[GA - PASSED] Repeal: “Contact Rights Between Parent And Child”

Status
Not open for further replies.
Chipoli

Chipoli

Security Councilor
-
-
-
Pronouns
he/him
TNP Nation
Chipoli
Discord
chipoli
ga.jpg

Repeal: “Contact Rights Between Parent And Child”
Category: Repeal | Resolution: GA#616
Proposed by: Magecastle Embassy Building A5 | Onsite Topic​

The World Assembly,

Identifying the resolution as, while well-intentioned, fatally flawed due to its weak mandates, nearly all of which seem to allow straight-forward circumvention or be actively harmful,

Concerned that the resolution allows member nations to just rephrase any reason for removal of contact or other rights the resolution attempts to protect -- such as antiquated moral codes or political reasons -- as being for the "best interests" of the child,

Recognising that as nearly all of the resolution's mandates make an exception where a member nation's courts deem that compliance would be against the child's "best interests", this means that a member nation can easily avoid the vast majority of the resolution, rendering it ineffective to the point where its presence serves little use,

Emphasising that section 6 is also actively harmful, as it coerces member nations to recognise legal parenthood at the whims of any member nation in which said parents happen to be citizens, even if clearly harmful to the well-being of the child, opening the doors to WA-wide abuse of child's rights,

Unconvinced that a resolution that does not do anything meaningfully useful should stand, as it does not protect any rights, but instead stands in the way of legislation to properly protect the rights the resolution tries to protect,

Repeals "Contact rights between Parent and Child".
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!

ForAgainstAbstainPresent
4800
 
Last edited:
IFV

Overview:

This resolution would repeal the recently passed "Contact Rights Between Parent and Child". In its case for repeal, the resolution cites the deference to the courts of member states concerning the definition of "best interest" of the child as one of its primary arguments.

Recommendation:

The Ministry of World Assembly Affairs finds the argument the repeal to be compelling. Allowing local courts to determine what constitutes the best interest of the child without defining what should be considered when determining those interests allows for cultural bias to be a determining factor in what constitutes the best interest of the child.

For the above reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote for the General Assembly Resolution at vote.

This IFV Recommendation was written in collaboration with our World Assembly Legislative League partners.
 
Last edited:
For. With the parts mentioning the ability of a nation to simply flimsy the resolution in almost totality, I think that it's a fair choice for me to say yes to the repealing of this resolution. No nation should be able to overturn the WA, ergo; its interdimensional authority over many nations is something that should be maintained, especially in a case like this where a court could simply rule that it is "against the best interests of the child". Another note I might add is that the section in this proposal referring to this;

"Concerned that the resolution allows member nations to just rephrase any reason for removal of contact or other rights the resolution attempts to protect -- such as antiquated moral codes or political reasons -- as being for the "best interests" of the child,"

Has my nation's [United Engiresco] opinion set to being in favour of this proposal.
 
Against. The original resolution had two operative clauses: clause (2) (which is quite specifically relates to certain real life jurisdictions, and which I feel strongly about) and clause 6 (which effectively plugs a gap in recognizing parents that are not married or legally adopted, say via civil unions or de facto relationships).

I think the repeal misinterprets clause 6. The proposal's claim that clause 6 "coerces member nations to recognise legal parenthood at the whims of any member nation in which said parents happen to be citizens" is misinterpreting the rest of the resolution - clause 6 merely require courts of the resident state to recognize that they have their day in court - resident states are still at liberty to grant no custody rights whatsoever and avoids the scenario of "active harm" under clause 3.

So there is no coercion if the resident states disagrees with the citizenship decisions of another state.
 
Last edited:
This is my favorite game, where we support a resolution and then support its repeal, but we don't usually get to play it this fast >.>

Sigh.

Voting For.
 
Against. I agree with Simone Republic that the repeal misinterprets clause 6.
 
Against. I do not like insta-repeals and I am unconvinced by the core argument. Best interests is, necessarily, a difficult concept to define as it must encompass such a wide range of factors and will always leave a significant area of judgment for the courts of member states. While the resolution could have went further than it did in indicating relevant factors or discounting irrelevant ones, I don’t think that is a fatal flaw. I also agree that the criticism of clause 6 is misplaced.
 
For. I believe that the best decision comes from the child and the parent/parents, as the entire subject touches on them, and no-one else. The courts, and any officials come second, while any cultural influences, which also dictate personal beliefs, should be ignored, for they only possess no significance on the matter, but actively oppose the liberties of the child to act on what is truly in his/her/their best interest.
 
Against

As said by others, this misinterprets clause 6. Furthermore, the second clause of the repeal assumes that courts can use any reason for removing custody, and thus underestimates the professionalism of the judges.

Also, the exception that is discussed in clause 3 only appears in two of the target’s clauses, and the clause overlooks the fact that the exception is indeed necessary to represent the child’s wishes fully. Lastly, this repeal was submitted 4 days after the NS forum thread for it was posted, thus showing how rushed this repeal was.
 
Against. I agree with Simone that Section 6 has been misinterpreted.
Also, I just don’t like the concept of immediate-repeal-after-resolution. If you’re gonna repeal the entire thing merely two days later, why didn’t you instead raise this up in the drafting process?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top