[DEFEATED] Treatment of the Deceased

[Erithaca]

I am submitting this proposal with a puppet nation of mine called Fecaw. Fecaw may also answer some comments.

---

Treatment of the Deceased
Category: Moral Decency ♢ Strength: Mild ♢ Proposed by: Fecaw

This august General Assembly,

Having already guaranteed provisions for the deceased in wartime in its one hundred and thirty sixth resolution,

Wishing to expand its legislative protection to all the deceased,

Realising that remains of the deceased can sometimes be irretrievable or unidentifiable,

Taking into account that authorities may find it necessary to exhume remains for a criminal investigation,

Noting the various personal, cultural and religious provisions relating to the treatment of the deceased,

Hoping to establish prohibitions on malicious damage to the deceased,

Now in this present session assembled, by the approval of its many delegates and members, hereby:

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
   
   1. "grave" as a location where the remains of the deceased are interred,
   2. "mutilation" as dismemberment or unnecessary damage,
   3. "unreasonable burial requests" as requests that could be expected to:
      
      1. cause damage to property,
      2. be impossible to finance by the relations of the deceased or the deceased,
      3. contravene national or international legislation.
   4. "molestation of a grave" as:
      
      1. opening of the grave unless previously permitted by the now deceased,
      2. destruction or damage not serving a legitimate purpose which the deceased could not reasonably object to to a grave's markers unless previously permitted by the now deceased,
      3. mutilation of interred remains, except in the requirements of an autopsy or a criminal investigation.
2. Demands that member states enforce laws that protect graves at least younger than a time that would take unembalmed interred remains to decay to the fullest possible extent from molestation.
3. Mandates that all burial requests not considered to be unreasonable that are contained in the will shall be executed.
4. Authorizes member states to:
   
   1. allow remains to be left in situ if they are considered to be irretrievable without unreasonable efforts,
   2. legislate freely on the scientific or medicinal use of organs or tissues from remains, at least allowing residents to opt-out of any use of their organs or tissues,
   3. handle remains in a manner contrary to the wishes of the deceased or their family in the event of an epidemic, catastrophe, major accident or other compelling situation.
5. Clarifies that the World Assembly shall not restrict any cultural or religious practices relating to the treatment of the deceased, if these practices are known to have been explicitly requested by the deceased at the time of death unless a compelling reason in clauses 1 or 4 prevents it.

Category: Moral Decency
Proposed by: The Community of Erithaca
Strength: Mild

The General Assembly,

Reaffirming General Assembly resolution #136 Convention on Wartime Deceased.

Noting that many people have specific desires as to how their remains shall be disposed of, desires that may be irrelevant in the face of the abilities and standards of member states.

Taking into account the disruption to economies and building development caused by the presence of cemeteries.

Further taking into account that authorities may find it necessary to exhume remains for a criminal investigation.

Observing the disruption, destruction and movement of remains and tombs.

Realising that remains can be irretrievable or unidentifiable.

Hereby:

1. Demands that member states enforce laws that protect remains and tombs younger than 65 years from molestation unless ashes have been scattered.

2. Defines molestation of a grave as:

(a.) opening of the grave unless unless formerly permitted by the deceased
(b.) destruction or defacing of headstones or markers unless permitted by the deceased
(c.) mutilation of the interred remains, except in the requirements of an autopsy or a criminal investigation

2.1. Defines mutilation as dismemberment or unnecessary damage.

2.2. Defines unreasonable burial requests as requests that would:

(a.) cause damage to property
(b.) be impossible to finance by the relations of the deceased or the deceased
(c.) break national or World Assembly laws

3. Authorizes member nations to protect tombs for longer than the previously allotted time.

4. Authorizes member nation authorities to exhume and investigate remains if deemed necessary as part of a criminal investigation or autopsy.

5. Designates the will as the supreme authority on how the writer of the will shall be disposed of unless the request is unreasonable.

6. Demands that member nations require the declaring of death within 14 days of the discovery of remains.

7. Authorizes governments to leave remains in situ if they are irretrievable without unreasonable efforts.

8. Authorizes governments to handle the remains against the wishes of the deceased or their family in the event of an epidemic, catastrophe, major accident or other compelling situation.

Please post constructive criticism as to how I could improve this before submitting it.

[Kenmoria]

"Don't use bolding, it looks unprofessional."

[Masurbia]

This proposal would make it illegal for authorities to exhume graves in an investigation.

[Erithaca]

"Don't use bolding, it looks unprofessional."

Fixed

[Erithaca]

This proposal would make it illegal for authorities to exhume graves in an investigation.

I fixed that by adding an exception for criminal investigations.

[Kenmoria]

"The reaffirming clause lacks finishing punctuation."

[Erithaca]

"The reaffirming clause lacks finishing punctuation."

I added a full stop.

[Imperium Anglorum]

By what mechanism are the dead endowed with rights?

[Erithaca]

By what mechanism are the dead endowed with rights?

Their previous state of being alive gives them the right to control their body. This proposal will also endow them with rights if passed.

[Araraukar]

Demands that member states enforce laws that protect corpses and tombs younger than 75 years from molestation.

Defines molestation of a grave as:

(a.) opening of the grave
(b.) destruction or defacing of headstones or markers

OOC: This would make it impossible to add another coffin into the grave, as is the usual practice when another family member dies and is buried on the same plot, as well as adding the later deceased person's name to the tombstone.

(c.) mutilation of the corpse

And this makes cremation impossible, when it is necessary against someone's wishes (think along the vein of a serious epidemic requiring bodies to be burned).

Accepts the supreme authority of the will as to how the writer of the will shall be disposed of unless the request is unreasonable.

Defines unreasonable burial requests as requests that would:

(a.)cause destruction of property
(b.)be impossible to finance

...shouldn't something about "in accordance to national and WA laws" be added to this? I can think of several things someone with more money than common sense could pay to have done with their corpse that would violate various resolutions as well as common decency... Oh and why "destruction" and not "damage" of property?

Demands that member nations require the declaring of a death within 14 days of death.

So how does this work when someone gets lost in the wilderness/dies in an accident in a remote location/etc., and you don't find their remains until much later than 14 days? And how does it work when the body's never found at all, but it's clear they did die? Think of plane crash in the middle of the ocean; everyone on the plane dies but if bodies sink with the fuselage and it's several kilometres deep, they won't be lifting them to surface just to pronounce them dead/bury them.

Which reminds me, how would this proposal deal with the aftermath of something like MS Estonia after it has been declared a mass grave, if it should happen within the national waters of a WA nation, but was owned, operated and mostly carried citizens of a non-member nation, whose remaining loved ones didn't want the site disturbed just to fish out some rich dude from a WA member nation whose will stipulated that they be buried in their Aunt Petunia's flowerbed?

[Erithaca]

Demands that member states enforce laws that protect corpses and tombs younger than 75 years from molestation.

Defines molestation of a grave as:

(a.) opening of the grave
(b.) destruction or defacing of headstones or markers

OOC: This would make it impossible to add another coffin into the grave, as is the usual practice when another family member dies and is buried on the same plot, as well as adding the later deceased person's name to the tombstone.

(c.) mutilation of the corpse

And this makes cremation impossible, when it is necessary against someone's wishes (think along the vein of a serious epidemic requiring bodies to be burned).

Accepts the supreme authority of the will as to how the writer of the will shall be disposed of unless the request is unreasonable.

Defines unreasonable burial requests as requests that would:

(a.)cause destruction of property
(b.)be impossible to finance

...shouldn't something about "in accordance to national and WA laws" be added to this? I can think of several things someone with more money than common sense could pay to have done with their corpse that would violate various resolutions as well as common decency... Oh and why "destruction" and not "damage" of property?

Demands that member nations require the declaring of a death within 14 days of death.

So how does this work when someone gets lost in the wilderness/dies in an accident in a remote location/etc., and you don't find their remains until much later than 14 days? And how does it work when the body's never found at all, but it's clear they did die? Think of plane crash in the middle of the ocean; everyone on the plane dies but if bodies sink with the fuselage and it's several kilometres deep, they won't be lifting them to surface just to pronounce them dead/bury them.

Which reminds me, how would this proposal deal with the aftermath of something like MS Estonia after it has been declared a mass grave, if it should happen within the national waters of a WA nation, but was owned, operated and mostly carried citizens of a non-member nation, whose remaining loved ones didn't want the site disturbed just to fish out some rich dude from a WA member nation whose will stipulated that they be buried in their Aunt Petunia's flowerbed?

I have tried to enact all your suggestions. Thank you for all the help.

[Kenmoria]

"I would put a colon after “Hereby”."

[Araraukar]

Demands that member states enforce laws that protect corpses and tombs younger than 75 years from molestation.

OOC: I still think this is a bit extreme, since unless you mummify (like they do in USA with chemicals that turn bodies into soap mummies) the body, the grave's going to pretty much be empty in 20 years or so. If the person who died and was buried had no family left, to help with your "Taking into account the disruption to economies and building development caused by the presence of cemeteries" reasoning, the grave plot should be made available for a new burial by another individual or family. This is how my friend's family got ahold of the place where he was buried.

(c.) mutilation of the interred corpse or ashes

Still prevents autopsy to determine cause of death or as part of a criminal investigation after exhuming the corpse. Also why is this under what happens to the gravesite? I thought you were more concerned with what happens to the dead people (though "dead have rights" won't fly very far, especially when it becomes "dead have more rights than the living"), so shouldn't there be an entire clause with its own subclauses about how bodies are to be treated? You could then put all exceptions under that clause as well.

Additionally, depending how that's written, either spreading someone's ashes somewhere would be illegal, or doing so somewhere public would make that land/water/air unusable for the next 75 years, which sounds a bit too extreme.

Oh and would this clause prevent a sky burial?

Authorizes governments to protect tombs for longer.

Not really needed, especially as its own clause. Nations can already do that. I'd also replace "government" with "state" or "member nation" (that goes for all the other clauses too). Oh and number your active clauses.

Authorizes government authorities to exhume a corpse if deemed necessary as part of a criminal investigation.

Exhume yes, but apparently do nothing else with it.

Accepts the supreme authority of the will as to how the writer of the will shall be disposed of unless the request is unreasonable.

Defines unreasonable burial requests as requests that would:

I would make this defines clause be part of the accepts clause. And instead of accepts, I'd make it more declarative language. However, remember that the living already have a lot of rights guaranteed by WA resolutions. You can't contradict any of those resolutions.

(b.)be impossible to finance

Very few things are literally impossible, so I'd change this to "cannot be financed by the family of the deceased" or similar.

Demands that member nations require the declaring of death within 14 days of the discocery of a corpse.

Typo. Also, if this proposal is geared towards giving some dignity to the dead, I'd say replace every "corpse" with "remains" and "dead" with "deceased". You now use both and it's making the tone wander between respectful and heartless.

Authorizes governments to leave corpses in situ if they are irretrievable without extreme efforts.

I'd make that "unreasonable efforts" instead. "Extreme" is much more subjective than "unreasonable".

Authorizes governments to enforce cremation if deemed necessary in the event of an epidemic.

I would make that "handling the remains against the wishes of the deceased or their family in the event of an epidemic, catastrophe, major accident or other compelling situation". That way you won't have to spell everything down to "someone spilled something radioactive on the remains" or other such very specific scenario.

[Tinfect]

Reaffirming General Assembly resolution #136 Convention on Wartime Deceased

"The Imperium maintains that it is... inappropriate to refer directly to standing legislation in such a manner." said Markhov, wearing Seretis' hat, having discreetly stolen it while his own was being washed.

Noting that many people have specific desires as to how their corpse shall be disposed of.

"Desires that may be irrelevant in the face of the abilities and standards of Member-States."

Further noting that family members often have their own seperate wishes.

"Which are certainly to be ignored should they conflict with the wishes of the deceased individual?"

Taking into account the disruption to economies and building development caused by the presence of cemeteries.

"And therefore not expecting Member-States to construct them according to the whims of a deceased individual? In any case, I must admit, I do fail to see why one would desire burial in the first place."

Observing the disruption, destruction and movement of corpses and tombs.

"One would wonder why one would wish to observe anything of the sort, save for some spiteful interest in its holder."

Demands that member states enforce laws that protect corpses and tombs younger than 75 years from molestation.

"An absurd demand, but fortunately not a mandatory one. I must ask, however, how one intends to define a tomb? Or, indeed, why it is expected that we leave our own soldiers fallen in battle where they lie rather than retrieve them? Or how it is that you expect the Imperium to protect ashes from 'molestation', to use your... unpleasant term."

opening of the grave unless unless permitted by the deceased or their family

"Their immediate family, Ambassador? Or any remotely related individual? Do define your terms, Ambassador."

Destruction or defacing of headstones or markers unless permitted by the deceased or their family

"The aforementioned concern persists in this clause."

mutilation of the interred corpse or ashes

"And what, exactly, is meant by mutilation? Mere cosmetic disfigurement that is natural to decaying corpse and potentially necessary in the event of autopsy? Or something rather more severe, dismemberment, perhaps? And I must ask how it can be considered possible to 'mutilate' ash?"

Accepts the supreme authority of the will as to how the writer of the will shall be disposed of unless the request is unreasonable.
Defines unreasonable burial requests as requests that would:
(a.)cause damage to property
(b.)be impossible to finance
(c.)break national or World Assembly laws

"Ambassador, the Member-State is 'the supreme' and final authority regarding the disposal of corpses; this is recognized by the draft, as it provides exceptions, as extremely poorly considered as they are, to the supposed 'supremacy' of the of the dying will.

Demands that member nations require the declaring of death within 14 days of the discocery of a corpse

"What does this mean, Ambassador? To 'declare' a death? Certainly you do not expect a Civil Oversight representative to publicly recite the names of the deceased daily? If you mean the formalization of one's status as deceased in documentation, then this is not a concern for the Imperium, though in that event, we recommend the clause be clarified."

Authorizes governments to leave corpses in situ if they are irretrievable without extreme efforts.

"Ambassador, 'situ' is not a word."

Authorizes governments to enforce cremation if deemed necessary in the event of an epidemic.

"The Imperium will continue to enforce such for simple reasons of practicality, in addition to cultural standard.

In any case, the Imperium will not provide support to this legislation nor any further variation upon it. How a Member-State handles its deceased is simply not the concern of the World Assembly."

[Kenmoria]

"Numbering your active clauses appears to be the current convention."

[New-Brussels]

"Ambassador, 'situ' is not a word."

But "in situ" is a latin expression used as a term meaning "in place" or "in site" in many fields.

[Erithaca]

Thank you Araraukar! I have added your changes

[Araraukar]

Thank you Araraukar! I have added your changes

OOC: Not entirely. Please withdraw the submission so it can be worked on further. Just because I (or others) didn't comment on it on Monday doesn't mean I thought it was ready. It just means that I unfortunately have this thing called "Real Life", which gets in the way.

Like Tinfect pointed out, there are plenty of issues with your word choices.

[Erithaca]

I have withdrawn my proposal.

[Kenmoria]

"In clause 2, you use alphabetical lists inside numerical lists, but in clause 5, you use numerical lists inside of numerical lists. I would either change 5.1 to 6 and edit accordingly, or call it 5a and edit the sub-sub list inside it to numerical."

[The New California Republic]

I have withdrawn my proposal.

OOC: Do you mean you have abandoned it, or you are just working on the draft some more?

[Araraukar]

I have withdrawn my proposal.

OOC: Do you mean you have abandoned it, or you are just working on the draft some more?

OOC: Means they submitted it and then withdrew it for further drafting. I'm waiting to see them address the things Tinfect and I raised about the wording issues, before giving more feedback (no use just repeating what was already said).

[The New California Republic]

OOC: Do you mean you have abandoned it, or you are just working on the draft some more?

OOC: Means they submitted it and then withdrew it for further drafting. I'm waiting to see them address the things Tinfect and I raised about the wording issues, before giving more feedback (no use just repeating what was already said).

OOC: Hmm. It is just that sometimes people say they have withdrawn it, when in reality they mean "withdrawn and never to see the light of day ever again", as has happened on several occasions...

[Erithaca]

I have withdrawn my proposal.

OOC: Do you mean you have abandoned it, or you are just working on the draft some more?

I am working on drafting it more: it is not ready. College has just been really busy recently so I have not been able to play much. I have not abandoned the proposal.

[Erithaca]

I have implemented as many of Tinfect's changes as possible.