The North Polish Union wrote:Has the GA set an age of consent for invasive medical procedures, above which parents cannot consent on behalf of their children?
See "Legal Competence".
Advertisement
by Imperium Anglorum » Wed Sep 01, 2021 1:30 pm
The North Polish Union wrote:Has the GA set an age of consent for invasive medical procedures, above which parents cannot consent on behalf of their children?
by Bears Armed » Fri Sep 03, 2021 4:10 am
The North Polish Union wrote:Has the GA set an age of consent for invasive medical procedures, above which parents cannot consent on behalf of their children?
by Thousand Branches » Wed Oct 20, 2021 9:39 pm
by Bears Armed » Thu Oct 21, 2021 3:42 am
You can't target only "an individual member nation". It is legal, however, to force "each & every member nation" to create a committee (or agency, or whatever)for itself, as long as the functions specified for those committees do not themselves break any of the rules.Thousand Branches wrote:Two questions today.
One: Is it legal to force an individual member state to create a committee (sort of in the same way there is a large list of GA-wide committees but as an individual member nation thing)?
If you're mentioning its repeal as justification for a replacement then potentially (depending on how you word that reference) it could be legal.Thousand Branches wrote:Two: Is it legal to mention a previously repealed resolution in a later resolution, given that the resolution is repealed and cannot be un-repealed?
by Sierra Lyricalia » Thu Oct 21, 2021 9:05 am
Bears Armed wrote:If you're mentioning its repeal as justification for a replacement then potentially (depending on how you word that reference) it could be legal.Thousand Branches wrote:Two: Is it legal to mention a previously repealed resolution in a later resolution, given that the resolution is repealed and cannot be un-repealed?
by Thousand Branches » Thu Oct 21, 2021 9:13 am
by Rick Perry » Tue Nov 09, 2021 11:48 am
by Islands Of Ventro » Tue Nov 09, 2021 11:57 am
by JAIBHARAT » Fri Nov 19, 2021 6:26 am
by Bananaistan » Fri Nov 19, 2021 6:51 am
JAIBHARAT wrote:Pacific Settlement of Disputes
Article 1
The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.
The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.
Article 2
The Security Council may investigate any dispute, or any situation which might lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute, in order to determine whether the continuance of the dispute or situation is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security.
Article 3
Any Member of the United Nations may bring any dispute, or any situation of the nature referred to in Article, to the attention of the Security Council or of the General Assembly.
A state which is not a Member of the United Nations may bring to the attention of the Security Council or of the General Assembly any dispute to which it is a party if it accepts in advance, for the purposes of the dispute, the obligations of pacific settlement provided in the present Charter.
The proceedings of the General Assembly in respect of matters brought to its attention under this Article will be subject to the provisions.
Article 4
The Security Council may, at any stage of a dispute of the nature referred to in Article or of a situation of like nature, recommend appropriate procedures or methods of adjustment.
The Security Council should take into consideration any procedures for the settlement of the dispute which have already been adopted by the parties.
In making recommendations under this Article the Security Council should also take into consideration that legal disputes should as a general rule be referred by the parties to the International Court of Justice in accordance with the provisions of the Statute of the Court.
Article 5
Should the parties to a dispute of the nature referred to in Article fail to settle it by the means indicated in that Article, they shall refer it to the Security Council.
If the Security Council deems that the continuance of the dispute is in fact likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, it shall decide whether to take action under Article or to recommend such terms of settlement as it may consider appropriate.
Article 6
Without prejudice to the provisions of Articles 1 to 5, the Security Council may, if all the parties to any dispute so request, make recommendations to the parties with a view to a pacific settlement of the dispute.
by Croato-Slavia » Tue Nov 23, 2021 6:05 am
by Phydios » Tue Nov 23, 2021 6:53 am
Croato-Slavia wrote:What do OOC, IC, etc. mean?
If you claim to be religious but don’t control your tongue, you are fooling yourself, and your religion is worthless. Pure and genuine religion in the sight of God the Father means caring for orphans and widows in their distress and refusing to let the world corrupt you. | Not everyone who calls out to me, ‘Lord! Lord!’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Only those who actually do the will of my Father in heaven will enter. On judgment day many will say to me, ‘Lord! Lord! We prophesied in your name and cast out demons in your name and performed many miracles in your name.’ But I will reply, ‘I never knew you. Get away from me, you who break God’s laws.’James 1:26-27, Matthew 7:21-23
by Croato-Slavia » Fri Nov 26, 2021 3:58 am
by Thousand Branches » Sun Dec 12, 2021 10:42 pm
by Imperium Anglorum » Mon Dec 13, 2021 12:03 am
Thousand Branches wrote:I’m curious how to just sorta confirm whether something is legal or illegal before it’s submitted
by Thousand Branches » Mon Dec 13, 2021 6:03 am
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Thousand Branches wrote:I’m curious how to just sorta confirm whether something is legal or illegal before it’s submitted
Frankly, you can't. You can take a look at it with other people to hopefully foreclose legality challenges. But someone might notice something subtle late in drafting or even at vote which makes the proposal illegal.
by Thamesholm and Wallborough » Wed Dec 15, 2021 8:47 am
by Separatist Peoples » Wed Dec 15, 2021 9:19 am
Thamesholm and Wallborough wrote:Is there any concept of martial law in WA law?
Can people suspected of internal (violent) rebellion
(In a civil war scenario) be tried by military courts if martial law is declared?
by Thousand Branches » Wed Dec 15, 2021 8:16 pm
by Bears Armed » Wed Dec 15, 2021 8:54 pm
Thousand Branches wrote:Noticed this today, but should the joke proposal link be changed in the rules post? It has the outdated link (http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=548) still and it was replaced a whiiiiile back with: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=255807. Oh did I say a while back? I actually meant 8 years ago Either way, I think that should be updated, yes?
by Katorisa » Thu Dec 16, 2021 11:44 am
by Sierra Lyricalia » Thu Dec 16, 2021 11:51 am
Katorisa wrote:Eh yeah question, what are the rules for resolutions in the WA, pls send me link if it exist. My last resolution was declared illegal and I don't want to make that mistake again
by Thousand Branches » Thu Dec 16, 2021 12:50 pm
by Imperium Anglorum » Thu Dec 16, 2021 1:28 pm
Thousand Branches wrote:Okay I’m back for more on the rules post (sorry). This wording:
“A proposal with mild language or affecting a narrow area of policy is Mild, while one which a very broad area of policy in a dramatic way is Strong.”
That’s grammatically incorrect. I’m guessing it’s missing an “affects” after “which”? That would be the most obvious solution (although notably, that “which” probably also works better as “that”).
by Tinhampton » Thu Dec 16, 2021 2:08 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Thousand Branches wrote:Okay I’m back for more on the rules post (sorry). This wording:
“A proposal with mild language or affecting a narrow area of policy is Mild, while one which a very broad area of policy in a dramatic way is Strong.”
That’s grammatically incorrect. I’m guessing it’s missing an “affects” after “which”? That would be the most obvious solution (although notably, that “which” probably also works better as “that”).
There are many errors – grammatical and otherwise – in the Rules thread. I once tried to fix one error. It took 11 months.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement