[DRAFT] Welfare of Wartime Orphans

[Wallenburg]

"It would seem that member states are required to take custody of any orphaned or separated children during a period of armed conflict, and to maintain that custody until reunion is possible, regardless of the desires of that child or the member nation they hail from. This could easily be taken by those countries engaged in warfare with member states as World Assembly-sanctioned child abduction. You should consider, first, that non-member states will likely object to this resolution's effect of denying them custody of their own citizens, and second, that two member states engaged in combat will undoubtedly find themselves in a curious situation of both being fully responsible for the care and education of any orphaned or separated children. A clause permitting member states to relinquish custody of these children to their country of origin would do well to solve this issue.

"I must also point out that this resolution does not permit member states to discontinue the entitlement to protection, care, and education after such children reach the age of majority. Certainly many member states, including my own, will not approve of such a situation where fully grown and fully functioning adults are required to leech public resources.

"Finally, I should inform you that clause two has a typo, where it reads 'in the care of a legal guardians'. 'A legal guardian' would be the proper correction."

[Separatist Peoples]

"It would seem that member states are required to take custody of any orphaned or separated children during a period of armed conflict, and to maintain that custody until reunion is possible, regardless of the desires of that child or the member nation they hail from. This could easily be taken by those countries engaged in warfare with member states as World Assembly-sanctioned child abduction. You should consider, first, that non-member states will likely object to this resolution's effect of denying them custody of their own citizens, and second, that two member states engaged in combat will undoubtedly find themselves in a curious situation of both being fully responsible for the care and education of any orphaned or separated children. A clause permitting member states to relinquish custody of these children to their country of origin would do well to solve this issue.

"I must also point out that this resolution does not permit member states to discontinue the entitlement to protection, care, and education after such children reach the age of majority. Certainly many member states, including my own, will not approve of such a situation where fully grown and fully functioning adults are required to leech public resources.

"Finally, I should inform you that clause two has a typo, where it reads 'in the care of a legal guardians'. 'A legal guardian' would be the proper correction."

"I disagree that the second point, that this mandates care beyond the age of majority if there is no reunification or permanent guardianship appointment. For one, the draft uses the language "child" with the understanding in Clause 1 that it applies to children without legal guardians. As no guardianship is required, generally, after majority is reached, the ambiguity, insofar as there is one, would permit member states to terminate care if they so chose. It doesn't, under a plain reading, compel care unless you choose to read it that way.

"Your first point is salient and brings up interesting policy implications. On one hand, the goal is to require the member state to take stewardship of the children, regardless of the child's wishes. Indeed, orphaned children may resent the state so much they would prefer homelessness to state stewardship if they blame the state for their orphaning. But, while the input from the child is useful, it is not dispositive. Children don't have full self-determination because they do not yet have that cognitive ability.

"So, there is a certain paternalism inherent in this. And it would likely be argued by opposing forces that member states are abducting children. In practice, however, the children are to be reunited with their parents, if not deceased, and with their next of kin if it is in the child's best interests, and member states are obligated, per clause 12 (now 13), to take a reading that best permits eventual reunification. So, those claims would eventually ring hollow in the face of actual legal obligations.

"But you do bring up an important point and solution, that member states can refuse to remit children to their national government for similar stewardship, which is a clear oversight on my part. There is little reason why a functional government should be able to take on its own orphans, even where the orphan falls into the hands of a foreign power first. I will make that adjustment.

"However, I do not see the limitation to member states and the exclusion of nonmember states you allude to. Could you highlight that portion?

"Finally, consider the typo addressed."

[Wallenburg]

"Your first point is salient and brings up interesting policy implications. On one hand, the goal is to require the member state to take stewardship of the children, regardless of the child's wishes. Indeed, orphaned children may resent the state so much they would prefer homelessness to state stewardship if they blame the state for their orphaning. But, while the input from the child is useful, it is not dispositive. Children don't have full self-determination because they do not yet have that cognitive ability.

"I made no suggestion that these children should be allowed to risk their lives out of resentment to a foreign state. I am instead demonstrating that most children would rather be in the custody of their own governments--who are likely more suited to provide them proper care and are more likely to have their best interests at heart and as a priority--than in the custody of a government actively engaged in killing their own people. I really cannot see an argument against returning orphaned and separated children to the protection of the country they come from over the country waging war against their people, when all other factors are held equal."

"So, there is a certain paternalism inherent in this. And it would likely be argued by opposing forces that member states are abducting children. In practice, however, the children are to be reunited with their parents, if not deceased, and with their next of kin if it is in the child's best interests, and member states are obligated, per clause 12 (now 13), to take a reading that best permits eventual reunification. So, those claims would eventually ring hollow in the face of actual legal obligations.

"Ambassador, certainly you understand that just because you say that children are to be reunited with their parents doesn't make that happen. There are practical issues to be considered, especially given the issue of an ongoing war between the state holding those children and the state to which those children and their parents are inhabitants. Certainly, if a member state is fully committed to its war, the issue of orphaned and separated children of the very country they are fighting is going to be a very low priority among countless other issues competing for limited state resources. If you truly have the interests of these children at heart, you would permit them to be released to their country of origin, which will naturally take a greater interest in reuniting its own families or caring for its own children."

"But you do bring up an important point and solution, that member states can refuse to remit children to their national government for similar stewardship, which is a clear oversight on my part. There is little reason why a functional government should be able to take on its own orphans, even where the orphan falls into the hands of a foreign power first. I will make that adjustment.

"That isn't the exact issue at hand. Under the current language, member states are required not to return these children to their national governments for the care described under this proposal. Even those member states that would wish to are prohibited from returning these children, unless such a return is directly to their parents or guardians. I suppose, however, that is of little importance, given the second sentence of the new clause seven."

"However, I do not see the limitation to member states and the exclusion of nonmember states you allude to. Could you highlight that portion?"

"I am uncertain as to what this means. Nevertheless, the issue is resolved."

"I disagree that the second point, that this mandates care beyond the age of majority if there is no reunification or permanent guardianship appointment. For one, the draft uses the language "child" with the understanding in Clause 1 that it applies to children without legal guardians. As no guardianship is required, generally, after majority is reached, the ambiguity, insofar as there is one, would permit member states to terminate care if they so chose. It doesn't, under a plain reading, compel care unless you choose to read it that way.

"Fair enough. The reading is rather ambiguous, and I must criticize that, but member states would seem capable of adopting an interpretation permitting them to discontinue these guarantees once an orphaned or separated child reaches adulthood."

OOC: Clause seven needs some breathing room. It looks a bit cramped.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Your first point is salient and brings up interesting policy implications. On one hand, the goal is to require the member state to take stewardship of the children, regardless of the child's wishes. Indeed, orphaned children may resent the state so much they would prefer homelessness to state stewardship if they blame the state for their orphaning. But, while the input from the child is useful, it is not dispositive. Children don't have full self-determination because they do not yet have that cognitive ability.

"I made no suggestion that these children should be allowed to risk their lives out of resentment to a foreign state. I am instead demonstrating that most children would rather be in the custody of their own governments--who are likely more suited to provide them proper care and are more likely to have their best interests at heart and as a priority--than in the custody of a government actively engaged in killing their own people. I really cannot see an argument against returning orphaned and separated children to the protection of the country they come from over the country waging war against their people, when all other factors are held equal."

"Ambassador, I was agreeing with you, for the most part. I was merely outlining the reasons why the wishes of the child were secondary. I made an edit to this effect to permit member states to return children to their nation of origin where practical."

"Ambassador, certainly you understand that just because you say that children are to be reunited with their parents doesn't make that happen. There are practical issues to be considered, especially given the issue of an ongoing war between the state holding those children and the state to which those children and their parents are inhabitants. Certainly, if a member state is fully committed to its war, the issue of orphaned and separated children of the very country they are fighting is going to be a very low priority among countless other issues competing for limited state resources. If you truly have the interests of these children at heart, you would permit them to be released to their country of origin, which will naturally take a greater interest in reuniting its own families or caring for its own children."

"I have great faith that member states, being comprised of many, many individuals, can appropriately task some of their human resources to operating independently of the other demands on their attention. As for resources, well, I hold that the welfare of orphans and children separated from their families should be a higher priority than a few more artillery shells. It is a policy choice I'm willing to make. Since I acquiesced to your argument, at least in part, you will note that the draft now places member states in the position of justifying, objectively, their reasons for not passing stewardship to the nation of origin."

"That isn't the exact issue at hand. Under the current language, member states are required not to return these children to their national governments for the care described under this proposal. Even those member states that would wish to are prohibited from returning these children, unless such a return is directly to their parents or guardians. I suppose, however, that is of little importance, given the second sentence of the new clause seven."

"Indeed, I believe the seventh clause satisfies all but the most unusual situations member states will face."

"Fair enough. The reading is rather ambiguous, and I must criticize that, but member states would seem capable of adopting an interpretation permitting them to discontinue these guarantees once an orphaned or separated child reaches adulthood."

"Ambiguity is the friend of the member state. Where ambiguity reigns, freedom of choice thrives."

OOC: Clause seven needs some breathing room. It looks a bit cramped.

OOC: The coding for line spaces desperately needs an overhaul.

[Araraukar]

The Araraukarian seat is currently occupied by a young woman, who might as well have "intern" tattooed on her forehead. "Just one question," she begins, squinting at a handwritten note, "the bit about requiring children to be separated from adults when they're temporarily being cared for by them, but not actually legally fostered - how absolute is that meant to be? Because in terms of safety, especially in an unsafe conflict zone, requiring putting infants' cribs into a separate room just because their caregivers aren't related to them, sounds like a bad idea."

[Separatist Peoples]

The Araraukarian seat is currently occupied by a young woman, who might as well have "intern" tattooed on her forehead. "Just one question," she begins, squinting at a handwritten note, "the bit about requiring children to be separated from adults when they're temporarily being cared for by them, but not actually legally fostered - how absolute is that meant to be? Because in terms of safety, especially in an unsafe conflict zone, requiring putting infants' cribs into a separate room just because their caregivers aren't related to them, sounds like a bad idea."

"They cannot be quartered together, but that does not mean that the caregiver cannot be present in the room, especially routinely, during the night. Hospitals manage very well with their natal facilities."

[Araraukar]

"They cannot be quartered together, but that does not mean that the caregiver cannot be present in the room, especially routinely, during the night. Hospitals manage very well with their natal facilities."

IC: The young woman writes the answer down. "I'll probably have more professional questions for you later, but does all that also prevent, like, a neighbour taking in the kids until their parents can be found, if their place doesn't have separate lockable rooms?"

OOC: I'll try to keep RL apartment hunting annoyances from bleeding into NS too much, but small places like my current one, only basically have a single room - my bed is in an alcove with a curtain, but it's certainly not a separate room.

[Old Hope]

Member states may, after duly considering the best interests of the child, transfer stewardship to the child's nation of origin when that nation's government is capable of meeting the obligations contained within this resolution. In no case may member states refuse to transfer stewardship to the child's nation of origin unless doing so is manifestly counter to the child's best interests and there is an objectively compelling and practical purpose for that refusal.

Shouldn't this be "or"?

[Separatist Peoples]

"They cannot be quartered together, but that does not mean that the caregiver cannot be present in the room, especially routinely, during the night. Hospitals manage very well with their natal facilities."

IC: The young woman writes the answer down. "I'll probably have more professional questions for you later, but does all that also prevent, like, a neighbour taking in the kids until their parents can be found, if their place doesn't have separate lockable rooms?"

OOC: I'll try to keep RL apartment hunting annoyances from bleeding into NS too much, but small places like my current one, only basically have a single room - my bed is in an alcove with a curtain, but it's certainly not a separate room.

"It does if the children first come into the care of a member state covered by this law. It's a distinction I'm willing to make to prevent the risk of sexual exploitation of children. If the line must be drawn, I would prefer it be somewhere that excludes pedophiles."

Member states may, after duly considering the best interests of the child, transfer stewardship to the child's nation of origin when that nation's government is capable of meeting the obligations contained within this resolution. In no case may member states refuse to transfer stewardship to the child's nation of origin unless doing so is manifestly counter to the child's best interests and there is an objectively compelling and practical purpose for that refusal.

Shouldn't this be "or"?

"No. It's a multi-condition analysis."

[Karteria]

"This proposal has our full support. We especially approve of how it delineates authority to member-states to pass on children to (adequate) non-governmental organizations – which can provide even more benefit in nations where the governments in question do not have the necessary resources. Well done."

Ambassador Gray leans over to his colleague, grinning: "some of these proposals make it way too easy for us."

[Wallenburg]

Shouldn't this be "or"?

"No. It's a multi-condition analysis."

"I can't see why it should be. Member states should not be allowed to act against the interests of these children simply because they identify a 'compelling and practical purpose' for doing so. Now that I examine this clause further, this intersection permits member states to refuse transfer of children to their nation of origin in order to fulfill the 'compelling and practical purpose' of holding them hostage."

EDIT: Nevermind, I must have misread the language. It isn't very clear. Perhaps you should replace "In no case may member states refuse to transfer stewardship to the child's nation of origin" with "Member states must agree to transfer stewardship to the child's nation of origin".

[Araraukar]

"It does if the children first come into the care of a member state covered by this law. It's a distinction I'm willing to make to prevent the risk of sexual exploitation of children. If the line must be drawn, I would prefer it be somewhere that excludes pedophiles."

The young woman appears aghast. "What kind of nation would have to suspect most of its adult population to be pedophiles? And clauses two and eleven don't make such exceptions either. I know eleven B mentions "lawfully able", but that's about the organizations, not the people working for them. If such checks - background and criminal record and psychological profile and whatnot^OOC - are not done on the parents or next of kin or newly assigned permanent guardians as well, before handing the child over, then you can't really properly protect them from pedophiles. And even requiring separate living quarters for temporary caretakers is kinda moot, especially as a caretaker of a young child should legitimately have access to the child at all times for safety reasons. I would suggest requiring background checks on all caretakers of children separated from their families by war. That would also help, in part anyway, settle the existence or absence of "compelling and practical purpose" in clause seven."

OOC note: Araraukar vets potential parents before they get a parental licence. Basically the nation wants to give children the best possible shot at a happy childhood, by weeding out the most problematic people. If someone breeds without licence, they're considered to be mentally unstable (it's not like abortions were hard to get) and the children are taken away, to be given to adoptive parents who have a licence. If this proposal becomes a resolution, you bet they're going to subject anyone - whether biological parents or not - who's to be a permanent lawful guardian/parent to the child, to the same process. Which I'm sure people in war-torn nations would easily fail.

[Separatist Peoples]

The young woman appears aghast. "What kind of nation would have to suspect most of its adult population to be pedophiles?

"We hardly expect them to be, but when the harm is extreme and the cost of preventing it is minimal, the only responsible thing to do is take preventative measures."

A

nd clauses two and eleven don't make such exceptions either. I know eleven B mentions "lawfully able", but that's about the organizations, not the people working for them. If such checks - background and criminal record and psychological profile and whatnot^OOC - are not done on the parents or next of kin or newly assigned permanent guardians as well, before handing the child over, then you can't really properly protect them from pedophiles.

"I had thought it would be intuitively obvious for most nations not to allow pedophiles to participate in these programs, and saw no need to regulate such."

And even requiring separate living quarters for temporary caretakers is kinda moot, especially as a caretaker of a young child should legitimately have access to the child at all times for safety reasons.

"You conflate guardianship and the temporary stewardship by the state where the orphaned child is likely grouped with other orphaned children in a group living space, and the caretakers likely do not live with them. In such a case, access is not so easy as to permit assault."

I would suggest requiring background checks on all caretakers of children separated from their families by war. That would also help, in part anyway, settle the existence or absence of "compelling and practical purpose" in clause seven."

"Nations will vet their caretakers anyway to prevent liability. It seems a moot issue."

OOC note: Araraukar vets potential parents before they get a parental licence. Basically the nation wants to give children the best possible shot at a happy childhood, by weeding out the most problematic people. If someone breeds without licence, they're considered to be mentally unstable (it's not like abortions were hard to get) and the children are taken away, to be given to adoptive parents who have a licence. If this proposal becomes a resolution, you bet they're going to subject anyone - whether biological parents or not - who's to be a permanent lawful guardian/parent to the child, to the same process. Which I'm sure people in war-torn nations would easily fail.

OOC: Then its up to the government to find somebody who would pass. There must be some kind of caretaker. But otherwise, I see nothing wrong with that approach.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Then its up to the government to find somebody who would pass. There must be some kind of caretaker. But otherwise, I see nothing wrong with that approach.

OOC: Okay, I'll figure a way to put it in IC (in case you were wondering, Johan Milkus is on a vacation - he might not be welcome back in Araraukar, but he's still allowed his annual vacation days - and Janis is still *looks conspiratiorally at a certain island nation* busy with a big, important project), but in that case there wouldn't be any objections from the Araraukarians.

[Essu Beti]

"I had thought it would be intuitively obvious for most nations not to allow pedophiles to participate in these programs, and saw no need to regulate such."

"Then why have the clause requiring us to isolate children to a separate part of the house?" asks Inan. "If there are no pedophiles, then there is no risk."

[Wallenburg]

"I had thought it would be intuitively obvious for most nations not to allow pedophiles to participate in these programs, and saw no need to regulate such."

"Then why have the clause requiring us to isolate children to a separate part of the house?" asks Inan. "If there are no pedophiles, then there is no risk."

"I must concur with Ambassador Gayan. If we can safely assume that all caretakers involved are properly examined for any characteristics or histories that would introduce danger to the children they are to take care of, then there is no value in mandating separate quarters for caretakers and children."

[Essu Beti]

"I must concur with Ambassador Gayan. If we can safely assume that all caretakers involved are properly examined for any characteristics or histories that would introduce danger to the children they are to take care of, then there is no value in mandating separate quarters for caretakers and children."

"Acting Ambassador Aranis," corrects Inan. "Ambassador Gayan is out dealing with a family emergency."

[Enjuku]

I fully support the intentions behind this resolution. I only have two concerns however.

There should be a change to Clause 13 about "liberally" applying the tenants of the resolution. This is far too broad of an endorsement to stretching this resolution's interpretation. I get that it's attempting to fill any gaps left unmentioned, but the use of "liberal" makes it seem like you want member states to be empowered rather than restricted when trying to meet the resolution's goals. I'd recommend "Where possible" as you used in Clause 2 or something like that, more restrictive language, so that the resolution isn't miscontrued to give leeway to questionable behavior to meet its goals.

Next, on Clause 2 specifically, "similar cultural or ethnic tradition" is fuzzy. It sounds like racial match-making for caretakers. Rather than focusing on traditions, I'd say focus on things like language, socioeconomic history, or being from a similar "ethnolinguistic or cultural background". The OR is important, so that if nations cannot access guardians from a similar background, they can at least have guardians of that nation's background but familiar enough with the child's culture to give them adequate care.

With some tweaking along these lines, I can guarantee Enjuku's support for this resolution should it reach the Assembly floor.

- Fran Medellin
Minister for State
Enjukan Ministry of Foreign Affairs

[Separatist Peoples]

I fully support the intentions behind this resolution. I only have two concerns however.

There should be a change to Clause 13 about "liberally" applying the tenants of the resolution. This is far too broad of an endorsement to stretching this resolution's interpretation. I get that it's attempting to fill any gaps left unmentioned, but the use of "liberal" makes it seem like you want member states to be empowered rather than restricted when trying to meet the resolution's goals. I'd recommend "Where possible" as you used in Clause 2 or something like that, more restrictive language, so that the resolution isn't miscontrued to give leeway to questionable behavior to meet its goals.

"I do want member states empowered, not restricted. If you can cite how the language here would be construed against the spirit of this proposal without violating Clause 13, I'll change it."

Next, on Clause 2 specifically, "similar cultural or ethnic tradition" is fuzzy. It sounds like racial match-making for caretakers. Rather than focusing on traditions, I'd say focus on things like language, socioeconomic history, or being from a similar "ethnolinguistic or cultural background". The OR is important, so that if nations cannot access guardians from a similar background, they can at least have guardians of that nation's background but familiar enough with the child's culture to give them adequate care.

"Culture and ethnic tradition is far more important than socioeconomic positions here, since the placement is meant to be temporary. Language is inherently part of a cultural or ethnic tradition. So, either your criticisms are met, or you are looking for me to compound the language to make it more complicated. I'd prefer to think it was the former."

[Falcania]

I seek a legal clarification on whether the "age of majority" in clause 1 refers to the legal age of majority in the nation that is looking after the orphan, or the nation from which the orphan is from?

[Blueflarst]

"Just one question right off the bat, does this only apply to the legal inhabitants of a member nation? Because I can foresee quite a few issues with relocations of children of a non-member nation the member nation is at war with. They would likely be called kidnappings regardless of intent, even given the bit about the parents having custodial rights of the child, and it's not a good idea to mandate such WA-wide. Well, at least for WA nations who fear further attacks from non-WA nations. Obviously the sanest option is to just not have wars, but the Grand Nation of Araraukar understands that not all nations are that advanced yet."

While Johan spoke, he was also typing in a text message to Mr. Bell, as there were some things he knew would compromise his continued good health if he said them out loud:

"This would easily let Araraukar clear our contested border zone of children, ours and theirs, and hold them ransom to gain control of the area permanently. Just so you know."

"I suspect that this interpretation would be illegal based on the second to last clause, which requires a liberal construction in keeping with the ultimate policy goal of reunification. This had occurred to me while drafting, and I endeavored to limit interpretations that allow this action."

Stop selling rubish to the communnity the world assembly is not here for your liberal goals of construction democratic nations world assembly is to improve the world.
Stop selling the people tha goal of reuniting the world under one banner cause is not the real propose of the world assembly, maybe is your propose but certainly not the world assembly one. Seeing your General Assembly secretary position i now understand how the world assembly is so politized to liberal ideas. I see with your comment you just boicot the not liberal proposals.

You are doing great damage to the world a the majority of the world ruled by dictatorships monarchies and other not democrat regimes. They will stay out of the world assembly for your political imposition instead of trying to improve the world, thanks to your political utopias they will stay out doing bararic acts instead of becoming civilized enlightened despotisms as me

[Blueflarst]

Be sure tha my nation will provide care to the orphans of our soldiers which had the disgrace of losing their parents in the war and be sure tha we will not finance th orphans of our enemies.
And YAS we are selfish and do not appreaciate the sons of our enemies as the majority of nations put your feet on earth and stop promoting utopias

[Separatist Peoples]

Be sure tha my nation will provide care to the orphans of our soldiers which had the disgrace of losing their parents in the war and be sure tha we will not finance th orphans of our enemies.
And YAS we are selfish and do not appreaciate the sons of our enemies as the majority of nations put your feet on earth and stop promoting utopias

"No."

[Blueflarst]

Be sure tha my nation will provide care to the orphans of our soldiers which had the disgrace of losing their parents in the war and be sure tha we will not finance th orphans of our enemies.
And YAS we are selfish and do not appreaciate the sons of our enemies as the majority of nations put your feet on earth and stop promoting utopias

"No."

put your feet on earth and stop promoting utopias

[Separatist Peoples]

"No."

put your feet on earth and stop promoting utopias

"If not letting children starve is your idea of a utopia, I shudder to think of the state of the WA were you a relevant voice in it. I will not be taking your advice. Good day."