Author Topic: Invitation to adjust the MCUR (Read 23113 times)

Norgeras · « **Reply #60 on:** April 04, 2018, 10:52:18 PM »

"Again" Robert said, more than mildly annoyed at this point: "We are arguing and pretending something to be a basic right where scientists aren't even on the same page. Let this be handled by national laws and scrap this from a bill about basic rights that really everyone can agree on. All i see here is people trying to police other states where they have no place to do so. This isn't about arresting people for no cause, torturing, burning villages down, selling children for money. This is about some humans inability to deal with how they look, about a psychological issue blown out of proportions. This is not a basic human right. Maybe we help them with laws, maybe we don't. But it has no place in a bill about basic human rights, unless your goal leans more to force your opinion down others throat than to provide a common ground really everyone can agree with."

CGJ · « **Reply #61 on:** April 04, 2018, 11:37:41 PM »

"The focus," Lankly said, "is to do what's right, while balancing national laws with the rights of individuals.But as for latest edition of Article 13, we're willing to yield, though I must admit I find it slightly amusing that gender equality is something that is under contention. We do not believe the sentence 'National laws must, except where gender is a determining factor, make no mention of gender' adds anything of value to the treaty, however, and our preference is that it is removed. It does not add any protections or guarantee any freedoms or rights."

Achkaerin · « **Reply #62 on:** April 05, 2018, 01:37:22 AM »

Serenity looked at Klara

"Your Majesty we're going round in circles may I suggest a short recess for us to re-evaluate our positions?" Serenity asked, there needed to be movement on this, there needed to be a compromise and it wasn't happening, it was time to create the opportunity to crack some heads together then.

Achkaerin · « **Reply #63 on:** April 06, 2018, 10:05:35 PM »

With the recess granted, Serenity went outside, if she was honest she would have liked nothing more than to have thrown both Euphemia and Lankly into the fountain, after all what part of 'read the room' was so difficult to grasp, fair enough there were always going to be people who wanted to remove articles but it had been right in front of them and then Lankly had had to get involved. It was no good taking the view of 'preserve 13 at all costs' or 'remove 13 at all costs' such extremes were only going to lead to one thing and that was a fracturing of the summit. So what was the way forwards? A compromise was a given, but they couldn't turn the whole thing over to nations without opening the back door to discrimination, the circular nature of the argument was also something that needed to change or again the potential of a fractured summit would raise its head. What to do? To avoid the argument...change the context. To protect the rights of the people that needed protecting.... be smart. To preserve article thirteen...destroy article thirteen, but wasn't that counter intuitive? Probably but at this point anything was worth a shot.

If they broadened the article out a little made it about more than one specific point and were smart about it then maybe there was a way for everyone to get what they wanted out of this. Though knowing her luck she'd present the idea and someone would accuse her of a backtrack, she looked at her copy of the draft and started scribbling on it and drawing arrows it was a bit of lateral thinking but maybe this could work. She returned inside with a bit of a smile and took her seat again. Making sure to place a note at Klara's place that she had a proposal to voice once the recess was over.

DaveIronside · « **Reply #64 on:** April 10, 2018, 09:10:17 AM »

King David was concerned, it looked like they had reached an impasse and entrenched positions were likely to derail the process. The Morelander monarch took the opportunity to stretch his legs while thinking through the situation, as it stood only around 5 nations actually followed the treaty, they had many more non signatory nations here, a chance to extend universal rights to hundreds of millions more people who presently had no protection save that granted by their own nation, and the king knew for some that meant little protection. Surely it was possible to get a deal, he thought about it from his faiths point of view, surely they could get some protection for people who couldn't protect themselves. Some talked about watering things down, that wasn't an issue for East Moreland as the MCUR acted as a minimum standard, in truth those in his kingdom enjoyed much greater protection, that was something he was proud of. This opportunity was slipping through the group's fingers and as he made his way back to the room he hoped it wasn't one they'd miss.

Libby · « **Reply #65 on:** April 17, 2018, 10:02:28 AM »

Klara had spent much of the break racking her brain over trying to find a way forward and with that in mind she returned to the room ready to begin again.

"As I see it we have four points of view in play on this article. If I may summarise them.

1. That this charter is an affront to a nations national sovereighty.

2. That recognising gender change is not going to happen.

3. The maintainance of the current situation.

4. A belief that the current situation does not go far enough.

Clearly those who believe in the first of these are unlikely to accept this charter at all however their concern must be noted. We have already got a treaty that in several places imposes a liberal world view upon nations in order for them to be seen as just. Take our own nation for example, we have little issue with discrimination in terms of gender, sexuality, race , religion etc, yet we can not conform with this treaty without significant change to our nation, change to a system that works for us. The marriage section, thankfully now rectified as far as we're concerned, would have made Queen Viktoria's marriage illegal. As it stands at present for example a school curriculum must " promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the maintenance of peace", this is a noble point but it imposes an expectation on a nations curriculum. We stand at present with the hurdle of overcoming this and any suggestions are welcome.

As for those who belong to the other three camps we have a giant hurdle. The MCUR was written with nations sharing a common liberal view of the concept of Gender. As has been shown here today we have Nya Aland with a much more liberal interpretation of gender than most around this table yet have been willing to seek a compromise, one that would have protected millions currently given no protection by this charter. This is the aim that we must keep in mind, presently there are 10 nations which have signed the MCUR representing around 650 million people, at present there are a similar number around this table representing around 1 billion people who currently do not have access to the MCUR. We have an opportunity if compromise can be reached to extend the MCUR to mean 1.7billion people on Mundus are protected. I would therefore urge those so far unwilling to move their point of view, from either point 2,3 or 4 to do so. I firmly believe the best way forward is to revisit the Alander suggestion. However I once more open the floor to suggestions."

Achkaerin · « **Reply #66 on:** April 17, 2018, 09:35:03 PM »

"I have said it before and I will say it again." Serenity said "This article is going to have to be a compromise, the Nya Aland proposal is one such compromise and I support it. The simple truth is that entrenched positions that take the view of 'thirteen as it stands or no deal' and 'no thirteen or no deal' do absolutely nothing to help us get any further forwards here. Now nobody has stated that they have any problems with the Aland proposal with the exception that is of the Neu Uburzis representative which appears to fall within a position that Her Majesty Queen Klara has just encouraged movement from, the way I see it we have to either pass the Nya Aland amendment or we have to find another way of ensuring the community in question is protected, if we can't do this then I sincerely hope we all have soundproof walls built into our embassies.

Now let's be absolutely clear this is the amendment as it stood before our recess:" she tapped the piece of paper that sat on the table

Quote

1. No person may be discriminated against on grounds of gender identity. National laws must, except where gender is a determining factor, make no mention of gender.

2. Any person also has the right, where it is safe, reasonable and in accordance with their nation healthcare provision to do so, undergo sex reassignment therapy.

3. If the state is unable to provide sex reassignment therapy, or where it does not fall within their national healthcare provision, a person wishing to change their biological sex shall have the freedom to travel to another state to undergo said therapy with no prejudice to their return.

"The proposed 13.1 is a simple declaration in the first sentence that no one must be discriminated against on the basis of gender identity, that is something everyone here can surely agree with. The second half of that article is a point that avoids every nation here ending up being hauled through the courts, now this is a simple choice of gender neutral legislation and there are multiple ways of applying it and no one here has to date specifically stated their absolute opposition to this point, the Dartfordian delegation has given their agreement to it despite initial resistance.

The proposed 13.2 gives a person the right to undergo sex reassignment therapy, this should have no opposition whatsoever in practical terms because the article makes it clear that there is no penalty against states that do not include the therapy in their national healthcare provision.

Finally the proposed 13.3 simply completes the point of 13.2 by allowing a transgender person, under circumstances where the state does not or cannot provide the reassignment therapy, to travel abroad to a state where it is offered and to undergo the therapy there, this does not place any financial burden on the state not providing the therapy, nor does it place any responsibility on that state except the guarantee of no prejudice on return which is a reaffirmation of the first point made in 13.1.

I submit therefore that this is a viable option for article 13 and am prepared to vote on it."

KrisNord · « **Reply #67 on:** April 22, 2018, 08:43:12 PM »

"Nya Åland is not a signatory nation of the MCUR, and if this was the way that the original creation of this organisation went then I'm amazed we ever got a document. We've a proposal on the table here that would solve this issue, yet for some reason nations will not shift their stances to reach a compromise. Whatever the benchmark the MCUR reaches I can tell you know the Nya Åland constitution already goes way beyond it on this issue. Our constitution is genderless, and we recognise the whole gambit of gender identities, we also understand that a nation must be run for the benefit of those who make up its citizens and us imposing this on others would be wrong. We added the second half of our Clause 1 simply to appease the liberals here, I would urge those people to now make a gesture to move this forward, otherwise I have no choice but to remove ourselves from considering even joining this treaty." Jin Odinsson, the Head of the Nya Åland government said urging people to push forward.

Norgeras · « **Reply #68 on:** April 22, 2018, 09:45:21 PM »

Robert rolled his eyes, shaking his head:

"I think i made my stance clear. I do see an agreement for basic rights a good ideal, but i cannot in good faith agree to have our nation sign a paper where 13 remains. No matter how you try and turn and dance around it, in my opinion, it simply oversteps the reach of a universal right by far. These aren't issues to be handle on international level. I still say completely remove it, which remains my final stance."

Libby · « **Reply #69 on:** April 24, 2018, 09:46:59 AM »

"It would seem" Queen Klara began, that we have two proposals on the table at present and with no one commenting further on the Alanders proposal[1] I propose that we vote upon which direction to travel. I therefore ask you all to make your decisions known. Our choices are, accept the Alander proposal or remove Article 13 completely."

1.	Come on folks its been a week and frankly this thing is on a knife edge of dying

CGJ · « **Reply #70 on:** April 24, 2018, 09:50:52 AM »

"Dartfordia supports the Nya Aland amendment."

OOC: Assuming this is the amendment quoted by Achkaerin on 17 April.

Major Jaws · « **Reply #71 on:** April 24, 2018, 09:52:21 AM »

"Quintelia fully supports the Alander amendment."

Libby · « **Reply #72 on:** April 24, 2018, 09:59:51 AM »

Quote from: CGJ on April 24, 2018, 09:50:52 AM

"Dartfordia supports the Nya Aland amendment."

OOC: Assuming this is the amendment quoted by Achkaerin on 17 April.

That is correct

The Young Pope · « **Reply #73 on:** April 24, 2018, 10:23:10 AM »

"ES fully supports the Alander amendment."
"Bretonnia fully supports the Alander amendment."

Achkaerin · « **Reply #74 on:** April 24, 2018, 11:41:59 AM »

“Achkaerin supports the Alander amendment”

Glitchy · « **Reply #75 on:** April 24, 2018, 05:34:20 PM »

Darren Wiliams sat through the meeting mostly silent, the ever-ageing 61-year-old Suvvo's feelings represented the sentiment of his nation, that the meeting was nothing but useless bureaucracy and all around absolute nonsense. It annoyed him more when the idea of gender reassignment therapy was brought on to the table for a human rights discussion, seriously a topic that should be left to the states to decide. The old man stood up, rickety in his stance, and made Sutherland's position clear.

"Sutherland opposes the Alander amendment and supports the removal of Article 13."

Darren sat back down, blabbering to himself about how rubbish this all was in typical Suvvo fashion. He appreciated Neu Uburzis' stance against and he took note of it.

Beatrice · « **Reply #76 on:** April 24, 2018, 07:48:14 PM »

"The First Empire adds its endorsement to the Ålander amendment as the best path forward."

Libby · « **Reply #77 on:** April 27, 2018, 11:31:35 PM »

"With a majority[1] the Alander proposition becomes Article 13." Klara said expecting some murmours of disruption on the decision. It was however important to keep things moving. "As I said at the beginning of the days discussions after dealing with 12 & 13 we would move on the Article 7 to address concerns of Arda Tuluva. This currently reads as follows

Quote from: Article 7

Article 7 – Right to a fair trial and no punishment without law

1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.

2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

3. No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.

4. This Article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations.

5. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;
(b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;
(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;
(d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;
(e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

"I welcome any suggestions as to a way forward"

"I also welcome suggestions for further amendments, however please refrain from getting debates started on them until we clear Article 7."

Spoiler: The Mundus Convention on Universal Rights • show

1.	5-2 in favour

Norgeras · « **Reply #78 on:** April 27, 2018, 11:39:34 PM »

Robert nodded slowly, picked up his cane, and respectfully bowed to Queen Klara:

"With due respect, i am no longer needed here then. Thank you for the Invitation, the result might not be something we can agree with, but sometimes it's the attempt that matters." before he slowly hobbled out of the room on his cane, leaving one chair empty on the table.

Achkaerin · « **Reply #79 on:** April 28, 2018, 12:07:22 AM »

"If memory serves the conversation earlier in our discussions in relation to this as put forward by our friend from Arda Tuluva is that in Arda Tuluva's justice system the accused is neither guilty or innocent but rather regarded as those who are between and that they wish the charter to reflect that. However applying such a translation to a different legal system such as that in Achkaerin becomes difficult because the presumption of innocence which is currently enshrined in article 7.2 places the burden of proof at trial squarely on the shoulders of the prosecution." Serenity said "Taking into account Arda Tuluva's system means that the burden of proof is placed evenly between the two sides, this would create several legal issues for legal systems at national level that employ the presumption of innocence, firstly and most obviously it creates a ground of appeal for criminal convictions on the basis of human rights, second it essentially obligates the defence to prove their case at trial which means putting the defendant on the stand which opens them up to cross examination and all but eliminates the defence of reasonable doubt. However I accept that we should try to accommodate the Arda Tuluvan point but I would propose to do so in a way that doesn't threaten the existing legal principles in other nations so I would propose the following:

Quote

Article 7 – Right to a fair trial and no punishment without law

1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.

2. No one charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed guilty until proven as such according to law.

3. No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.

4. This Article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations.

5. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;
(b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;
(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;
(d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;
(e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

"This I believe would satisfy the Arda Tuluvan point while also allowing those nations that use innocent until proven guilty to retain that under a broader interpretation."

Libby · « **Reply #80 on:** May 07, 2018, 12:40:37 AM »

OOC- I PM'd AT but had no reply, that being the case I'm assuming Achkaerin has explained the issue.

"Very well do we have anyone wishing to oppose this?" Klara asked looking around the room and hoping this would be a much easier article than the others.

OCC - I'll leave until Tuesday at 10pm .....PM me what other talking points you wish to have

Libby · « **Reply #81 on:** May 11, 2018, 09:36:45 AM »

"With no opposition to the proposed article I therefore call to vote the following amendment of the MCUR.

That we change this text

Quote

Article 7 – Right to a fair trial and no punishment without law

1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.

2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

3. No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.

4. This Article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations.

5. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;
(b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;
(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;
(d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;
(e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

To this

Quote

Article 7 – Right to a fair trial and no punishment without law

1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.

2. No one charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed guilty until proven as such according to law.

3. No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.

4. This Article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations.

5. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;
(b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;
(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;
(d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;
(e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

"Please make your opinion known."

OOC - Plan to let this run until Monday 10pm UK time. Also if you have any amendments, additions etc please let me know.

Achkaerin · « **Reply #82 on:** May 12, 2018, 09:35:21 PM »

Achkaerin supports the amendment.

Libby · « **Reply #83 on:** May 15, 2018, 10:58:27 AM »

"It would seem then that the new article 7 has been accepted." Klara said, they were nearing the end of what people had raised and so she turned to her own notes.

"Now it appears to me we have some glaring absences of rights. We therefore wish to see the following" She handed round a piece of paper.

(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

(2)) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

(3) Children have the right to receive nurturing support and care, whenever possible as part of their natural family. It shall be the responsibility of parents to ensure children in their care access reasonable health and educational facilities.

Beatrice · « **Reply #84 on:** May 15, 2018, 08:15:45 PM »

"In light of the amended Article 13 which calls on national laws to make no mention of gender, except for matters where gender is a determining factor, I would recommend that the MCUR itself adopt gender-neutral language. Thus, and my apologies for revisiting it in such short order, we believe Article 7 should instead be presented as such:"

Quote

Article 7 – Right to a fair trial and no punishment without law

1. In the determination of their civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against them, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.

2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

3. No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.

4. This Article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations.

5. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which they understand and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against them;
(b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of their defence;
(c) to defend themselves in person or through legal assistance of their own choosing or, if they have not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;
(d) to examine or have examined witnesses against them and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on their behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against them;
(e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if they cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

"And the noted absences addressed as such:"

Quote

(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of their nationality nor denied the right to change their nationality.

(2)) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of their personality is possible.

(3) Children have the right to receive nurturing support and care, whenever possible as part of their natural family. It shall be the responsibility of parents to ensure children in their care access reasonable health and educational facilities.

"With those issues addressed the First Empire has no objections, though if it would please our hosts the First Empire believes that another right has been absent from both the MCUR and international attention. This is a matter which we would like to address before the end of the summit, at your discretion."

Receiving acknowledgement Euphemia continued. "The First Empire has long vied for broader recognition of perhaps the most basic, essential right, one without which we cannot live: clean and safe water. The right to water is perhaps an indispensable right, however, there are many threats which exist to peoples and communities in having reliable access to safe and clean water.

Quote

1. All persons have the right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation, as these are essential to the realisation and enjoyment of all human rights.

2. Signatories shall work with international organisations to provide financial resources, capacity-building and technology transfer, through international assistance and cooperation, in particular to developing countries, in order to scale up efforts to provide clean, accessible and affordable drinking water and sanitation for all.

3. Signatories shall take all proper measures to ensure that commercial activities and projects do not erode the access of a community to clean, accessible and affordable drinking water and sanitation.

Libby · « **Reply #85 on:** May 15, 2018, 08:43:29 PM »

"Clearly the administration staff here need to pay more attention" Klara adressed the first issue brought up by the Rokkenjimans. "We also broadly speaking support their amendment, however one of our initial concerns was how this treaty in its current form takes away the sovereignty of nations to make decisions on their own development. My concern is section 2 of your proposal is another example of that. In the format you suggest the article compels nations to work with international organisations in order to improve things in a nation that is not their own, if passed it would essentially force nations into having a foreign aid budget and forcing them to spend a portion of it here. Therefore I propose that section 2 be removed."

Beatrice · « **Reply #86 on:** May 15, 2018, 09:08:54 PM »

"Let us step back from placing financial obligations within the amendment and focus section 2 on methods which can help achieve the objective at the capability of the signatory nations.

Quote

2. Signatories may, as their capability merits, work towards capacity-building and technology transfer, through international assistance and cooperation, in particular to developing countries, in order to scale up efforts to provide clean, accessible and affordable drinking water for all.

"Further financial initiatives can thus be pursued at the discretion of states as they see fit separate from the broader MCUR framework."

Libby · « **Reply #87 on:** May 16, 2018, 01:16:00 PM »

"I'm thankful for the step back however I still believe section 2 is unnecessary. The MCUR is a document that says what a nation must do, not what a nation may do. Therefore the guidance provided by that part of your suggestion isn't needed for the MCUR. If I may give an example, Article 16 which focuses on health care as a human right does not say that we must share technology, fund foreign works or are even encouraged to. Separate to the MCUR we have initiatives such as the Global Childbirth Initiative and the Joint Emergency Team, should we perhaps consider changing Article 16 to encourage signatories to do these things? I would say as the organisations that provide aid and the like change constantly. We fully support the first section though and as such believe that should be the sum of all that is needed for this article."

Libby · « **Reply #88 on:** May 23, 2018, 11:35:36 AM »

bumping this

Beatrice · « **Reply #89 on:** May 26, 2018, 01:08:22 AM »

"With these points being discussed I thus propose the following:"

Quote

1. All persons have the right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation, as these are essential to the realisation and enjoyment of all human rights.

2. Signatories shall take all proper measures to ensure that commercial activities and projects do not erode the access of a community to clean, accessible and affordable drinking water and sanitation.


Ui Cenneslaig Factbook	Odinist Republic of Nya Åland Factbook

News:

Author Topic: Invitation to adjust the MCUR (Read 23113 times)