[DEFEATED] The Commission on Sentient and Sapient Rights

[Goobergunchia]

The Commission on Sentient and Sapient Rights
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Civil Rights Strength: Strong Proposed by: Heavens Reach

---

Recognizing the difficulty, but the urgency, of protecting all beings from undue suffering,

Acknowledging the complexities of appropriately designating conditions of sentience and sapience for the purpose of delineating rights,

Attesting, nonetheless, that doing so is a heretofore unsuccessful, but pressing necessity,

Defines an inalienable right as a right which is inherent, implicit, and which cannot be ceded or surrendered even by the entity to whom it is afforded.

Defines a member jurisdiction as an actionable area within a WA member nation, the culmination of which represents the entire legal territory of each WA member nation.

Defines sentient being as any being meeting the following necessary but sufficient criteria:

1. having, at any stage of development, a central nervous system, or analogous cybernetic system, which manifests the neurocognitive ability to integrate sensation, when and if physically and physiologically available, and to generate spontaneous signals of any kind, which will, given the appropriate mechanical apparatus, generate apparently intentional movement.

Defines sapient being as any being meeting all of the following necessary but sufficient criteria:

1. a sentient being
2. having, at any stage of development, a central nervous system, or analogous cybernetic system, with a redundant, often called “neo”, cortex, or cybernetic equivalent, which manifests the neurocognitive ability to self-represent, or to engage in metacognition.

Defines life as the enduring physical means by which sentience or sapience is sustained.

Establishes the Subcommittee for Ethical Animal Sourcing (SEAS), under the WA Board of Bioethics (WABB), for the purpose of instituting a living set of guidelines regulating exemptions to the right of sentient beings not to be deprived of life, outlined in clause “I,” and empowers SEAS to establish local precincts in member jurisdictions for the purpose of making decisions per aforementioned guidelines.

I. Mandates that all sentient beings be afforded the following inalienable rights:

1. the right not to be deprived of life for any but the following reasons or fewer:
   
   1. to be harvested for the manufacture of meat, clothing, or other commodities for use by sapient beings, not in gross excess of market demand or use, as determined by SEAS.
   2. in the pursuit of scientific or medical discovery or training for the purpose of enriching or preserving the life of sapient beings, not in excess of need, as determined by SEAS.
   3. in defense of the life of another sentient or sapient being from a threat posed by the sentient being for whom this right is in question, when grievous bodily harm or loss of life are imminent.
   4. in defense of certain properties, such as, but not limited to, structures or vehicles, which are important to the infrastructure of member jurisdictions or private citizens as outlined in local SEAS guidelines.
   5. in pursuit of the alleviation of enduring pain of the sentient being for whom this right is in question in excess of the relief afforded by current veterinary standards of treatment, as outlined in SEAS guidelines.
2. the right to be free of gross, unnecessary pain, stress or physical harm short of deprivation of life, the latter of which is governed by subclause “a,” for any but the following reasons:
   
   1. in pursuit of the preservation of life for the sentient being for whom this right is in question, not in excess of veterinary standards, as determined by SEAS.
   2. in pursuit of preventing the deprivation of life of the sentient being for whom this right is in question in defense of a sapient being.
3. the right to adequate provisions in captivity, including nutritional, spatial, social, enrichment, and, when captivity is intended to endure the full natural lifespan, veterinary needs, as outlined in SEAS guidelines.

II. Mandates that all sapient beings be afforded the following inalienable rights:

1. all of those rights afforded to sentient beings, and the following, which supersedes and overrides the exceptions defined in subclause "a" of clause "I":
2. the right not to be deprived of life for any but the following reasons or fewer:
   
   1. by bonafide volition in recognition of an unsurpassable medical condition for which there is currently no cure, and where subjectively determined severe pain or discomfort are chronic and enduring.
   2. in defense of a sapient being for whom the sapient being in question is an imminent threat of bodily harm or loss of life by any voluntary mechanism, or by declaration of intent to induce such harm where the means of implementation are extant.
   3. any other reason established by foregoing GA resolution.

Character Count: 4873
Word Count: 781

[Honeydewistania]

Firstly, this is over the character limit of 5000. Including BBCode.

Secondly, Sapient Rights iirc has been covered by something Rights of Sapients or Sapients Rights Accord (by Excidium Planetis I think).

[Heavens Reach]

Firstly, this is over the character limit of 5000. Including BBCode.

Secondly, Sapient Rights iirc has been covered by something Rights of Sapients or Sapients Rights Accord (by Excidium Planetis I think).

OOC: Oh shoot, I thought it was 8000. However, the resolution you refer to, if I'm not mistaken, only establishes that sapient rights must be the equivalent of human rights, and doesn't delineate rights similar to those found in this resolution

Revision: I could, theoretically, narrow the focus down to sentient rights, but the last resolution that granted protections to sentient life was repealed on the grounds that it gave protections to sentient life that were not explicitly afforded to sapient life.

[Kenmoria]

“Mandate I-a contradicts Sensible Limits on Hunting, which reserves to member nations the choice as to whether to permit hunting, since hunting is not one of your exceptions.

[Heavens Reach]

“Mandate I-a contradicts Sensible Limits on Hunting, which reserves to member nations the choice as to whether to permit hunting, since hunting is not one of your exceptions.

This right does not inherently disallow hunting, as it is still permitted for the harvesting of animal products, as designated in I. a. i.

[Ardiveds]

OOC: Where you have given the exceptions to the sentent speices' right to live, there doesn't seem to be a clause which allows hunting of invasive species. Is that intentional or am I missing something?

[Heavens Reach]

OOC: Where you have given the exceptions to the sentent speices' right to live, there doesn't seem to be a clause which allows hunting of invasive species. Is that intentional or am I missing something?

That would fall under I. a. iii. protecting another sentient animal from imminent grievous bodily harm or death, including but not limited to physical threat or vector borne illness

[Ardiveds]

OOC: Where you have given the exceptions to the sentent speices' right to live, there doesn't seem to be a clause which allows hunting of invasive species. Is that intentional or am I missing something?

That would fall under I. a. iii. protecting another sentient animal from imminent grievous bodily harm or death, including but not limited to physical threat or vector borne illness

OOC: And if the invasive species eats non-sentient creature like RL plants?
Also, how exactly is anyone supposed to know if a sentient was killed to protect another sentient or not? A trophy hunter might say he was protecting the deer from the tiger so he shot it.

[Heavens Reach]

That would fall under I. a. iii. protecting another sentient animal from imminent grievous bodily harm or death, including but not limited to physical threat or vector borne illness

OOC: And if the invasive species eats non-sentient creature like RL plants?
Also, how exactly is anyone supposed to know if a sentient was killed to protect another sentient or not? A trophy hunter might say he was protecting the deer from the tiger so he shot it.

People can and often do lie to hide their crimes, but nonetheless the laws exist. As for invasive species eating nonsentient plants: if doing so does not harm other sentient species, and does not threaten local infrastructure, it isn't much of an issue. If it could cause the hypothetical collapse of the whole ecosystem in some kind of bizarre, but theoretically possible chain reaction, it would not be difficult to argue, in good faith, that that represents an imminent threat of grievous bodily harm or death to the inhabitants of that ecosystem.

[Tinhampton]

Delegate-Ambassador Alexander Smith: I regret to voice our opposition to this proposal on the grounds that it does not, in fact establish a Commission on Sentient and Sapient Rights.

[Heavens Reach]

Delegate-Ambassador Alexander Smith: I regret to voice our opposition to this proposal on the grounds that it does not, in fact establish a Commission on Sentient and Sapient Rights.

This is the relevant definition of commission:
"an instruction, command, or duty given to a person or group of people."

But more importantly, are you just asking us to change the title?

[Tinhampton]

Delegate-Ambassador Alexander Smith: I regret to voice our opposition to this proposal on the grounds that it does not, in fact establish a Commission on Sentient and Sapient Rights.

This is the relevant definition of commission:
"an instruction, command, or duty given to a person or group of people."

But more importantly, are you just asking us to change the title?

Smith: That was not a request or a question, that was a statement; I've always fancied commissions of inquiry more myself. I note that your proposal is... longer than allowed. There are some exceedingly long terms - such as "having, at the present time, the inherent (meaning without need of permanent physical alteration) capacity, through any biological or analogous cybernetic system, to" do whatever - repeated more than once in your delegation's proposal, for instance.

[Heavens Reach]

This is the relevant definition of commission:
"an instruction, command, or duty given to a person or group of people."

But more importantly, are you just asking us to change the title?

Smith: That was not a request or a question, that was a statement; I've always fancied commissions of inquiry more myself. I note that your proposal is... longer than allowed. There are some exceedingly long terms - such as "having, at the present time, the inherent (meaning without need of permanent physical alteration) capacity, through any biological or analogous cybernetic system, to" do whatever - repeated more than once in your delegation's proposal, for instance.

We realize that we will have to shorten the proposal, but it doesn't make sense to do so before receiving more feedback

[Great Chagos Bank]

in the pursuit of scientific or medical discovery or training for the purpose of enriching or preserving the life of sapient animals or beings, not in excess of need, as determined by SEAS.

Covered by Ethical Treatment of Animals in Research?

[Tinhampton]

bruh

We realize that we will have to shorten the proposal, but it doesn't make sense to do so before receiving more feedback

Lydia Anderson, third-in-line to the post of Delegate-Ambassador: Please excuse Delegate-Ambassador Smith and his trivial complaints, verging on illogical - he is a bit drowsy and... as far as I can tell, a lot confused, a lot. As you were saying, your proposal needs to be cut down, but it needs a jackaxe and not a scalpel at this stage. Would you mind coming over to the Tinhamptonian delegation's desk and reviewing the following draft?

Noting that the task of appropriately defining sentience and sapience for the purpose of delineating rights has proven complex and (so far) unsuccessful, but

Attesting that doing so remains a pressing necessity,

The General Assembly hereby enacts the following Commission.

1. Definitions. In this resolution:
   
   1. A "sentient animal" is any animal that has, at any stage of development, a central nervous system (CNS) which manifests the neurocognitive ability to integrate sensation, as soon as physically and physiologically possible, and which can generate spontaneous signals of any kind that (given the appropriate mechanical apparatus) generate apparently intentional movement.
   2. A "sapient animal" is any sentient animal that also has, at any stage of development, a CNS with a neocortex which manifests the neurocognitive ability to self-represent or engage in metathought (i.e. thinking about thought).
   3. A "sapient being" is any system which has, at any stage of development, the inherent capability through any biological or analogical cybernetic system to both:
      
      1. self-represent or engage in metathought independent of that system, AND
      2. integrate sensation independently of that system (if and when it is physically, physiologically, or technologically able to do so).
   4. A "sapient" is a sapient animal or a sapient being.
2. Board of Bioethics. The World Assembly Board of Bioethics (WABB) is re-established and must publish, enforce, and continually maintain a set of guidelines for harvesting sapient animals pursuant to Article III(a). All members must allow the WABB to establish a local precinct within their jurisdiction for the purposes of making rulings pertinent to these guidelines.
3. Rights of sentient animals. Members must recognise the following inherent rights of each sentient animal:
   
   1. that animal's right not to be deprived of its life, except:
      
      1. where it must be harvested to manufacture commodities for use by sapients,
      2. in the pursuit of scientific discovery or training with the intent of enriching or preserving a sapient's life, which shall not be in excess of need as the WABB must define in its guidelines,
      3. to protect the life of another sentient animal or sapient from an imminent threat of grievous bodily harm or death that it poses,
      4. to defend property deemed to be important to individual citizens or a member state's infrastructure, as a local WABB precinct must define in its guidelines, and
      5. to alleviate its suffering from enduring pain beyond the relief that can be offered by veterinary treatment, as the WABB must define in its guidelines,
   2. its right not to suffer unnecessary physical harm beyond deprivation of life, except:
      
      1. to preserve its life in a manner not exceeding veterinary standards, or
      2. to prevent its death, while defending the life of another sentient animal or sapient from a threat posed by it, and
   3. its right to adequate provisions in captivity; including species-appropriate nutritional, spatial, social, enrichment, and (for animals kept in captivity with the aim of enduring their full natural lifespan) veterinary needs, as the WABB must prescribe in its guidelines.
4. Rights of sapient animals. Members must recognise the following inherent rights of each sapient animal:
   
   1. all rights afforded to sentient animals,
   2. that animal's right not to be deprived of its life, except:
      
      1. as may be provided for in future international law,
      2. as part of a sentence requiring it to be subject to capital punishment in a member state (if it is legal in that member),
      3. to voluntarily defend itself against another sapient that it reasonably believes poses an imminent threat of bodily harm or death (including but not limited to physical assault, administration of harmful substance, or declaration of intent to induce harm upon that other sapient), or
      4. by bonafide volition in recognition of a terminal and uncurable illness, where severe pain or discomfort is subjectively deemed to be chronic and enduring, and
   3. its right not to suffer unnecessary physical harm beyond deprivation of life, except:
      
      1. in the course of its employment, or where such suffering is required to comply with legislation or an extralegal body's rules of establishment (where such employment or compliance does not impede the rights of other sapients), or
      2. where it (or a freely-appointed medical proxy) expresses a sincere desire to preserve its life.
5. Rights of sapient beings. Members must recognise that each sapient being holds all rights afforded to sapient animals (including the right not to be involuntarily deprived of its life beyond the provisions of Article IV(b)), and that it has full autonomy over alterations of its body.

Anderson: Yes, count them - four thousand, nine-hundred and three characters. I don't believe that a WA committee has the right to tell member nations what exactly "exceeds market demand or personal need," regardless of their economic system in reality - that's the biggest difference. Otherwise, it's what you've written in much fewer letters.

[Heavens Reach]

We realize that we will have to shorten the proposal, but it doesn't make sense to do so before receiving more feedback

Lydia Anderson, third-in-line to the post of Delegate-Ambassador: Please excuse Delegate-Ambassador Smith and his trivial complaints, verging on illogical - he is a bit drowsy and... as far as I can tell, a lot confused, a lot. As you were saying, your proposal needs to be cut down, but it needs a jackaxe and not a scalpel at this stage. Would you mind coming over to the Tinhamptonian delegation's desk and reviewing the following draft?

Noting that the task of appropriately defining sentience and sapience for the purpose of delineating rights has proven complex and (so far) unsuccessful, but

Attesting that doing so remains a pressing necessity,

The General Assembly hereby enacts the following Commission.

1. Definitions. In this resolution:
   
   1. A "sentient animal" is any animal that has, at any stage of development, a central nervous system (CNS) which manifests the neurocognitive ability to integrate sensation, as soon as physically and physiologically possible, and which can generate spontaneous signals of any kind that (given the appropriate mechanical apparatus) generate apparently intentional movement.
   2. A "sapient animal" is any sentient animal that also has, at any stage of development, a CNS with a neocortex which manifests the neurocognitive ability to self-represent or engage in metathought (i.e. thinking about thought).
   3. A "sapient being" is any system which has, at any stage of development, the inherent capability through any biological or analogical cybernetic system to both:
      
      1. self-represent or engage in metathought independent of that system, AND
      2. integrate sensation independently of that system (if and when it is physically, physiologically, or technologically able to do so).
   4. A "sapient" is a sapient animal or a sapient being.
2. Board of Bioethics. The World Assembly Board of Bioethics (WABB) is re-established and must publish, enforce, and continually maintain a set of guidelines for harvesting sapient animals pursuant to Article III(a). All members must allow the WABB to establish a local precinct within their jurisdiction for the purposes of making rulings pertinent to these guidelines.
3. Rights of sentient animals. Members must recognise the following inherent rights of each sentient animal:
   
   1. that animal's right not to be deprived of its life, except:
      
      1. where it must be harvested to manufacture commodities for use by sapients,
      2. in the pursuit of scientific discovery or training with the intent of enriching or preserving a sapient's life, which shall not be in excess of need as the WABB must define in its guidelines,
      3. to protect the life of another sentient animal or sapient from an imminent threat of grievous bodily harm or death that it poses,
      4. to defend property deemed to be important to individual citizens or a member state's infrastructure, as a local WABB precinct must define in its guidelines, and
      5. to alleviate its suffering from enduring pain beyond the relief that can be offered by veterinary treatment, as the WABB must define in its guidelines,
   2. its right not to suffer unnecessary physical harm beyond deprivation of life, except:
      
      1. to preserve its life in a manner not exceeding veterinary standards, or
      2. to prevent its death, while defending the life of another sentient animal or sapient from a threat posed by it, and
   3. its right to adequate provisions in captivity; including species-appropriate nutritional, spatial, social, enrichment, and (for animals kept in captivity with the aim of enduring their full natural lifespan) veterinary needs, as the WABB must prescribe in its guidelines.
4. Rights of sapient animals. Members must recognise the following inherent rights of each sapient animal:
   
   1. all rights afforded to sentient animals,
   2. that animal's right not to be deprived of its life, except:
      
      1. as may be provided for in future international law,
      2. as part of a sentence requiring it to be subject to capital punishment in a member state (if it is legal in that member),
      3. to voluntarily defend itself against another sapient that it reasonably believes poses an imminent threat of bodily harm or death (including but not limited to physical assault, administration of harmful substance, or declaration of intent to induce harm upon that other sapient), or
      4. by bonafide volition in recognition of a terminal and uncurable illness, where severe pain or discomfort is subjectively deemed to be chronic and enduring, and
   3. its right not to suffer unnecessary physical harm beyond deprivation of life, except:
      
      1. in the course of its employment, or where such suffering is required to comply with legislation or an extralegal body's rules of establishment (where such employment or compliance does not impede the rights of other sapients), or
      2. where it (or a freely-appointed medical proxy) expresses a sincere desire to preserve its life.
5. Rights of sapient beings. Members must recognise that each sapient being holds all rights afforded to sapient animals (including the right not to be involuntarily deprived of its life beyond the provisions of Article IV(b)), and that it has full autonomy over alterations of its body.

Anderson: Yes, count them - four thousand, nine-hundred and three characters. I don't believe that a WA committee has the right to tell member nations what exactly "exceeds market demand or personal need," regardless of their economic system in reality - that's the biggest difference. Otherwise, it's what you've written in much fewer letters.

Sadly the ambassador is out. Something about working in the ED as a second job. Please give them a day or two to review your changes.

[Heavens Reach]

Previous drafts:

The Commission on Sentient and Sapient Rights
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Civil Rights Strength: Strong Proposed by: Heavens Reach

---

Acknowledging the complexities of appropriately designating conditions of sentience and sapience for the purpose of delineating rights,

Attesting, nonetheless, that doing so is a heretofore unsuccessful, but pressing necessity,

Defines an inalienable right as a right which is inherent, implicit, and which can not be ceded or surrendered even by the entity to which it is afforded.

Defines a member jurisdiction as an actionable area within a WA member nation, the culmination of which represents the entire legal territory of each WA member nation.

Defines sentient animal as any animal meeting the following necessary and sufficient criteria:

1. having, at any stage of development, a central nervous system, which manifests the neurocognitive ability to integrate sensation, when and if physically and physiologically available, and to generate spontaneous signals of any kind, which will, given the appropriate mechanical apparatus, generate apparently intentional movement.

Defines sapient animal as any animal meeting all of the following necessary and sufficient criteria:

1. having, at any stage of development, a central nervous system with a redundant, often termed “neo”, cortex, which manifests the neurocognitive ability to self-represent, or to engage in metathought (thought about thought).
2. having, at any point, reached a stage of neurodevelopment which allows for the neurocognitive ability to integrate sensation, when and if physically and physiologically available, and to generate spontaneous signals of any kind, which will, given the appropriate mechanical apparatus, generate apparently intentional movement.

Defines sapient being as any system meeting all of the following necessary and sufficient criteria:

1. having, at the present time, the inherent (meaning without need of permanent physical alteration) capacity, through any biological or analogous cybernetic system, to self-represent, or to engage in metathought (thought about thought) independent of any other such biological or analogous cybernetic system.
2. having, at the present time, the inherent (meaning without need of permanent physical alteration) capacity, through any biological or analogous cybernetic system, to integrate sensation, when and if physically and physiologically or technologically available, independent of any other such biological or analogous cybernetic system.

Establishes the Subcommittee for Ethical Animal Sourcing (SEAS), under the WA Board of Bioethics (WABB), for the purpose of instituting and enforcing a living set of guidelines for harvesting sentient animals under the established exemptions to their right not to be deprived of life, as outlined in subclause “a” of clause “I”, and empowers SEAS to establish local precincts in member jurisdictions for the purpose of making decisions on a case by case basis per instituted guidelines.

I. Mandates that all sentient animals be afforded the following inalienable rights:

1. the right not to be deprived of life for any but the following reasons or fewer:
   
   1. to be harvested for the manufacture of meat, clothing, or other commodities for use by sapient animals or beings, not in gross excess of market demand or personal use, as determined by SEAS.
   2. in the pursuit of scientific or medical discovery or training for the purpose of enriching or preserving the life of sapient animals or beings, not in excess of need, as determined by SEAS.
   3. in defense of the life of another sentient or sapient animal or being from a threat posed by the sentient animal for whom this right is in question, when grievous bodily harm or death are imminent, including but not limited to grievous bodily harm or death caused by physical threat or vector borne illness.
   4. in defense of certain properties, such as, but not limited to, structures or vehicles, which are important to the infrastructure of member jurisdictions or private citizens as outlined in local SEAS guidelines.
   5. in pursuit of the alleviation of enduring pain of the sentient animal for whom this right is in question in excess of the relief afforded by current veterinary standards of treatment, as outlined in SEAS guidelines.
2. the right to be free of unnecessary pain, stress or physical harm short of deprivation of life, the latter of which is governed by subclause “a” of the selfsame clause, for any but the following reasons:
   
   1. in pursuit of the preservation of life for the sentient animal for whom this right is in question, not in excess of veterinary standards, as determined by SEAS.
   2. in pursuit of preventing the infliction of death upon the animal for whom this right is in question while defending the life of another sentient or sapient animal or being from a threat posed by the sentient animal for whom this right is in question.
3. the right to adequate provisions in captivity, including species-appropriate nutritional, spatial, social and enrichment, and, for sentient animals with captivity intended to endure the full natural lifespan, including but not limited to pets, veterinary needs, as outlined in SEAS guidelines.

II. Mandates that all sapient animals be afforded the following inalienable rights:

1. all of those rights afforded to sentient animals, and:
2. the right not to be deprived of life for any but the following reasons or fewer:
   
   1. by bonafide volition in recognition of an unsurpassable medical condition for which there is no cure, and where subjectively determined severe pain or discomfort are chronic and enduring.
   2. in defense of a sapient animal or being for whom the sapient animal in question is an imminent threat of bodily harm or death by any voluntary mechanism, including, but not limited to, physical assault, administration of harmful substance, or declaration of intent to induce harm with apparent approach to target of threat where the means of implementation are present and extant.
   3. when it is the view of the member jurisdiction, as defined by local bylaws, that aggravated and violent crimes committed by the sapient animal for whom this right is in question demonstrate a high risk of recidivism of aggravated and violent crimes vis a vis rules established by the Capital Cases division of the WACC, and have duly followed all GA bylaws prerequired for administration of capital punishment.
   4. any other reason established by foregoing and forthcoming GA resolution.
3. the right to be free of unnecessary pain, stress or physical harm short of deprivation of life, the latter of which is governed by subclause “a” of the selfsame clause, for any but the following reasons:
   
   1. in commission of the day-to-day activities associated with employment, social interaction, and circumstances not in violation of other established rights of sapient beings, or in pursuit of compliance with taxation, law, or rules of establishment or participation in an extralegal body not in pursuit of violation of established rights of sapient beings.
   2. in pursuit of the preservation of life for the sapient animal for whom this right is in question, not in excess of their voluntary participation, or the participation permitted by their legally designated medical proxy, bearing their erstwhile, express permission, absent of duress, to make medical decisions in absence of their ability to do so.

III. Mandates that all sapient beings be afforded the following inalienable rights:

1. all of those rights afforded to sapient animals, and:
2. the right to be free of involuntary termination of sentience or sapience, short of deprivation of life, the latter of which is governed by subclause “b” of clause "II".
3. complete autonomy over alterations to the body of the sapient being for whom this right is in question.

The Commission on Sentient and Sapient Rights
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Civil Rights Strength: Strong Proposed by: Heavens Reach

---

Recognizing the difficulty, but the urgency, of protecting all beings from undue suffering,

Acknowledging the complexities of appropriately designating conditions of sentience and sapience for the purpose of delineating rights,

Attesting, nonetheless, that doing so is a heretofore unsuccessful, but pressing necessity,

Defines an inalienable right as a right which is inherent, implicit, and which cannot be ceded or surrendered even by the entity to whom it is afforded.

Defines a member jurisdiction as an actionable area within a WA member nation, the culmination of which represents the entire legal territory of each WA member nation.

Defines sentient being as any being meeting the following necessary but sufficient criteria:

1. having, at any stage of development, a central nervous system, or analogous cybernetic system, which manifests the neurocognitive ability to integrate sensation, when and if physically and physiologically available, and to generate spontaneous signals of any kind, which will, given the appropriate mechanical apparatus, generate apparently intentional movement.

Defines sapient being as any being meeting all of the following necessary but sufficient criteria:

1. a sentient being
2. having, at any stage of development, a central nervous system, or analogous cybernetic system, with a redundant, often called “neo”, cortex, or cybernetic equivalent, which manifests the neurocognitive ability to self-represent, or to engage in metathought.

Defines life as the enduring physical means by which sentience or sapience is sustained.

Establishes the Subcommittee for Ethical Animal Sourcing (SEAS), under the WA Board of Bioethics (WABB), for the purpose of instituting a living set of guidelines regulating exemptions to the right of sentient beings not to be deprived of life, outlined in clause “I,” and empowers SEAS to establish local precincts in member jurisdictions for the purpose of making decisions per aforementioned guidelines.

I. Mandates that all sentient beings be afforded the following inalienable rights:

1. the right not to be deprived of life for any but the following reasons or fewer:
   
   1. to be harvested for the manufacture of meat, clothing, or other commodities for use by sapient beings, not in gross excess of market demand or use, as determined by SEAS.
   2. in the pursuit of scientific or medical discovery or training for the purpose of enriching or preserving the life of sapient beings, not in excess of need, as determined by SEAS.
   3. in defense of the life of another sentient or sapient being from a threat posed by the sentient being for whom this right is in question, when grievous bodily harm or loss of life are imminent.
   4. in defense of certain properties, such as, but not limited to, structures or vehicles, which are important to the infrastructure of member jurisdictions or private citizens as outlined in local SEAS guidelines.
   5. in pursuit of the alleviation of enduring pain of the sentient being for whom this right is in question in excess of the relief afforded by current veterinary standards of treatment, as outlined in SEAS guidelines.
2. the right to be free of gross, unnecessary pain, stress or physical harm short of deprivation of life, the latter of which is governed by subclause “a,” for any but the following reasons:
   
   1. in pursuit of the preservation of life for the sentient being for whom this right is in question, not in excess of veterinary standards, as determined by SEAS.
   2. in pursuit of preventing the deprivation of life of the sentient being for whom this right is in question in defense of a sapient being.
3. the right to adequate provisions in captivity, including nutritional, spatial, social, enrichment, and, when captivity is intended to endure the full natural lifespan, veterinary needs, as outlined in SEAS guidelines.

II. Mandates that all sapient beings be afforded the following inalienable rights:

1. all of those rights afforded to sentient beings, and:
2. the right not to be deprived of life for any but the following reasons or fewer:
   
   1. by bonafide volition in recognition of an unsurpassable medical condition for which there is no cure, and where subjectively determined severe pain or discomfort are chronic and enduring.
   2. in defense of a sapient being for whom the sapient being in question is an imminent threat of bodily harm or loss of life by any voluntary mechanism, or by declaration of intent to induce such harm where the means of implementation are extant.
   3. in pursuit of capital punishment when all preexisting GA bylaws prerequired for administration of capital punishment are duly adhered to.
   4. any other reason established by foregoing and forthcoming GA resolution.

The Commission on Sentient and Sapient Rights
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Civil Rights Strength: Strong Proposed by: Heavens Reach

---

Recognizing the difficulty, but the urgency, of protecting all beings from undue suffering,

Acknowledging the complexities of appropriately designating conditions of sentience and sapience for the purpose of delineating rights,

Attesting, nonetheless, that doing so is a heretofore unsuccessful, but pressing necessity,

Defines an inalienable right as a right which is inherent, implicit, and which cannot be ceded or surrendered even by the entity to whom it is afforded.

Defines a member jurisdiction as an actionable area within a WA member nation, the culmination of which represents the entire legal territory of each WA member nation.

Defines sentient being as any being meeting the following necessary but sufficient criteria:

1. having, at any stage of development, a central nervous system, or analogous cybernetic system, which manifests the neurocognitive ability to integrate sensation, when and if physically and physiologically available, and to generate spontaneous signals of any kind, which will, given the appropriate mechanical apparatus, generate apparently intentional movement.

Defines sapient being as any being meeting all of the following necessary but sufficient criteria:

1. a sentient being
2. having, at any stage of development, a central nervous system, or analogous cybernetic system, with a redundant, often called “neo”, cortex, or cybernetic equivalent, which manifests the neurocognitive ability to self-represent, or to engage in metacognition.

Defines life as the enduring physical means by which sentience or sapience is sustained.

Establishes the Subcommittee for Ethical Animal Sourcing (SEAS), under the WA Board of Bioethics (WABB), for the purpose of instituting a living set of guidelines regulating exemptions to the right of sentient beings not to be deprived of life, outlined in clause “I,” and empowers SEAS to establish local precincts in member jurisdictions for the purpose of making decisions per aforementioned guidelines.

I. Mandates that all sentient beings be afforded the following inalienable rights:

1. the right not to be deprived of life for any but the following reasons or fewer:
   
   1. to be harvested for the manufacture of meat, clothing, or other commodities for use by sapient beings, not in gross excess of market demand or use, as determined by SEAS.
   2. in the pursuit of scientific or medical discovery or training for the purpose of enriching or preserving the life of sapient beings, not in excess of need, as determined by SEAS.
   3. in defense of the life of another sentient or sapient being from a threat posed by the sentient being for whom this right is in question, when grievous bodily harm or loss of life are imminent.
   4. in defense of certain properties, such as, but not limited to, structures or vehicles, which are important to the infrastructure of member jurisdictions or private citizens as outlined in local SEAS guidelines.
   5. in pursuit of the alleviation of enduring pain of the sentient being for whom this right is in question in excess of the relief afforded by current veterinary standards of treatment, as outlined in SEAS guidelines.
2. the right to be free of gross, unnecessary pain, stress or physical harm short of deprivation of life, the latter of which is governed by subclause “a,” for any but the following reasons:
   
   1. in pursuit of the preservation of life for the sentient being for whom this right is in question, not in excess of veterinary standards, as determined by SEAS.
   2. in pursuit of preventing the deprivation of life of the sentient being for whom this right is in question in defense of a sapient being.
3. the right to adequate provisions in captivity, including nutritional, spatial, social, enrichment, and, when captivity is intended to endure the full natural lifespan, veterinary needs, as outlined in SEAS guidelines.

II. Mandates that all sapient beings be afforded the following inalienable rights:

1. all of those rights afforded to sentient beings, and the following, which supersedes the rights defined in subclause "a" of clause "I":
2. the right not to be deprived of life for any but the following reasons or fewer:
   
   1. by bonafide volition in recognition of an unsurpassable medical condition for which there is no cure, and where subjectively determined severe pain or discomfort are chronic and enduring.
   2. in defense of a sapient being for whom the sapient being in question is an imminent threat of bodily harm or loss of life by any voluntary mechanism, or by declaration of intent to induce such harm where the means of implementation are extant.
   3. in pursuit of capital punishment when all preexisting GA bylaws prerequired for administration of capital punishment are duly adhered to.
   4. any other reason established by foregoing GA resolution.

The Commission on Sentient and Sapient Rights
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Civil Rights Strength: Strong Proposed by: Heavens Reach

---

Recognizing the difficulty, but the urgency, of protecting all beings from undue suffering,

Acknowledging the complexities of appropriately designating conditions of sentience and sapience for the purpose of delineating rights,

Attesting, nonetheless, that doing so is a heretofore unsuccessful, but pressing necessity,

Defines an inalienable right as a right which is inherent, implicit, and which cannot be ceded or surrendered even by the entity to whom it is afforded.

Defines a member jurisdiction as an actionable area within a WA member nation, the culmination of which represents the entire legal territory of each WA member nation.

Defines sentient being as any being meeting the following necessary but sufficient criteria:

1. having, at any stage of development, a central nervous system, or analogous cybernetic system, which manifests the neurocognitive ability to integrate sensation, when and if physically and physiologically available, and to generate spontaneous signals of any kind, which will, given the appropriate mechanical apparatus, generate apparently intentional movement.

Defines sapient being as any being meeting all of the following necessary but sufficient criteria:

1. a sentient being
2. having, at any stage of development, a central nervous system, or analogous cybernetic system, with a redundant, often called “neo”, cortex, or cybernetic equivalent, which manifests the neurocognitive ability to self-represent, or to engage in metacognition.

Defines life as the enduring physical means by which sentience or sapience is sustained.

Establishes the Subcommittee for Ethical Animal Sourcing (SEAS), under the WA Board of Bioethics (WABB), for the purpose of instituting a living set of guidelines regulating exemptions to the right of sentient beings not to be deprived of life, outlined in clause “I,” and empowers SEAS to establish local precincts in member jurisdictions for the purpose of making decisions per aforementioned guidelines.

I. Mandates that all sentient beings be afforded the following inalienable rights:

1. the right not to be deprived of life for any but the following reasons or fewer:
   
   1. to be harvested for the manufacture of meat, clothing, or other commodities for use by sapient beings, not in gross excess of market demand or use, as determined by SEAS.
   2. in the pursuit of scientific or medical discovery or training for the purpose of enriching or preserving the life of sapient beings, not in excess of need, as determined by SEAS.
   3. in defense of the life of another sentient or sapient being from a threat posed by the sentient being for whom this right is in question, when grievous bodily harm or loss of life are imminent.
   4. in defense of certain properties, such as, but not limited to, structures or vehicles, which are important to the infrastructure of member jurisdictions or private citizens as outlined in local SEAS guidelines.
   5. in pursuit of the alleviation of enduring pain of the sentient being for whom this right is in question in excess of the relief afforded by current veterinary standards of treatment, as outlined in SEAS guidelines.
2. the right to be free of gross, unnecessary pain, stress or physical harm short of deprivation of life, the latter of which is governed by subclause “a,” for any but the following reasons:
   
   1. in pursuit of the preservation of life for the sentient being for whom this right is in question, not in excess of veterinary standards, as determined by SEAS.
   2. in pursuit of preventing the deprivation of life of the sentient being for whom this right is in question in defense of a sapient being.
3. the right to adequate provisions in captivity, including nutritional, spatial, social, enrichment, and, when captivity is intended to endure the full natural lifespan, veterinary needs, as outlined in SEAS guidelines.

II. Mandates that all sapient beings be afforded the following inalienable rights:

1. all of those rights afforded to sentient beings, and the following, which supersedes and overrides the exceptions defined in subclause "a" of clause "I":
2. the right not to be deprived of life for any but the following reasons or fewer:
   
   1. by bonafide volition in recognition of an unsurpassable medical condition for which there is currently no cure, and where subjectively determined severe pain or discomfort are chronic and enduring.
   2. in defense of a sapient being for whom the sapient being in question is an imminent threat of bodily harm or loss of life by any voluntary mechanism, or by declaration of intent to induce such harm where the means of implementation are extant.
   3. any other reason established by foregoing GA resolution.

[Heavens Reach]

We realize that we will have to shorten the proposal, but it doesn't make sense to do so before receiving more feedback

Lydia Anderson, third-in-line to the post of Delegate-Ambassador: Please excuse Delegate-Ambassador Smith and his trivial complaints, verging on illogical - he is a bit drowsy and... as far as I can tell, a lot confused, a lot. As you were saying, your proposal needs to be cut down, but it needs a jackaxe and not a scalpel at this stage. Would you mind coming over to the Tinhamptonian delegation's desk and reviewing the following draft?

Noting that the task of appropriately defining sentience and sapience for the purpose of delineating rights has proven complex and (so far) unsuccessful, but

Attesting that doing so remains a pressing necessity,

The General Assembly hereby enacts the following Commission.

1. Definitions. In this resolution:
   
   1. A "sentient animal" is any animal that has, at any stage of development, a central nervous system (CNS) which manifests the neurocognitive ability to integrate sensation, as soon as physically and physiologically possible, and which can generate spontaneous signals of any kind that (given the appropriate mechanical apparatus) generate apparently intentional movement.
   2. A "sapient animal" is any sentient animal that also has, at any stage of development, a CNS with a neocortex which manifests the neurocognitive ability to self-represent or engage in metathought (i.e. thinking about thought).
   3. A "sapient being" is any system which has, at any stage of development, the inherent capability through any biological or analogical cybernetic system to both:
      
      1. self-represent or engage in metathought independent of that system, AND
      2. integrate sensation independently of that system (if and when it is physically, physiologically, or technologically able to do so).
   4. A "sapient" is a sapient animal or a sapient being.
2. Board of Bioethics. The World Assembly Board of Bioethics (WABB) is re-established and must publish, enforce, and continually maintain a set of guidelines for harvesting sapient animals pursuant to Article III(a). All members must allow the WABB to establish a local precinct within their jurisdiction for the purposes of making rulings pertinent to these guidelines.
3. Rights of sentient animals. Members must recognise the following inherent rights of each sentient animal:
   
   1. that animal's right not to be deprived of its life, except:
      
      1. where it must be harvested to manufacture commodities for use by sapients,
      2. in the pursuit of scientific discovery or training with the intent of enriching or preserving a sapient's life, which shall not be in excess of need as the WABB must define in its guidelines,
      3. to protect the life of another sentient animal or sapient from an imminent threat of grievous bodily harm or death that it poses,
      4. to defend property deemed to be important to individual citizens or a member state's infrastructure, as a local WABB precinct must define in its guidelines, and
      5. to alleviate its suffering from enduring pain beyond the relief that can be offered by veterinary treatment, as the WABB must define in its guidelines,
   2. its right not to suffer unnecessary physical harm beyond deprivation of life, except:
      
      1. to preserve its life in a manner not exceeding veterinary standards, or
      2. to prevent its death, while defending the life of another sentient animal or sapient from a threat posed by it, and
   3. its right to adequate provisions in captivity; including species-appropriate nutritional, spatial, social, enrichment, and (for animals kept in captivity with the aim of enduring their full natural lifespan) veterinary needs, as the WABB must prescribe in its guidelines.
4. Rights of sapient animals. Members must recognise the following inherent rights of each sapient animal:
   
   1. all rights afforded to sentient animals,
   2. that animal's right not to be deprived of its life, except:
      
      1. as may be provided for in future international law,
      2. as part of a sentence requiring it to be subject to capital punishment in a member state (if it is legal in that member),
      3. to voluntarily defend itself against another sapient that it reasonably believes poses an imminent threat of bodily harm or death (including but not limited to physical assault, administration of harmful substance, or declaration of intent to induce harm upon that other sapient), or
      4. by bonafide volition in recognition of a terminal and uncurable illness, where severe pain or discomfort is subjectively deemed to be chronic and enduring, and
   3. its right not to suffer unnecessary physical harm beyond deprivation of life, except:
      
      1. in the course of its employment, or where such suffering is required to comply with legislation or an extralegal body's rules of establishment (where such employment or compliance does not impede the rights of other sapients), or
      2. where it (or a freely-appointed medical proxy) expresses a sincere desire to preserve its life.
5. Rights of sapient beings. Members must recognise that each sapient being holds all rights afforded to sapient animals (including the right not to be involuntarily deprived of its life beyond the provisions of Article IV(b)), and that it has full autonomy over alterations of its body.

Anderson: Yes, count them - four thousand, nine-hundred and three characters. I don't believe that a WA committee has the right to tell member nations what exactly "exceeds market demand or personal need," regardless of their economic system in reality - that's the biggest difference. Otherwise, it's what you've written in much fewer letters.

Ambassador, while we appreciate your revisions, we have submitted a new draft with our own. Please review them at your leisure.

[Kenmoria]

“You don’t need to define ‘life’ in a proposal, since everyone knows what is means. Also, there’s a bit of internal contradiction in your proposal. Clause I-a provides a list of exceptions where life can be taken away, and bans killing in all other circumstances. This is a right given to sapient beings in clause II-a. However, clause II-b contradicts this by providing other reasons why life can be removed.”

[Heavens Reach]

“You don’t need to define ‘life’ in a proposal, since everyone knows what is means. Also, there’s a bit of internal contradiction in your proposal. Clause I-a provides a list of exceptions where life can be taken away, and bans killing in all other circumstances. This is a right given to sapient beings in clause II-a. However, clause II-b contradicts this by providing other reasons why life can be removed.”

Life is defined for the purpose of the proposal because its protections extend to AI, but AI are not generally recognized as alive, even where they are recognized as sentient or sapient.

As for the right to life, the right must be provided for all but those exemptions listed or fewer. So the right to life can be defined more strongly than those exemptions listed, but not less. In other words, sapient beings have fewer exemptions to their right to life than do sentient beings.

[Ardiveds]

“You don’t need to define ‘life’ in a proposal, since everyone knows what is means. Also, there’s a bit of internal contradiction in your proposal. Clause I-a provides a list of exceptions where life can be taken away, and bans killing in all other circumstances. This is a right given to sapient beings in clause II-a. However, clause II-b contradicts this by providing other reasons why life can be removed.”

Life is defined for the purpose of the proposal because its protections extend to AI, but AI are not generally recognized as alive, even where they are recognized as sentient or sapient.

OOC: Doesn't GAR #354, the AI coexistence one, mandate that sapient AI are entitled to same rights as sapient origanics?

[Heavens Reach]

Life is defined for the purpose of the proposal because its protections extend to AI, but AI are not generally recognized as alive, even where they are recognized as sentient or sapient.

OOC: Doesn't GAR #354, the AI coexistence one, mandate that sapient AI are entitled to same rights as sapient origanics?

Perhaps, but affording an AI the right to "life" without defining it in a way that's meaningful to AI doesn't necessarily violate that provision nor protect the AI in question. It would be like guaranteeing that something you don't have can't be taken from you

[Kenmoria]

“You don’t need to define ‘life’ in a proposal, since everyone knows what is means. Also, there’s a bit of internal contradiction in your proposal. Clause I-a provides a list of exceptions where life can be taken away, and bans killing in all other circumstances. This is a right given to sapient beings in clause II-a. However, clause II-b contradicts this by providing other reasons why life can be removed.”

Life is defined for the purpose of the proposal because its protections extend to AI, but AI are not generally recognized as alive, even where they are recognized as sentient or sapient.

As for the right to life, the right must be provided for all but those exemptions listed or fewer. So the right to life can be defined more strongly than those exemptions listed, but not less. In other words, sapient beings have fewer exemptions to their right to life than do sentient beings.

“I don’t think how your intentions have come across in the draft. When you establish the right to life in clause I-a, later given also to sapient beings, you enumerate exceptions. These exceptions also carry forward to sapient beings, along with some additional ones. However, you also rightfully ban member states from revoking the right to life except for given exceptions, as listed in I-a, without considering II-b. I think the legislation’s flow needs to be restructured to make this a lot clearer.”

[Heavens Reach]

Life is defined for the purpose of the proposal because its protections extend to AI, but AI are not generally recognized as alive, even where they are recognized as sentient or sapient.

As for the right to life, the right must be provided for all but those exemptions listed or fewer. So the right to life can be defined more strongly than those exemptions listed, but not less. In other words, sapient beings have fewer exemptions to their right to life than do sentient beings.

“I don’t think how your intentions have come across in the draft. When you establish the right to life in clause I-a, later given also to sapient beings, you enumerate exceptions. These exceptions also carry forward to sapient beings, along with some additional ones. However, you also rightfully ban member states from revoking the right to life except for given exceptions, as listed in I-a, without considering II-b. I think the legislation’s flow needs to be restructured to make this a lot clearer.”

While we hear your concerns, unless this is an issue that is consistently brought up, we're going to let this particular issue sail, as it's not an issue of technicality, but of clarity (and if it's clear to most others, there's no sense in changing it).

[Tinfect]

"The Imperium will offer no support to this draft so long as it hinges the rights of Sapient life on the supposed rights of non-sapient life. Not only is the attempt to do so ludicrous on it face, but it results in the unacceptable implication that it is acceptable to harvest sapient life for meat, as demonstrated quite helpfully by this draft."