[GA - WITHDRAWN] Protections During Territorial Transitions

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hulldom

Hulldom

Winter Kingdom
Pronouns
He/Him/His
TNP Nation
Hulldom
Discord
seathestarlesssky
ga.jpg

Protections During Territorial Transitions
Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Daarwyrth | Onsite Topic​

The General Assembly,

Aware that territorial transitions between member states may occur as part of trade agreements or other diplomatic proceedings; and

Affirming that sovereign states have the right to manage their territory as they see fit; and

Applauding previously passed legislation and its mandate that member states allow their inhabitants to fulfil their basic needs; yet

Concerned about the fate of those inhabitants that must endure the effects of territorial transitions;

Hereby:

  1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
    • a "transition" as the transfer of any territory from a member state to another member state resulting from economic, political or diplomatic proceedings;
    • a "receiving state" as a member state that acquires territory as a result of a transition; and
    • an "affected inhabitant" as an inhabitant of any area of a member state that is directly affected by a transition;
  2. Mandates that member states inform affected inhabitants, without interference or obstruction, as well as extensively and with sufficient advance notice, on any jurisdictional changes that they will be subjected to as a result of a transition, such as the rights and responsibilities that they will obtain and/or lose, and provide affected citizens with all other information relevant to that transition, and the changes it will inflict upon them;
  3. Requires member states to allow affected inhabitants who are unwilling to have their citizenship be transferred to another sovereign state as a result of a transition, to relocate to another part of their nation that is suitable for civilian habitation, along with any other rights guaranteed by earlier legislation passed by this international body that has not been replaced;
  4. Instructs member states to assist affected inhabitants who would be unable to see to their basic needs as a result of relocating within that member state in line with their right as granted by Clause 3;
  5. Clarifies that, in cases of mass relocation as a result of a transition, or multiple transitions, which would cause a nation to be overwhelmed in terms of housing and the fulfilment of affected inhabitants' basic needs, Clauses 3 and 4 may be temporarily waived (and resolved through other suitable, temporary measures) until that nation is no longer so overwhelmed;
  6. Further requires receiving states to grant inhabitants who have had their citizenship or right to residence transferred as a result of a transition, a period of acclimatisation to their change of jurisdiction, which must be of a fair length and grant them enough time to integrate into their new nation, and which should be taken into consideration by the authorities of the receiving state where appropriate and necessary;
  7. Tasks receiving states with granting assistance that is free of charge in cases where affected inhabitants would request aid and/or guidance in their legal integration into their new jurisdiction;
  8. Also requires member nations to have the provisions of this resolution included in the treaties and/or agreements regulating the transition of territories as per the definition of Clause 1a, regardless of whether the other nations involved in those agreements are or are not also WA members; and
  9. Orders member states to ensure that the safety and wellbeing of affected inhabitants are not unduly infringed upon as a result of a transition.
Click to expand...
Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations and NPA personnel will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote.
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!
[TR][TD]For[/TD][TD] Against [/TD][TD] Abstain [/TD][TD] Present [/TD][/TR][TR][TD]4[/TD][TD]1[/TD][TD]0[/TD][TD]1[/TD][/TR]
 
Last edited:
This proposal has made quorum and will proceed to a vote at Saturday’s major update.
 
Daarwyrth:
I've removed the proposal from queue today, after commentary from Imperium Anglorum on the definition of Clause 1.c. The proposal will be re-drafted at a later point.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the update!

As a result, thread locked.
 
This proposal has been re-submitted. The text has been updated and therefore…unlocked.
 
Present.
As the Autocratic Republic has ceased expansion, The Comrades' Assembly feels as if we are not qualified to voice an opinion on the matter.
 
Daarwyrth:
Purely to satisfy my own curiosity, would you be willing to say why you're against? :) if not, then I of course understand!
Click to expand...
1) The definition of an "affected inhabitant" is not sufficiently clear. Does that include corporations which are frequently legal people? How does that work in cases where individuals may have multiple residences including those in the same state but not in the affected area? These are rhetorical questions.
2) For some reason, Clause 2 has it such that states only have to provide "other" information to affected citizens—not affected inhabitants.
3) The proposal does not say whether affected inhabitants will be given citizenship (or the equivalent) by the receiving state (or a reasonable pathway for them to obtain such). I would have liked a clause speaking to that along those lines in the proposal (even if it was just a recommendation). The proposal does mention citizenship transferring but only to the degree that accommodations must be made if affected inhabitants are unwilling to have their citizenship transferred. This would leave an absence of aid provided in cases where the affected inhabitant is willing to transfer citizenship yet the receiving state will not provide it and thus the affected inhabitant must move if they wish to remain a citizen.
4) While I appreciate how assistance is given to the legal integration in Clause 7, I would have liked to seen assistance provided for a comprehensive integration (eg. languages).
 
Praetor:
1) The definition of an "affected inhabitant" is not sufficiently clear. Does that include corporations which are frequently legal people? How does that work in cases where individuals may have multiple residences including those in the same state but not in the affected area? These are rhetorical questions.
2) For some reason, Clause 2 has it such that states only have to provide "other" information to affected citizens—not affected inhabitants.
3) The proposal does not say whether affected inhabitants will be given citizenship (or the equivalent) by the receiving state (or a reasonable pathway for them to obtain such). I would have liked a clause speaking to that along those lines in the proposal (even if it was just a recommendation). The proposal does mention citizenship transferring but only to the degree that accommodations must be made if affected inhabitants are unwilling to have their citizenship transferred. This would leave an absence of aid provided in cases where the affected inhabitant is willing to transfer citizenship yet the receiving state will not provide it and thus the affected inhabitant must move if they wish to remain a citizen.
4) While I appreciate how assistance is given to the legal integration in Clause 7, I would have liked to seen assistance provided for a comprehensive integration (eg. languages).
Click to expand...
1. "an "affected inhabitant" as an inhabitant of any area of a member state that is directly affected by a transition". As per the definition of "inhabitant" as can be found here, no, corporations are not considered "inhabitants".
2. Oh [insert expletive], I completely missed that, damn it. That should have been "inhabitant". Oh boy, I think I need to withdraw this again because this is not an acceptable mistake.
3. Yeah, I will be withdrawing this resolution to fix the mistake in Clause 2, so I might as well add something about citizenship transfers.
4. A valid point I will also consider in the re-re-draft.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top