NATION

PASSWORD

[DRAFT] Repeal "Refugee Protection"

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Jutsa
Senator
 
Posts: 3894
Founded: Dec 06, 2015
Civil Rights Lovefest

[DRAFT] Repeal "Refugee Protection"

Postby Jutsa » Fri Nov 23, 2018 6:39 pm

"Despite being a fairly new diplomat to the General Assembly, the allied states of Jutsa has some concerns about the following resolution,
and as such, I bring to the floor a proposal to repeal it, in hopes that it will be replaced with a more reasonable resolution in the future."

OOC: Second attempt, first repeal, first time proposing at least partially IC; I'm terrified, but even if this gets ripped to shreds and everyone points at me,
I thank you all for your time and honesty. Any help is appreciated. :)

Part 2: Legal Process of Refugees
Part 3: Rights of Refugees
Part 4: Asylum Accord



Repeal "Refugee Protection"
Category: Repeal | Resolution: GAR #57


The World Assembly,

Applauding the efforts made to protect refugees' rights and protect them from additional harm,

Worrying, however, that existing protection offers several loopholes and creates numerous unintentional consequences,

Disgraced by the extensive flaws of Article 1, including:

  1. Overstepping its bounds, which should be limited to protecting the rights of refugees, by deliberately stating "No person, whether or not they meet the definitions of a refugee";

  2. Forbidding forced transport of criminals within national borders due to the definition of "territories" not being specified;

  3. Despite attempting to prevent forced transport of people to nations where they'd be at risk of persecution or torture, not forbidding member nations from forcibly transporting people to non-member nations which could, in turn, transport people to nations where they'd be at risk,
Disturbed by the fact that article 4 tasks upon member nations to see "as far as possible" to create "favourable integration of refugees", which could imply that a government do its best to create integration conditions that are favourable to its agendas and thus unfavourable conditions for the refugees,

Disgraced that despite article 6's attempt to protect extradition, its exception to article 1 still makes direct extradition totally illegal, and forces member nations to resort to a loophole involving a third party not residing in the World Assembly, which can then be done without regulation,

Hoping a replacement resolution will continue to protect refugees as quickly as possible,

Hereby repeals GA 57 “Refugee Protection”.




Repeal "Refugee Protection"
Category: Repeal | Resolution: GAR #57


The World Assembly,

Applauding the efforts made to protect refugees' rights and protect them from additional harm,

Hoping a replacement resolution will continue to protect refugees as quickly as possible,

Observing however the fact that refugees are defined as "any person who is for any reason outside the country of their nationality and cannot avail themselves of the protection of their country of nationality, or who refuses to do so because of a well-founded fear of unjust persecution", which could include those who have committed acts of crime, even those which are considered crimes by the member nation they reside in or by the World Assembly,

Noting that the lack of a definition of a "well-founded fear of unjust persecution" could imply that criminals can place a financial and bureaucratic burden upon a nation on a claim that their persecution would be unjust,

Disgraced by the extensive flaws of Article 1, including:

  1. Overstepping its bounds, which should be limited to protecting the rights of refugees, by deliberately stating "No person, whether or not they meet the definitions of a refugee";

  2. Technically allowing people who are considered criminals, even from the view of the World Assembly, and including those not classified as refugees, to not be transferred to a territory where they would likely be punished if said criminals claim they'd be persecuted or unjustly prosecuted;

  3. Forbidding forced transport of criminals within national borders due to the definition of "territories" not being specified;

  4. Despite attempting to prevent forced transport of people to nations where they'd be at risk of persecution or torture, not forbidding member nations from forcibly transporting people to non-member nations which could, in turn, transport people to nations where they'd be at risk,
Disturbed by the fact that article 4 tasks upon member nations to see "as far as possible" to create "favourable integration of refugees", which could imply that a government do its best to create integration conditions that are favourable to its agendas and thus unfavourable conditions for the refugees,

Disgraced that despite article 6's attempt to protect extradition, its exception to article 1 still makes direct extradition entirely illegal, and forces member nations to resort to a loophole involving a third party not residing in the World Assembly, which can then be done without regulation,

Hereby repeals GA 57 “Refugee Protection”.




Repeal "Refugee Protection"
Category: Repeal | Resolution: GAR #57


The World Assembly,

Applauding the efforts made to protect refugees' rights and protect them from additional harm,

Hoping a replacement resolution will continue to protect refugees as quickly as possible,

Observing however the fact that refugees are defined as "any person who is for any reason outside the country of their nationality and cannot avail themselves of the protection of their country of nationality, or who refuses to do so because of a well-founded fear of unjust persecution", which could include those who have committed acts of crime, even those which are considered crimes by the member nation they reside in or by the World Assembly,

Noting that the lack of a definition of a "well-founded fear of unjust persecution" could imply that criminals can place a financial and bureaucratic burden upon a nation on a claim that their persecution would be unjust,

Disgraced by the extensive flaws of Article 1, including:

  1. Overstepping its bounds, which should be limited to protecting the rights of refugees, by deliberately stating "No person, whether or not they meet the definitions of a refugee";

  2. Technically allowing people who are considered criminals, even from the view of the World Assembly, and including those not classified as refugees, to not be transferred to a territory where they would likely be punished;

  3. Forbidding forced transport of criminals within national borders due to the definition of "territories" not being specified;

  4. Despite attempting to prevent forced transport of people to nations where they'd be at risk of persecution or torture, not forbidding member nations from forcibly transporting people to non-member nations which could, in turn, transport people to nations where they'd be at risk,
Disturbed by the fact that article 4 tasks upon member nations to see "as far as possible" to create "favourable integration of refugees", which could imply that a government do its best to create integration conditions that are favourable to its agendas and thus unfavourable conditions for the refugees,

Further noting that despite article 6's attempt to protect extradition, its exception to article 1 makes extradition illegal, although still technically viable and unrestricted through a loophole involving trade with a third party, and thus renders the article mostly useless,

Hereby repeals GA 57 “Refugee Protection”.




Repeal "Refugee Protection"
Category: Repeal | Resolution: GAR #57


The World Assembly,

Applauding the efforts made to protect refugees' rights and protect them from additional harm,

Hoping a replacement resolution will continue to protect refugees as quickly as possible,

Observing however the fact that refugees are defined as "any person who is for any reason outside the country of their nationality and cannot avail themselves of the protection of their country of nationality, or who refuses to do so because of a well-founded fear of unjust persecution", which could include those who have committed acts of crime, even those which are considered crimes by the member nation they reside in or by the World Assembly,

Noting the extensive flaws of Article 1, including:

  1. Overstepping its bounds in attempting to address not only refugees, but all non-refugees as well;

  2. Technically allowing people who are considered criminals, even from the view of the World Assembly, to not be transferred to a territory where they would likely be punished;

  3. Forbidding forced transport of criminals within national borders due to the definition of "territories" not being specified;

  4. Despite attempting to prevent forced transport of people to nations where they'd be at risk of persecution or torture, not forbidding member nations from forcibly transporting people to non-member nations which could, in turn, transport people to nations where they'd be at risk,
Further noting that despite article 6's attempt to protect extradition, its exception to article 1 technically makes extradition illegal and thus renders the article mostly useless,

Hereby repeals GA 57 “Refugee Protection”.




Repeal "Refugee Protection"
Category: Repeal | Resolution: GAR #57


The World Assembly,

Applauding the efforts made to protect refugees' rights and protect them from additional harm,

Hoping a replacemet resolution will continue to protect refugees as quickly as possible,

Observing however the fact that refugees are defined as "any person who is for any reason outside the country of their nationality and cannot avail themselves of the protection of their country of nationality, or who refuses to do so because of a well-founded fear of unjust persecution", which could include those who have committed acts of crime, even those which are considered crimes by the member nation they reside in or by the World Assembly,

Noting the extensive flaws of Article 1, including:

  1. Overstepping its bounds in attempting to address not only refugees, but all non-refugees as well;

  2. Technically allowing people who are considered criminals, even from the view of the World Assembly, to not be transfered to a territory where they would likely be punished;

  3. Forbiding forced transport of criminals within national borders due to the definition of "territories" not being specified;

  4. Forcing transortation, including but not limited to busses, trains, ships and planes, to stop or turn around if a refugee, or any non-refugee, decides last-minute to not go to the described territory;

  5. Despite attempting to prevent forced transport of people to nations where they'd be at risk of persecution or torture, not forbidding member nations from forcibly transporting people to non-member nations which could, in turn, transport people to nations where they'd be at risk,
Further noting that clause 4 essentially mandates that a member nation facilitate the naturalization of a refugee in that nation if said refugee requests it, regardless of whether said refugee was granted asylum,

Dismayed that despite article 6's attempt to protect extradition, its exception to article 1 technically makes extradition illegal and thus renders the article mostly useless,

Hereby repeals GA 57 “Refugee Protection”.
Last edited by Jutsa on Fri Dec 07, 2018 1:01 pm, edited 19 times in total.
Here is a list containing a bunch of factbooks I created that are Got Issues? related.
>List of issue ideas
>List of missing issues/options
>List of accepted issues~
^ I know this is hardly a flashy signature, but at least I have one now.

User avatar
Doing it Rightland
Attaché
 
Posts: 70
Founded: Dec 20, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Doing it Rightland » Fri Nov 23, 2018 8:35 pm

Interesting move, and I do believe you have some good ideas here. I'd just like to point out a few issues that I believe may be of note.

Jutsa wrote:Technically allowing people who are considered criminals, even from the view of the World Assembly, to not be transfered to a territory where they would likely be punished;
I would disagree here. The target prohibits such movements if they may result in "...unjustifiably discriminatory treatment, unjust incarceration or execution..." However, assuming such punishments are justified (i.e. criminals that have been justly sentenced) then it should be totally fine.

Jutsa wrote:Forcing transortation, including but not limited to busses, trains, ships and planes, to stop or turn around if a refugee, or any non-refugee, decides last-minute to not go to the described territory;
This is technically not true, as they could simply remove the refugee and continue forward. I would remove the "turn around" part as the target doesn't necessarily require it.

Jutsa wrote:Further noting that clause 4 essentially mandates that a member nation facilitate the naturalization of a refugee in that nation if said refugee requests it, regardless of whether said refugee was granted asylum,
I disagree with your interpretation of the target's clause in this case. I believe that clause 4's meaning is that if a refugee requests assistance with the naturalization and integration process (which itself implies the individual is already permitted to stay, which would constitute asylum) to the best of the nation's ability. And here, you could make the argument that if the nation has laws in place forbidding certain forms of assistance, then the "best of the nation's ability" falls within those standards, thus the nation may not be mandated to facilitate the naturalization.

I agree that the phrasing of target's clauses 1 and 6 do present the possibility to interpret a contradiction of sorts. I still might rephrase that part because of the potential "criminal" issue not being one, but I'll let others comment on that as well. It's certainly a good start, and its nice to see it on the forums and not already submitted; that's how these things get polished out beforehand.

Hopefully this helps, and I wish you luck!
Just a nation trying to right the wrongs it can.

"Two roads diverged by a wood, and I — I took neither."
-Rightlandian Proverb

User avatar
Jutsa
Senator
 
Posts: 3894
Founded: Dec 06, 2015
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Jutsa » Fri Nov 23, 2018 9:29 pm

"Indeed this has, ambassador! Your input is invaluable!"

*takes a moment to polish a pair of pince-nez*

"All of your points are reassuring... except for one. I still argue that article 1 exempts criminal behavior, as stated:"
*spends about ten seconds looking for it.*

"Ahah. 'to a territory in which that person may be put at risk of persecution'.
This means that any a person guilty of pretty much any crimes is not allowed to be forced back home,
and thus, essentially makes extradition impossible. Though your other points also exist,
I'd like to highlight that the conjunction is or, not and, and thus, it is to my belief,
along with the rest of the allied states of Jutsa, that this is a viable and dastardly loophole."

OOC: Seriously though, many thanks. If you still argue it's not a problem, I'm all eyes. :)
Last edited by Jutsa on Fri Nov 23, 2018 9:36 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Here is a list containing a bunch of factbooks I created that are Got Issues? related.
>List of issue ideas
>List of missing issues/options
>List of accepted issues~
^ I know this is hardly a flashy signature, but at least I have one now.

User avatar
Jutsa
Senator
 
Posts: 3894
Founded: Dec 06, 2015
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Jutsa » Fri Nov 23, 2018 9:35 pm

"A new draft has been provided. The old one is currently documented, however, so as not to lose the potentially albeit unlikely valuable information it contained."

OOC: old versions are the norm in GI, figure it probably is here too. Also fixed several typos... another problem I always confront myself with over in GI. :roll:
Here is a list containing a bunch of factbooks I created that are Got Issues? related.
>List of issue ideas
>List of missing issues/options
>List of accepted issues~
^ I know this is hardly a flashy signature, but at least I have one now.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8262
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Sat Nov 24, 2018 12:11 am

Link the resolution somewhere in your thread. Here's a link : viewtopic.php?p=473724#p473724

Author: 1 SC and 24 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and Regional Records
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate

User avatar
Capercom
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 63
Founded: Oct 27, 2004
Democratic Socialists

Postby Capercom » Sat Nov 24, 2018 12:39 am

I like it. I've had issues with this Resolution before but haven't had the time to cross it off the list of things I need to discuss with my superiors so they can start the lobbying process.

Forbidding forced transport of criminals within national borders due to the definition of "territories" not being specified;


I would assume the author meant both a nation or a region, not being exclusive to just a refugee of a nation. But until you mentioned it in the repeal, I never thought about the fact it could mean internal borders between states within a nation. Good catch.


Despite attempting to prevent forced transport of people to nations where they'd be at risk of persecution or torture, not forbidding member nations from forcibly transporting people to non-member nations which could, in turn, transport people to nations where they'd be at risk,


Exactly! By allowing a loophole in the Resolution, the W.A. is enabling secret channel discussions amongst non-member and member nations to create a triangle of deportation to completely negate this Resolution's purpose.


Overall, it's not a bad repeal. I think there needs to be a little more meat to it for explanations. Exactly how does it "overstep its bounds" in point "a.", etc.

So below are some spitballing ideas in relation to the repeal of this. Some of it you've touched on, but I'm providing my view of some things that may spark a thought for additions to the draft:

A refugee shall be defined, for the purposes of this resolution, as any person who is for any reason outside the country of their nationality and cannot avail themselves of the protection of their country of nationality, or who refuses to do so because of a well-founded fear of unjust persecution.

1. No person, whether or not they meet the definitions of a refugee, shall be transported against their will, in any manner or for any reason, to a territory in which that person may be put at risk of persecution unjustifiably discriminatory treatment, unjust incarceration...

...2. Where a member nation has denied asylum to or expelled a refugee, the nation shall, as far as possible, seek to facilitate that person's transport to another nation which is willing to grant asylum, and must not obstruct that person's efforts to seek asylum in another nation.


A murderer, who doesn't want to go to jail, can claim fear of an unjust incarceration. This Resolution specifies no definition of the burden of proof required by the refugee to prove his/her fear is "well-founded".

Example: Steve kills a school bus full of kids because he was driving while extremely tired. He feared being sent to jail for life for killing 20 children + the bus driver. He flees the country to the neighboring nation. They go through their processes to accept/deny asylum. They find out via internet searches he's wanted for the wreck. He makes the claim that it was the bus driver's fault, not his, and he is getting framed because someone needs to be punished and everyone's dead but him.

Per the Resolution, because he's claiming unjust persecution if he returns home, regardless of their immigration policies, the "neighboring nation" he fled to now bears the financial burden of assisting him find a nation that will accept his asylum request based on his false statements regarding his fear of unjust incarceration.


4. In recognition of the potential that the circumstances causing a person to become a refugee may exist in the long term, member nations shall as far as possible seek to facilitate the naturalisation and favourable integration of refugees, should the refugee request such assistance.


I don't like the vagueness of "favourable integration of refugees". A W.A. nation could create tent cities specifically to house asylum refugees and force them to live there, as they aren't citizens and don't have full rights within all nations, but claim that is their way of providing "favourable integration" because the government is still providing basic necessities to those they so "graciously" granted asylum.

I feel the vague wording of that allows W.A. member nations to treat refugees in sub-par ways that are counter to the usual W.A.'s goal to improve humanity.


I'm in full support of this repeal and would love to assist however I could to see it make it to the Proposal voting stage!
From the Desk of:
Nuky Bristow
Capercom World Assembly
Senior Advisor

User avatar
Jutsa
Senator
 
Posts: 3894
Founded: Dec 06, 2015
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Jutsa » Sat Nov 24, 2018 11:20 am

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Link the resolution somewhere in your thread. Here's a link : viewtopic.php?p=473724#p473724
Linked. :P

I like it. I've had issues with this Resolution before but haven't had the time to cross it off the list of things I need to discuss with my superiors so they can start the lobbying process.

"Understandable. Due to our being fairly new, we don't have a lot of things in need of crossing off just yet."

I think there needs to be a little more meat to it for explanations. Exactly how does it "overstep its bounds" in point "a.", etc.

"Agreed. This has been rephrased to hopefully add a bit more detail.
I am aware that more meat could be included, but am not at ease with the idea of making the repeal too unnecessarily long-winded. Any suggestions are appreciated."
A murderer, who doesn't want to go to jail, can claim fear of an unjust incarceration. This Resolution specifies no definition of the burden of proof required by the refugee to prove his/her fear is "well-founded".

"Would an example such as this, especially given its length, be permitted in a resolution? We are uncertain, though this point has been noted and added to the text."
I don't like the vagueness of "favourable integration of refugees".

"I, too, was disturbed by this. I disregarded this fact upon reading 'facilitate the naturalisation', but I forgot that this is still a viable point after, as Doing it Rightland pointed out, would be 'to the best of the nation's ability', which in turn makes this a serious problem. This clause has been added."

"I have also added a bit more information to the point about article 6, as well as section b detailing the flaws of article 1."
I'm in full support of this repeal and would love to assist however I could to see it make it to the Proposal voting stage!

"Thank you for your invaluable input, ambassador. It is greatly appreciated."

OOC: This genuinely has a lot more positive reception than I first thought it would. Many thanks for the help! :)
Last edited by Jutsa on Sat Nov 24, 2018 11:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
Here is a list containing a bunch of factbooks I created that are Got Issues? related.
>List of issue ideas
>List of missing issues/options
>List of accepted issues~
^ I know this is hardly a flashy signature, but at least I have one now.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8262
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Sat Nov 24, 2018 11:57 am

When it comes to something of such import as this, I think there is reason to ask for a replacement. If you have one, could you link it?

Author: 1 SC and 24 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and Regional Records
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate

User avatar
Capercom
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 63
Founded: Oct 27, 2004
Democratic Socialists

Postby Capercom » Sat Nov 24, 2018 12:58 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:When it comes to something of such import as this, I think there is reason to ask for a replacement. If you have one, could you link it?


Are you stating that he needs to push this repeal and a replacement proposal at the same time so they follow voting on the floor back to back?
From the Desk of:
Nuky Bristow
Capercom World Assembly
Senior Advisor

User avatar
Kowani
Minister
 
Posts: 2297
Founded: Apr 01, 2018
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Kowani » Sat Nov 24, 2018 1:01 pm

Capercom wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:When it comes to something of such import as this, I think there is reason to ask for a replacement. If you have one, could you link it?


Are you stating that he needs to push this repeal and a replacement proposal at the same time so they follow voting on the floor back to back?

That is the norm, yes. Or at least, a barebones idea.
My Nation doesn’t reflect my actual views, nor do I use NS stats for Roleplay.
Atheist and proud of it.
Pro: Freedom of Speech, LGBT rights, Abortion, Atheism, Secularism, Technophilia, Humanity, Peace in general, Egalitarianism, Pizza.
Anti: Religion, Violence, Misogyny, Misandry, Racism, Pedophilia, Facism, SJW’s, Willful Ignorance, Promotion of harmful cultural practices in the name of “cultural diversity”, sardines.

I am aware that gender and sex are not the same thing.
Catalan Separatist. Catalunya Independiente!

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8262
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Sat Nov 24, 2018 1:33 pm

Capercom wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:When it comes to something of such import as this, I think there is reason to ask for a replacement. If you have one, could you link it?

Are you stating that he needs to push this repeal and a replacement proposal at the same time so they follow voting on the floor back to back?

Not necessarily immediately, but a draft that shall credibly be passed within a short time frame of the repeal.

Author: 1 SC and 24 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and Regional Records
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate

User avatar
Capercom
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 63
Founded: Oct 27, 2004
Democratic Socialists

Postby Capercom » Sat Nov 24, 2018 2:26 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Capercom wrote:Are you stating that he needs to push this repeal and a replacement proposal at the same time so they follow voting on the floor back to back?

Not necessarily immediately, but a draft that shall credibly be passed within a short time frame of the repeal.


Kowani wrote:
Capercom wrote:
Are you stating that he needs to push this repeal and a replacement proposal at the same time so they follow voting on the floor back to back?

That is the norm, yes. Or at least, a barebones idea.


Thank you, I wanted to make sure I understood what was being said! I've been in trouble numerous times in the past by my (now former) W.A. Ambassador bosses for assuming during the drafting process.
From the Desk of:
Nuky Bristow
Capercom World Assembly
Senior Advisor

User avatar
Jutsa
Senator
 
Posts: 3894
Founded: Dec 06, 2015
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Jutsa » Sat Nov 24, 2018 6:26 pm

"Unfortunately, we do not currently have a replacement draft made. I would be honored to pass the word and propose a replacement, however.
I hope that, upon the creation of such a draft, that we can work together to iron out the loopholes found in this draft while also avoiding new ones."
Here is a list containing a bunch of factbooks I created that are Got Issues? related.
>List of issue ideas
>List of missing issues/options
>List of accepted issues~
^ I know this is hardly a flashy signature, but at least I have one now.

User avatar
Capercom
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 63
Founded: Oct 27, 2004
Democratic Socialists

Postby Capercom » Sat Nov 24, 2018 7:48 pm

Jutsa wrote:"Unfortunately, we do not currently have a replacement draft made. I would be honored to pass the word and propose a replacement, however.
I hope that, upon the creation of such a draft, that we can work together to iron out the loopholes found in this draft while also avoiding new ones."


Iron this one out, get the replacement ball rolling, and I'm sure you'll have plenty of nations offering their opinion!
From the Desk of:
Nuky Bristow
Capercom World Assembly
Senior Advisor

User avatar
Kenmoria
Minister
 
Posts: 3476
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Sun Nov 25, 2018 9:46 am

“The further noting clause seems as though it addresses two separate points: that the resolution in question attempts to ban extradition, and that this ban is worthless anyway because of a loophole. I question what is the problem with the target resolution banning extradition, if it actually doesn’t. You mention a third party having to be involved, so I would recommend writing something about that.”
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Currently centre-right on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts our democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Jutsa
Senator
 
Posts: 3894
Founded: Dec 06, 2015
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Jutsa » Sun Nov 25, 2018 10:47 am

"Ah, yes. I should certainly clarify that what I'm referring to is that direct extradition is illegal. I shall attempt to rectify that."
Here is a list containing a bunch of factbooks I created that are Got Issues? related.
>List of issue ideas
>List of missing issues/options
>List of accepted issues~
^ I know this is hardly a flashy signature, but at least I have one now.

User avatar
Jutsa
Senator
 
Posts: 3894
Founded: Dec 06, 2015
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Jutsa » Fri Dec 07, 2018 10:17 am

"We have removed former clause 'b' on account of 'unjustified' officially being recognized by us as an acceptable term,
as the nation helping the refugee can determine whether a charge was justified through courts and laws governing extradition."
Here is a list containing a bunch of factbooks I created that are Got Issues? related.
>List of issue ideas
>List of missing issues/options
>List of accepted issues~
^ I know this is hardly a flashy signature, but at least I have one now.

User avatar
Kenmoria
Minister
 
Posts: 3476
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Fri Dec 07, 2018 12:36 pm

“I find the observing clause doesn’t quite work in light of the word ‘unjust’ being in the original resolution in the referenced mandate. Also, the word ‘totally’, in the final clause looks rather informal for a GA proposal.”
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Currently centre-right on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts our democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Jutsa
Senator
 
Posts: 3894
Founded: Dec 06, 2015
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Jutsa » Fri Dec 07, 2018 1:03 pm

"Good points. Also, the clause beneath the observation clause also builds off of that.

Thank you, ambassador. The appropriate adjustments have been made."
Here is a list containing a bunch of factbooks I created that are Got Issues? related.
>List of issue ideas
>List of missing issues/options
>List of accepted issues~
^ I know this is hardly a flashy signature, but at least I have one now.


Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads