[GA - Defeated] Treatment Of The Deceased

Status
Not open for further replies.
TlomzKrano

TlomzKrano

Just a blob chasing cars
-
-
-
-
TNP Nation
Kranostav
Discord
Tlomz

ga.jpg

Treatment Of The Deceased
Category: Moral Decency | Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Fecaw | Onsite Topic​
This august General Assembly,

Having already guaranteed provisions for the deceased in wartime in its one hundred and thirty sixth resolution,

Wishing to expand its legislative protection to all the deceased,

Realising that remains of the deceased can sometimes be irretrievable or unidentifiable,

Taking into account that authorities may find it necessary to exhume remains for a criminal investigation,

Noting the various personal, cultural and religious provisions relating to the treatment of the deceased,

Hoping to establish prohibitions on malicious damage to the deceased,

Now in this present session assembled, by the approval of its many delegates and members, hereby:



  1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
    1. "grave" as a location where the remains of the deceased are interred,

    2. "mutilation" as dismemberment or unnecessary damage,

    3. "unreasonable burial requests" as requests that could be expected to:
      1. cause damage to property,

      2. be impossible to finance by the relations of the deceased or the deceased,

      3. contravene national or international legislation.


    4. "molestation of a grave" as:
      1. opening of the grave unless previously permitted by the now deceased,

      2. destruction or damage not serving a legitimate purpose which the deceased could not reasonably object to to a grave's markers unless previously permitted by the now deceased,

      3. mutilation of interred remains, except in the requirements of an autopsy or a criminal investigation.



  2. Demands that member states enforce laws that protect graves at least younger than a time that would take unembalmed interred remains to decay to the fullest possible extent from molestation.

  3. Mandates that all burial requests not considered to be unreasonable that are contained in the will shall be executed.

  4. Authorizes member states to:
    1. allow remains to be left in situ if they are considered to be irretrievable without unreasonable efforts,

    2. legislate freely on the scientific or medicinal use of organs or tissues from remains, at least allowing residents to opt-out of any use of their organs or tissues,

    3. handle remains in a manner contrary to the wishes of the deceased or their family in the event of an epidemic, catastrophe, major accident or other compelling situation.


  5. Clarifies that the World Assembly shall not restrict any cultural or religious practices relating to the treatment of the deceased, if these practices are known to have been explicitly requested by the deceased at the time of death unless a compelling reason in clauses 1 or 4 prevents it.
Click to expand...
Voting Instructions:
  • Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
  • Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
  • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
  • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.
Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!
 
A couple things... I dont really think this is a WA issue, and this proposal seems to not do much except vaguely ask member nations to enact laws to address some loosely defined items.

Sitting against
 
Against, too vague, also agree that this is not an WA issue as it was something that has generally been addressed already. If a country wishes to expand upon the rules mandated by the WA Resolution, then they have the prerogative to do so within their own borders.
 
Against,

Section 2 Is questionable. Governments are required to protect graves from molestation for the a time frame. Time frame is the unembalmed decay rate of a body. Bones take roughly 40-50 years to decay. Mutiply that by the number of grave yards that require round the clock protection. It will get expensive fast, and thats alot of police/government workers/soliders needed to maintain this resolution.
 
Against. It is mainly an IC thing for me, because our country does not have cemeteries except for religions which require them, and our "Remains of the Dead" Act states that these religions are only granted 25 years under the ground, after which they must be exhumed, cremated and moved to a crematorium or scattered at sea/land. By voting for this I am contradicting my nation's laws, which really is nonsensical.
To purely consider it from the OOC perspective, I am really questioning whether protecting the graves for about 40 years (Clause 2) makes much economical sense, as this would shift resources from protecting the alive to protecting the dead, for big nations with huge numbers of population dying would really lose a lot of money trying to protect graves. (Just as what Dreadton had said earlier)
 
Last edited:
Against. I don't like this and I tend to dislike the usage of "This August General Assembly".
 
Although nations are required to protect graces, this can take whatever means that the government sees fit to use. It does not ask for round the clock protection or for police or soldiers stationed at graves, but asks for any form of protection. This is the advantage of the vagueness that some people have complained about: nations are given a large degree of choice in the matter of how the resolution is enforced, meaning that nations that do not want round the clock protection are permitted to do so, creating a system that is more suited to each particular nation and its government.
Click to expand...


Building a fence is discourgement not protection. If I pass a law that says Grave robbing is bad, do i met the standard set in this bill? Does nothing to actually protect the graves just says that there will be punishment if you do mess with them. What is the minumim standard?
 
"Delegating the precise matter of lawmaking to individual nations makes a system that is fairer and allows for a system that addresses the needs of individual nations."
Click to expand...

We should not need a resolution that delegates a certain power to individual nations as the entirety of the resolution. The WA is a body of intervention, ensuring that the rights of all peoples are upheld in the courts and international field. Regarding this topic, we have already done this in regards to the handling of the deceased in an area the matters to the international field, war time. See GAR #136.

Intervening in with the treatment and handling of the deceased outside of international situations is an infringement upon the sovereign rights and violates respect for individual nations within the General Assembly. What the author wants is something that states that we care about all deceased, I do not disagree with his intentions, however it is pointless to establish a GAR saying that the nations will handle this, when if we didn't have this resolution... the nations would handle this.

The resolution, therefore, is moot. I continue to be against.


 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top