(Rejected) Indigenous Rights Act

Indigenous Rights Act

Realising the potential annexation of most or all of Farshonia, as well as the existence of nations without full sovereignty, including the Low Republic within our own borders.

Recognising that occupying states have existed for too long to completely reverse their status of sovereignty.

Affirming that all national groups have a right to maintain and promote their existence just as sovereign nations do.

Concerned that indigenous peoples and citizens of failed states such as Farshonia will be stripped of their national heritage or exploited for the benefit of the occupying power.

Emphasising that no article in this act can be interpreted in a way that harms indigenous peoples as nations or as individuals,

The Kingdom of Yellasia proposes that the World Alliance recognises the rights of indigenous peoples. 'Indigenous' shall be defined as the original inhabitants of any given land who identify as indigenous, as well as former nations being occupied by culturally distinct powers.


Article I:Indigenous peoples must be allowed the right to promote their language, culture, and customs, as well as organise amongst themselves, and to freely determine their own destiny.

Article II:Indigenous peoples must be treated equally to non-indigenous people, before the law and regarding access to public services.

Article III:Every indigenous person has the right to some form of legal nationality within the sovereign state in which they reside.

Article IV:Indigenous peoples shall not be subject to genocide or mass discrimination by any state.

Article V:Indigenous peoples shall not be subject to mass, state sponsored assimilation policies.

Article VI: Indigenous peoples have a right to the land on which they live and shall not be forcibly removed.

Article VII: No state can be allowed to alter indigenous artefacts belonging to indigenous organisations or individuals without their formal consent.

Article VIII: Indigenous national groups with political status shall be represented through World Alliance cultural and developmental organisations in a similar manner to sovereign states. Those who do not have any form of political status have the right to campaign for such recognition.

Yellasia votes in FAVOUR of this proposal.

Europe is voting in favor of the bill.
Perhaps it is true, as pointed out by Eurussia, this law violates the sovereignty of individual nations, but it makes for a proper purpose, to preserve, protect and improve human rights in the region.
A nation can not have the sovereignty, the right to discriminate, deprive of freedom and independence, segregate or worse, exterminate an indigenous population.
Simply because this is not a sovereignty or a right, but a real crime against humanity, a true dictatorial oppression.
In addition, in the previous term of the Security Council has been proposed a law, "Nuclear Test Ban Act," which banned nuclear tests in the region.
This law, just like this, limited the sovereignty of individual nations, but guaranteed the safety of the nuclear region.
This law was passed by a large majority and is still in force.
So, we do not see why this bill should not be approved.

In addition, we turn to Yellasia to change this law so as to ensure to the Security Council the supreme supervision aimed at ensuring their effective respectability.
We believe that the Security Council, in the event that such a law is not observed, may avail itself of binding calls, sending supervisors, economic sanctions and, in extreme cases, the military intervention of WAAF.

Agianst

Against

It seems my time in the Security Council may be limited, and I accept that the World Alliance has voiced its opinion against this proposal. I thank United States of Europe for voting for it.

While I know this is going to be rejected, I will defend it one last time for the sake of my integrity. The purpose of this proposal is not to weaken the sovereignty of individual member-states, but to strengthen it. Yes, it can be argued that the right to oppress is an inherent right regarding 'sovereignty', but this sovereignty is only granted to what I call a 'club' of nations; those fortunate enough to form a state recognised by the international community. There are nations without this representation, who themselves have been deprived of the right to their own sovereignty to strengthen the sovereignty of powerful 'club members', the recognised states of the World Alliance.

Also notable is the fact that many member states do not have their own sovereignty, including the various puppet governments (such as the Low Republic and New Zealand Colonies, including Farshonia), occupied states (former Farshonia when its government was still in place), etc. They remain official member states regardless of their territorial status, and this proposal was meant to grant them the freedom to determine their own destiny.

OOC: This law was proposed due to the events in Farshonia. It is clear that Farshonia was pressured into seceding land behind the scenes, leading to his (or her, I don't know) frustration and eventual departure. It was just roleplay, so Farshonia's immaturity was more to blame than anyone else in the region. I am not blaming anyone here or trying to make anyone feel sympothy for Farshonia, because he/she does not deserve any. I got carried away by Security Council roleplay, imagining myself as an actual Secuirty Council member and mirroring the UN Declaration of Indigenous Rights, completely missing the focus of what I should have proposed, and forgetting that my purpose of participating in the Security Council is to decide the future of roleplaying, not just IC proposals.

I instead would like to reject this proposal in favour of a new one focusing on the rights of member states, not because of what did happen, but what could happen. I think while unlikely, it is possible that nations can double up on a nation and decide its fate without the consent of said nation due simply to the fact that that nation is outnumbered. If I am voted to the next Security Council, I will propose reforms (I have better ideas than this law) designed to strengthen the World Alliance, focusing more on practicality rather than idealism. Instead of proposing one large constitutional amendment, I will propose multiple , separate amendments so the World Alliance can choose specifically what it wants and shoot down what it does not want, a more efficient method. If not, I will make the best of the last days of my term.

The Huperzian government urges all members of the Security Council to vote against this proposal

OOC: I already realised that it's dumb though. So it is de facto dismissed.