(DRAFT) REPEAL "RESTRICTIONS ON CHILD LABOR"

[Kambota (Ancient)]

This is a rough draft of a resolution I plan on introducing to the WA in the next few months. Please feel free to leave any comments/suggestions/corrections.

RECOGNIZING that the original resolution was proposed as means to insure child safety.

FURTHER RECOGNIZING that all children should have certain age-specific rights relating to both their future mental and physical well-being.

UNDERSTANDING the importance of such rights and

AGREEING that these rights should be maintained.

OBSERVING that while well-intentioned, these laws can be misconstrued in a manner that would lead to unreasonable sanctions and restrictions.

FURTHER OBSERVING that in some regions, child labor is a necessity and is vital to the economy’s health.

AFFIRMING that child labor can be implemented in a safe and productive manner.

CLARIFYING that while child labor would be legalized, child abuse, including abuse that occurs in a child’s place of work, such as extreme corporal punishment, water deprivation, or overworking, is not and never will be legal, and will still be strictly prohibited.

ACKNOWLEDGING Section 4 of GA Resolution #222 (Prevention of Child Abuse), shown below, which defines child abuse as:

"i. the forcing of unwanted or nonconsensual sexual behaviour and/or desire upon a child,

ii. the causing of excessive physical pain, injury or harm with a malicious intent, or through negligence, outside that which may occur from peer- to-peer bullying,

iii. any deliberate act and/or behaviour which results in serious emotional and mental trauma in a child,

iv. when a guardian deprives, intentionally or otherwise, a child of necessities such as care, nourishment, shelter, and/or healthcare on a long term or continuous basis, if that guardian is capable of providing such;"

INSISTING that abuse in the workplace would be prevented by GA Resolution #222's definition of child abuse, specifically parts ii. and iv. (see above).

ESTABLISHING that placing children in situations that pose a direct threat to their physical or mental health is considered negligence and is prohibited by GA Resolution #222.

ASSERTING that GA Resolution #222 will protect children’s rights and serve the same purpose as the original resolution (GA Resolution #4, “Restrictions on Child Labor”), without the risk of misinterpretation,

Hereby REPEALS GA Resolution #4, “Restrictions on Child Labor”.

[Felix Terra]

How can you be sure the replacement will be Resolution 222?

[Kambota (Ancient)]

How can you be sure the replacement will be Resolution 222?

It is already in place and protects the same rights as Resolution 4 does.

[Mousebumples]

How can you be sure the replacement will be Resolution 222?

It is already in place and protects the same rights as Resolution 4 does.

Not all of them. Opposed.

[Felix Terra]

How can you be sure the replacement will be Resolution 222?

It is already in place and protects the same rights as Resolution 4 does.

Oh, I thought there wasn't a GA222...

[Kambota (Ancient)]

It is already in place and protects the same rights as Resolution 4 does.

Not all of them. Opposed.

In my opinion, it is broad enough to cover abuse in the workplace. Resolution #222 states: "AFFIRMS that all children have the right, and expectancy, to be free from all forms of child abuse;".

In addition, it clearly states that it covers all forms of child abuse, not just the ones listed in the document.

[Felix Terra]

Not all of them. Opposed.

In my opinion, it is broad enough to cover abuse in the workplace. Resolution #222 states: "AFFIRMS that all children have the right, and expectancy, to be free from all forms of child abuse;".

In addition, it clearly states that it covers all forms of child abuse, not just the ones listed in the document.

Define "child abuse". Does child labor count? If so, does that mean a kid being forced to help on the farm is child abuse?

[Kambota (Ancient)]

In my opinion, it is broad enough to cover abuse in the workplace. Resolution #222 states: "AFFIRMS that all children have the right, and expectancy, to be free from all forms of child abuse;".

In addition, it clearly states that it covers all forms of child abuse, not just the ones listed in the document.

Define "child abuse". Does child labor count? If so, does that mean a kid being forced to help on the farm is child abuse?

No. The resolution is repealing child labor restrictions. It would be considered abuse if a child was overworked or deprived of water/rest while working.

[Sanctaria]

Not all of them. Opposed.

In my opinion, it is broad enough to cover abuse in the workplace. Resolution #222 states: "AFFIRMS that all children have the right, and expectancy, to be free from all forms of child abuse;".

In addition, it clearly states that it covers all forms of child abuse, not just the ones listed in the document.

All forms of child abuse, yes. And child abuse is defined very carefully and clearly in the resolution.

So that affirms clause is that children have the right to be free from all forms of the child abuse listed, not just to be free from physical, and not mental, or freedom from sexual, but not physical.

I'm disagree with your reading of my resolution. I disagree with your intentions here.

I stand opposed.

[Kambota (Ancient)]

In my opinion, it is broad enough to cover abuse in the workplace. Resolution #222 states: "AFFIRMS that all children have the right, and expectancy, to be free from all forms of child abuse;".

In addition, it clearly states that it covers all forms of child abuse, not just the ones listed in the document.

All forms of child abuse, yes. And child abuse is defined very carefully and clearly in the resolution.

So that affirms clause is that children have the right to be free from all forms of the child abuse listed, not just to be free from physical, and not mental, or freedom from sexual, but not physical.

I'm disagree with your reading of my resolution. I disagree with your intentions here.

I stand opposed.

Your resolution does classify negligence as child abuse, which would cover water deprivation and overworking (at least in my opinion). If you believe I have misinterpreted your resolution, feel free to offer a re-write of the sections you disagree with. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

[The Dourian Embassy]

WA #222 stops people from abusing or neglecting children.

WA #4 forbids them from being in situations that are dangerous, in the pretext of work. If you repeal it, those protections are gone. More specifically, no other resolution bans the participation of minors in armed conflict.

WA #4 may be mine, but I think it's alright.

[Kambota (Ancient)]

WA #222 stops people from abusing or neglecting children.

WA #4 forbids them from being in situations that are dangerous, in the pretext of work. If you repeal it, those protections are gone. More specifically, no other resolution bans the participation of minors in armed conflict.

WA #4 may be mine, but I think it's alright.

Putting children in dangerous situations (including war zones) would be considered negligence and would be a threat to their mental health, both of which are covered by GA Resolution #222.

[Flibbleites]

WA #222 stops people from abusing or neglecting children.

WA #4 forbids them from being in situations that are dangerous, in the pretext of work. If you repeal it, those protections are gone. More specifically, no other resolution bans the participation of minors in armed conflict.

WA #4 may be mine, but I think it's alright.

Putting children in dangerous situations (including war zones) would be considered negligence and would be a threat to their mental health, both of which are covered by GA Resolution #222.

By reasonable nations, yes. However I'm sure that there are nations out there that would not share those views and having Restrictions on Child Labor on the books ensures that the children in those nations are protected too.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Kambota (Ancient)]

Putting children in dangerous situations (including war zones) would be considered negligence and would be a threat to their mental health, both of which are covered by GA Resolution #222.

By reasonable nations, yes. However I'm sure that there are nations out there that would not share those views and having Restrictions on Child Labor on the books ensures that the children in those nations are protected too.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Bob,
Thanks for pointing that out. I added a second part to the resolution that clearly outlines what is and sin't allowed.

[Flibbleites]

By reasonable nations, yes. However I'm sure that there are nations out there that would not share those views and having Restrictions on Child Labor on the books ensures that the children in those nations are protected too.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Bob,
Thanks for pointing that out. I added a second part to the resolution that clearly outlines what is and sin't allowed.

And your proposal just fell into the "Illegal" category. Repeals can only repeal, they can't contain new legislation.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[The Dourian Embassy]

Thanks for pointing that out. I added a second part to the resolution that clearly outlines what is and sin't allowed.

If you feel the need to replace something in WA #4, then it's obviously not redundant, as the thrust of your argument indicates. WA #4 and WA #222 are more than adequate and they compliment each other, rather than knock each other down.

[Savum]

At this time I would not be able to accept this resolution. Child labour and child abuse are very broad in their definitions in themselves, and R. 222 would not cover the protection of children from cruel labour because some nation-states would be able to come up with an excuse for the labour. If the author can correct this issue, the Savum delegation would review the resolution.

[Kambota (Ancient)]

At this time I would not be able to accept this resolution. Child labour and child abuse are very broad in their definitions in themselves, and R. 222 would not cover the protection of children from cruel labour because some nation-states would be able to come up with an excuse for the labour. If the author can correct this issue, the Savum delegation would review the resolution.

Can you provide suggestions for a re-write? Thanks.

[Quelesh]

I would suggest coming at this from a different angle. I think the "GAR222 now covers the same ground" argument is pretty weak, for reasons that other ambassadors have already mentioned.

The primary flaw of GAR4, in my opinion, is its assumption that all WA member states use chronological age as a dividing line in deciding who should have certain rights and who should not. It does not even attempt to take into account other systems of determining competence; it merely prohibits those under the "age of majority" from holding certain kinds of jobs.

This is both underinclusive and overinclusive: it fails to protect people over a nation's AoM who are incompetent to fully understand the hazards they're getting themselves into, while unduly restricting those under a nation's AoM who do possess this competence. It's also fully underinclusive in nations like Quelesh that don't have an age of majority at all. (The Quelesian government requires that people engaged in hazardous work be capable of understanding these hazards and consenting to them, but does not determine competence based upon age. My government could actually eliminate this requirement entirely if it wanted to without violating international law.)

GAR4 doesn't even allow any exception whatsoever for emancipated minors - people who are under a nation's AoM but have been emancipated by that nation and are essentially considered to be adults. Further, it lumps all "minors" into a single category, ignoring that in most nations with an age of majority, minors who are nearing the AoM are considerably more competent, on average, than toddlers. Under GAR4, a minor who is less than a year from reaching the AoM is irrebutably presumed to be as incompetent as a toddler when it comes to hazardous work.

I think that these flaws should be highlighted in a repeal, and that any replacement for GAR4 should protect all incompetent people while not burdening competent people with unreasonable restrictions.

That said, some specific comments on your current draft:

RECOGNIZING that the original resolution was proposed as means to insure child safety.

You mean ensure here.

FURTHER RECOGNIZING that all children should have certain age-specific rights relating to both their future mental and physical well-being.

I would remove "age-specific" here, as this merely furthers the assumption that all nations use chronological age as a dividing line.

FURTHER OBSERVING that in some regions, child labor is a necessity and is vital to the economy’s health.

AFFIRMING that child labor can be implemented in a safe and productive manner.

To me, these clauses tend to imply that GAR4 outright bans child labor. This is not true, though some of its provisions may be ambiguously overbroad. Be careful to avoid overstating the impact of the target resolution.

CLARIFYING that while child labor would be legalized, child abuse, including abuse that occurs in a child’s place of work, such as extreme corporal punishment, water deprivation, or overworking, is not and never will be legal, and will still be strictly prohibited.

I think that you intend this clause to refer to GAR222, but it could be seen as attempting to legislate within a repeal, and would therefore make the repeal illegal. Even if you are referring to GAR222 here, that argument, as has already been pointed out, is pretty weak.

ACKNOWLEDGING Section 4 of GA Resolution #222 (Prevention of Child Abuse), shown below, which defines child abuse as:

"i. the forcing of unwanted or nonconsensual sexual behaviour and/or desire upon a child,

ii. the causing of excessive physical pain, injury or harm with a malicious intent, or through negligence, outside that which may occur from peer- to-peer bullying,

iii. any deliberate act and/or behaviour which results in serious emotional and mental trauma in a child,

iv. when a guardian deprives, intentionally or otherwise, a child of necessities such as care, nourishment, shelter, and/or healthcare on a long term or continuous basis, if that guardian is capable of providing such;"

If you do insist on using the GAR222 argument, I certainly wouldn't quote its whole definition here. This adds way too much needless text to the repeal.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[The Dourian Embassy]

Actually funnily enough the phrase "as defined by their nation" included in GA# 4 makes any definition you want applicable as an age of majority. You might not like the term, but since you're free to define it how you want, it does not, in fact, have to refer to a chronological age. It's supposed to allow reasonable nations to have a guideline, but be mindful of races, species, and cultures with different concepts or definitions of "Age of Majority" while still using a term most people can understand.

[Gullud]

This comes from the annals of the stupid question department, but I this is a new assignment for me and the ambassador wants me to work this proposal as training; but, was GAR# 222 out of order (which when I asked a few people in my government including 2M Sheina Purna, all said lets hope not)?

If it was not, then what are the changes to the current law on the books (GAR#4)? Is there some grand idea that is linked to the new version of a Child Labour Law that was missing? I am asking because, while I just finished school and have not had a lot of time or experience in global politics (I was planning on working in country as a bureaucrat and got sent out the WA mission), I am not seeing the problem with GAR#4. And if your problem is redundancy with GAR#222, I don't see it and GAR#222 only prevents child abuse and does not forbid a "child-friendly" work environment (if one can truly exist). This is the clearest of your issues that need be be resolved before I would even think of recommending this to my ambassador for a vote. In its current state, I would not even be able to run a snowplow in Invart (our snowiest city) if I recommended this bill.

Joe Sheppard
Diplomatic Attache to Ambassador Benefia Ren
Most Serene Nation of Gullud

[Gullud]

Actually funnily enough the phrase "as defined by their nation" included in GA# 4 makes any definition you want applicable as an age of majority. You might not like the term, but since you're free to define it how you want, it does not, in fact, have to refer to a chronological age. It's supposed to allow reasonable nations to have a guideline, but be mindful of races, species, and cultures with different concepts or definitions of "Age of Majority" while still using a term most people can understand.

Has that not been the root of international child law in the WA forever. This is what they teach at University of Invart in International Law class.

Joe Sheppard
Gulludan WA Mission

[Shadowbourne]

This is a proposal I just submitted to the GA. If you are a delegate, please approve it whether you agree with it or not so that we can give the rest of the WA a chance to vote on it.

RECOGNIZING that the original resolution was proposed as means to insure child safety.

FURTHER RECOGNIZING that all children should have certain age-specific rights relating to both their future mental and physical well-being.

UNDERSTANDING the importance of such rights and

AGREEING that these rights should be maintained.

OBSERVING that while well-intentioned, these laws can be misconstrued in a manner that would lead to unreasonable sanctions and restrictions.

FURTHER OBSERVING that in some regions, child labor is a necessity and is vital to the economy’s health.

AFFIRMING that child labor can be implemented in a safe and productive manner.

CLARIFYING that while child labor would be legalized, child abuse, including abuse that occurs in a child’s place of work, such as extreme corporal punishment, water deprivation, or overworking, is not and never will be legal, and will still be strictly prohibited.

ACKNOWLEDGING Section 4 of GA Resolution #222 (Prevention of Child Abuse), shown below, which defines child abuse as:

"i. the forcing of unwanted or nonconsensual sexual behaviour and/or desire upon a child,

ii. the causing of excessive physical pain, injury or harm with a malicious intent, or through negligence, outside that which may occur from peer- to-peer bullying,

iii. any deliberate act and/or behaviour which results in serious emotional and mental trauma in a child,

iv. when a guardian deprives, intentionally or otherwise, a child of necessities such as care, nourishment, shelter, and/or healthcare on a long term or continuous basis, if that guardian is capable of providing such;"

INSISTING that abuse in the workplace would be prevented by GA Resolution #222's definition of child abuse, specifically parts ii. and iv. (see above).

ESTABLISHING that placing children in situations that pose a direct threat to their physical or mental health is considered negligence and is prohibited by GA Resolution #222.

ASSERTING that GA Resolution #222 will protect children’s rights and serve the same purpose as the original resolution (GA Resolution #4, “Restrictions on Child Labor”), without the risk of misinterpretation,

Hereby REPEALS GA Resolution #4, “Restrictions on Child Labor”.

[Grays Harbor]

This is a proposal I just submitted to the GA. If you are a delegate, please approve it whether you agree with it or not so that we can give the rest of the WA a chance to vote on it.

OK, that's not how it works.

1. Delegates approve things they, well, approve of.
2. Drafts should be posted here first, before submitting, to allow other members to debate and refine the draft.

[Sanctaria]

CLARIFYING that while child labor would ... never ... be legal

Really? How do you know it never will be legal?