At Vote: Right to Divorce [Complete]

Former English Colony

Former English Colony

InFECtious
-
-
-
-
Pronouns
she/her
TNP Nation
Former English Colony
Discord
Erastide
New Resolution, turn your vote in by Saturday evening

Right to Divorce

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Love and esterel

Description: The United Nations,

A – NOTING the positive effects of marriage and the happiness it procures in both those within the marriage and those around the married.

B – NOTING that not all marriages are happy

C – NOTING that many couples in this case have difficulty maintaining a healthy relationship over short periods of time, let alone a life-long relationship.

D – CONCERNED about the health and welfare of both the couple and any children the couple are responsible for

E – ACKNOWLEDGING the potential issues that could result from a possible divorce

F – DEFINING for the purposes of this document a divorce to be the contractual ending of any marriage or equivalent Civil Union recognized by any state

G – DEFINING for the purposes of this document a prenuptial agreement to be any contract signed by both partners before a marriage agreeing to certain terms pertaining to their marriage and/or potential divorce.

H – DEFINING for the purposes of this document a Civil Union to be a legal union between any two people given equal status within the union and granted certain rights by any government.


-1- DECLARES that a marriage or civil union may be ended by divorce in the following cases:
-1.1- Both partners ask for divorce, after 3 month of marriage or civil union
-1.2- One partner request a divorce and it is accepted by the other partner, after 3 month of marriage or civil union
-1.3- One partner requests the divorce due to proven domestic violence issues from the other partner
-1.4- One partner requests the divorce after 1 year of being officially separated
-1.5- One partner repeats a request for a divorce 3 months, or later, after the initial request
-1.6- Any additional scenarios that have been chosen by a more local government as grounds for divorce

-2- DECLARES that each party has the right to employ a lawyer for the divorce proceedings

-3- DECLARES that both parents have the right to continue to regularly see their children after a divorce, except for cases where the divorce was over proven domestic violence or sexual abuse, or if such actions are taken upon either the other parent or any of the shared children after the divorce has taken place

-4- PERMITS parents who have lost the right to see their children for issues listed in [3] be allowed to have this right returned if a court of law feels that said parent is no longer a threat to the child or other parent.

-5- URGES Nations to ensure that their legislation protects both partners and their children in divorce cases by granting financial help for one partner, when a fair solution, in accordance to the prenuptial agreement, can be found in order both partners and children can live with a reasonable financial situation - except in cases where the divorce was over proven domestic violence,

-6- ENCOURAGES all Nations to support organisations/associations providing help to married/divorced persons/couples by anonymous meeting, phone call, internet contact or any other medium that can be arranged

Co-authored by Forgottenlands UN
Click to expand...
 
This resolution is currently up for vote in the UN.

Please post your views and stance on this resolution below. Note, however, that you must have a UN nation in The North Pacific, or on active NPA duty, in order for the Delegate to count your vote.
 
You have GOT to be kidding me?! The UN is actually trying to step in on this? AGAINST! just because I think this is none of the UN's buisness in this area.
 
What ^ said.

I see no reason why this needs a UN resolution, and I would have thought it steps on the toes of individual religions practices.

Against.
 
Got this TG from a TNP nation. :)

Hello,

Under the current resolution that is up for vote in the UN, could you put out to your endorsees that they should vote against it. The reason that I state this is that the wording that pertains to the visitation of children is rather vague. I have a personal interest in real life as I do not get to see my daughter that much due to the courts interpretation of "regular" visitation. Although I see her every tue and thur and have her every other weekend, it is not near enough. My belief is that it should state that time should be divided "equally" between both parents rather than regularly. There is a difference. It should start at half time and then be decided by the parents if there can be an equitable decision agreed to by both parties. If this cannot be the case, then it should be one week with mom and one week with dad. This gives the child(ren) the ability to have a set schedule and equal time with both. Just my own point of view, but if you could share it with the others, I would really appreciate it.
Sincerely,
Zarfland
Click to expand...
 
I have already voted by TG, but wanted to put on record the Republic of Teruchev's disgust with the level of success this resolution's co-authors have had as of late in submitting unadulterated garbage passed off as UN Resolutions.

It is clearly apparent that Love and esterel and Forgottenlands have no respect for the United Nations, for if they did they would stop the flow of resolutions, passed by an apathetic majority, that only serve to cloud the UN's true purpose and derail this organization's ability to make a real difference in NS.

One wonders what worthy, relevant proposals the UN could be passing if its time was not wasted by these superficial, vacuous resolutions that intrude needlessly in areas of national jurisdiction and add layer upon layer of bureaucracy, and disrupt the desired outcomes for each nations' policy directions.

Further to the discussion of the UN's true purpose, I acknowledge (pre-emptively) that Max Barry's instructions for the NSUN were to "mould the world in your own image", or at least a statement to that effect. It has become clear, however, that certain nations' interpretations of this is to attempt to replicate their own national policy directives and impose them in every UN member state. As long as the Republic of Teruchev belongs to the NSUN, we will oppose this at every turn.

Steve Perry, GCRC,
President,
Republic of Teruchev.
 
Another Telegram... People are a bit worked up about this one. :)

To the Esteemed Delegate Former English Colony of The North Pacific:

Greetings. My name is Gorgias, Speaker to the United Nations for The Community of The-Republic. I am writing to call your attention to the current UN Resolution at vote: Right to Divorce. Currently, the resolution is passing. However, I hope you will agree with me when I say that it is in the best interest of all UN member states that this resolution does not become law. Below is the official response of The Philosopher-King of the Republic, Dimicias:

“Good members of the United Nations, I must say that this resolution created quite a dilemma for me. On one hand, I certainly do believe that citizens should have the right to terminate a civil union that they feel hinders them from living the good life as they see it. On the other hand, my respect for national sovereignty warns me that this micromanagement of national law sets a dangerous precedent for future United Nations legislation.

Now, in an effort to facilitate my decision, I ask you: which good outweighs the other? Surely, civil rights legislation is something to be lauded. In fact, it burdens me to think that I should be in opposition to a resolution that attempts to increase personal freedoms. I do believe that most nations do need increased civil rights, and I might ask, is not a United Nations resolution the best and most proper way to accomplish this on a grand scale? When I consider this legislation in that light, I am troubled by the thought of opposing this.

On the opposite side of the scale lies my deep respect for national sovereignty. Too often, I think, this body has overstepped its proper boundaries, legislating on issues that should not be its concern. The legalization of prostitution and requiring citizen rule are two examples; I worry that this resolution might become another. As there are no written limits, and there cannot be, due to current United Nations law, on what topics the United Nations has the right to legislate, I feel that it is the responsibility of member nations to set those limits through their votes.

And so, which way does the scale tip? It seems to be evenly balanced, at least in my eyes. And so, I must ask myself one final question to break this balance: what of the future? What are possible scenarios that may come of this? Certainly, one should never make an important decision without weighing potential futures, both favorable and unfavorable, and factoring in proper probablity of respective futures.

If this resolution is not passed, then nations may see its failure as United Nations approval to reduce civil freedoms in the area of marriage and civil unions. Yes, this is a minute possiblity, but countless minute possibilities have become horrific tragedies throughout human history, and as such, it would be improper not to consider such possibilities. Another potential consequence of this resolution's failure would be increased respect for and general empowerment of the National Sovereignty Organization. Personally, this king feels that this coalition deserves such respect and empowerment.

Contrarily, if the resolution at hand is passed by this body, then civil freedoms will have increased in countless nations throughout the universe. People trapped in marriages or civil unions that hamper them from reaching their personal potential will be able to break such bonds and deliver themselves to a better life. One cannot argue against the positivity of such a scenario. However, every good thing created by humans comes with a price. What would the price of such a benefit to freedom be? Ironically, the answer is freedom itself. Freedom for individual nations to determine what the most proper laws are for their citizens. Freedom to legislate on issues so culturally defined as marriage. Freedom to have a sense of sovereignty, to belong more to your nation than to this body! For what is this body but an organization of individual nations, each with their own unique cultures, ideas, and convictions? To eliminate those would be to eliminate the very spirit of this body: freedom.

Yes, freedom, the very thing this resolution attempts to increase, tips the scale the other way.

Good members of the United Nations, while I encourage you to grant the right to divorce to your citizens, I wish for you to do so with your own unique set of details and stipulations, catered to your own unique citizens, and thus I urge you, in the name of freedom and in the name of the future of this body, to cast your vote against this resolution.”

I have attached a copy of the transcripts of the debate over Right to Divorce here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=457854

As you may notice, most nations that have observed the debate have come to the conclusion that this resolution is not in the best interest of individual member states, nor the body as a whole. I hope that you will come to the same conclusion, and use your position of democratic power to vote against this resolution. If you have already cast your vote against, I thank you.

If you have any questions regarding the resolution at vote, feel free to telegram me or post your inquiry in the forum.

Sincerely,
Gorgias
Speaker to the UN
The Community of The-Republic
Click to expand...
 
I will vote AGAINST on this purely because I believe the resolution is more about telling nations how to write their divorce laws rather than guaranteeing a divorce.

HOWEVER, since there has been no "for" point of view, I would like to offer an argument as to why someone would vote "for' on this resolution.. Simply stated, there are many nations where divorce is either explicitly outlawed or implicitly ostracizing. I'm not going to assert that divorce is a fundamental right, but there is a fundamental right to terminate a contract with someone when the other party breaks it. In the case of marriage, the "breaking' I am specifically referring to is abuse in any shape or form. Divorce must be allowed in these cases since it severely compromises the health and well-being of one of the members of the contract. If governments must protect citizens against armed robbers who attempt to injure them, surely it must protect citizens against their own spouses who attempt to injure them. I would further argue that divorce needs to be guaranteed for the "happiness' of one individual, as vague as that may seem. Since happiness is not objective, divorce in my mind is really not a matter that can be restricted or disallowed. No judge can rule on happiness of a certain person, and therefore they must be able to pursue whatever course they wish without legal impediments.
 
AGAINST, as I don't see any real point for this resolution, after reading the above posts, let alone a reason for the UN to step in on such an issue.
 
AGAINST.

While it seems nice on paper, the whole resolution is basically an act of total cultural imperialism. The UN has no place in marriage. While that certainly hasn't stopped it from legislating there in the past, we have no intention of allowing the UN to continue in overextend its laws.

New forum?
 
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 UN Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top