[At Vote]: Reducing Statelessness [Complete]

plembobria

plembobria

TNPer
-
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Imperium Anglorum

Description: Aware that people have been deprived of their citizenship by unscrupulous states to prevent them from exercising their societally guaranteed political rights,

Believing that this unjustly prevents people from exercising those rights to which they are rightfully entailed, and

This august World Assembly hereby:

  1. Prohibits nations from depriving a national of their nationality should such an action leave that national stateless; mandates that no national will be deprived of their nationality without the due process of law;

  2. Expands the remit of the Global Emigration, Security, Travel And Passport Organisation, hereafter referred as the Passport Organisation, to include the issuance of World Assembly identification documents and passports to the former nationals of member states who have been deprived of their nationality by their government;

  3. Determines that nations are to recognise passports verifiably and legitimately issued by both other member nations and by constituted World Assembly agencies as valid passports; reminds member nations that no mandates are here imposed on the nature of their border controls; and

  4. Requires that these passports follow the Passport Organisation's international norms on the standards for security and identification in all internationally recognised passports.
Click to expand...

Please vote for, against, abstain, or present.
 
Though the resolution before us has the best intentions, it is imperfect in construction and execution. It identifies citizenship as "societally guaranteed," and setting aside this questionable language and awkward phrasing at the end of the preamble, the rest of the resolution seeks to redress the matter of nationality, not citizenship. The nuances of these terms deserve greater attention and explanation than what is offered here. The resolution takes for granted a uniform understanding and application of these terms in the laws of all member states, even when they may, with good reason, work quite differently from nation to nation. This is particularly disappointing since the resolution was in the drafting stage for so long. Nevertheless, the goal of the resolution is laudable and worth supporting, in spite of its rough edges. Though the resolution does not delve far into the complexities of citizenship, it also does not prevent nations from handling this issue as they see fit provided they comply with the very basic requirements laid out by the resolution.

For these reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote for the resolution.
 
Against

Edit for reasoning: The laws of some countries, who may not be World Assembly members, may require a person to renounce their citizenship with their current country before pursuing citizenship with another. The clause in the resolution, "Prohibits nations from depriving a national of their nationality should such an action leave that national stateless," could be interpreted to mean that a state could not accept a person's renunciation, as it would leave the person stateless during the change in citizenship, which may not be guaranteed by the new nation. While the resolution may be seen as increasing human rights, in this situation, it may actually reduce them.
 
The second line in this resolution is awkwardly worded. I don't think the word "entailed" was used properly, especially as regards to rights. Without having defined "political rights" in the resolution itself, it is a matter of conjecture. I understand the sentiment of the resolution, but as it stands I cannot actively support it.

Abstain.
 
For

In regards to Merc's point, voluntarily renouncing citizenship is not the same as having one's rights of citizenship forcibly stripped away. This legislation helps to protect those who have fallen victim to tyrannical governments. It does not infringe upon the rights of individuals to choose their citizenship. Indeed, it broadens those rights by introducing the possibility of keeping a WA passport.
 
Against. Nationality =/= Citizen. You can take someone's citizenship away and make then a National. And it would be the same as declaring them stateless. And therefor this does not in anyway do anything to fix the problem that it seeks to fix.

OOC: To borrow from a RL example. Just look at American Samoa. They are considered "Nationals" and not "Citizens" to enter any other US Territory they have to go through immigration, they have to get VISAs, they can be deported for overstaying their VISAs and etc, their passports even specify that they are not considered Citizens and are not subject to the full defense of american law.
 
I don't have strong feelings on this one way or the other.

For the time being, my vote is For, mirroring the majority vote.
 
My vote may not count here, and I may not be recognized as a citizen yet until I get the ok from the Vice Delegate.

But wouldn't these lead to easy access to citizenship for terrorist such as the Nazis or The United German Regions which Practically Grows in Numbers more vastly than we do.

Against

Also this as an Edit I just made on this post (10/23/2016 at 10:23 PM EST)

If you dont have much of an opinion on the Resolution at hand then you are either not interested, neutral or the method on your voting is not clear to your self. If those are the reason you should Abstain until your vote changes.
 
Selvaris:
My vote may not count here, and I may not be recognized as a citizen yet until I get the ok from the Vice Delegate.

But wouldn't these lead to easy access to citizenship for terrorist such as the Nazis or The United German Regions which Practically Grows in Numbers more vastly than we do.

Against

Also this as an Edit I just made on this post (10/23/2016 at 10:23 PM EST)

If you dont have much of an opinion on the Resolution at hand then you are either not interested, neutral or the method on your voting is not clear to your self. If those are the reason you should Abstain until your vote changes.
Click to expand...
Incorrect, your vote counts here as long as your World Assembly is in The North Pacific or you are in the North Pacific Army. :)

Welcome to the region! :tnp:
 
Voting on this resolution has ended.

Thanks to those nations who cast their votes. Your participation is a great help to the region.

This topic has been locked and sent to the Archives for safekeeping. If you would like this topic to be re-opened for further discussion, please contact the WA Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top