[DRAFT] Ban on Child Marriage

[Barfleur]

Ban on Child Marriage
Category: Moral Decency | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: Barfleur

---

Whereas child marriage is harmful and manifestly contrary to public policy, as:

1. children who marry tend to leave school early, which both deprives them of the right to a quality education and impairs their future employment prospects; and
2. in the case of marriages where one spouse is a child and the other an adult, the child spouse is likely to suffer pressure to engage in sexual activity and become pregnant, even when doing so would not be in their best interest;

Whereas existing legislation on the subject still permits individuals under the national age of majority to marry, even when they lack legal competence to enter into other contracts of a far lesser effect; and

Whereas cultural factors do not provide a license to violate the rights of sapient beings:

The World Assembly hereby enacts as follows:

1. Definition.
   In this resolution, "union" means a marriage or similar partnership between two or more persons recognized in accordance with national law, whether civil or religious.
   
   
2. Minimum standards for unions.
   A union between two or more persons shall not be valid under the law of any member nation unless, at the time of the union (or, in the case of a union entered into prior to the date of enactment of this resolution, as of such date), every party:
   
   1. was of the age of majority in the nation under whose laws the union was made and was proven to be such; and
   2. offered written or recorded consent to engaging in such union, naming the particular person or persons involved.
3. Treatment of plural unions.
   In the case of a union which is invalid as a result of section 2 and which consists of three or more persons, such union shall have effect only with respect to those persons who meet the qualifications described in section 2. This section shall not be read as requiring member nations to permit nor forbid unions consisting of three or more persons.

“This is very much a preliminary draft; I accept that changes will be made and I harbor no doubts that those may be substantial. The purpose of this proposal is to protect the rights of children by allowing them to stay children and not be forced into lifelong conditions without their informed consent. If you cannot consent to a bill of sale or to a tattoo, it makes little sense that you have the legal competence to marry.”

[Barfleur]

Frequently Anticipated Questions (OOC)

1. Is this legal and necessary?
   Yes, I believe it is. GA#355 "Rights of Sapient Species" requires member nations to set an age of marriage which "cannot be lower than the average age of onset of reproductive maturation for that species." However, it does not follow that a person over that age but below the national age of majority, under existing law, cannot marry. This proposal would go further and ban marriages involving individuals over the age of reproductive maturation but below the age of majority. Indeed, such persons may be at the most risk of child marriage, as they are biologically mature enough to reproduce, in which case early marriage would likely mean early parenthood.
   
   
2. What is so bad about child marriage?
   Child marriage is, quite frankly, a travesty. According to UNICEF such marriage has harmful effects on child spouses, especially girls. For example, child brides generally become pregnant early on, which forces them to leave school, lose future employment prospects, and bear the burdens that come with pregnancy and childbirth. Furthermore, children who marry adults are at a great risk of social isolation, sexual violence, and domestic abuse, with little to no recourse. Nor is this a problem limited to the developing world: the UK only banned under-18s from marrying in 2022, and only a handful of US states (9, as of June 2023) have done so. UN Sustainable Development Goal 5.3 is to end child marriage globally by 2030, along with forced marriage and female genital mutilation. The explanatory notes for this goal show that nearly 20% under 18 in 2021 were married, with these rates higher in Sub-Saharan Africa and Southern Asia. This is not something that should be happening in a world that cares about children.
   
   
3. What if the child consents to be married?
   I deliberately tied the marriage age to the age of majority for this purpose. If the law recognizes you as competent to execute a contract or to dispose of property, then it is fair that you are also competent to marry. Conversely, a person not competent to do so cannot seriously be said to have the competence to make a life-changing decision such as marriage.
   
   
4. Why the part about plural unions?
   The purpose of this proposal is to keep minors out of marriages, and if all participants in a union are consenting adults, it seems fair to allow them to remain in the union without other partners who are minors. I have no interest in legalizing or restricting polygamy at the international level, so long as polygamous unions are no more harmful than monogamous unions.

[Kenmoria]

Ambassador Fortier stands to speak. “Your Excellency, I do not see the merit in 2b. There is no compelling reason to exclude those who are illiterate or otherwise unable to write from marriage.”

[Imperium Anglorum]

Ambassador Fortier stands to speak. “Your Excellency, I do not see the merit in 2b. There is no compelling reason to exclude those who are illiterate or otherwise unable to write from marriage.”

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley. A person can sign (or make a mark) on a document to provide written consent; this is usually done before a magistrate or person of trust (OOC. Notaries public especially). This is a common in legal systems predating the literacy of almost the entire population.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Neville: 'It does not appear as if this proposal would affect any child marriages that do not have legal effect, such as most or all religious marriages in many secular states.'

In the case of a union which is invalid as a result of section 2 and which consists of three or more persons, such union shall have effect only with respect to those persons who meet the qualifications described in section 2.

Neville: 'It might be worth clarifying that this proposal does not have any effect on whether or not such unions are legal in the first place. Polygamy is best left for a separate resolution.'

[Southern Miska]

"Southern Miska supports the ban of such an exploitative and barbaric practice."

[Barfleur]

"This proposal is certainly not intended to ban illiterate adults from marrying. We thus agree with Ambassador Wellesley, and also congratulate her on her successful year in government and welcome her back to the festering snakepit. We have also taken the advice of Ambassador Robert and clarified that this proposal applies to all unions and that it is not the role of this body to permit or forbid polygamous practices."

OOC: In section 1, how else can I define "union"? I feel like it has to have some recognition in law, otherwise, what else would it be? But at the same time I do not want to allow for loopholes wherein children are treated as spouses or civil partners in all but name...

[People republie of alaska]

it happened in medieval history gypsies still do it because it tradition before 18 year old.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Neville: 'Perhaps you misunderstood us, Ambassador. We are happy that this proposal makes it clear that the legality of polygamy is not affected in any way, but we do not appreciate the blocker. This is not because we are opposed to blockers in principle, or even that we are opposed to a polygamy blocker in principle, but rather because this is a complex issue that requires a resolution of its own. We would also contend that allowing member states to prohibit polygamous unions entirely goes against this Assembly's core principles of allowing consenting adults to do whatever they wish, but regardless, the final word on this topic ought not to be a throwaway clause in a resolution about child marriage.'

[The Ice States]

Neville: 'Perhaps you misunderstood us, Ambassador. We are happy that this proposal makes it clear that the legality of polygamy is not affected in any way, but we do not appreciate the blocker. This is not because we are opposed to blockers in principle, or even that we are opposed to a polygamy blocker in principle, but rather because this is a complex issue that requires a resolution of its own. We would also contend that allowing member states to prohibit polygamous unions entirely goes against this Assembly's core principles of allowing consenting adults to do whatever they wish, but regardless, the final word on this topic ought not to be a throwaway clause in a resolution about child marriage.'

"We entirely agree with this."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Communal Union of the Ice States.

[Barfleur]

Neville: 'Perhaps you misunderstood us, Ambassador. We are happy that this proposal makes it clear that the legality of polygamy is not affected in any way, but we do not appreciate the blocker. This is not because we are opposed to blockers in principle, or even that we are opposed to a polygamy blocker in principle, but rather because this is a complex issue that requires a resolution of its own. We would also contend that allowing member states to prohibit polygamous unions entirely goes against this Assembly's core principles of allowing consenting adults to do whatever they wish, but regardless, the final word on this topic ought not to be a throwaway clause in a resolution about child marriage.'

"We entirely agree with this."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Communal Union of the Ice States.

"We apologize to the ambassadors Robert and Saverchenko-Colleti for misinterpreting their concern. Clause 3 has been amended to remove the blocker."

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: I was looking at GA #299: "Legal Competence" and noticed Clause 4:

4). Acknowledges the right of member nations to set reasonable thresholds of maturity and/or mental capability for people to hold any other rights or responsibilities within their jurisdictions (including but not limited to, whatever is legal there in terms of political matters, criminal responsibility, sexual matters, access to and operation of weapons or vehicles or other devices, participation in hazardous activities, use of drugs, and gambling), and that in these cases a single government can assign different thresholds for different rights or responsibilities.

Does this clause block any future legislation on legal marriage age?

[Barfleur]

OOC: I was looking at GA #299: "Legal Competence" and noticed Clause 4:

4). Acknowledges the right of member nations to set reasonable thresholds of maturity and/or mental capability for people to hold any other rights or responsibilities within their jurisdictions (including but not limited to, whatever is legal there in terms of political matters, criminal responsibility, sexual matters, access to and operation of weapons or vehicles or other devices, participation in hazardous activities, use of drugs, and gambling), and that in these cases a single government can assign different thresholds for different rights or responsibilities.

Does this clause block any future legislation on legal marriage age?

OOC: My position is probably no (although I am of course biased). I read GA#299 as requiring those thresholds to be reasonable (ie, restricting toddlers from alcohol and drugs is different from restricting fully-developed 45-year-olds), not blocking future legislation in that entire field.