Recommendation rafting: Legal Competence

---

Description: The World Assembly,

Believing that the freedom to make important decisions about one’s life for oneself is a fundamental ‘sapient right’ that should not be unreasonably restricted;

Hereby, within any limits set by earlier resolutions that are still in force,

1). Defines the term ‘Legal Competence’ as meaning a status in law whose possessors (i.e. ‘legally competent’ persons) are considered mature and mentally capable enough to give their informed consent on important decisions and who are therefore eligible to validate legally-binding contracts, manage finances and property and businesses, agree to or refuse medical treatments (except for any measures against disease that are legally required), make valid wills, emigrate, act as legal guardians for persons who lack this status, and enjoy any other rights that applicable laws declare are also (like all of those listed above) linked to possession of this status, without needing consent from a parent or other ‘guardian’ for any of those actions;

2). Requires all member nations to have clear and fair rules about when and how a person becomes recognised as possessing Legal Competence within their jurisdiction, and to make those rules publicly available, and specifies that _
i/ The only criteria that can be used for denying a person Legal Competence are immaturity (defined by chronological age and/or psychological testing), mental illness, very low intelligence, or physical injuries or illnesses that currently make it impossible for that person to exercise informed consent;
ii/ For any of those criteria other than chronological age, the decision as to whether or not they apply must be made by appropriate experts acting (and allowed by the authorities to act) objectively without fear or favour;
iii/ A person’s active dissent from the views of national or local authorities on any matter (including but not limited to politics, religion, philosophy, or economics) cannot be used as “evidence” that the person is unsuitable to possess this status;
iv/. There must be a reasonable system for appeal against any refusal to recognise a person as legally competent on any basis other than just their chronological age, whether the appeals are made by those persons themselves or by others acting on their behalf;
v/. If subdivisions within a member nation are allowed to set thresholds for this status for their own peoples separately then any person who has been granted this status by any of those jurisdictions must still be recognised as holding it by every part of that nation;

3). States that any person classified as not legally competent must have at least one legally competent person officially recognised as a ‘guardian’ to make relevant decisions for them and protect their interests, and also that people who are not legally competent must not be employed in combat;

4). Acknowledges the right of member nations to set reasonable thresholds of maturity and/or mental capability for people to hold any other rights or responsibilities within their jurisdictions (including but not limited to, whatever is legal there in terms of political matters, criminal responsibility, sexual matters, access to and operation of weapons or vehicles or other devices, participation in hazardous activities, use of drugs, and gambling), and that in these cases a single government can assign different thresholds for different rights or responsibilities.

This goes to vote in four days, so we have plenty of time to review it.

This is... not a good piece of legislation. It's a mess, it's almost impossible to read, and it when you finally get through the wall of text it's not anything approaching appropriate legislative language("whatever is legal there in terms of political matters" made me cringe).

This piece also assumes all nations have basically the same legal system, which is... unfortunate.

I personally think this may be a good idea, but the issue is not pressing enough(as it's been a question since WA#4) to pass THIS version. It needs a bit more time in the oven.

I really disagree with Douria's assessment. Although we must make for pretty good balance if we're always on opposite sides of the aisle.

Your main concern seems to be that the wording is not more legalese, but unless the phrasing is unclear or confusing, I have no idea why there would be an issue. Many WA authors prefer not to use very legal sounding text, actually, to avoid confusing voters. If I remember correctly, Knootoss's personal resolution grading rubric took points off for writing with too much legalese. Which is not to say writing in that style is either a good thing or a bad thing, but my point is that it's not as if BA's style is uncommon.

I also don't know what's so difficult to read about it. BA is notorious for his more lengthy prose, but if you ask me, the length is perfectly readable. What parts did you find difficult to read?

Regarding your point about assuming that every nation has the same legal system: I don't think it does that at all. As a matter of fact, nothing in it indicates anything aside from the fact that a nation has a legal system at all. Unless you're arguing that in some nations, individuals are not permitted to manage their own finances, make wills, or sign contracts. Half of those things are already guaranteed by extant WA legislation, and the other half are pretty much ensured by Reasonable Nation Theory. For the purpose of clarification, which parts indicate that it assumes a certain type of legal system?

Aside from the frustrating listing system of "_s" and "/s," I would suggest a vote in favor. The topic is obviously sensible and a resolution on the subject is long overdue. The content itself is also quite reasonable, and despite objections to the phrasing, the idea is articulated clearly by the text.