[DRAFT #1c] [GA#386 REPLACEMENT] End Statelessness

[Tinhampton]

Character count: 2,563
Word count: 409

ICly by Lydia Anderson, Assistant to the Delegate-Ambassador.
OOC: Replacement for Reducing Statelessness

End Statelessness
A resolution to improve worldwide human sapient and civil rights.

Category: Civil Rights

Strength: Mild

Proposed by: Tinhampton

---

Believing that decisive action should be taken to eradicate statelessness across the World Assembly once and for all, the General Assembly hereby:

1. forbids member states from removing:
   
   1. the citizenship of any of their citizens who do not hold citizenship in any other nation,
   2. the nationality of any of their nationals who do not hold nationality in any other nation, and
   3. the citizenship or nationality of any of their citizens or nationals, even if they are not covered by Articles a(i) or a(ii), without giving them two weeks' warning and the right to a judicial appeal of such removal,
2. requires members to immediately restore:
   
   1. the citizenship of any person who they have removed the citizenship of and who does not hold citizenship in any other nation,
   2. the nationality of any person who they have removed the nationality of and who does not hold nationality in any other nation,
   3. the citizenship or nationality of any person who they have removed it from in a manner that contradicts Article a(iii),
   4. the citizenship or nationality of any person who has voluntarily rescinded it pursuant to Article e in order to acquire the citizenship or nationality of any other country, and who became stateless as a result of such rescission, but who ultimately did not succeed in making that acquisition, and
   5. the citizenship or nationality of any person who has voluntarily rescinded it pursuant to Article e, where they made such rescission to become stateless and to facilitate their performance of activities that are illegal in the member state they live in,
3. requires members to grant their nationality to all stateless persons found within their jurisdiction, even if they are not covered by Article b (and encourages members to also grant their citizenship to all stateless persons not already covered by Article b(i) who are found within their jurisdiction),
4. insists that members not charge any individual for the granting or restoration of their citizenship or nationality when they grant or restore it pursuant to Articles b or c,
5. forbids members from charging any individual more than the necessary administrative and handling fees where that individual seeks to attain or (where legal) rescind their nationality or citizenship, except where Article d provides that the attainment of such be free of charge, and
6. clarifies that nothing in this resolution prevents citizens or nationals of a member state from voluntarily rescinding their citizenship or nationality of that member.

[Tinhampton]

Totally not a reserved post.

Pursuant to what Xanthorrhoea said on the repeal thread:

1. Articles a(iii), b(iii), c and d have been added; and
2. I am currently considering whether to submit this before or after the repeal. (If before, I'll change the repeal about accordingly.)

[Hulldom]

Opposed vehemently on the grounds that it removes the right of a person to voluntarily render themselves stateless.

[Tinhampton]

Opposed vehemently on the grounds that it removes the right of a person to voluntarily render themselves stateless.

And why should the WA allow people to become stateless?

[Tinhampton]

bumparoo

[Debussy]

Opposed vehemently on the grounds that it removes the right of a person to voluntarily render themselves stateless.

O, yes, because we need more sovereign citizens.

[Tinhampton]

Is it really that good?

[Tinhampton]

Articles b(iv), b(v) and e have been added following consultation with Hulldom, for what it's worth.

[Fachumonn]

Tinhampton how do you have time to create all these proposals? I barely have time to read my notices
Anyways this is a good proposal that removes the issue of statelessness. (I would approve if proposed)

[Tinhampton]

I have no idea myself.

Any more thoughts before I send this one off?

[The Adeptorum]

semi-OOC: The feeling I have is that a sizable number of nations will then just default to death penalty or perpetual imprisonment for cases like treason as there is no provision for it to be applied in any case. I don't know about you, but I think it's better stateless than dead.

In The Adeptorum we treat our prisoners very, very well. No crime is punishable with death or perpetual imprisonment as we developed a much more compassionate option to deal with criminals. We apply a series of mind-altering techniques that distorts one's perception of space-time and can make a couple minutes feel like literal millennia, with our AIs providing individually crafted experiences through direct neurostimulation, prisoners are always correctly prepared to be reintroduced into society in a matter of minutes! Our prisons are always empty, and our crime rates are close to zero. We would never leave any of our citizens behind: once Adepti, always Adepti!

[Xanthorrhoea]

semi-OOC: The feeling I have is that a sizable number of nations will then just default to death penalty or perpetual imprisonment for cases like treason as there is no provision for it to be applied in any case. I don't know about you, but I think it's better stateless than dead.

In The Adeptorum we treat our prisoners very, very well. No crime is punishable with death or perpetual imprisonment as we developed a much more compassionate option to deal with criminals. We apply a series of mind-altering techniques that distorts one's perception of space-time and can make a couple minutes feel like literal millennia, with our AIs providing individually crafted experiences through direct neurostimulation, prisoners are always correctly prepared to be reintroduced into society in a matter of minutes! Our prisons are always empty, and our crime rates are close to zero. We would never leave any of our citizens behind: once Adepti, always Adepti!

I would argue that a nation would only revoke stateship when a person is otherwise out of their reach, or in addition to the activities you mention. If I am able to imprison or kill a person (notwithstanding the fact that the death penalty is already banned in the WA), then why bother making them stateless instead? Statelessness is a far smaller threat than imprisonment or personal injury/death etc. If I want to punish someone and they are within my jurisdiction, then I will do so. Making them stateless would be in addition to such methods, not instead of them.

Banning making citizens stateless would not further encourage such activities, because they’re already happening as much as they will. This is actually exactly why I don’t like this repeal/replace proposal.

Forcing nations to reinstate people’s citizenship/stateship offers no benefits over just having the WA compensate for any privileges lost in the revocation. If a nation has revoked your stateship, you’d better believe that they don’t have your best interests at heart, so forcing them to reinstate your citizenship will not confer you all the privileges you lost. They’ll find a way to undermine them regardless.

[Tinhampton]

Passports granted pursuant to GA#386.2 do not reinstate any rights; they must merely be designed to GESTAPO standards and "recognise[d] as valid passports" for border control purposes.

[Xanthorrhoea]

Passports granted pursuant to GA#386.2 do not reinstate any rights; they must merely be designed to GESTAPO standards and "recognise[d] as valid passports" for border control purposes.

Agreed. My point is that this proposed replacement will also not effectively grant any rights. So you’re replacing a resolution with another that is effectively the same.

[Tinhampton]

Passports granted pursuant to GA#386.2 do not reinstate any rights; they must merely be designed to GESTAPO standards and "recognise[d] as valid passports" for border control purposes.

Agreed. My point is that this proposed replacement will also not effectively grant any rights. So you’re replacing a resolution with another that is effectively the same.

Citizenships with actual nations give you actual rights, guaranteed by resolutions and domestic law. Fancy World Assembly-branded passports... don't. (Other than something something valid passports something.)

[Xanthorrhoea]

Citizenships with actual nations give you actual rights, guaranteed by resolutions and domestic law. Fancy World Assembly-branded passports... don't. (Other than something something valid passports something.)

I’m fully prepared to be convinced otherwise, but practically speaking I’m honestly not yet convinced. All of what I’m saying comes with the giant caveat that I have an extremely poor knowledge of the text of previous resolutions. Having said that:

Most of the resolutions I’ve read don’t distinguish very clearly between “citizens”, “WA citizens” and “residents.” For example, the ban(s) on capital punishment aren’t concerned with citizenship. If you’re a person, they apply, regardless of which country you are (or aren’t) a citizen of. I’m genuinely curious about which resolutions deal with citizenship, because I’ve not noticed many. Most of the big resolutions apply more generally and aren’t concerned with citizenship.

If your home country wishes to revoke citizenship, then they either mean you harm, or don’t want to be associated with you. In either case, if you happen to be living in that country, the largest right you should be concerned with (and one that doesn’t need citizenship) is your right to be locked away in prison and deprived of liberty. If you don’t live in that country, then there are few benefits I can think of that citizenship gives that cannot be replicated with WA identity documents.

Having said all of that, there are probably cases where (administration wise) having citizenship is easier, hence I can see some justification for some of this proposal. I still don’t see anything that requires repeal and replacement as opposed to just writing a proposal that doesn’t mostly overlap pre-existing law.

[Tinhampton]

What benefits are given as a result of possessing an Article 2 passport (other than those outlined in GA#386)? These passports do not give you the citizenship of a country and therefore do not grant the rights associated with that citizenship. And rights granted to inhabitants of a member state presumably apply to all inhabitants without regards for statelessness/whatever status.

[Tinhampton]

I'm still planning on submitting this... and still waiting for an answer

[Ozenev]

Agreed. My point is that this proposed replacement will also not effectively grant any rights. So you’re replacing a resolution with another that is effectively the same.

Citizenships with actual nations give you actual rights, guaranteed by resolutions and domestic law. Fancy World Assembly-branded passports... don't. (Other than something something valid passports something.)

I think it's well within someone's autonomy to not want to pledge loyalty to a polity even if that means giving up the rights that's granted to them through that. Forcing everyone to be a citizen is...weird, I guess. It seems like a problem that doesn't need to be solved, at least not through what you're proposing. Governments are also within their right to deny citizenship to someone. It's a voluntary thing on both sides.

[Tinhampton]

Citizenships with actual nations give you actual rights, guaranteed by resolutions and domestic law. Fancy World Assembly-branded passports... don't. (Other than something something valid passports something.)

I think it's well within someone's autonomy to not want to pledge loyalty to a polity even if that means giving up the rights that's granted to them through that. Forcing everyone to be a citizen is...weird, I guess. It seems like a problem that doesn't need to be solved, at least not through what you're proposing. Governments are also within their right to deny citizenship to someone. It's a voluntary thing on both sides.

Articles e [and to a lesser extent b(iv-v)] exist. This resolution primarily applies to states acting to remove the citizenships of individuals, rather than individuals willingly decitizening themselves

[Ozenev]

I think it's well within someone's autonomy to not want to pledge loyalty to a polity even if that means giving up the rights that's granted to them through that. Forcing everyone to be a citizen is...weird, I guess. It seems like a problem that doesn't need to be solved, at least not through what you're proposing. Governments are also within their right to deny citizenship to someone. It's a voluntary thing on both sides.

Articles e [and to a lesser extent b(iv-v)] exist. This resolution primarily applies to states acting to remove the citizenships of individuals, rather than individuals willingly decitizening themselves

Same thing applies, tho. Citizenship is transactional.

[Xanthorrhoea]

I'm still planning on submitting this... and still waiting for an answer

Sorry, this fell off my radar. The question isn’t what rights does a “WA passport” give. The question is what effective rights citizenship will give to a person who’s country wants to dispossess them?

[Tinhampton]

I'm still planning on submitting this... and still waiting for an answer

Sorry, this fell off my radar. The question isn’t what rights does a “WA passport” give. The question is what effective rights citizenship will give to a person who’s country wants to dispossess them?

What do you think it'll give and why do you believe that the passport scheme instituted by 386.2 is more effective in these regards?

[Xanthorrhoea]

What do you think it'll give and why do you believe that the passport scheme instituted by 386.2 is more effective in these regards?

I think they’re equally effective, and that’s the problem.

Nominally, citizenship will give you certain rights, such as a right to education, welfare etc. Other than things such as passports and travel documentation however, very few of those rights can be exercised while not within a nation.

While within a nation and under it’s jurisdiction, this will not functionally improve things. If, for whatever reason, a state wants to remove your citizenship, it is no longer interested in supporting or protecting your rights, and will be actively trying to undermine them. There are plenty of holes in international law that allow member states to achieve this end. They can use pretexts such as national security to withhold rights, or simply find a crime that a person has committed and use it as a reason to imprison or limit the movement of a person living in that nation. Thus, when you are within your nation’s jurisdiction, citizenship doesn’t offer particularly much protection against abuse by a hostile state (which is the only state that is going to remove your citizenship and make you stateless). When outside of its jurisdiction, citizenship is little more than a passport.

Basically, while the intent and the text of this proposal is different, in terms of what it functionally achieves, it’s the same. If it’s the same, I see no reason for a repeal/replace.

TLDR: I think this scheme will be similarly effective to the passport scheme in GAR#386. You might as well paint over white with cream. While they’re technically different, functionally they’re the same, and it’s a waste of time doing it.

Addit: A minor point that I feel hasn’t been adequately explained (to me at least): What is the practical difference between citizenship and nationality, and why is is important to distinguish between the two? Am I missing something obvious?

[Tinhampton]

I have included new provisions regulating the fees that member states may impose for the granting or removal of citizenship or nationality.

---

What do you think it'll give and why do you believe that the passport scheme instituted by 386.2 is more effective in these regards?

I think they’re equally effective, and that’s the problem.

Nominally, citizenship will give you certain rights, such as a right to education, welfare etc. Other than things such as passports and travel documentation however, very few of those rights can be exercised while not within a nation.

While within a nation and under it’s jurisdiction, this will not functionally improve things. If, for whatever reason, a state wants to remove your citizenship, it is no longer interested in supporting or protecting your rights, and will be actively trying to undermine them. There are plenty of holes in international law that allow member states to achieve this end. They can use pretexts such as national security to withhold rights, or simply find a crime that a person has committed and use it as a reason to imprison or limit the movement of a person living in that nation. Thus, when you are within your nation’s jurisdiction, citizenship doesn’t offer particularly much protection against abuse by a hostile state (which is the only state that is going to remove your citizenship and make you stateless). When outside of its jurisdiction, citizenship is little more than a passport.

Basically, while the intent and the text of this proposal is different, in terms of what it functionally achieves, it’s the same. If it’s the same, I see no reason for a repeal/replace.

TLDR: I think this scheme will be similarly effective to the passport scheme in GAR#386. You might as well paint over white with cream. While they’re technically different, functionally they’re the same, and it’s a waste of time doing it.

Many resolutions offer rights to citizens of member states that they do not necessarily afford to nationals (or to individuals holding a World Assembly passport). GA#394 "International Patent Agreement" requires the WAPO to consider "patent applications exclusively from inventors who are citizens or legal permanent residents of member states at the time of filing" - although I do not necessarily agree with the principle that the World Assembly should be in the business of foisting intellectual property recognition on all member states. GA#196 "Freedom of Information Act" requires member states to "release any official government documents or records requested by their citizens at minimal or no charge." GA#80 "A Promotion of Basic Education" only covers the education of citizens, and requires that GAO funds delivered to member states who cannot otherwise afford compliance use "the donation(s) exclusively to provide a basic education to citizens of their nation." These provisions do not include carveouts permitting that such rights be restricted on national security or any other grounds.

If this remains a concern, I can add a general non-discrimination clause into this proposal - "demands that member states not restrict the exercise of any right by a person covered by Articles b and c because they are so covered," perhaps?

Addit: A minor point that I feel hasn’t been adequately explained (to me at least): What is the practical difference between citizenship and nationality, and why is is important to distinguish between the two? Am I missing something obvious?

386 was criticised at the time for failing to cover individuals who had been stripped of their citizenship. In some countries, citizenship and nationality are the same (as in Excidium Planetis at the time of the vote); in others, it is possible to be a national but not a citizen, and nationals enjoy fewer rights than citizens (in the real-world United Kingdom, for example, you can vote in Parliamentary elections if you are a British [or Irish or qualifying Commonwealth] citizen, but cannot do so if you are another form of British national - i.e. a British overseas citizen, a British subject, or a British protected person). I support equal protection against statelessness for both nationals and citizens.