NATION

PASSWORD

[DRAFT] Preventing statelessness

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Neskaya
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 3
Founded: Aug 19, 2019
Democratic Socialists

[DRAFT] Preventing statelessness

Postby Neskaya » Mon Aug 19, 2019 8:40 pm

Preventing statelessness

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength : significant

The General Assembly:

Recognizing the inalienable right to every human being to hold a nationality and to live under the protection of the law of a nation;

Realizing that citizens of nations ceasing to exist become deprived of these rights;

Considering desirable to reduce and prevent statelessness by international agreement;

Hereby;


    1. Prohibits nations from depriving their citizens from their nationalities;
    2. Prohibits citizens of all nations to deprive themselves from their nationalities;
    3. Prohibits the trade of citizenships as an inalienable right can’t and shouldn’t be monetized;
    4. Requires that all nations shall grant its nationality to a person born in its territory who would otherwise be stateless.
    5. Requires that all nations shall grant its nationality to a stateless person not concerned by paragraph 4 of this article subject to one or more of the following conditions:
      a.That the person concerned has habitually resided in the territory of a Nation for such period as may be fixed by that Nation;
      b. That the person concerned has neither been convicted of an offense against national security nor has been sentenced on a criminal charge;
      c. That the person concerned has always been stateless.
    6. Requires that a child born in or outside wedlock in the territory of a Nation, whose mother has the nationality of that Nation, shall acquire at birth that nationality if it otherwise would be stateless;
    7. Requires that a child born on a ship or an aircraft shall acquire at birth the nationality of the Nation in which the ship or the aircraft is registered.
Last edited by Neskaya on Mon Aug 19, 2019 8:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8883
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Mon Aug 19, 2019 8:46 pm

Support, with some reservations. Certain sections are covered in one of my resolutions. Other parts are not. I'd excise the duplicatory parts and keep the ones that expand on the topic.
Last edited by Imperium Anglorum on Mon Aug 19, 2019 8:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Author: 1 SC and 28 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13737
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:07 am

OOC: For the record, the relevant resolution is here: viewtopic.php?p=30367063#p30367063

Other than that, why the complete prohibition in clause 1, even if the individual held several nationalities?

And why clause 2? Shouldn't people be allowed to decide whether they want to be nationals of any given nation, as long as they don't deprive themselves of all nationalities altogether?

Clause 3 talks of citizenship while the rest of the clauses are about nationality. The two are not synonyms. Also it's at the very least missing a comma, possibly other binding words before the word "can't".

Doesn't clause 4 cover clause 6?

Also, clause 7 is just plain insane and will not (pun intended) fly and may sink the proposal. It would also most likely simply lead to pregnant individuals being forbidden to fly or sail by carriers whose registered nations wouldn't be at all happy about that bit.

Neskaya wrote:
Preventing statelessness

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength : significant

The General Assembly:

Recognizing the inalienable right to every human being to hold a nationality and to live under the protection of the law of a nation;

Realizing that citizens of nations ceasing to exist become deprived of these rights;

Considering desirable to reduce and prevent statelessness by international agreement;

Hereby;


    1. Prohibits nations from depriving their citizens from their nationalities;
    2. Prohibits citizens of all nations to deprive themselves from their nationalities;
    3. Prohibits the trade of citizenships as an inalienable right can’t and shouldn’t be monetized;
    4. Requires that all nations shall grant its nationality to a person born in its territory who would otherwise be stateless.
    5. Requires that all nations shall grant its nationality to a stateless person not concerned by paragraph 4 of this article subject to one or more of the following conditions:
      a.That the person concerned has habitually resided in the territory of a Nation for such period as may be fixed by that Nation;
      b. That the person concerned has neither been convicted of an offense against national security nor has been sentenced on a criminal charge;
      c. That the person concerned has always been stateless.
    6. Requires that a child born in or outside wedlock in the territory of a Nation, whose mother has the nationality of that Nation, shall acquire at birth that nationality if it otherwise would be stateless;
    7. Requires that a child born on a ship or an aircraft shall acquire at birth the nationality of the Nation in which the ship or the aircraft is registered.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk.

Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Araraukar wrote:
Blueflarst wrote:a cosmopolitan hammer
United Massachusetts wrote:Can we all call ourselves "cosmopolitan hammers"?
Us cosmopolitan hammers
Can teach some manners
Often sorely lacking
Hence us attacking
Silly GA spammers

User avatar
Neskaya
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 3
Founded: Aug 19, 2019
Democratic Socialists

Postby Neskaya » Tue Aug 20, 2019 4:17 am

Araraukar wrote:OOC: For the record, the relevant resolution is here: viewtopic.php?p=30367063#p30367063

Other than that, why the complete prohibition in clause 1, even if the individual held several nationalities?

And why clause 2? Shouldn't people be allowed to decide whether they want to be nationals of any given nation, as long as they don't deprive themselves of all nationalities altogether?

Clause 3 talks of citizenship while the rest of the clauses are about nationality. The two are not synonyms. Also it's at the very least missing a comma, possibly other binding words before the word "can't".

Doesn't clause 4 cover clause 6?

Also, clause 7 is just plain insane and will not (pun intended) fly and may sink the proposal. It would also most likely simply lead to pregnant individuals being forbidden to fly or sail by carriers whose registered nations wouldn't be at all happy about that bit.


Mea culpa, I haven't seen the relevant resolution (I looked for it but missed it). But it seems incomplete, so I can transform my resolution into a completion of the relevant one.
In clause 1, the thought was that a non-complete prohibition could lead to highly discriminative laws or sentences towards individuals holding several nationalities.
In clause 2, I agree I should be more specific and prohibit individuals to deprive themselves of their nationalities if it makes them stateless.
In clause 3, mistakes come from my langage skills as english is not my birth langage and I still have lots of improvments to do. I would demand some kindness towards my writing and, of course, any help or advices would be widely accepted and well received !
Clause 7 is supposed to cover the most difficult and complex situation : the birth of children in international seas or airspaces. If their parents are also stateless, the GA has the duty to make a statement about this situation, and it appears to me that this is the simpliest solution. Other solutions could be providing them the nationalities from the nations of departure and/or arrival, but it would be even more complex and could lead to severe international traffic disorders. However, this can be discussed and debated.

I will bring a corrected version of my proposition later this day, with consideration taken of all of these parameters.

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18545
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Tue Aug 20, 2019 5:22 am

Welcome to the General Assembly!
(or, as some ambassadors have been known to call it "the Festering Snakepit"...)
Congratulations on having the sense to post your draft here for feedback, instead of just going straight to the 'submission' stage as far too many newcomers do.

*(sends over a gift basket of this nation's produce, including a large jar of high-quality honey and a large bottle of high-quality maple syrup as well as assorted fruits and nuts: if your government doesn’t want the sweet stuff, for some reason, then they can exchange it for some smoked salmon or for extra nuts)*
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Our population is approximately 20 million. We do have a national government, although its role is strictly limited. Economy = thriving. Those aren't "biker gangs", they're our traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies'... and are generally respected, not feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152.

User avatar
Losthaven
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 374
Founded: Dec 31, 2014
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Losthaven » Tue Aug 20, 2019 7:53 am

I see a lot here Losthaven could support. But:

Neskaya wrote:Recognizing the inalienable right to every human being to hold a nationality and to live under the protection of the law of a nation;

I know this is just a preamble statement but, for the reasons below, I'm not sure I agree the right to nationality is "inalienable."

Neskaya wrote:1. Prohibits nations from depriving their citizens from their nationalities;

What if a person renounced their given nationality, left to join an extra-national terrorist organization, and returned only to commit terrorist acts against their former community? It would seem reasonable and just that a punishment for such treason could include divestment of citizenship, just as it might be reasonable to restrict the firearm rights of an individual who habitually commits violent offenses with firearms.

Neskaya wrote:2. Prohibits citizens of all nations to deprive themselves from their nationalities;

This is quite odd conceptually; even in cases of hard constitutional rights it is generally possible for a person to knowingly waive them. If a citizen of Torture-and-repress-istan want to disclaim their nationality why would the WA have an interest in preventing that? (Although, to be fair, Torture-and-repress-istan would probably prohibit its citizens from renouncing their citizenship).

I would recommend rewriting this clause to say something like:
Requires member nations to permit a citizen to disclaim nationality for good cause - such as irremediable disagreement with national policy on human rights, political freedoms, or economic liberty - if the citizen has identified a more-agreeable nation willing and able to extend nationality to them


That's a rough sketch but hopefully you get the idea.
---
I don't have anymore comments on the draft for now; I'll wait to see how it develops a bit.

Edits: spelling and grammar
Last edited by Losthaven on Tue Aug 20, 2019 7:54 am, edited 2 times in total.
Once a great nation, a true superpower; now just watching the world go by


Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Haropia

Advertisement

Remove ads