bypass this resolution. Therefore, if you like, I may delete section 4 due to the fact that it defeats the purpose of this resolution and stand by the argument that it is the member state's responsibility to make living conditions for its citizens reasonable. What do you think?
by Charlotte Ryberg » Sat Aug 22, 2009 3:26 am
by Gobbannium » Mon Aug 24, 2009 4:57 am
Charlotte Ryberg wrote:b) A civilian that is below the age of majority (as defined in their country of residence) may emigrate:
2. Permits member states to waive Section 1 if any of the following situations are true:
a) The person is under penal servitude, undergoing civil or criminal legal proceedings or proven to be guilty of offences involving non-consensual sexual conduct;
3. Further permits member states to waive Section 1:
a) For persons suspected of espionage or intention to carry out terrorist acts abroad, for up to the maximum of 90 days (or lower if specified by national legislation), after which the person must be charged in criminal justice or be allowed to emigrate;
b) As a result of a legitimate judicial ruling, that is delivered in good faith compliance with the clauses and intents of this resolution.
by Glen-Rhodes » Mon Aug 24, 2009 7:09 am
Gobbannium wrote:We really wish legislators would desist from using the phrase "age of majority" as if it were a singular thing. Inept early WA legislation does require it to be so, at which point the only sensible thing to do is to define it to be zero and ignore it in subsequent national legislation. Compounding the problem with its utilisation here is simply not helpful.
Gobbannium wrote:We confess to confusion. What does this clause intend to achieve? It seems to be essentially void, since all it does is to allow a judicial ruling that some provision of the resolution applies. That is undoubtedly a comfort to the would-be emigre, but irrelevant to the resolution.
by Gobbannium » Mon Aug 24, 2009 8:38 am
Glen-Rhodes wrote:Gobbannium wrote:We really wish legislators would desist from using the phrase "age of majority" as if it were a singular thing. Inept early WA legislation does require it to be so, at which point the only sensible thing to do is to define it to be zero and ignore it in subsequent national legislation. Compounding the problem with its utilisation here is simply not helpful.
I'm curious. Since future resolutions are inevitably going to want to only apply to adults, what do you propose we do? When an author uses the term "adult", they get asked what an adult is. When they use static years, they get told that life expectancy isn't the same in all nations. Now when they use "age of majority", they get told it's useless. So?
Gobbannium wrote:We confess to confusion. What does this clause intend to achieve? It seems to be essentially void, since all it does is to allow a judicial ruling that some provision of the resolution applies. That is undoubtedly a comfort to the would-be emigre, but irrelevant to the resolution.
by Glen-Rhodes » Mon Aug 24, 2009 8:56 am
Gobbannium wrote:Personally we would say "adult" and place a requirement on nations to be reasonable about it. The problem with "Age of Majority" is that different nations consider individuals to be adult for different purposes at different ages, frequently for biologically, sociologically or medically eminently defensible reasons. We would refer Dr Castro to discussions past of the Age of Consent, and in a spirit of awkwardness ask if he considers the Age of Consent to be different from the Age of Majority?
Gobbannium wrote:We disagree. The phrase "in good faith compliance with the clauses and intents of this resolution" does not allow a ruling to break a clause in this proposal. If the good doctor believes that it does, would he care to consider the proposition that rulings are also allowed to break the intent of this proposal?
by Charlotte Ryberg » Mon Aug 24, 2009 8:58 am
Gobbannium wrote:We really wish legislators would desist from using the phrase "age of majority" as if it were a singular thing. Inept early WA legislation does require it to be so, at which point the only sensible thing to do is to define it to be zero and ignore it in subsequent national legislation. Compounding the problem with its utilisation here is simply not helpful.
by Gobbannium » Mon Aug 24, 2009 10:05 am
Glen-Rhodes wrote:I may or may not have been involved with such discussions; I cannot remember. So, I will give my thoughts here. In Glen-Rhodes, and I would assume in common law throughout the World Assembly, age of consent and age of majority do in fact differ. "Age of consent" refers specifically to the age at which a person may marry or take part in consensual sexual acts. It can differ from the "age of majority", which refers to the age at which a person is granted all of their legal rights (contract, voting, etc). For all intents and purposes, to be an adult is to have reached the age of majority. In Glen-Rhodes, the age of consent is 16, but the age of majority is 21.
by Charlotte Ryberg » Mon Aug 24, 2009 10:21 am
by Glen-Rhodes » Mon Aug 24, 2009 10:32 am
Gobbannium wrote:Excellent. Having established that Age of Majority is an upper bound on the achievement of a wide range of legal rights, of which consent is a subset, may we ask why it is considered suitable as an absolute and specific bound here?
by Gobbannium » Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:01 am
by Charlotte Ryberg » Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:35 am
Gobbannium wrote:You miss a detail, Dr Castro. It is not who must be accompanied by a parent or guardian, it is also who cannot so be required. That, combined with the aforementioned early legislation in this chamber which showed a similar lack of foresight, makes life difficult for those of us who choose not to have a single monolithic age at which rights and corresponding responsibilities fall on an individual.
by Gobbannium » Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:59 am
Charlotte Ryberg wrote:Do you mean those who are still dependent on their carers even if they've passed the age of majority?
by Charlotte Ryberg » Tue Aug 25, 2009 9:57 am
Mandates the following:
1a. In general, a mentally sound civilian of a member state above the age of maturity (or majority or whatever) has the right to emigrate from their current country of residence regardless of their status (such as disability, gender, sexuality, ethnicity or belief), unless any of the situations in Sections and 2 to 3 are true;
1b. A civilian that is mentally incapable of making such a decision or is dependent on a carer has the right to emigrate when accompanied by a mentally sound partner that has the right to emigrate;
1c. A civilian that is below the age of majority (or majority or whatever, as defined in their country of residence) may emigrate:
• When accompanied by one or more parent/guardian;
• On the consent of a parent/guardian; or
• If orphaned and that it is safe to do so.
by Domnonia » Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:37 am
Charlotte Ryberg wrote:
1b. A civilian that is mentally incapable of making such a decision or is dependent on a carer has the right to emigrate when accompanied by a mentally sound partner that has the right to emigrate;
Advertisement
Advertisement