I can't reply to the current amendment thread in the CIDUS-sub forums, even though I'm a member. Why is that?

Hi there! Just checking this place out unglasses:

Quote: The General Assembly,

Reaffirming its commitment to fair and equitable treatment of all individuals,

Believing that no institution, including the governments of member nations, should be permitted to act in contravention of its own established laws, and that such institutions, including the governments of member nations, should be expected to behave in a manner both transparent and unprejudiced,

Asserting, with the aforementioned in consideration, that the "rule of law" is a fundamental component of fair and just governance, and a necessary element in preventing arbitrary or discriminatory punishment,

And to this end resolves;

1. Declares that all persons, entities, both public and private, and institutions, including the state, political subdivisions thereof, and its officials, shall be held equally accountable under the established statutory laws, judicial precedents, or any other principles or guidelines with the equivalent force of law of a relevant member nation, excepting instances where compelling and practical purposes necessitate good faith exceptions, such as diplomatic immunity.[/quote]

The forums haven't been particularly useful in providing any meaningful discussion on this topic, so if you guys have anything to say, I'd love to hear it.

Rights of Indigenous Peoples
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: Vancouvia[/center

Quote: The World Assembly,

Recognizing the existence of indigenous peoples within member states of the World Assembly and the possible existence of indigenous peoples who have yet to be contacted but may eventually live in the territory of member states;

Defining indigenous as culturally-distinct peoples who inhabited a country before the arrival and their knowledge of a now-dominant culture or cultures;

Acknowledging that non-indigenous cultures may offer assistance and aid to the indigenous peoples they come in contact with, and vice versa;

Concerned that indigenous peoples have suffered or will suffer injustices and discrimination at the hands of dominant culture(s), despite the possible illegality and immorality of such actions;

Seeking to not only maintain the cultural rights of indigenous peoples, but also to provide for their well-being;

Urges member nations to cooperate with indigenous peoples in a peaceful and respectful manner, and to seek to obtain indigenous peoples? consent before engaging in any measures that may affect them;

Recommends member nations allow indigenous peoples to own and maintain their artifacts and their ancestors' artifacts;

Implores member nations to permit uncontacted indigenous peoples to continue to live within their native lands, and to permit contacted indigenous peoples to continue to live within their lands if they presently are doing so, unless a legitimate governmental need requires such land and no reasonable alternative exists, in which case the indigenous peoples in the area affected shall be given fair compensation and adequate time to prepare for their relocation to reasonably close and similar lands;

Prohibits member nations from forcibly assimilating indigenous peoples, or eradicating, reducing, or limiting their culture, with exceptions provided in cases in which existing international law prohibits specific practices of the indigenous peoples;

Encourages member nations to provide access to healthcare, education, employment, and representation for indigenous peoples.[/quote]

Quote: Right to Bear Arms
Category: Gun Control | Strength: Relax | Proposed by: Topsail Empire

To ensure that all citizens have to right to defend themselves and to own firearms:

Realizing that gun control is necessary to a stabilized country

Knowing that keeping the guns out of the hands of the wring people is necessary

However it is necessary to allow civilians to defend themselves from both criminals and corrupt governments.

Believing that background checks can become a substitute to a complete gun ban

HEREBY MANDATES that gun ownership shall be made legal in all World Assemble member countries.
[/quote]

Hello.

Thank You for taking the time to look at my message.

My name is Naspino Randaski, and I will be Namigurian Islands's Ambassador to the IDU.

For reference, my titles in full are:

"The Honourable
Prof. Naspino Randaski
Member of Parliament for Namigurian Islands
Ambassador to the International Democratic Union"

I wish that as a region, we can make even more of a difference than you already have. The honourable nations that reside in this region are well-built, and strongly led.

Once again, thank you.

With sincerity,

Naspino Randaski

Quote: Repeal "Sexual Privacy Act"
A resolution to blah blah blah
Category: Repeal | Resolution: #16
The World Assembly,

Acknowledging that WA Resolution #16, "Sexual Privacy Act", mandates that all member nations legalise incest,

Understanding that children conceived by closely related persons can be in severe danger of inheriting congenital birth defects,

Believing that there is a compelling government interest in restricting incest,

Regretting that such action is illegal under WA law with the Sexual Privacy Act in place,

Resolves the situation by repealing WA Resolution #16, "Sexual Privacy Act".[/quote]

Forum thread
Original resolution thread

1. Assisting member nations affected by desertification, upon their request, with adopting and implementing sustainable land and water management techniques,
   
   
2. Coordinating the transfer of relevant technology between member nations and helping member nations affected by desertification, upon their request, in implementing such technologies if it is determined that they're locally suitable and effective in preventing the process of desertification,
   
   
3. Evaluating the effectiveness of anti-desertification policy initiatives, formulating new ones that suit the needs of individual regions, and sharing such policies with the relevant parties;
   

Greetings as a new nation and new player I'm honored to have been excepted so warmly in the IDU.

Hi,

I've been thinking about drafting an idea for a resolution on "fracking". I've been reading through the WA-forums, and going through passed resolutions; but I can't seem to find anything on this topic. But, the forums are a bit overwhelming (I don't frequent them much, or at all, really). So, do any of you more seasoned WA-experts have any tips on threads that give an overview on current drafts/ideas? Or is it really just a matter of going through it all if you want to find out if anyone is already working on this?

The idea, basically, is to propose a pragmatic take on regulating the use of fracking. It's not a question of banning fracking. I don't think that would go down well, and it seems a little invasive. It would affirm all member states rights to exploit the natural resources within their borders, and to use preferred techniques, but still call for some restrictions on the use of fracking as a method. Simply put, I saw a documentary on some people living fairly nearby a fracking operation, and their water supply was cleary being affected by the mining; you could more or less light the water on fire, and there was also talk on health risks, specifically connected to the use of chemicals in the pressurized liquid being used. So the idea was basically that this would act as the starting point; restricting the use of fracking in areas where it can potentially lead to contamination of ground water and depletion of fresh water that acts as a water source for households. That is to say that I'm not really aiming at adressing "general" environmental impacts of fracking, but in essence just enforcing some sort of distance demand; "you can't do it here, because it'll screw up people's water, but if you're outside the perimeter: go ahead." The reason for the limitation is threefold, 1) this is what peaked my interest, 2) I just think that a resolution with this aim might have an easier time getting passed than one sporting grand envirenmental ambitions and suggesting more wide-ranging regulations, and 3) fracking seems like a higly controversial and contested issue with spirits running high on whether or not it's bad, really bad, or not bad at all; therefore it would seem that if we have to agree on some lowest common denominator why not adopt a "better safe than sorry" approach and at least try and safe guard our water sources, while at the same time allowing the technique elsewhere.

I don't have a lot of free time on my hands, so I would appriciate if more experinced players could give me some feedback on whether this seems like a viable idea, or not.

Some potential obstacles:

* I don't really know that much about fracking.
* I have no idea if it's a viable idea, that is to say possible, to identify and enforce a perimeter that says "when it comes to people's water supply: this is safe from contamination, this is not safe". But how "strict" and realistic do these resolutions need to be? If I task a WA-agency (I'd rather not create something new) of finding out about some sort of "distance demands" then can't we just assume that they'll come up with these standards?
* Does this have to be in the category "environment"? The goal would not really be improving the environment as such, but rather improving people's life's through assuring them clean water.
* I also don't know the first thing about how and where to post on the forums, or what to do to further the chances of a resolution getting passed i GA. As said, I also don't have a lot of free time, so I probably won't be able to post a lot and defend the proposal, should it go that far.
* Taking the previous point in consideration, if any of you feel like this could be an idea worth developing here in the IDU, and then feel you have the time to defend in the forums/promote it etc, I would gladly develop the piece together with you, whereas as you could submit it and stand as its author (I have a feeling getting it through the WA is the biggest challenge, and therefore worthy of the "honour" of being listed as author.

This is as far as I came today on my lunch break:

Fracking reduction act
A resolution to?

Category: ? Industry affected: ? Proposed by:

Descritption: The World Assembly,

RECOGNIZING the need of member states for reliable energy sources and petroleum products, among others through the use of oil and natural gas;

DEFINES ?Fracking? as a mining technique were a highly pressurized liquid consisting of water, sand and chemicals is introduced into subterranean shafts, etc. with the intent to force open new cracks and existing crevices for the purpose of extracting oil or gas;

AFFIRMING all member states right to exploit natural resources within their own borders, within the confines of General Assembly resolutions previously passed;

CONCERNED however, that the highly controversial technique of ?Fracking? is associated with several risks in terms of environmental impacts on ground water contamination, fresh water depletion, air quality reduction, pollution and also potentially triggering earthquakes;

Something about that people should have clean water...

BELIEVING it to be in the best interest of all member states to adopt a pragmatic and balanced approach to international legislation regulating the use of high-risk extraction techniques;

The suggestion on not being allowed to "frack" certain places

Giving a task to a WA-agency

etc.