NationStates Jolt Archive

I think we should make clear what the U.N. is and what the U.N. is not. I hear a lot of people saying "This is not in the U.N.'s mandate" Or "Yes it is" While Nation States is not the real world U.N. it is certainly not rocket science to assume that the founder of the game Max Barry did intend for it to be in line with the real world. Not unlike the game expects it's role players to keep it real. With this said, Let me help focus you on what IS the mandate of the U.N.

U.N. IN BRIEF;

The United Nations was established on 24 October 1945 by 51 countries committed to preserving peace through international cooperation and collective security. Today, nearly every nation in the world belongs to the UN: membership totals 191 countries*.

When States become Members of the United Nations, they agree to accept the obligations of the UN Charter, an international treaty that sets out basic principles of international relations. According to the Charter, the UN has four purposes: to maintain international peace and security; to develop friendly relations among nations; to cooperate in solving international problems and in promoting respect for human rights; and to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations.

The United Nations is not a world government and it does not make laws. It does, however, provide the means to help resolve international conflicts and formulate policies on matters affecting all of us. At the UN, all the Member States — large and small, rich and poor, with differing political views and social systems — have a voice and a vote in this process.

Through UN efforts, governments have concluded many multilateral agreements that make the world a safer, healthier place with greater opportunity and justice for all of us. This comprehensive body of international law, including human rights law, is one of the UN's great achievements.

Human rights;

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, proclaimed by the General Assembly in 1948, sets out basic rights and freedoms to which all women and men are entitled — among them the right to life, liberty and nationality; to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; the right to work and to be educated; the right to food and housing; and the right to take part in government.

These rights are legally binding by virtue of two International Covenants, to which most States are parties. One Covenant deals with economic, social and cultural rights and the other with civil and political rights. Together with the Declaration, they constitute the International Bill of Human Rights.

The Declaration laid the groundwork for more than 80 conventions and declarations on human rights, including the two International Covenants; conventions to eliminate racial discrimination and discrimination against women; conventions on the rights of the child, against torture and other degrading treatment of punishment, the status of refugees and the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide; and declarations on the rights of persons belonging to national, ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities, the right to development, and the rights of human rights defenders.

International law;

The UN Charter specifically calls on the United Nations to undertake the progressive codification and development of international law. The over 500 conventions, treaties and standards resulting from this work have provided a framework for promoting international peace and security and economic and social development. States that ratify these conventions are legally bound by them.

The International Law Commission prepares drafts on topics of international law which can then be incorporated into conventions and opened for ratification by States. Some of these conventions form the basis for law governing relations among States, such as the convention on diplomatic relations or the convention regulating the use of international watercourses.

The UN Commission on International Trade Law develops rules and guidelines designed to harmonize and facilitate laws regulating international trade. The UN has also pioneered the development of international environmental law. Agreements such as the convention to combat desertification, the convention on the ozone layer, and the convention on the transborder movement of hazardous wastes are administered by the UN Environment Programme.

The Convention on the Law of the Sea seeks to ensure equitable access by all countries to the riches of the oceans, protect them from pollution and facilitate freedom of navigation and research. The Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs is the key international treaty against drug trafficking.

The United Nations remains at the centre of international efforts to create a legal framework against terrorism. Twelve global conventions on the issue have been negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations, including the 1979 Convention against the Taking of Hostages, the 1997 Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, and the 1999 Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, and work is in progress on a comprehensive anti-terrorism treaty.

In 2001, following the 11 September terrorist attacks in the United States, the Security Council adopted a wide-ranging anti-terrorist resolution, under the enforcement provisions of the UN Charter. It included provisions to prevent the financing of terrorism, criminalize the collection of funds for such purposes, and to immediately freeze terrorist financial assets. The Council called on States to accelerate the exchange of information regarding terrorist movements and decided that States should afford one another the greatest measure of assistance for criminal investigations or proceedings relating to terrorist acts.

Ending impunity;

Massive violations of humanitarian law during the fighting in the former Yugoslavia led the Security Council in 1993 to establish an international tribunal to try persons accused of war crimes in that conflict. In 1994, the Council set up a second tribunal to hear cases involving accusations of genocide in Rwanda. The tribunals have found several defendants guilty and sentenced them to prison. The Rwanda Tribunal in 1998 handed down the first-ever verdict by an international court on the crime of genocide, as well as the first-ever sentence for that crime.

A key United Nations goal — an international mechanism to impose accountability in the face of mass violations of human rights — was realized in 1998 when governments agreed to establish an International Criminal Court. The Court will provide a means for punishing perpetrators of genocide and other crimes against humanity. In voting to set up the Court, the international community made it clear that impunity — the assumption that crimes will go unpunished — is no longer possible for those who commit atrocities. The Court will come into being on 1 July 2002.

The UN has also contributed to the elaboration of conventions relating to international humanitarian law, such as the 1948 Convention on Genocide and the 1980 Inhumane Weapons Convention (concerning weapons which are excessively injurious or have indiscriminate effects).

Other action for justice and equal rights;

In 1945, 750 million people lived in non-self-governing territories. Today, that number has been reduced to just over 1 million, in large measure due to the crucial role played by the UN in encouraging the aspirations of dependent peoples and helping speed their independence. Since 1960, when the General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, some 60 former colonial Territories have attained independence and joined the UN as sovereign Members.

A UN-led campaign lasting more than 30 years helped end the system of racial segregation in South Africa known as apartheid. In 1994, a UN observer mission observed that country's first all-race elections.

Since its foundation, the UN has been working to affirm the fundamental equality of all people and to counter racism in all its forms. As decided by the General Assembly, in 2001 a World Conference examined ways to combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and intolerance.

THE SPECIALIZED AGENCIES Of The U.N. ;

Autonomous organizations joined to the UN through special agreements:

ILO (International Labour Organization): Formulates policies and programmes to improve working conditions and employment opportunities, and sets labour standards used by countries around the world.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN): Works to improve agricultural productivity and food security, and to better the living standards of rural populations.

UNESCO (UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization): Promotes education for all, cultural development, protection of the world's natural and cultural heritage, international cooperation in science, press freedom and communication.

WHO (World Health Organization): Coordinates programmes aimed at solving health problems and the attainment by all people of the highest possible level of health. It works in such areas as immunization, health education and the provision of essential drugs.

World Bank Group: Provides loans and technical assistance to developing countries to reduce poverty and advance sustainable economic growth.

IMF (International Monetary Fund):Facilitates international monetary cooperation and financial stability and provides a permanent forum for consultation, advice and assistance on financial issues.

ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization):Sets international standards for the safety, security and efficiency of air transport, and serves as the coordinator for international cooperation in all areas of civil aviation.

UPU (Universal Postal Union):Establishes international regulations for postal services, provides technical assistance and promotes cooperation in postal matters.

ITU (International Telecommunication Union): Fosters international cooperation to improve telecommunications of all kinds, coordinates usage of radio and TV frequencies, promotes safety measures and conducts research.

WMO (World Meteorological Organization): Promotes scientific research on the Earth's atmosphere and on climate change, and facilitates the global exchange of meteorological data.

IMO (International Maritime Organization): Works to improve international shipping procedures, raise standards in marine safety, and reduce marine pollution by ships.

WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization): Promotes international protection of intellectual property and fosters cooperation on copyrights, trademarks, industrial designs and patents.

IFAD (International Fund for Agricultural Development): Mobilizes financial resources to raise food production and nutrition levels among the poor in developing countries.

UNIDO (UN Industrial Development Organization): Promotes the industrial advancement of developing countries through technical assistance, advisory services and training.

IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency): An autonomous intergovernmental organization under the aegis of the UN, it works for the safe and peaceful uses of atomic energy.


So, in conclusion we can see that the U.N. does affect not domestic policy unless a people are in need of it. We see this happen every day in the real world when countries are unable to solve their own domestic problems and it becomes a crisis. As well we see the U.N. as a body does have a wide range of responsibilities that one would think outside the mandate of the U.N.

For the U.N. inside the game to be a fun and realistic experience we must try to keep it real. Stay as close to the real world as we can, because otherwise you might as well be playing Dungeons & Dragons.

With Respect,
Stephanie. U.N. Delegate for Role Play University.

Can we assume in NationStates that the above framework of conventions and agencies is already in place, or do we need to pass individual Resolutions in order to create them one by one?

I didn't post it so much for that purpose. I posted it more because so many people were arguing over what the role of the U.N. was or wasn't suppose to be. I thought by posting the actual role of the real U.N. it might act as a guide to people who seemed confused about it's role. I think we should just take one resolution at a time as it comes to us. The U.N.'s role though is much more then a lot of people seem to think it is. That was the point I was trying to make with this post.

Peace,
Stephanie.

*bump*

Umm, so this is basically the real world UN? Okay.

I think the world needs a global government. The UN needs to evolve into something like that. I'm tired of the xenophobic nationalistic views of the world leaders and of their 'real politiks'. There is only one people.

Umm, so this is basically the real world UN? Okay.

Yes it is. However, not unlike role play within N.S. where it's clearly defined that you can't rage a war on another nation realistically if you have a imploded economy, it's my belief that the U.N. should try to stay as close to "keeping it real" as well.


It just seems that lately there has been a lot of in-fighting as to what the U.N. is suppose to and not suppose to involve it's self in. I just thought by posting this that perhaps every one could have a better understanding of the roles of the U.N. in the real sense of the word.

Peace,
Stephanie.

Maybe we ought to sticky this?

See, here it is. I really do think we ought to sticky it because it was again fast on its way to total oblivion, whilst it might provide a neat basis for proposals and such.

Hmm... The mods never come in here!
I wanted my "How to write a proposal" post stickeyed but no-one came in here!:(

Well, after reading through it, I must say it contains some things completely irrelevant to NS. It specifies UN related or controlled organizations, it contains an explanation on the Human Rights Commission (Committee?) but it doesnt actually hold the Charter.

And even if it would, the Charter divides authority between GA and SC and stuff, and we only have 1 forum. THE UN. So we have to deal with all the issues.
Thus, I recommend adopting the Charter of the UN with the modification that all the authority now flows through our one single forum, whilst keeping in place the obligations and restrictions of the real UN (especially Article 2 (sovereignty) and Article 51 (defence))

Well, after reading through it, I must say it contains some things completely irrelevant to NS. It specifies UN related or controlled organizations, it contains an explanation on the Human Rights Commission (Committee?) but it doesnt actually hold the Charter.

And even if it would, the Charter divides authority between GA and SC and stuff, and we only have 1 forum. THE UN. So we have to deal with all the issues.
Thus, I recommend adopting the Charter of the UN with the modification that all the authority now flows through our one single forum, whilst keeping in place the obligations and restrictions of the real UN (especially Article 2 (sovereignty) and Article 51 (defence))

Like I said, I just wanted to give a general idea of the type of things the U.N. is involved in , in the real world. If I had posted the actual U.N. Charter, this post would of been wayyyyyyyyyyy to long..lol One of the main points I wanted to make was the U.N. does in fact butt into nations sovereignty when they deem it's needed. Or for the benefit of all member nations. Such as The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Peace,
Stephanie.

As a framework for the UN in RL, this document needs to be rethought due to the recent abdication of it's duties and charter. I know it's probably been hashed around a billion times, but let's face it. The UN had a choice in the US led invasion of Iraq. It was the role of the UN to either support or denounce this act. It chose to do neither, effectively announcing their irrellevancy to the world.

The NS UN will never be irrellevant here, and we all know why.

As a framework for the UN in RL, this document needs to be rethought due to the recent abdication of it's duties and charter. I know it's probably been hashed around a billion times, but let's face it. The UN had a choice in the US led invasion of Iraq. It was the role of the UN to either support or denounce this act. It chose to do neither, effectively announcing their irrellevancy to the world.

The NS UN will never be irrellevant here, and we all know why.

Sadly I have to agree with you on this. The U.N. should of used it's backbone to denounce the illegal invasion of Iraq, but did not. I think in part this is because the U.S. has so much power, to much power. If it had been any other country in the world, there would of been resolution after resolution condemning these acts , yet how could they do that? The U.S. had veto power on the S.C. and the U.S. knew they couldn't pass any resolution to condemn their actions. The beat goes on....

Peace,
Stephanie.

Iraq and the US have nothing to do with NS UN and we shouldn't start a debate about it.


Now, WHY won't they let us install at least the first chapter of the Charter of the UN?

Why will the mods delete it?


And, I think we should start to engrave the above 'charter' or mandate into the NS UN archives. By passing it through proposals one portion at a time. We need it to be on the books, not just on the boards.

Iraq and the US have nothing to do with NS UN and we shouldn't start a debate about it.


Now, WHY won't they let us install at least the first chapter of the Charter of the UN?

Why will the mods delete it?


And, I think we should start to engrave the above 'charter' or mandate into the NS UN archives. By passing it through proposals one portion at a time. We need it to be on the books, not just on the boards.

I would agree with this. I think Stephistan has made some very valid points. The N.S. UN should be the same as the real UN. People do seem to be confused on what the actual mandate of the UN is suppose to be. I see that as the real problem.

This thread should be made a sticky!

Queendom of Justices.

I think the world needs a global government. The UN needs to evolve into something like that. I'm tired of the xenophobic nationalistic views of the world leaders and of their 'real politiks'. There is only one people.

Psylos, we have problems governing 270 million people. How do you think we're gonna do with 6 billion? That's 1 thing, and the other thing is, So many wars have been fought to preserve our sovereignties and independences. And we did not vote in a due democratic process to have those rights taken away from us by an unelected global government.

First of all the UN would've wanted nothing better than to 'strongly condemn' the invasion, but if you think for about .3 seconds you would come to the conclusion the United States would immediately veto such a draft, and therefore it would have been absolutely pointless making such a draft.

About the UDHR butting into sovereignty, the UDHR is a guideline, not a law. Countries don't HAVE to abide by it. True, everyone will get pissed off if you kill people and stuff, but they can't just go and punish you based on the UDHR. Only the SC has power to directly interfere.

I think the world needs a global government. The UN needs to evolve into something like that. I'm tired of the xenophobic nationalistic views of the world leaders and of their 'real politiks'. There is only one people.

Tell me you don't believe that yourself! There is only one people? Are you blind? Has it not occured to you that about every country has its own culture? Thus, there are at least 200 cultures, which means some 200 peoples? Secondly, a world government would be EXTREMELY bureaucratic, and inevitably corrupt. Furthermore, idealogical differences are at this stage far too great to accomplish what you want, so for your idea to succeed the world would have to become a homogenic mold. :?
Please tell me that is absolutely not what you want this world to lead to!

I think the world needs a global government. The UN needs to evolve into something like that. I'm tired of the xenophobic nationalistic views of the world leaders and of their 'real politiks'. There is only one people.

Ignore him guys. We (as Amercians and Brits) have read too many horror books on the subject to ever vote for it.

Either he is trying to get a rise out of us, or he doesn't know what he is talking about.

No, either way, he doesn't deserve our attention. Just ignore him, we know better.


~Korunida~

I think the world needs a global government. The UN needs to evolve into something like that. I'm tired of the xenophobic nationalistic views of the world leaders and of their 'real politiks'. There is only one people.

According to some conspiracy-theory buffs, we already live in a one-world government, what with the state the United Nations is in.

But such an entity would be so prone to corruption and tyrannical rule that all freedoms and rights that we take for granted would be eliminated.

I do not want to see Hitler's dreams realized, thank you very much.

*Calls for a sticky!!!!* I think I'll go talk to the moderator... *gets cold feet*

The difference between NS UN and the real UN is that nations have the power to veto, thus resolutions must be a comprimise before being submitted to the real UN. It this game however there is no right to Veto.

Maybe if there was a rule that if 34% of nations vote against the resolution that could count as a veto and then a comprimise will have to be submitted instead, we could keep a lot more UN nations happy.

(i'm guessing most of you think this idea sucks but i like the idea)

The difference between NS UN and the real UN is that nations have the power to veto, thus resolutions must be a comprimise before being submitted to the real UN. It this game however there is no right to Veto.

Maybe if there was a rule that if 34% of nations vote against the resolution that could count as a veto and then a comprimise will have to be submitted instead, we could keep a lot more UN nations happy.

(i'm guessing most of you think this idea sucks but i like the idea)

yeah, i'll second that

While that may or may not be a good idea, I haven't really given it much thought, it is not some thing that is likely to happen. I find it interesting that no matter how many times people are told that there will be no changes to Nation States 1 , people still seem to keep suggesting them.

Maybe when and if Max Barry goes ahead with Nation States 2, the paid version. They would make these changes. I certainly know that I for one would have no problem paying a few dollars a month to play a more advanced, in-depth game. However, as long as we are playing Nation States 1, we shouldn't expect any changes to the game. Nor can you really propose them @ the U.N. If you read the FAQ it clearly states that such proposals are not acceptable.

Peace,
Stephanie.

I'm not going to pay for Nationstates 2.

1) As a minor, I don't have a credit card.
2) I don't pay for things over the Internet usualy anyways.

Yeah! It got stickied!

*ahem*

Does anyoe know how much Nationstates 2 will cost? I might be able to persuade my parents, but like Global I'm a minor and have to get my parents' credit card.

My dad says he might let me, and I really want to see how they portray the NS UN and what perks it will have, however I have to know the cost before I present the issue to my parents. So anyways, does someone have a clue?

~Korunida~

The United Nations is not a world government and does not make laws.

That is the principle fact that ought to be emphasized.

The failing of the proposal process here is that participants have no real grasp of that fact.

In the real world, UN resolutions are aspirational only, except for Security Council resolutions. That is because the Security Council has the authority to enforce its resolutions. No other body in the UN has that authority.

Also, in the real world, only the five permanent members of the Security Council have veto power, and only within the security council. Those five members cannot veto a resolution in the General Assembly.

FYI - those five members are China, France, Russia, UK, US. Why? Because they were the victors of WWII.

In the real world, UN resolutions are aspirational only, except for Security Council resolutions. That is because the Security Council has the authority to enforce its resolutions. No other body in the UN has that authority.

Also, in the real world, only the five permanent members of the Security Council have veto power, and only within the security council. Those five members cannot veto a resolution in the General Assembly.

FYI - those five members are China, France, Russia, UK, US. Why? Because they were the victors of WWII.

There were more countries then that who won the war, the reason the 5 are these countries is because of the power of that country. The U.N. was actually made up originally of 51 countries. It was an united effort between those countries.

China, France, Russia, UK, US. simply had the most power. They certainly didn't win the war on their own, but we already knew that ;)

Peace,
Stephanie.

The United Nations is not a world government and does not make laws.

That is the principle fact that ought to be emphasized.

The failing of the proposal process here is that participants have no real grasp of that fact.

While the U.N. it's self doesn't make laws, there are laws made at the U.N. This is what is known as "International Law" Such international laws have been passed on human rights , trade and many others. The U.N. facilitates many countries to "get together" and pass into law, treaties and conventions. Once those countries are signatory to these treaties, etc. they are in fact law and legally binding. So, while the U.N. doesn't actually have a government that legislates law, laws are indeed past all the time at the U.N.

So, when we here at N.S. U.N. pass resolutions it is in many ways no different then those such laws, because we are becoming signatory to these treaties, etc.

Just to clarify.

Peace,
Stephanie.

The United Nations is not a world government and does not make laws.

That is the principle fact that ought to be emphasized.

The failing of the proposal process here is that participants have no real grasp of that fact.

While the U.N. it's self doesn't make laws, there are laws made at the U.N. This is what is known as "International Law" Such international laws have been passed on human rights , trade and many others. The U.N. facilitates many countries to "get together" and pass into law, treaties and conventions. Once those countries are signatory to these treaties, etc. they are in fact law and legally binding. So, while the U.N. doesn't actually have a government that legislates law, laws are indeed past all the time at the U.N.

So, when we here at N.S. U.N. pass resolutions it is in many ways no different then those such laws, because we are becoming signatory to these treaties, etc.

Just to clarify.


You have no idea of what you are talking about.

No law whatever, international or otherwise is made "at the UN."

Rather the UN and is many subcommittees and commissions facilitates the debate and provides a forum for discussion of treaties which are effective only when and apply only to those countries which are signatories thereto.

The difference here is that the Resolutions being passed by the NS UN are supposed to be binding EVEN ON THOSE WHO DO NOT CHOOSE TO BE BOUND.

This is impossible in the real world and utterly alien to the principles of International law. The first and the single most important principle of which, the principle that is more important than every other rule combined, is the absolute, unquestionable sovereignty of Nations.

The United Nations is not a world government and does not make laws.

That is the principle fact that ought to be emphasized.

The failing of the proposal process here is that participants have no real grasp of that fact.

While the U.N. it's self doesn't make laws, there are laws made at the U.N. This is what is known as "International Law" Such international laws have been passed on human rights , trade and many others. The U.N. facilitates many countries to "get together" and pass into law, treaties and conventions. Once those countries are signatory to these treaties, etc. they are in fact law and legally binding. So, while the U.N. doesn't actually have a government that legislates law, laws are indeed past all the time at the U.N.

So, when we here at N.S. U.N. pass resolutions it is in many ways no different then those such laws, because we are becoming signatory to these treaties, etc.

Just to clarify.


You have no idea of what you are talking about.

No law whatever, international or otherwise is made "at the UN."

Rather the UN and is many subcommittees and commissions facilitates the debate and provides a forum for discussion of treaties which are effective only when and apply only to those countries which are signatories thereto.

The difference here is that the Resolutions being passed by the NS UN are supposed to be binding EVEN ON THOSE WHO DO NOT CHOOSE TO BE BOUND.

This is impossible in the real world and utterly alien to the principles of International law. The first and the single most important principle of which, the principle that is more important than every other rule combined, is the absolute, unquestionable sovereignty of Nations.

I think you have things a little mixed up, while not completely wrong. No, the U.N. has no government and therefore does not pass laws. Resolutions are past at the U.N. general assembly and the countries that sign these resolutions are legally bound by them.

However, there are some cases where international law DOES apply to non signatory countries. Or they are simply isolated from the rest of the world. Excluded if you will. There are also international laws passed at the U.N. that even non signatory countries are bound to.

Two good cases of international law that you don't have to be signatory to but are still bound to, would be the Geneva Conventions which were written at the U.N. in Geneva. Or most recently the ICC (International Criminal Court)

I think we are all aware that the N.S. U.N. is not the sister branch of the real U.N. , I said it was in "many ways no different", Not in ALL ways.

So, with all due respect, before you start telling me I don't know what I'm talking about, perhaps you should make sure you know what you're talking about.

Peace,
Stephanie.

Two good cases of international law that you don't have to be signatory to but are still bound to, would be the Geneva Conventions which were written at the U.N. in Geneva. Or most recently the ICC (International Criminal Court)


Its a neat trick for the Geneva conventions to have been written "at the UN" when they were written in 1929, some forty years prior to the creation of the UN. Subsequent revisions have been made by international conventions which met at Geneva but the original Treaty is not of UN origins.

Furthermore, the language of the convention clearly makes it an obligation of the contracting parties ONLY. I direct your attention to Article 138 which states:

The present Convention shall come into force six months after not less than two instruments of ratification have been deposited.

Thereafter, it shall come into force for each High Contracting Party six months after the deposit of the instrument of ratification.


Notice also that Article 142 states:

Each of the High Contracting Parties shall be at liberty to denounce the present Convention.


It is passing odd to suggest that parties can be involuntarily bound to a convention which by its own terms does not apply to a particular nation until ratified by that nation and which also contains a specific section permitting any ratifying Nation to withdraw.

The same sort of facts concerning accession apply to the ICC.

It is because you make absurd statements like the ones you have made concerning the Geneva Convention that I conclude that you don't know what you are talking about.

The United Nations is not a world government and does not make laws.

That is the principle fact that ought to be emphasized.

The failing of the proposal process here is that participants have no real grasp of that fact.

While the U.N. it's self doesn't make laws, there are laws made at the U.N. This is what is known as "International Law" Such international laws have been passed on human rights , trade and many others. The U.N. facilitates many countries to "get together" and pass into law, treaties and conventions. Once those countries are signatory to these treaties, etc. they are in fact law and legally binding. So, while the U.N. doesn't actually have a government that legislates law, laws are indeed past all the time at the U.N.

So, when we here at N.S. U.N. pass resolutions it is in many ways no different then those such laws, because we are becoming signatory to these treaties, etc.

Just to clarify.


You have no idea of what you are talking about.

No law whatever, international or otherwise is made "at the UN."

Rather the UN and is many subcommittees and commissions facilitates the debate and provides a forum for discussion of treaties which are effective only when and apply only to those countries which are signatories thereto.

The difference here is that the Resolutions being passed by the NS UN are supposed to be binding EVEN ON THOSE WHO DO NOT CHOOSE TO BE BOUND.

This is impossible in the real world and utterly alien to the principles of International law. The first and the single most important principle of which, the principle that is more important than every other rule combined, is the absolute, unquestionable sovereignty of Nations.

I think you have things a little mixed up, while not completely wrong. No, the U.N. has no government and therefore does not pass laws. Resolutions are past at the U.N. general assembly and the countries that sign these resolutions are legally bound by them.

However, there are some cases where international law DOES apply to non signatory countries. Or they are simply isolated from the rest of the world. Excluded if you will. There are also international laws passed at the U.N. that even non signatory countries are bound to.

Two good cases of international law that you don't have to be signatory to but are still bound to, would be the Geneva Conventions which were written at the U.N. in Geneva. Or most recently the ICC (International Criminal Court)

I think we are all aware that the N.S. U.N. is not the sister branch of the real U.N. , I said it was in "many ways no different", Not in ALL ways.

So, with all due respect, before you start telling me I don't know what I'm talking about, perhaps you should make sure you know what you're talking about.

Peace,
Stephanie.

In the NS UN, resolutions clearly are binding on all members.

The UN is the world's governing body. It proposes and votes on resolutions, which are then binding on all member nations. In other words, it's a hot-bed of political intrigue and double-dealing.

<snip>

The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest. However, it's a double-edged sword, because your nation will also be affected by any resolutions that pass. (You can't just obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations do.)

<snip>

UN resolutions are a way to bring all member nations into line on a particular issue; be that environmental, democratic, free trade, or whatever. Don't suggest game improvements there. They just clutter up the place. And they make people think, "Hey, yeah, that would be cool! Why doesn't that bum Max Barry get off his ass and do that?" I get e-mails.

Furthermore, the NS UN is clearly intended to serve a legislative function, as evidenced by certain categories of proposals:

A resolution to legalize or outlaw gambling.
A resolution to ban, legalize, or encourage recreational drugs.
A resolution to tighten or relax gun control laws.



Notice also that Article 142 states:

Each of the High Contracting Parties shall be at liberty to denounce the present Convention.


It is passing odd to suggest that parties can be involuntarily bound to a convention which by its own terms does not apply to a particular nation until ratified by that nation and which also contains a specific section permitting any ratifying Nation to withdraw.

The FAQ contradicts this statement.

Lord Goobergunch, Goobergunchian President
DU Regional Delegate

Two good cases of international law that you don't have to be signatory to but are still bound to, would be the Geneva Conventions which were written at the U.N. in Geneva. Or most recently the ICC (International Criminal Court)


Its a neat trick for the Geneva conventions to have been written "at the UN" when they were written in 1929, some forty years prior to the creation of the UN. Subsequent revisions have been made by international conventions which met at Geneva but the original Treaty is not of UN origins.

Furthermore, the language of the convention clearly makes it an obligation of the contracting parties ONLY. I direct your attention to Article 138 which states:

The present Convention shall come into force six months after not less than two instruments of ratification have been deposited.

Thereafter, it shall come into force for each High Contracting Party six months after the deposit of the instrument of ratification.


Notice also that Article 142 states:

Each of the High Contracting Parties shall be at liberty to denounce the present Convention.


It is passing odd to suggest that parties can be involuntarily bound to a convention which by its own terms does not apply to a particular nation until ratified by that nation and which also contains a specific section permitting any ratifying Nation to withdraw.

The same sort of facts concerning accession apply to the ICC.

It is because you make absurd statements like the ones you have made concerning the Geneva Convention that I conclude that you don't know what you are talking about.

Are you going to try to tell me that no amendments were made to the Geneva Conventions after 1929? Be careful how you answer this one! 8)

A little history lesson for you; The Geneva Conventions have been around a lot longer then 1929!!!

Rome Statute

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was adopted on 17th July 1998 at the end of a diplomatic conference of plenipotentiaries organised by the United Nations.

Of course, the International Criminal Court has a very long history. It is generally agreed that the first ad hoc International Criminal Court sat in 1474 to judge Peter Von Hagenbach on crimes committed during the siege of the town of Breisach. The idea of an International Criminal Court was revived in the 19th century by Gustave Moynier to judge violations of the Geneva Convention of 1864.

After the failure of the attempts to establish an International Tribunal after the First World War, the Tribunals of Nuremberg and Tokyo effectively functioned as such after the Second World War and convicted several dozen people, thus laying the foundations for international criminal justice.

The ad hoc Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, which have now been operating for nearly ten years, have shown the usefulness and the need for international criminal justice. In so doing, they have paved the way for the creation of a permanent Court.

In 1989, Trinidad and Tobago proposed to the United Nations the creation of a permanent International Criminal Court to bring prosecutions for drug trafficking.

But it was in 1995 that the negotiations on The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court began at the United Nations, based on a draft statute prepared and then adopted by the International Law Commission in July 1994. At the initiative of the United Nations' General Assembly, an ad hoc committee sat twice in 1995 in New York at United Nations Headquarters to debate the draft statute by the International Law Commission. At the end of 1995, the United Nations' General Assembly decided to create a Preparatory Committee to work out a draft Statute to be submitted to a diplomatic conference. This Preparatory Committee then met twice in 1996, three times in 1997, then one last time in March/April 1998 to finalise a draft Statute. All the Member States of the Nations took part in these negotiations and tabled numerous proposals.

The Statute was finally adopted in Rome in July 1998. It comprises thirteen parts and is particularly detailed.

Part I concerns the setting up of the Court and in particular provides for the Court to be a permanent body which, independent of the United Nations, is bound to it by an Agreement which must be concluded by the Court’s Presiding Judge. This Agreement was approved by the Assembly of States Parties to the Statute of Rome in September 2002. This part also provides for the Court to be based at The Hague in the Netherlands, but that it can sit elsewhere if it considers this desirable.

Part II of the Statute relates to the competence of the Court, which is restricted to the gravest crimes affecting the entire international community, in other words, genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The Court is only competent in respect of crimes committed after its Statute came into effect, that is, 1st July 2002. Cases may be submitted to it either by the Security Council, or by a State Party, or by the ex-officio Prosecutor, acting on the basis of information received in particular from victims, NGOs or other sources it considers appropriate. When cases are submitted to the Court either by a State Party or by the Prosecutor acting in an ex-officio capacity, it may only exercise its competence when the State on whose territory the crimes took place or the State of which the person accused of the crime is a citizen have either ratified the Statute or accepted the Court’s competence by means of a declaration filed with the Court Registrar. Without doubt, the most important principle of the Statute of Rome is that the Court complements national jurisdictions and that it may only exercise its jurisdiction if the States concerned are unable or unwilling to prosecute the perpetrators of crimes which fall within the competence of the Court.

Part III concerns the general principles of criminal law and provides for the criminal responsibility of individuals, and the criminal responsibility of States or of legal entities (associations, companies) excluded from the Court’s competence. It should also be clearly stated that the Court is only competent in regard to people aged over 18 at the time of the acts. The position of a Head of State or Head of Government or any other official position does not prevent the Court from exercising its competence in regard to that person.

Statutory limitations do not apply to the crimes falling within the competence of the Court and the Statute lastly provides for the responsibility of military chiefs and civilian superiors in respect of crimes committed by their subordinates when, knowing about these crimes, they did not take the necessary measures to prevent them from being carried out or to quell them.

Part IV concerns the composition and administration of the Court and provides for the Court to be comprised of 18 Judges, one Prosecutor and one Court Registrar. The Judges and Prosecutor are elected by the Assembly of States Parties, whereas the Court Registrar is elected by the Judges. The organs of the Court are the Presidency consisting of the President and the First and Second Vice-Presidents, the Appeals Court, the Trials Court and the Pre-Trial Chamber, the Prosecutor's Office and the Registry. The working languages of the Court are English and French. The official languages are English, Arabic, Chinese, Spanish, French and Russian.

Part V concerns investigations and prosecutions, and provides for the opening of investigations to be the responsibility of the Prosecutor under the control of the Pre-Trial Chamber comprised of one or three judges, depending on the functions involved. The Prosecutor must conduct pre-trial hearings of witnesses for both the prosecution and the defence. The Pre-Trial Chamber alone is responsible for issuing arrest warrants and summonses to appear before the Court. The investigations and prosecutions phase ends with a confirmation hearing of the charges before the Pre-Trial Chamber, which must decide whether or not to confirm the charges and transfer the defendant to the Trial Court.

Part VI concerns the trial, which is conducted before a Trial Court made up of three Judges. The trial may not take place in the absence of the accused, as proceedings in absentia are not viable before the International Criminal Court. The rights of the accused and the victims are read out in detail: the accused is, in particular, entitled to the free assistance of a defence lawyer if he is unable to pay for one and victims are entitled to make submissions and to be represented by counsel. The Victim and Witness Support Division is responsible, within the Registry, for providing support and assistance for the witnesses and victims who appear before the Court. The decision regarding guilt is taken by a majority of the judges. For the first time in the history of international criminal justice, the International Criminal Court has the authority to grant compensation to victims, which can include restitution, indemnification or rehabilitation.

Part VII concerns the enforceable penalties. As the death penalty is excluded, life imprisonment is the highest penalty which may be handed down. The Court may add a fine to this prison sentence as well as the confiscation of profits, property or assets directly or indirectly gained from the crime committed. The Court may order that the proceeds from these fines and confiscations be paid into a Fund for the benefit of victims and their families which was created by the Assembly of States Parties in September 2002 as provided for in the Rome Statute.

Part VIII concerns appeal and review. Appeals are brought before the Court of Appeal, consisting of five Judges. A person pronounced guilty may submit an appeal before the Court of Appeal to review a decision concerning a final sentence, particularly if a new fact comes to light. Finally, there is provision that the Court may compensate people arrested or sentenced and subsequently pronounced innocent.

Part IX concerns international co-operation and legal assistance and provides that the States Parties must co-operate fully with the Court, especially with regard to handing over people prosecuted by the Tribunal or seeking items of evidence. In order to comply with this, in their national legislation the States Parties must provide for procedures enabling these forms of co-operation to be set up. The Court may also request the co-operation on an ad hoc basis of States which are not parties to the Statute, or the co-operation of inter-governmental organisations.

Part X concerns execution of the penalties and confiscation measures and provides for the prison sentences to be carried out in a State appointed by the Court from the list of States that have stated they are willing to accept those who are convicted. The Court alone is empowered to decide to reduce a sentence and it must re-examine this sentence to determine whether there is reason to reduce it when the person has served two-thirds of his sentence or, in the case of life imprisonment, when that person has already served 25 years' imprisonment. The Court may not re-examine a sentence before these terms.

Part XI concerns the Assembly of States Parties, which is composed of one representative per State Party. Each State Party has one vote. The other States which have either signed the Statute or signed the Final Act of the Rome Diplomatic Conference may sit on the Assembly as observers. This Assembly is responsible for electing the Judges and Prosecutor, adopting the Court’s budget and of deciding, if necessary, to increase the number of Judges. The Assembly of States Parties also plays an important legislative role, since it is responsible for adopting the Court’s rules of procedure and evidence as well as the Elements of Crimes. The Assembly meets at least once a year. The Assembly has its own Office, consisting of a President, two vice-presidents and 18 members.

Part XII concerns financing and provides for the Court’s costs to be funded by compulsory contributions by the States Parties and, subject to approval by the General Assembly, by financial resources provided by the United Nations, especially in regard to costs associated with the submission of a case to the Court by the Security Council. The contributions by the States Parties are calculated according to a scale of shares based on the United Nations' scale for its ordinary budget. The Court can also accept voluntary contributions from Governments, international organisations, private individuals, companies or other entities.

Part XIII concerns the final clauses and provides that the General Secretary of the United Nations shall convene a conference to review the Statute seven years after it comes into force, that is, in 2009. The Court’s Statute allows no reservations. Finally, article 126 provides for the Statute to come into force after the submission of sixty instruments of ratification. Accordingly, the Rome Statute came into force on 1st July 2002. On 25th February 2003, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was ratified by 89 States from all continents.

I figured I'd give you a break, so you don't look any more foolish then you already do.

Geneva Conventions.

http://www.facts.com/icof/geneva.htm

If you have any trouble understanding this, let me know, I'll be happy to explain it to you.

With Respect,
Stephanie.

FYI - those five members are China, France, Russia, UK, US. Why? Because they were the victors of WWII.

There were more countries then that who won the war, the reason the 5 are these countries is because of the power of that country. The U.N. was actually made up originally of 51 countries. It was an united effort between those countries.

China, France, Russia, UK, US. simply had the most power. They certainly didn't win the war on their own, but we already knew that ;) Peace, Stephanie.
We think Syrinx Priests just about has it right.

The RL United Nations was to a great extent a body of the victors of WW II. The “Allies” in that war actually referred to themselves, in the course of the war as “the United Nations” – not that I hold that up as any proof.

The story is there, I believe, in the history books. Just be aware that the gloss one sometimes receives in school texts etc. is often a grossly simplified and often skewed version of things.

The five nations of the Security Council were there as allies, as the victorious nations. France, Britain and the Soviet Union were, to a great extent, decimated by the war. China was a “third world” country ravaged by a brutal occupation and still in the throes of a 25 year civil war. The founding conference was specifically limited to states which had declared war on Germany or Japan by March 1, 1945.

This is not to belittle the UN, one of, we believe, the signal achievements of the species, however hobbled it has been -- and still remains. The UN charter (and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) went beyond a “council of victors,” speaking to and reflecting the highest of human aspirations.



We’d also like to remind folks that the UN as originally envisioned was intended to possess regular military capability, not merely the ad hoc “volunteer” peace keeping forces it now rather weakly deploys. That intention was thwarted by the USSR, fearful, one presumes of it functioning as the military wing of an anti-communist alliance…

“The charter had envisaged a regular military force available to the Security Council and directed the creation of the Military Staff Committee to make appropriate plans. The committee—consisting of the chiefs of staff (or their deputies) of the Big Five—was unable to reach agreement, with the USSR and the other four states on opposing sides; thus no regular forces were established.”

(see http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0861704.html and/or Article 47 of the UN Charter)


Yours for Peace and Justice,
Armed Love

PS: Don't feel besieged, Stephistan. We applaud and support your work.

FYI - those five members are China, France, Russia, UK, US. Why? Because they were the victors of WWII.

There were more countries then that who won the war, the reason the 5 are these countries is because of the power of that country. The U.N. was actually made up originally of 51 countries. It was an united effort between those countries.

China, France, Russia, UK, US. simply had the most power. They certainly didn't win the war on their own, but we already knew that ;) Peace, Stephanie.
We think Syrinx Priests just about has it right.

The RL United Nations was to a great extent a body of the victors of WW II. The “Allies” in that war actually referred to themselves, in the course of the war as “the United Nations” – not that I hold that up as any proof.

The story is there, I believe, in the history books. Just be aware that the gloss one sometimes receives in school texts etc. is often a grossly simplified and often skewed version of things.

The five nations of the Security Council were there as allies, as the victorious nations. France, Britain and the Soviet Union were, to a great extent, decimated by the war. China was a “third world” country ravaged by a brutal occupation and still in the throes of a 25 year civil war. The founding conference was specifically limited to states which had declared war on Germany or Japan by March 1, 1945.

This is not to belittle the UN, one of, we believe, the signal achievements of the species, however hobbled it has been -- and still remains. The UN charter (and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) went beyond a “council of victors,” speaking to and reflecting the highest of human aspirations.



We’d also like to remind folks that the UN as originally envisioned was intended to possess regular military capability, not merely the ad hoc “volunteer” peace keeping forces it now rather weakly deploys. That intention was thwarted by the USSR, fearful, one presumes of it functioning as the military wing of an anti-communist alliance…

“The charter had envisaged a regular military force available to the Security Council and directed the creation of the Military Staff Committee to make appropriate plans. The committee—consisting of the chiefs of staff (or their deputies) of the Big Five—was unable to reach agreement, with the USSR and the other four states on opposing sides; thus no regular forces were established.”

(see http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0861704.html and/or Article 47 of the UN Charter)


Yours for Peace and Justice,
Armed Love

PS: Don't feel besieged, Stephistan. We applaud and support your work.

I suppose as a proud Canadian who knows Canadian history, knowing we were in the war from the get go, and knowing we helped formed the U.N. as well. Knowing we were also the "victors" of WWII it's often very frustrating to never hear Canada mentioned. Given at the time Canada had the best trained army in the world, while not as large in number as the more populated countries. It has only been after WWII that Canada has moved into oblivion as far as having an army goes. However, one could almost say, it wasn't until after the Korean war. Canada single handedly freed Holland, that is why Canadian history is required history in Holland, we also were there on D-day. Perhaps we are not seen (rightfully so) as the top 5 powers in the world. But to say Canada played no part in winning WWI or WWII is simply not true and insulting to this Canadian. Also, Canada was not the only other country that was not the powerful 5 who did the same thing.

I think that was more where I was going with it. Thank you for your support as well. :)

Peace,
Stephanie.

I figured I'd give you a break, so you don't look any more foolish then you already do.


I suggest you refer to your own quote to notice who is looking foolish.

My specific point is that the real world UN does not make "laws" of general applicability and that both the Geneva convention and the ICC have no authority that is not conferred by the accession of individual states. No action by the General Assembly can create a "law" which applies generally to all nations without the consent of each individual nations. International Law is not created by majority vote in a legislative body as is domestic law.

At the same time that you purport to deny this you offer a quote (did you even bother to read it) which notes that individual nations must confer jurisdiction of the court to be able to exercise jurisdiction over its citizens. I refer you to your own little text copying exercise.

When cases are submitted to the Court either by a State Party or by the Prosecutor acting in an ex-officio capacity, it may only exercise its competence when the State on whose territory the crimes took place or the State of which the person accused of the crime is a citizen have either ratified the Statute or accepted the Court’s competence by means of a declaration filed with the Court Registrar.

Clearly, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Perhaps if your knowledge of International law extended beyond copying chunks of text from websites and involved some actual education or experience in the practice of International Law you'd understand.

I figured I'd give you a break, so you don't look any more foolish then you already do.


I suggest you refer to your own quote to notice who is looking foolish.

My specific point is that the real world UN does not make "laws" of general applicability and that both the Geneva convention and the ICC have no authority that is not conferred by the accession of individual states. No action by the General Assembly can create a "law" which applies generally to all nations without the consent of each individual nations. International Law is not created by majority vote in a legislative body as is domestic law.

At the same time that you purport to deny this you offer a quote (did you even bother to read it) which notes that individual nations must confer jurisdiction of the court to be able to exercise jurisdiction over its citizens. I refer you to your own little text copying exercise.

When cases are submitted to the Court either by a State Party or by the Prosecutor acting in an ex-officio capacity, it may only exercise its competence when the State on whose territory the crimes took place or the State of which the person accused of the crime is a citizen have either ratified the Statute or accepted the Court’s competence by means of a declaration filed with the Court Registrar.

Clearly, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Perhaps if your knowledge of International law extended beyond copying chunks of text from websites and involved some actual education or experience in the practice of International Law you'd understand.

Now, now, no back peddling Dragongate! That is not entirely what you were saying at all.

But again, you're incorrect. Do you even bother to read the material I provide for you?

Here we go again


The U.N., which was founded in 1945 from the ashes of World War II, took the lead in the late 1940s in defining war crimes and trying to establish guidelines designed to prevent such horrors in the future. In December 1948, the U.N. General Assembly passed a resolution called the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The resolution was one of the so-called Geneva conventions, named after the Swiss city where they were signed.

In the 1948 convention, genocide was defined as certain acts "committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such." Article 1 of the convention stated, "The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish." Article 3 read in part, "The following acts shall be punishable: genocide; conspiracy to commit genocide; direct and public incitement to commit genocide; attempt to commit genocide; complicity in genocide." The list of punishable crimes was derived directly from the Nuremberg prosecutors' charges.

The Fourth Geneva Convention, agreed to by the General Assembly in 1949, also dealt with war crimes. Known formally as the Convention on the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, it required U.N. nations to enact laws that made it illegal to commit or order others to commit "grave breaches" of the Convention, and to actively seek to bring such offenders to trial. The grave breaches, which constitute the heart of the contemporary definition and understanding of war crimes, include various acts committed against protected persons and property, including "willful killing, torture or inhumane treatment . . . willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person."

Also, about the ICC,

The Court may exercise its jurisdiction over a specific case when either the State in whose territory the crime was committed, or the State of the nationality of the accused, is a party to the Statute. Non-party States may also accept the Court's jurisdiction on a case-by-case basis. The Court will also have jurisdiction over cases referred to it by the Security Council whether or not the State concerned is a party to the Statute

The work of the Security Council and the International Criminal Court will complement each other. The Court's Statute recognizes the role of the Security Council in the maintenance of international peace and security under the UN Charter by accepting that the Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, may refer a "situation" to the Court when one or more of the crimes covered by the Statute appears to have been committed. This would provide a basis for the Prosecutor to initiate an investigation.

Since the referral of a situation by the Security Council is based on its competence under Chapter VII which is binding and legally enforceable in all States, the exercise of the Court's jurisdiction becomes part of the enforcement measures. It's jurisdiction becomes binding even when neither the State in whose territory crimes have been committed nor the State of nationality of the accused is a party. In those instances, the International Criminal Court, through investigation and prosecution, helps the Security Council in maintaining peace. This jurisdiction, resulting from a Security Council referral, enhances the role of the Court in enforcing international criminal law. At the same time, the Court's jurisdiction is expanded to cover even non-party States, in these instances.


Now, as for your insults, since you brought it up, if you'd like to compare education, I'm working on my Ph.D in Political Science I have a minor in history and I work in the reseach department of the University... and you?

Peace,
Stephanie.

Now, as for your insults, since you brought it up, if you'd like to compare education, I'm working on my Ph.D in Political Science I have a minor in history and I work in the reseach (sic) department of the University... and you?


Me? Well, lets see, among other things, a law degree (one of three graduate degrees) and twenty years as senior partner in a law firm specializing in, among other things, international law.

Prior to that I worked in government relations for a Fortune 500 corporation, handling deals with Spain, Greece, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Australia with an aggregate value in excess of 10 billion dollars.

Having retired from profit making activities I now serve as National Legal Director and Board member for an organization concerned with Immigrant Rights and am an accredited NGO delegate to the UN Economic and Social Commission in Geneva.

Now, as for your insults, since you brought it up, if you'd like to compare education, I'm working on my Ph.D in Political Science I have a minor in history and I work in the reseach (sic) department of the University... and you?


Me? Well, lets see, among other things, a law degree (one of three graduate degrees) and twenty years as senior partner in a law firm specializing in, among other things, international law.

Prior to that I worked in government relations for a Fortune 500 corporation, handling deals with Spain, Greece, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Australia with an aggregate value in excess of 10 billion dollars.

Having retired from profit making activities I now serve as National Legal Director and Board member for an organization concerned with Immigrant Rights and am an accredited NGO delegate to the UN Economic and Social Commission in Geneva.

Very impressive. I won't argue that. :)

However, as you can see, the U.N. and the I.C.C. can both hold countries to conventions in many cases even if not signatory to them. I never said all cases. Like any thing, you as a lawyer know, law is always subject to interpretation, international law is no exception.

I recall the big argument over the U.S. refusing to sign on to the I.C.C. and the debate that ensued over would they still be bound by it, should they fall under what would be the jurisdiction of the I.C.C. , from all that I have read, yes they would be if deemed appropriate. The only problem they for seen was that the U.S. would not hand over the "criminal" however, if captured in another country that was signatory to the statute, they would indeed face the I.C.C.

I suppose it's a fine line we are debating, perhaps neither of us wrong, just looking at it from different scenarios and different possible situations as well as angles.

Law as we all know is usually an adversarial process, there are always two sides to the debate. One side argues theirs and in kind their adversary does the same. Nothing is ever a cake walk in law. One can truly believe the law is on their side and be thrown for a complete and total loop by a judge or a higher court. Right or wrong it happens. Of course most local and national laws in countries have precedents they tend to follow, however, new precedents are set every day. Some times it can all come down to whether the judge woke up on the wrong side of the bed. While perhaps a simplistic example, as a lawyer you know exactly what I'm talking about.


Question #1 How come you didn't know the Geneva Conventions were much older then 1929? Or that they had in fact been amended several times over the years, the last few times at the U.N.?

Question #2 Given your background and obvious amazing accomplishments , what on earth do you see in Nation States? (no offence of course to N.S.)

Peace,
Stephanie.

FYI - those five members are China, France, Russia, UK, US. Why? Because they were the victors of WWII.

There were more countries then that who won the war, the reason the 5 are these countries is because of the power of that country. The U.N. was actually made up originally of 51 countries. It was an united effort between those countries.

China, France, Russia, UK, US. simply had the most power. They certainly didn't win the war on their own, but we already knew that ;) Peace, Stephanie.
We think Syrinx Priests just about has it right.

The RL United Nations was to a great extent a body of the victors of WW II. The “Allies” in that war actually referred to themselves, in the course of the war as “the United Nations” – not that I hold that up as any proof.

The story is there, I believe, in the history books. Just be aware that the gloss one sometimes receives in school texts etc. is often a grossly simplified and often skewed version of things.

The five nations of the Security Council were there as allies, as the victorious nations. France, Britain and the Soviet Union were, to a great extent, decimated by the war. China was a “third world” country ravaged by a brutal occupation and still in the throes of a 25 year civil war. The founding conference was specifically limited to states which had declared war on Germany or Japan by March 1, 1945.

This is not to belittle the UN, one of, we believe, the signal achievements of the species, however hobbled it has been -- and still remains. The UN charter (and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) went beyond a “council of victors,” speaking to and reflecting the highest of human aspirations.



We’d also like to remind folks that the UN as originally envisioned was intended to possess regular military capability, not merely the ad hoc “volunteer” peace keeping forces it now rather weakly deploys. That intention was thwarted by the USSR, fearful, one presumes of it functioning as the military wing of an anti-communist alliance…

“The charter had envisaged a regular military force available to the Security Council and directed the creation of the Military Staff Committee to make appropriate plans. The committee—consisting of the chiefs of staff (or their deputies) of the Big Five—was unable to reach agreement, with the USSR and the other four states on opposing sides; thus no regular forces were established.”

(see http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0861704.html and/or Article 47 of the UN Charter)


Yours for Peace and Justice,
Armed Love

PS: Don't feel besieged, Stephistan. We applaud and support your work.

I suppose as a proud Canadian who knows Canadian history, knowing we were in the war from the get go, and knowing we helped formed the U.N. as well. Knowing we were also the "victors" of WWII it's often very frustrating to never hear Canada mentioned. Given at the time Canada had the best trained army in the world, while not as large in number as the more populated countries. It has only been after WWII that Canada has moved into oblivion as far as having an army goes. However, one could almost say, it wasn't until after the Korean war. Canada single handedly freed Holland, that is why Canadian history is required history in Holland, we also were there on D-day. Perhaps we are not seen (rightfully so) as the top 5 powers in the world. But to say Canada played no part in winning WWI or WWII is simply not true and insulting to this Canadian. Also, Canada was not the only other country that was not the powerful 5 who did the same thing.

I think that was more where I was going with it. Thank you for your support as well. :)

Peace,
Stephanie.

canada has a military????

Now, as for your insults, since you brought it up, if you'd like to compare education, I'm working on my Ph.D in Political Science I have a minor in history and I work in the reseach (sic) department of the University... and you?


Me? Well, lets see, among other things, a law degree (one of three graduate degrees) and twenty years as senior partner in a law firm specializing in, among other things, international law.

Prior to that I worked in government relations for a Fortune 500 corporation, handling deals with Spain, Greece, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Australia with an aggregate value in excess of 10 billion dollars.

Having retired from profit making activities I now serve as National Legal Director and Board member for an organization concerned with Immigrant Rights and am an accredited NGO delegate to the UN Economic and Social Commission in Geneva.

Very impressive. I won't argue that. :)

However, as you can see, the U.N. and the I.C.C. can both hold countries to conventions in many cases even if not signatory to them. I never said all cases. Like any thing, you as a lawyer know, law is always subject to interpretation, international law is no exception.

I recall the big argument over the U.S. refusing to sign on to the I.C.C. and the debate that ensued over would they still be bound by it, should they fall under what would be the jurisdiction of the I.C.C. , from all that I have read, yes they would be if deemed appropriate. The only problem they for seen was that the U.S. would not hand over the "criminal" however, if captured in another country that was signatory to the statute, they would indeed face the I.C.C.

I suppose it's a fine line we are debating, perhaps neither of us wrong, just looking at it from different scenarios and different possible situations as well as angles.

Law as we all know is usually an adversarial process, there are always two sides to the debate. One side argues theirs and in kind their adversary does the same. Nothing is ever a cake walk in law. One can truly believe the law is on their side and be thrown for a complete and total loop by a judge or a higher court. Right or wrong it happens. Of course most local and national laws in countries have precedents they tend to follow, however, new precedents are set every day. Some times it can all come down to whether the judge woke up on the wrong side of the bed. While perhaps a simplistic example, as a lawyer you know exactly what I'm talking about.


Question #1 How come you didn't know the Geneva Conventions were much older then 1929? Or that they had in fact been amended several times over the years, the last few times at the U.N.?

Question #2 Given your background and obvious amazing accomplishments , what on earth do you see in Nation States? (no offence of course to N.S.)

Peace,
Stephanie.

1A. The Geneva Convention dates from 1929 with one major modification in 1949 (as I recall). That there were precursors or that it has been amended since does not change the fact that most people refer to the Convention of 1929. The constitution of the United states is derived from many prior documents and has been amended several times. But no one refers to as being a document of the 13th century because it can be somewhat related to Magna Carta.

Nor does the fact hundreds of treaties of greater or lesser importance have arisen from meetings facilitated by the UN or held in buildings used by the UN mean that those treaties are made "at the UN" in the sense that American Federal Law is made "at the congress." A proposal for a treaty may be made by a unanimous vote of the General Assembly and it has absolutely ZERO effect until and unless some one signs it.

The real world UN has no authority whatsoever to make a law and no one can ever be bound by its actions without their consent. (Or, at any rate, no country that means anything).

No one can EVER order the United States to do ANYTHING. Whatever the USA does it does out of sheer magnanimity. It owes nothing to anyone. It does not and ought not to obey anyone other than its own citizens.No one else counts for anything, least of all the UN.

1B. You fail to understand the distinction between the jurisdictional competence of a court like the ICC to arrest an individual for criminal acts committed against the citizens of a country which has itself ceded its power to the ICC and "International Law." If, for example, Rwanda, cedes, by treaty, to the ICC its own power to prosecute an individual who has committed acts within Rwanda then that is not "international Law" per se. If, on the other hand, Rwanda attempted to bring an action against the government of the United States or its leaders in their official capacity, that would be a matter for international law. In the absence of a treaty by which the United States granted such authority to the ICC to hear such a complaint there is no circumstance under which it could be heard.

2. I originally started this game at the suggestion of a friend with the notion that it could be used as a sort of experimental test bed for floating international concepts trial balloons . Unfortunately the participants generally know less than nothing about anything, so that idea is a total bust.

I stay on for the same reason that most people can not avert their eyes from a train wreck. I find the whole series of ideas bandied about here so appalling, so based in utter ignorance and powered by such monumental stupidity that I cannot resist coming back to see what grotesque piece of idiocy has been offered next.

That, and the fact that I tend to be up all night exchanging emails with people in Europe and Asia and following the overseas markets and checking in on NS is a harmless diversion during lulls.

Now, as for your insults, since you brought it up, if you'd like to compare education, I'm working on my Ph.D in Political Science I have a minor in history and I work in the reseach (sic) department of the University... and you?


Me? Well, lets see, among other things, a law degree (one of three graduate degrees) and twenty years as senior partner in a law firm specializing in, among other things, international law.

Prior to that I worked in government relations for a Fortune 500 corporation, handling deals with Spain, Greece, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Australia with an aggregate value in excess of 10 billion dollars.

Having retired from profit making activities I now serve as National Legal Director and Board member for an organization concerned with Immigrant Rights and am an accredited NGO delegate to the UN Economic and Social Commission in Geneva.

Very impressive. I won't argue that. :)

However, as you can see, the U.N. and the I.C.C. can both hold countries to conventions in many cases even if not signatory to them. I never said all cases. Like any thing, you as a lawyer know, law is always subject to interpretation, international law is no exception.

I recall the big argument over the U.S. refusing to sign on to the I.C.C. and the debate that ensued over would they still be bound by it, should they fall under what would be the jurisdiction of the I.C.C. , from all that I have read, yes they would be if deemed appropriate. The only problem they for seen was that the U.S. would not hand over the "criminal" however, if captured in another country that was signatory to the statute, they would indeed face the I.C.C.

I suppose it's a fine line we are debating, perhaps neither of us wrong, just looking at it from different scenarios and different possible situations as well as angles.

Law as we all know is usually an adversarial process, there are always two sides to the debate. One side argues theirs and in kind their adversary does the same. Nothing is ever a cake walk in law. One can truly believe the law is on their side and be thrown for a complete and total loop by a judge or a higher court. Right or wrong it happens. Of course most local and national laws in countries have precedents they tend to follow, however, new precedents are set every day. Some times it can all come down to whether the judge woke up on the wrong side of the bed. While perhaps a simplistic example, as a lawyer you know exactly what I'm talking about.


Question #1 How come you didn't know the Geneva Conventions were much older then 1929? Or that they had in fact been amended several times over the years, the last few times at the U.N.?

Question #2 Given your background and obvious amazing accomplishments , what on earth do you see in Nation States? (no offence of course to N.S.)

Peace,
Stephanie.

1A. The Geneva Convention dates from 1929 with one major modification in 1949 (as I recall). That there were precursors or that it has been amended since does not change the fact that most people refer to the Convention of 1929. The constitution of the United states is derived from many prior documents and has been amended several times. But no one refers to as being a document of the 13th century because it can be somewhat related to Magna Carta.

Nor does the fact hundreds of treaties of greater or lesser importance have arisen from meetings facilitated by the UN or held in buildings used by the UN mean that those treaties are made "at the UN" in the sense that American Federal Law is made "at the congress." A proposal for a treaty may be made by a unanimous vote of the General Assembly and it has absolutely ZERO effect until and unless some one signs it.

The real world UN has no authority whatsoever to make a law and no one can ever be bound by its actions without their consent. (Or, at any rate, no country that means anything).

No one can EVER order the United States to do ANYTHING. Whatever the USA does it does out of sheer magnanimity. It owes nothing to anyone. It does not and ought not to obey anyone other than its own citizens.No one else counts for anything, least of all the UN.

1B. You fail to understand the distinction between the jurisdictional competence of a court like the ICC to arrest an individual for criminal acts committed against the citizens of a country which has itself ceded its power to the ICC and "International Law." If, for example, Rwanda, cedes, by treaty, to the ICC its own power to prosecute an individual who has committed acts within Rwanda then that is not "international Law" per se. If, on the other hand, Rwanda attempted to bring an action against the government of the United States or its leaders in their official capacity, that would be a matter for international law. In the absence of a treaty by which the United States granted such authority to the ICC to hear such a complaint there is no circumstance under which it could be heard.

2. I originally started this game at the suggestion of a friend with the notion that it could be used as a sort of experimental test bed for floating international concepts trial balloons . Unfortunately the participants generally know less than nothing about anything, so that idea is a total bust.

I stay on for the same reason that most people can not avert their eyes from a train wreck. I find the whole series of ideas bandied about here so appalling, so based in utter ignorance and powered by such monumental stupidity that I cannot resist coming back to see what grotesque piece of idiocy has been offered next.

That, and the fact that I tend to be up all night exchanging emails with people in Europe and Asia and following the overseas markets and checking in on NS is a harmless diversion during lulls.

Ok, I see in which direction you're going in here now. Yes, while the U.N. it's self doesn't have a "world government" and can't pass laws under the U.N. name, many international laws are still adopted within the walls of the U.N. and with the facilitation of the U.N. While not in N.S. in the real U.N. governments can be held to S.C. resolutions even when they are not signatory to them. The U.S. is bound by treaties and conventions that they are signatory to as well. The only reason the U.S. has in recent months ignored such laws (I.E. International law, Geneva Conventions) is because there is really no one who can do any thing to stop them from breaking these treaties and conventions to which they are signatory to.

An example would be, had the I.C.C. existed during the Somalia fiasco and Somalia had been able to hold onto the American and some Canadian soldiers who committed criminal acts against the Somalia people for the I.C.C. they would of been bound to stand trial at the I.C.C. even though the U.S. is not signatory to the I.C.C. (which by the way is scandalous in my opinion)

As to the Geneva Conventions, it may be taught in American schools that 1929 is the date that stands out the most, this I don't know and won't claim to. However, I don't see why it would be given the Americans own involvement within the process.

"Convention signed at Geneva August 22, 1864; Ratifications exchanged at Geneva June 22, 1865; Declaration of accession signed by the President of the United States March 1, 1882; Senate advice and consent to accession March 16, 1882; Accession of the United States accepted by Switzerland June 9, 1882; Entered into force June 22, 1865; for the United States June 9, 1882; Proclaimed by the President of the United States July 26, 1882; Superseded by conventions of July 6, 1906,1 July 27, 1929 and August 12, 1949 as between contracting parties to the later conventions in each instance. "

So, I'm not exactly sure why 1929 stands out for you. But I suppose it's as acceptable as 1906 or 1949.

The one clear distinction though was that in 1949 the U.N. had every thing to do with the 1949 date. Which of course was brought on by the Germans and attempted genocide of the Jews.

Of course putting it all into text like this some how takes away from the point and impact of what I'm trying to convey and I surely am not going to spend great lengths of time to draft and re-draft before I post. I write it and post it. However, I do try my best to make sure there are no factual errors. If there was going to be a test later..lol I'm sure I'd put much more time into my argument, it hardly seems worth the effort though, as you yourself have pointed out. :D

Peace,
Stephanie.

I originally started this game at the suggestion of a friend with the notion that it could be used as a sort of experimental test bed for floating international concepts trial balloons. Unfortunately the participants generally know less than nothing about anything, so that idea is a total bust.

I stay on for the same reason that most people can not avert their eyes from a train wreck. I find the whole series of ideas bandied about here so appalling, so based in utter ignorance and powered by such monumental stupidity that I cannot resist coming back to see what grotesque piece of idiocy has been offered next.

Please stick around: "A rising ship lifts all waters."
Indirectly at least, you are contributing to the education of thousands.

(You too Stephistan.)

Mere exposure to this exchange (and the notions and history which it contains) surely has opened a window for many.

Even if they only give the landscape there a passing glance.

:idea:

Your interpretation re: the Somalia "fiasco" is inaccurate, Steph. Clearly you didn't read the charter yourself as clearly as Dragon did. Bluntly put, it specifically mentioned that in order to take effect, both the nation in which the crime was committed AND the nation whose citizen committed the act must be members of the ICC.

And if you're wondering why the Americans aren't interested in the ICC's success, there's a simple reason for that -- it's a blatant violation of the US constitution. And most Americans know to which they actually owe their allegiance.

I further defy you to show me a single instance where the United States ignored the Geneva Convention in the carriage of its war in Iraq or anywhere else. I have seen no deliberate violations of those acts. The detainees at Guanatanamo, for example, which is the thing most people cite as Americans oh-so-hideous violation, are smack in the middle of a loophole that was left in the law on purpose to prevent guerilla fighters from deliberaltely putting their own civilians at risk for the sorts of things one soldier can do to another and then being treated like honorable soldiers.

Finally, why are we even bringing up America as if it was the only one breaking international law? Is Jew season over? How about Arab season, I thought things were just warming up over there?

I'm not exactly sure why 1929 stands out for you.


The convention which you refer to was created at a 16 nation conference, was very limited in its scope (tho groundbreaking in its conception) and dealt only with the problem of dealing with the wounded.

The 1929 convention was relatively more comprehensive and widely adopted. It, for the first time, dealt with the treatment of prisoners of war, something which the 1864 agreement had not really touched on.

The subsequent 1949 conventions (there are really four seperate ones) expanded things considerably and were further enlarged by additions of various protocols over the following years.

When most people refer to the Geneva convention they are thinking about the treatment of prisoners of war. That was not included in the 1864 agreement and has its origins in 1929. That's the convention that was printed up and handed to millions of troops during WWII.

That's why.

We of Drakosovar wish that our academic inferiority be noted in this debate. You guys are way too smart for this/have too much time on your hands. However we would like you to know that we thought your academic qualification slanging match was genius, and clearly above the level of insults by 17 year olds that haunts this forum.
We apologise to Dragongate that many of the suggestions here are idiotic, we feel we may represent others in saying that sadly we do not have a degree in international law etc. etc. and simply do this because we like arguing with strangers in our spare time.
Your work in defining what the real world UN does is truly illuminating, but does not detract from the debate that many people try to start on this forum, namely, why do we want the UN to be like the real world?
We know Stephistan clearly wants this as we are informed of this constantly, we also know the Nationstates UN constantly hands down liberal political cliches as law, and that this may not be how the 'real life UN works' but could we possibly, at some point, have an open discussion on how we want this UN to work. Not the one in Nationstates 2, this one.
We look forward to having this plea shot down once more.
Drakos, Increasingly frustrated leader of Democratic Reform, Drakosovar

Your interpretation re: the Somalia "fiasco" is inaccurate, Steph. Clearly you didn't read the charter yourself as clearly as Dragon did. Bluntly put, it specifically mentioned that in order to take effect, both the nation in which the crime was committed AND the nation whose citizen committed the act must be members of the ICC.

That is blatantly incorrect. Please read Part II Article 12 (http://www.icc-cpi.int/docs/basicdocs/rome_statute(e).html#part2) of the charter of the ICC, specifically section 2:

2. In the case of article 13, paragraph (a) or (c), the Court may exercise its jurisdiction if one or more of the following States are Parties to this Statute or have accepted the jurisdiction of the Court in accordance with paragraph 3:

(a) The State on the territory of which the conduct in question occurred or, if the crime was committed on board a vessel or aircraft, the State of registration of that vessel or aircraft;

(b) The State of which the person accused of the crime is a national.


It is OR not AND, so if Somalia is signatory and they had captured a war criminal for actions committed on their soil then they could have that person prosecuted under the ICC. It is for this very reason that Kissinger will no longer travel overseas very often for fear of being kidnapped and sent to ICC by certain countries.

There are a lot of good articles on the ICC here (http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/icc/index.htm), and if you really believe that no Americans are covered by it... then why are they looking for deals to get themselves exemptions? (http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/icc/2002/0730deal.htm)

I further defy you to show me a single instance where the United States ignored the Geneva Convention in the carriage of its war in Iraq or anywhere else.

Where to start, where to start....

You can read the Geneva Conventions here (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm).
The Hague Conventions on Warfare are here (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/lawwar.htm)

Article 3 clearly states

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;
...

But then, the US has no problem holding hostages to secure an arrest (http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/944890.asp?0cl=cr&cp1=1)

"Col. David Hogg, commander of the 2nd Brigade of the 4th Infantry Division, said tougher methods are being used to gather the intelligence. On Wednesday night, he said, his troops picked up the wife and daughter of an Iraqi lieutenant general. They left a note: If you want your family released, turn yourself in. Such tactics are justified, he said, because, It’s an intelligence operation with detainees, and these people have info. They would have been released in due course, he added later. The tactic worked. On Friday, Hogg said, the lieutenant general appeared at the front gate of the U.S. base and surrendered."


What else? Let's see...I'm not going to write them ALL out or take the time to find supporting links to those items that are common knowledge, but

Fact: The US has used schools to base troops in. (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0404/p07s01-woiq.htm)

Fact: The US has admitted using civilian clothed troops behind enemy lines in urban areas in contravention to the Hague Conventions on Warfare. If you think those troops behind the lines during the war all carried their weapons openly to draw attention to themselves in accordance with those Conventions - then I have this bridge for sale....

Fact: The US used cluster bombs in urban areas in clear contravention of international law regarding the employment of "arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;" We could also sidebar into DU, but that would take far too long.

Fact: The US clearly failed to adequately protect civilian hospitals as they are mandated to in accordance with Geneva (IV). They claimed a lack of manpower and yet were clearly capable of protecting buildings like the Ministry of Oil which is an economic objective and not considered as a more important item to protect.

Fact: US forces helped in the desecration of several statues of Hussein. As much as they may have wanted to make a political point, it is a violation of the Hague Conventions Article 53 relating to the protection of Cultural Objects which prohibits:
(a) to commit any acts of hostility directed against the historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples;
(c) to make such objects the object of reprisals.

If Iraqis wanted to tear them down, the troops could stand around and cheer - but they couldn't blow them up or help tear them down as they did. Those monuments belonged to the Iraqis and it was up to them to decide what to do with them. This is also in contradiction to Geneva Protocol 2 Article 16

Fact: The US violated the Geneva Conventions when displaying and surgically reconstructing postmortem the bodies of ranking Iraqi military officers Uday and Qusay. This surgery was done simply for propaganda reasons and as such clearly violates article 3 section 1 c) prohibiting "Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment". We all recall that this was the section used when the US claimed that the display of dead US troops by Iraq via Al Jazeera constituted a breach of the conventions.

Fact: The US has put prices on the heads of former members of the Iraqi power structure, and has indicated the willingness to pay these rewards if they are brought in dead or alive. That amounts to suborning assassination for profit which is in violation of Geneva Conventions Article 3 section 1d) prohibiting "The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. "

It is also in direct contravention of The Hague Conventions on Warfare (1907) Section II. Chapter 1 which prohibits "To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;"


Is that enough? I could go on if you like.....



Finally, why are we even bringing up America as if it was the only one breaking international law? Is Jew season over? How about Arab season, I thought things were just warming up over there?

Well, the Iraq war is the most recent and therefore at the top of the heap for topical conversation. Which is to say, they are being singled out because they launched an illegal war of aggression against Iraq with falsified and/or uncorroborated information. Which isn't to say that they are the only country who is doing things in contravention of international law - just that they are the most recent clear offenders. As well as the Americans would be the first country to blast any other nation for doing it, while having no problem doing it themselves.

Peace,
Stephanie.

could we possibly, at some point, have an open discussion on how we want this UN to work.

That's sort of what we are talking about.

The UN portion of NS is essentially just role playing since there is no actual effect to the passing of a resolution.

Nothing can or will change until enough people see the logic which says that no international organization in either the real world or the NS world can define by fiat the internal social policies of sovereign states.

Stephistan and I are arguing over this point and, it appears, she believes that in the real world (and therefore reasonably within the NS world) international bodies routinely act as a world government. I reject this. We are arguing the factual truth of this issue.

I suspect that much of the argument centers on the fact that she is a citizen of Canada and I am a citizen of the United States (and also by a quirk of fate a citizen of both the UK and the PRC).

The less powerful nations (and compared to the USA, Canada isn't even a blip on the screen though relatively much more powerful than say, Botswana) have always asserted the primacy of some supposed "International Law" (which naturally they have an equal say in) over the sovereign might of a superpower like the USA.

Of course, the reality is that they can argue all they want but the USA ignores them and there is not one single damn thing they can do about it except have their political science majors write indignant, self righteous term papers.

To an extent the argument is difficult because Stepistan has no real training in the law and therefore mistakes certain principles

This is illustrated by the comment she makes about Kissenger. Any country can charge anyone it chooses with any crime it would like and allow any court it wishes to try them for it. This is not, per se, a question of International law but of jurisdictional competence.

The question is whether the country of which that defendant is a citizen recognizes the authority of the charging nation, the jurisdiction of the court, and the appropriateness of the charge and how it will react.

The United States seeks "exemptions" because it does not want to be put in the position of having to send in Delta Force to rescue its citizen when some snotty little third rate nobody of a country makes some idiotic and unsupportable charge against one of its citizens and takes him prisoner.

Little countries like to think that they have scared the big boy when, in fact, the USA is just trying to be polite so as to avoid squashing the presumptuous when they get carried away with delusions of importance.

The 1929 convention was relatively more comprehensive and widely adopted. It, for the first time, dealt with the treatment of prisoners of war, something which the 1864 agreement had not really touched on.

Actually, the 1929 Convention ONLY dealt with POWs. It was in effect an annex to the 1907 Hague Conventions respecting the laws and customs of war on land. If that singular issue of the treatment of prisoners is what constitutes a "comprehensive" treaty in your mind, then I fear you tend to surrender too easily! Indeed, the second line in that document states that it relates "To all persons mentioned in Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Regulations annexed to the Hague Convention respecting the laws and customs of war on land, of October 18, 1907, and captured by the enemy."


When most people refer to the Geneva convention they are thinking about the treatment of prisoners of war.

Frankly, I don't think you give "most people" the proper respect that they are due. Most people realize that POW's are a very small component of the complete set of rules that govern the way wars are to be prosecuted. What the troops carried in WWII was an amalgam of Hague and Geneva conventions which they were required to adhere to.


No offense, but between this and the clear misreading of the ICC rules - as a lawyer your research is substandard!

Mind you...maybe you are a lawyer... you certainly aren't a mathematician!

Its a neat trick for the Geneva conventions to have been written "at the UN" when they were written in 1929, some forty years prior to the creation of the UN.

1929 to 1945 only FELT like forty years.... in real life it was a lot closer to 16. ;)


I dunno, all I claim to be is a student... so I'm used to having my work corrected when I make a mistake, but I find it suspicious that someone who claims to specialize in International law has such trouble interpreting it or even correctly specifying the scope of a particular treaty.

So, now we get to the crux of Drangongate's true argument. In my opinion also sealing his fate as to his creditability of exactly what he does for a living or any thing even remotely close to it. One with such disrespect for the rule of law and especially international law, doesn't spend years in university to study it. Let's be honest here, up and until the Bush administration took power in 2000 the American people actually held international and UN signatory treaties in quite high regard.

A true academic of law would not resort to stomping his feet and saying "well whatcha going to do about it" once the thin veil of their poorly interpreted argument is exposed.

The debate started off as a debate in facts and Dragongate has now resorted to nothing more then a pissing contest. How academic! Of course the standard one would expect from such an alleged scholar of law and international law? I think not. Why bother studying international law at all if it's all redundant and irrelevant to you any way? Clearly Dragongate's writing skills are superb, however I can assure you this is not the response one get's from a lawyer. Although he had us all going for a week or so, now didn't he.

Let's dumb it down for him, shall we?

Of course, the reality is that they can argue all they want but the USA ignores them and there is not one single damn thing they can do about it except have their political science majors write indignant, self righteous term papers.

The less powerful nations (and compared to the USA, Canada isn't even a blip on the screen though relatively much more powerful than say, Botswana) have always asserted the primacy of some supposed "International Law" (which naturally they have an equal say in) over the sovereign might of a superpower like the USA.

My son goes to school, now it is in fact against school rules for another student to steal his lunch money. Yet, the school bully can most certainly go ahead and steal that money any way and there is not much any one can do about it. Which is to say that it's against school rules but still wrong. Might does not equate to right, nor is it a valid argument against whether International Law exists. It is a simple (and sadly true) statement that there are those who can flaunt it with impunity.

Which is to say, your "sovereign might" does not mean (as you claim) that International Law does not exist... just that you don't care and are enjoying stealing Iraq's lunch money (oil).

To an extent the argument is difficult because Stepistan has no real training in the law and therefore mistakes certain principles

I would suggest to you I probably have a lot more training in law then Dragongate claims to.

A lovely diatribe sir. High on hyperbole and low on substance. An attempt to sidestep the noted serious flaws in your previous statements by angering the other via personal attacks. And it might have worked on someone who let emotion get in the way of intellectual debate.


Little countries like to think that they have scared the big boy when, in fact, the USA is just trying to be polite so as to avoid squashing the presumptuous when they get carried away with delusions of importance.

Delusions which seem to be contagious to some of it's citizens.

In closing - to keep in the spirit of your juvenile pissing contest...and in the spirit of comic relief which this seems to need.

Canada is bigger than you, and we're on top. If we were in prison - you'd be our bitch! ;)

On a final note: The Romans thought they'd rule the world forever...it seems a historical truism that Empires rise.... and eventually they most certainly fall.

Of course, on the internet, one can claim to be anything one wants and, conversely, anyone may deny since no "proof" is possible that cannot be denied. I could show you my UN security pass, a copy of my law degree, etc, but you could as easily deny they were authentic.

The reality remains that no nation, especially a powerful one, can be forced to do anything it doesn't want to do. It is pointing out this simple fact which causes you to freak out. But all the argument in the world, all the protestations that it is different, can't change that fact.

The truth of my assertion is everywhere around you. For better or for worse the USA decided to invade Iraq for a second time. At least half the world thought that was a lousy idea and yet they were utterly powerless to stop it. And all the bitchy comments or even open criticism doesn't change the fact that the governments of Germany and France (and Canada), all of whom were opposed came crawling to make amends afterwards.

The refusal of George Bush to speak to Chirac on the phone was the subject of anguished articles in the French press and endless speculation. (I presume, that being a Canadian and presumptively bilingual, you follow the French press) Unsurprisingly, no one in the USA much gave a damn one way or the other.

If International Law was as you conceive it then it is passing strange that those who, presumably, upheld the law should come running to the putative criminal.

Most of what constitutes International Law is the tiny details of boring (to most people) things like the Law of the Sea, conventions on International Air Traffic and the myriad other things that keep the modern world running.

The "big" issues make for interesting term papers but have little practical effect precisely because the Great Powers do what the hell they feel like. Indeed, France has invaded a dozen nations since the end of WWII and committed such acts of international "lawlessness" as blowing up a boat owned by Greenpeace.

I, by the way, do not represent the United States in Geneva but, as I said, an NGO with international concerns. I have no occasion to debate American Foreign Policy in that forum.

In fact, because I represent people who are generally oppressed and powerless, I understand, far better than you, the need to recognize the realities of power. You can sit at school and fantasize about using what you conceive to be International Law to "force" big powers to do what you want. No doubt you achieve some sort of frisson from this. I deal with the necessity of getting national governments to do right by people with no power. If I adopted the attitude that I could express my high moral dudgeon and get them to act I would most certainly fail. Stay in the ivory tower of the academy. The oppressed of the world need pragmatists not self deluding moralists.


PS. I don't do anything for a living other than count my money. I retired six years ago. What I do now I do because I feel like it.

Cheers to Dragongate for correctly surmising that we of Drakosovar could not be bothered translating the minutae of your debate into something understandable by the laity. (Or in fact, reading it in any great detail!).
We are completely with them on this one and rather than reiterate many of your points wish only to add our support.
Whatever the original legal basis the UN had at its conception it is becoming apparent that it is at best a body that can provide guidelines and little else. If a nation wishes to do what it proclaims, it will, if it doesn't it won't. Obviously less powerful nations that try this have sanctions threatened or imposed by hypocritically sanctimonious big brother powers (the US vs Libya, Belgium etc. - yes Belgium, a private legal action by lawyers in Belgium attempting to try Bush/Blair of warcrimes was quietly dropped after the threat of 'diplomatic reprisals' by the US).
These same big brother powers will continue to operate to their own mandate regardless of the UN. Sadly, much as many of us would like Canada to be the 'new US' and lead us into a liberal utopia they simply aren't and at this point in time armed revolt by the survivalist movement in the MidWest seems the best bet for world peace.
As we understand it in NS the resolutions passed by the UN do affect the issues available to your country and how it develops (or so someone implied to us on another board) is that accurate?
We would hope so, because otherwise Drakosovar flagrantly breaches a number of UN resolutions, like the rogue state we clearly are and as yet no reprisals have been taken against us. (not sure we should have confessed to that...)
Drakos, Head of the Cat out of the Bag Dept. of Drakosovar.
PS We of Drakosovar would like it noted that Drakos has now been executed for his success in the heading the 'Cat out of the Bag Dept', the Dept has closed down and the Drakosovan government wishes everyone to be aware that we stick to all UN resolutions, no matter how stupid they are.
Drakos, Head of Executions and Public Relations, Drakosovar

Of course, on the internet, one can claim to be anything one wants and, conversely, anyone may deny since no "proof" is possible that cannot be denied. I could show you my UN security pass, a copy of my law degree, etc, but you could as easily deny they were authentic.

The reality remains that no nation, especially a powerful one, can be forced to do anything it doesn't want to do. It is pointing out this simple fact which causes you to freak out. But all the argument in the world, all the protestations that it is different, can't change that fact.

The truth of my assertion is everywhere around you. For better or for worse the USA decided to invade Iraq for a second time. At least half the world thought that was a lousy idea and yet they were utterly powerless to stop it. And all the bitchy comments or even open criticism doesn't change the fact that the governments of Germany and France (and Canada), all of whom were opposed came crawling to make amends afterwards.

The refusal of George Bush to speak to Chirac on the phone was the subject of anguished articles in the French press and endless speculation. (I presume, that being a Canadian and presumptively bilingual, you follow the French press) Unsurprisingly, no one in the USA much gave a damn one way or the other.

If International Law was as you conceive it then it is passing strange that those who, presumably, upheld the law should come running to the putative criminal.

Most of what constitutes International Law is the tiny details of boring (to most people) things like the Law of the Sea, conventions on International Air Traffic and the myriad other things that keep the modern world running.

The "big" issues make for interesting term papers but have little practical effect precisely because the Great Powers do what the hell they feel like. Indeed, France has invaded a dozen nations since the end of WWII and committed such acts of international "lawlessness" as blowing up a boat owned by Greenpeace.

I, by the way, do not represent the United States in Geneva but, as I said, an NGO with international concerns. I have no occasion to debate American Foreign Policy in that forum.

In fact, because I represent people who are generally oppressed and powerless, I understand, far better than you, the need to recognize the realities of power. You can sit at school and fantasize about using what you conceive to be International Law to "force" big powers to do what you want. No doubt you achieve some sort of frisson from this. I deal with the necessity of getting national governments to do right by people with no power. If I adopted the attitude that I could express my high moral dudgeon and get them to act I would most certainly fail. Stay in the ivory tower of the academy. The oppressed of the world need pragmatists not self deluding moralists.


PS. I don't do anything for a living other than count my money. I retired six years ago. What I do now I do because I feel like it.

Quite frankly I don't believe a word you say at this point. To the young people on this board who may of not had the chance yet in life to gain the education for no other reason then their age about how the world works and exactly how laws, international and otherwise also work, I can understand their confusion. It's a complicated process. One that if you are "trained" in, you can see easily who get's it and who doesn't. This is not an opinion I'm talking about, these are absolutes. To which you seem to have the knowledge of a first or second year law student or political scientist. You may have your own opinions, however make sure when you offer your opinions you don't offer them up as facts. You do the young people on this forum a great disservice in confusing opinion with facts.

You may not agree with the way the world works, but that doesn't negate the facts as they stand. As some one who will be a doctor in my field in a very short time, I make it clear what is opinion and what is fact. I suggest you do the same.

Just because the U.S. at this time in history is the super power of the world does not make their actions right, nor does it make them legal. The U.S. may have the ability to defy the law because they are the super power, but they don't have the power to single handedly change international law, as you may have some here believe.

The U.S. is an infant as far as being a super power goes and depending on how they handle this power will most certainly determine how long they will keep this status. Super powers come and they go.

I would also disagree with your "half the world" comment. It was more like 80% or higher of the world disagreed with what the U.S. did in Iraq. While you may have had the British on board, the people of Britain certainly held the action in great disdain. As did most of Europe , Canada, Mexico, Russia, to name a few. The only people who really supported the U.S. were people looking for hand outs from the U.S. if you want to name off a few third world countries that supported the action go ahead, you and I both know it was not because they supported it as much as they wanted some thing in return for their support.

Thankfully, this current administration will be short lived and the good 'ol boys of PNAC will hopefully soon not be the people running the U.S. government. Perhaps then and only then can the U.S. go back to being the good guys. Cause you at the moment are morally bankrupt and are going against every thing America is suppose to stand for.

This is not idealism, this is straight forward facts that any one who does their homework on the subject can find out for themselves.

Let me tell you a little bit about the people running the American government at present.

The Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, is a Washington-based think tank created in 1997. Above all else, PNAC desires and demands one thing: The establishment of a global American empire to bend the will of all nations. They chafe at the idea that the United States, the last remaining superpower, does not do more by way of economic and military force to bring the rest of the world under the umbrella of a new socio-economic Pax Americana.

The fundamental essence of PNAC's ideology can be found in a White Paper produced in September of 2000 entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century." In it, PNAC outlines what is required of America to create the global empire they envision. According to PNAC, America must:

* Reposition permanently based forces to Southern Europe, Southeast Asia and the Middle East;
* Modernize U.S. forces, including enhancing their fighter aircraft, submarine and surface fleet capabilities;
* Develop and deploy a global missile defense system, and develop a strategic dominance of space;
* Control the "International Commons" of cyberspace;
* Increase defense spending to a minimum of 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, up from the 3 percent currently spent.


Most ominously, this PNAC document described four "Core Missions" for the American military. The two central requirements are for American forces to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars," and to "perform the 'constabulary' duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions." Note, well that PNAC does not want America to be prepared to fight simultaneous major wars. That is old school. In order to bring this plan to fruition, the military must fight these wars one way or the other to establish American dominance for all to see.

Why is this important? After all, wacky think tanks are a cottage industry in Washington, DC. They are a dime a dozen. In what way does PNAC stand above the other groups that would set American foreign policy if they could?

Two events brought PNAC into the mainstream of American government: the disputed election of George W. Bush, and the attacks of September 11th. When Bush assumed the Presidency, the men who created and nurtured the imperial dreams of PNAC became the men who run the Pentagon, the Defense Department and the White House. When the Towers came down, these men saw, at long last, their chance to turn their White Papers into substantive policy.

Vice President Dick Cheney is a founding member of PNAC, along with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz is the ideological father of the group. Bruce Jackson, a PNAC director, served as a Pentagon official for Ronald Reagan before leaving government service to take a leading position with the weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin.


PNAC is staffed by men who previously served with groups like Friends of the Democratic Center in Central America, which supported America's bloody gamesmanship in Nicaragua and El Salvador, and with groups like The Committee for the Present Danger, which spent years advocating that a nuclear war with the Soviet Union was "winnable."


PNAC has recently given birth to a new group, The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which met with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice in order to formulate a plan to "educate" the American populace about the need for war in Iraq. CLI has funneled millions of taxpayer dollars to support the Iraqi National Congress and the Iraqi heir presumptive, Ahmed Chalabi. Chalabi was sentenced in absentia by a Jordanian court in 1992 to 22 years in prison for bank fraud after the collapse of Petra Bank, which he founded in 1977. Chalabi has not set foot in Iraq since 1956, but his Enron-like business credentials apparently make him a good match for the Bush administration's plans.


PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" report is the institutionalization of plans and ideologies that have been formulated for decades by the men currently running American government. The PNAC Statement of Principles is signed by Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, as well as by Eliot Abrams, Jeb Bush, Bush's special envoy to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad, and many others. William Kristol, famed conservative writer for the Weekly Standard, is also a co-founder of the group. The Weekly Standard is owned by Ruppert Murdoch, who also owns international media giant Fox News.


The desire for these freshly empowered PNAC men to extend American hegemony by force of arms across the globe has been there since day one of the Bush administration, and is in no small part a central reason for the Florida electoral battle in 2000. Note that while many have said that Gore and Bush are ideologically identical, Mr. Gore had no ties whatsoever to the fellows at PNAC. George W. Bush had to win that election by any means necessary, and PNAC signatory Jeb Bush was in the perfect position to ensure the rise to prominence of his fellow imperialists. Desire for such action, however, is by no means translatable into workable policy. Americans enjoy their comforts, but don't cotton to the idea of being some sort of Neo-Rome.

On September 11th, the fellows from PNAC saw a door of opportunity open wide before them, and stormed right through it.

Bush released on September 20th 2001 the "National Security Strategy of the United States of America." It is an ideological match to PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" report issued a year earlier. In many places, it uses exactly the same language to describe America's new place in the world.

Recall that PNAC demanded an increase in defense spending to at least 3.8% of GDP. Bush's proposed budget for next year asks for $379 billion in defense spending, almost exactly 3.8% of GDP.


In August of 2002, Defense Policy Board chairman and PNAC member Richard Perle heard a policy briefing from a think tank associated with the Rand Corporation. According to the Washington Post and The Nation, the final slide of this presentation described "Iraq as the tactical pivot, Saudi Arabia as the strategic pivot, and Egypt as the prize" in a war that would purportedly be about ridding the world of Saddam Hussein's weapons. Bush has deployed massive forces into the Mideast region, while simultaneously engaging American forces in the Philippines and playing nuclear chicken with North Korea. Somewhere in all this lurks at least one of the "major-theater wars" desired by the September 2000 PNAC report.


Iraq is but the beginning, a pretense for a wider conflict. Donald Kagan, a central member of PNAC, sees America establishing permanent military bases in Iraq after the war. This is purportedly a measure to defend the peace in the Middle East, and to make sure the oil flows. The nations in that region, however, will see this for what it is: a jump-off point for American forces to invade any nation in that region they choose to. The American people, anxiously awaiting some sort of exit plan after America defeats Iraq, will see too late that no exit is planned.


All of the horses are traveling together at speed here. The defense contractors who sup on American tax revenue will be handsomely paid for arming this new American empire. The corporations that own the news media will sell this eternal war at a profit, as viewership goes through the stratosphere when there is combat to be shown. Those within the administration who believe that the defense of Israel is contingent upon laying waste to every possible aggressor in the region will have their dreams fulfilled. The PNAC men who wish for a global Pax Americana at gunpoint will see their plans unfold. Through it all, the bankrollers from the WTO and the IMF will be able to dictate financial terms to the entire planet. This last aspect of the plan is pivotal, and is best described in the newly revised version of Greg Palast's masterpiece, "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy."


There will be adverse side effects. The siege mentality average Americans are suffering as they smother behind yards of plastic sheeting and duct tape will increase by orders of magnitude as aggressions bring forth new terrorist attacks against the U.S.A. These attacks will require the implementation of the newly drafted Patriot Act II, an augmentation of the previous Act that has profoundly sharper teeth. The sun will set on the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The American economy will be ravaged by the need for increased defense spending, and by the aforementioned "constabulary" duties in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Former allies will turn on the Americans. Germany, France and the other nations resisting this Iraq war are fully aware of this game plan. They are not acting out of cowardice or because they love Saddam Hussein, but because they mean to resist this rising American empire, lest they face economic and military serfdom at the hands of George W. Bush. Richard Perle has already stated that France is no longer an American ally.

As the eagle spreads its wings, American rhetoric and their resistance will become more agitated and dangerous.


Many people, of course, will die. They will die from war and from want, from famine and disease. In America, the social fabric will be torn in ways that make the Reagan nightmares of crack addiction, homelessness and AIDS seem tame by comparison.


This is the price to be paid for empire, and the men of PNAC who now control the fate and future of America are more than willing to pay it. For them, the benefits far outweigh the liabilities.

"The People versus the Powerful is the oldest story in human history. At no point in history have the Powerful wielded so much control. At no point in history has the active and informed involvement of the People, all of them, been more absolutely required. The tide can be stopped, and the men who desire empire by the sword can be thwarted. It has already begun, but it must not cease. These are men of will, and they do not intend to fail."

Peace,
Stephanie.

First, a little education in the English language. The statement "at least 50%" would include 80%. Got that? This is what "at least" clearly suggests.

But I am not interested in defending the Bush Administration and its actions in Iraq. I am not a member of this administration and it is passing obvious from you silly little diatribe that you haven't a clue about what is going on in any case.

It is typical of mullet headed children to stamp their feet and spit at people who do nothing more that point out uncomfortable facts. (Failing to keep to the point is another one).

What international law could or should be has nothing to do with what international law is.

You raised the issue by claiming that International Law was coercive and that rules rising to the level of laws were made at the real world UN which were obligatory upon all nations without regard to whether they acceded to them or not.

In this you are wrong and this debate has demonstrated that nations are bound only by treaties which they freely enter into and from which, generally, they can freely remove themselves.

No number of attempts to divert attention from the core principle which is at issue can change the fact that your original assertion, which is the sole basis for this debate, is wrong.

The real world UN is not a world government, has no attributes of a world government and no power to coerce any Great Power (and especially not the world's sole super power).

NB: You should be glad that it is the United States which is currently the world's greatest superpower. The USA is unique in having held this position three times before, at the end of its own Civil War and the end of both WWI and WWII, and in each instance declined to fully exert its power or attempt world domination.

In the first instance it choose to turn inwards and develop its own hinterland, in the second to simply withdraw from the world stage and in the third it expended its efforts in rebuilding both its own allies and its former enemies.

The Bush administration had set out yet a fourth retreat from world influence, declining to act in the Arab-Israeli conflict, eschewing "nation building" and renouncing the role of "world policeman" when the attack of 9/11 made it politically impossible to maintain that policy.

Whether its present course is the wisest possible (and I doubt that it is) it is most certainly not the product of some secret scheme for world domination.

First, a little education in the English language. The statement "at least 50%" would include 80%. Got that? This is what "at least" clearly suggests.

But I am not interested in defending the Bush Administration and its actions in Iraq. I am not a member of this administration and it is passing obvious from you silly little diatribe that you haven't a clue about what is going on in any case.

It is typical of mullet headed children to stamp their feet and spit at people who do nothing more that point out uncomfortable facts. (Failing to keep to the point is another one).

What international law could or should be has nothing to do with what international law is.

You raised the issue by claiming that International Law was coercive and that rules rising to the level of laws were made at the real world UN which were obligatory upon all nations without regard to whether they acceded to them or not.

In this you are wrong and this debate has demonstrated that nations are bound only by treaties which they freely enter into and from which, generally, they can freely remove themselves.

No number of attempts to divert attention from the core principle which is at issue can change the fact that your original assertion, which is the sole basis for this debate, is wrong.

The real world UN is not a world government, has no attributes of a world government and no power to coerce any Great Power (and especially not the world's sole super power).

NB: You should be glad that it is the United States which is currently the world's greatest superpower. The USA is unique in having held this position three times before, at the end of its own Civil War and the end of both WWI and WWII, and in each instance declined to fully exert its power or attempt world domination.

In the first instance it choose to turn inwards and develop its own hinterland, in the second to simply withdraw from the world stage and in the third it expended its efforts in rebuilding both its own allies and its former enemies.

The Bush administration had set out yet a fourth retreat from world influence, declining to act in the Arab-Israeli conflict, eschewing "nation building" and renouncing the role of "world policeman" when the attack of 9/11 made it politically impossible to maintain that policy.

Whether its present course is the wisest possible (and I doubt that it is) it is most certainly not the product of some secret scheme for world domination.

I never said that the U.N. was a world government, I also clearly said it was not the mandate to legislate laws. Sorry if you have trouble with simple understanding of the English language. The U.S.A. only became a super power at the end of WWII, but who's counting!

However, while on the topic....I was not wrong, I was right! The Geneva Conventions of 1949 as well as 1977 were both debated and signed by the General Assembly at the U.N. Why are you having trouble with this basic well known fact? I think I have pointed out more then enough proof of what international law IS despite your total lack of understanding the scope of said principles

You must be retired, you're so out of the loop of what is going on in the world, I feel sad for you if you ever did hold any type of civil service position. Although we all know that not all civil servants such as you claim you were are not always in the loop with the rest of the academics of the world.

Peace,
Stephanie.

You continue to avoid the sole issue which is being raised, to wit, does the UN create laws which are coercively binding on all nations without regard to whether they accede to them or not.

You continue to avoid the sole issue which is being raised, to wit, does the UN create laws which are coercively binding on all nations without regard to whether they accede to them or not.

The countries that make up the U.N. (191 of them) propose resolutions and treaties, when a country signs onto that treaty, yes they are bound by them. I have stated that time and time again. While it is also true that a country may pull out of a treaty such as the U.S. did when they wanted to build their space defense system. However, there are procedures and protocols which must be followed in order to do so. Not unlike N.A.F.T.A, which any of the three parties can pull out with 6 months notice (as an example) These facts I never disputed.

However, there are certain treaties and conventions, such as the Hague and Geneva Conventions that are binding to ALL countries whether they are signatory to them or not. Otherwise no one could ever be accused of war crimes, now could they! The same is the case with the ICC. You don't have to necessarily be a signatory country to be tried and found guilty within the jurisdiction of that body. If you travel abroad and are captured by a country that is signatory they can most certainly send you to the ICC. for investigation and perhaps to stand trial. As Chile would like to do to Henry Kissinger if they could get their hands on him. There is a great article in The Guardian that explains how Henry Kissinger, internationally regarded as a war criminal, finds a surprising level of support among US citizens who have largely forgotten his criminal adventures around the world. This is the reason Henry Kissinger trembles at the recent development of universal jurisdiction for war crimes in national courts and the International Criminal Court. Also why he has decided most recently to cancel a trip abroad after Chile made it clear he would be tried in their courts. Now, while Kissinger himself could be tried in Chile, he could not be tried by the I.C.C. ONLY because of the rules set out, Kissinger himself could not actually be indicted by the ICC, which only has jurisdiction over actions that took place after July 1 of 2002. However, it is a good example.

Leading European states appear to have rebuffed the latest attempt by the United States to secure exemption for its citizens from the new International Criminal Court. A recent trip by the State Department official who is handling bilateral negotiations on the ICC, Marisa Lino, has failed to persuade European governments to sign agreements with the US that would guarantee that American citizens would not be handed over to the court. Thus making American war criminals fair game. I also doubt that Delta Force would be sent in to "rescue" these war criminals if captured as well. The Americans may kick up some dust, but I think that would be about it. I think this is a fair statement to make given that in my own country (Canada) we have on many occasions refused to hand over criminals to the U.S. even after they demanded them to be turned over if they faced the death penalty. The U.S. may not of liked it, but they certainly didn't send in Delta Force or any thing even remotely close. They accepted our decision. Unless they agreed to give guarantees that the said criminal would not face the death penalty, then I believe in most cases we have turned over the criminal. So to assume that the Americans would do any thing more then b*tch about it, is probably not an accurate summation.

Now, I hope I have finally once and for all explained this for the last time. I hope you understand this now.

I have answered your question now more then once, perhaps I could get you to do the same on the factual errors and statements that you have made throughout this thread?

Peace,
Stephanie.

You make it very clear what side of the political fence you sit on. Henry Kissenger is no doubt regarded internationally as a war criminal but only by morons, communists (which is the same thing) , and snot nosed children.

And yes, Canada does refuse to extradite common criminals to the USA and we don't send the Delta Force in. But then that is an entirely different situation.

Frankly I would love to see some pissant country try to arrest an American citizen on such specious charges as have been leveled against Henry K. I'd enjoy watching the situation play out.

But here's a bit of news for you. We've had a serious regime change here in the USA. There is no longer any branch of our government which is controlled by the left wing and American attitudes have changed.

Indeed, for decades the United States put up with a long list of outrages without reacting as a superpower should. The last few months have demonstrated a different attitude.

Think or say whatever you like, we obviously don't care. Act against our citizens and this country will retaliate.

I doubt we'll be invading Canada anytime soon but I remind you that the United States has just finished obliterating the armed forces of a nation on the other side of the planet using only a fraction of our forces. That nations armed forces were considerably larger than Canada's and, in many respects, better equipped.

But here's a bit of news for you. We've had a serious regime change here in the USA. There is no longer any branch of our government which is controlled by the left wing and American attitudes have changed.

Indeed, for decades the United States put up with a long list of outrages without reacting as a superpower should. The last few months have demonstrated a different attitude.

Think or say whatever you like, we obviously don't care. Act against our citizens and this country will retaliate.

It's late and I'm going to bed, I will continue this tomorrow, however some one hit a nerve now didn't they! Did you say *ouch* first before you wrote that? :P

I also see you made no effort to address your factual errors and statements made on this thread. Now why doesn't that surprise me! :roll:

As for the fabulous American military, we all got a good shot of that in the news today. How incompetent they are, that they are obviously incapable of even securing a small country like Iraq. As I heard most American news outlets today talk to "people in high places" it would appear that after today they are almost begging for help! Not quite working out the way the American PNAC boys expected I guess. C'est la vie!

It's an interesting turn of events actually... I can hear the conspiracy theorists wheels turning now.

Who had most to gain from bombing the UN? Hmmm, some might think it was the US. Since they have, A) been so unsuccessful in Iraq and B) want nothing more then the international community to come help them clean up the mess they seem unable to do themselves. Do you Americans ever finish any thing you start?


I think I heard "This was an attack on the international community" a little to much today on American news outlets, does make one ponder. It's not like the Americans haven't pulled stunts before that are MORE then questionable. Like Iran/Contra.. or the CIA putting crack on the streets to finance thier bloodshed around the world. Maybe no one has taken credit for it, because it's another American covert operation to try and pull in the international community. It wouldn't be the first time the Americans went far outside the law or killed innocent people to achieve their objectives..

Of course.. I'd have to be a conspiracy theorists to believe that :wink:

Peace,
Stephanie.

P.S. Don't worry though, I'm sure sooner or later the Americans will convince the international community to come bail them out.

Good-Night!~

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm....

Having read through this debate, I have a couple of observations. First Dragongate - You sir, are a fraud!

Example: Stephanie was absolutely correct that US citizens may, under certain circumstances, be tried under the auspices of the ICC. Anyone reading it's charter (as pointed out by Stephanie) can clearly see that. But instead, at first you claimed "In the absence of a treaty by which the United States granted such authority to the ICC to hear such a complaint there is no circumstance under which it could be heard.", but then tried to explain away the fact that the US was attempting to secure exemptions from European countries as being necessary to avoid unfounded retaliatory prosecution.

A question sir: If "there are no circumstances" that such cases could be heard... why would they need to bother securing exemptions? It would be a waste of time and effort to try and mitigate a situation that couldn't happen in the first place! Sorry bud... big hole in your logic there... huge!

And her pointing out just how limited in scope the '29 Geneva Conventions were as compared to your description of it as "comprehensive" was bang on too.

So clearly you either don't know the law, or you do but can't actually be bothered to read the documents that you are arguing about - which would make you a very poor lawyer indeed. Frankly, I'm inclined to go with "Not a lawyer". And your inability to own up to your error on this diminishes you in the eyes of all who read this thread.


But in response to your main point - let me just say that I absolutely concur that International Law IS clearly flouted by world powers with impunity because there is no one capable of enforcing them upon countries such as the US. That is indeed the reality of the world, and one that we all have to recognize and deal with.

However extending that to the statement that International Law per se does not exist is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. It is tantamount to saying something like "because well organized criminal organization flout the law with impunity and continue to keep the flow of cocaine entering the United States, this means that the US Criminal Code does not exist." Enforcement problems do not invalidate the law itself. And that sort of thing happens at regional levels too doesn't it? GW's kids would have had criminal records by now for their antics were they Joe Nobody's kids.... doesn't mean that the laws against underage drinking etc are figments of our imagination....


While a real lawyer may get discouraged at the way the law is or is not enforced, I think you will find few that will state that the very existence of the law itself is a myth, which is what you seem to be doing.



Is the UN a "World Government" that "creates and enforces laws on all"? Clearly not in the same sense as how a country implements legislation. And indeed Stephanie has agreed to that notion with certain exceptions (Geneva Conventions, ICC)

It is, however, a body which acts as facilitator for the creation of international treaties, and then also acts as a sort of referee to point out transgressions as they arise and then decides what actions, if any, to use against the perpetrators of those transgressions. In many cases, decisions are passed down by the security council whereby failure to comply is punished by sanctions as a means to bend a country's will to that of the UN. And the targeted country need not be signatory to any treaty that prohibits their behavior. The security council may decide to use such tactics simply for the greater good. A country may choose not to buckle under this tactic - however it can still be seen to be a form of legal enforcement of a set of standards. More egregious violations may cause the use of an armed response as a method to enforce the rules. So to my mind there IS a process whereby world standards are created, and some attempts at enforcement made.

And unlike what is attempted here on NS it normally does not extend to creating binding internal policies on nations (extreme human rights violations being the only usual exception ), but it is still an attempt at some world control if not true world government. For cases where internal policies need to be changed it is generally attempted to be done in a coercive fashion to make continuing with an existing policy economically unviable (e.g. resolutions to stop the flow of conflict diamonds to fund atrocities through sanctions). Not the same as creating a new law for a sovereign nation... just coercion to get them to change it on their own. It is not a perfect solution, but then again no legal process is perfect - as the OJ trial proved in abundance! ;)

And the fact that certain permanent members of the Security Council abuse their position for their own gain is not an indictment on the process as a whole. Simply cases of systemic abuse by persons in power.


At any rate, I think though what annoys me most about this thread is Dragongates's tactics of inserting petty and personal insults into his arguments at every turn while failing to address things on point when called on specifics. That is far beneath the dignity of anyone in his stated position, as is his incessant waving about of his supposed resume. If this is his diplomatic style, I must assume that his NGO is the most poorly funded one on the planet because he would attempt to insult everybody into seeing things his way to achieve his goals. I dunno, perhaps his way with a thesaurus impresses some people here. Frankly - It doesn't do anything for me....

Indeed, on that level, he is on par with the 13-year old trolls that infest the message board from time to time - he just puts a prettier wrapper on it.

I'm sorry, but anyone with half a brain who listens to him long enough will certainly lose respect quickly.... but then again - he has been very clear in his indications that he has zero respect for anyone else here, so why bother giving any in return?


-Z-

How odd, Dragongate hasn't responded.. he must just be counting his money. LMAO!!! :lol:

Peace,
Stephanie.

Whoa, are all of you guys hig-degree lawyers and High-School graduates or something like that??? :shock:

Nevertheless, it occurs to me that while you point out that the RL UN does not (or can not) "invade in a nations souvereignity", the UN in Nationstates does excactly that :)
But then again, how could you possibly make someone who doesn't want to oblige the NS UN "bend his will". Maybe something for NS 2?

Greetings, Juana


"Your gouvernment loves you!"

It would be an interesting twist in NS if countries could ignore resolutions and deal with issues like sanctions etc. affecting their economy. Although to truly mirror real life there would have to be a security council to decide which offenders to punish and which to ignore.

Somehow I doubt that NS2 will get quite that involved.... but we can dream can't we?

From post #1:

"The United Nations is not a world government and it does not make laws. "

I haven't read much of this thread, so I hope that this is not redundant, but if it is I think that is ok because this needs to be discussed more fully.

If Steph is correct and the UN is not meant to be a leglistative body, why
are we making the NS UN one? :cry:

Because otherwise most people would ignore it, just like they do in real life :D

It wouldn't be much fun to put a lot of effort into passing a proposal and then the resolution, when after that everybody you wanted to effect would be able to simply ignore it.

Greetings from Juana

"Your gouvernment loves you!"

Since this is a thread about the real UN and the NS UN, can we please leave the Iraq issue out of it. There, I'm done, i won't talk about it any more (just no more claims that "Canada liberated Holland all by itself." Maybe in your world.) I urge everyone to stick to the issue at hand.
Thanks

Since this is a thread about the real UN and the NS UN, can we please leave the Iraq issue out of it. There, I'm done, i won't talk about it any more (just no more claims that "Canada liberated Holland all by itself." Maybe in your world.) I urge everyone to stick to the issue at hand.
Thanks

I'm sorry I can't agree to the part about Iraq. Reason being, Iraq has every thing to do with the debate about the U.N. at the moment. It relates very much to the topic at hand and is the most recent example of how the U.N. works and doesn't work. Using Iraq to discuss the U.N. has great educational value in my opinion.

As for the comment about Canada, I'll be happy to not bring it up again, when I see people stop deluding themselves into thinking the U.S.A. won WWII by themselves. :roll:

Peace,
Stephanie.

Since this is a thread about the real UN and the NS UN, can we please leave the Iraq issue out of it. There, I'm done, i won't talk about it any more (just no more claims that "Canada liberated Holland all by itself." Maybe in your world.) I urge everyone to stick to the issue at hand.
Thanks

I'm sorry I can't agree to the part about Iraq. Reason being, Iraq has every thing to do with the debate about the U.N. at the moment. It relates very much to the topic at hand and is the most recent example of how the U.N. works and doesn't work. Using Iraq to discuss the U.N. has great educational value in my opinion.

As for the comment about Canada, I'll be happy to not bring it up again, when I see people stop deluding themselves into thinking the U.S.A. won WWII by themselves. :roll:

Peace,
Stephanie.

Of course. The Russians did most of the fighting.

Since this is a thread about the real UN and the NS UN, can we please leave the Iraq issue out of it. There, I'm done, i won't talk about it any more (just no more claims that "Canada liberated Holland all by itself." Maybe in your world.) I urge everyone to stick to the issue at hand.
Thanks

I'm sorry I can't agree to the part about Iraq. Reason being, Iraq has every thing to do with the debate about the U.N. at the moment. It relates very much to the topic at hand and is the most recent example of how the U.N. works and doesn't work. Using Iraq to discuss the U.N. has great educational value in my opinion.

As for the comment about Canada, I'll be happy to not bring it up again, when I see people stop deluding themselves into thinking the U.S.A. won WWII by themselves. :roll:

Peace,
Stephanie.

Of course. The Russians did most of the fighting.

Agreed Global! :)

Peace,
Stephanie.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm....
I see Zeppistan has said (better) most of what I was going to post.
I do wish though that everyone would not get quite so personal here…



But here’s my post:


This is an interesting thread. (MAYBE I’ve read 70% of it…)

I’m no scholar or student of any of this, but here’s my sense of it, with NO notes or websites cited:

“Law” itself is not a clear and simple thing.
The existence of “laws” and the existence of “the rule of law” are not the same.

Most people in the world live within some more-or-less comprehensive system of laws (national, provincial, municipal) which obligate them in theory.

But most people in the world, I would venture, do NOT live within a fully functioning local “rule of law” – that is an environment where ALL existing, theoretically operative laws are universally and equitably applied. For most folks “the law” applies very differently to the rich and powerful and to the poor and powerless. In many (or maybe most) societies the very powerful are for the most part functionally beyond the law, and the most powerless are treated by the most powerful with relative impunity.

Does this mean that those “laws” do not exist?
Does it mean that those legal systems are worthless or beyond serious consideration?
Possibly, I suppose…

International law is an evolving thing. Most self-consciously over the last couple hundred years, and perhaps most earnestly in the last generation or so.

The history of the law – the limiting of “sovereignty,” especially of the most powerful (kings, lords, bandit or merchant princes) – has always been a struggle. Power does not easily cede its power, and sometimes is rightly suspicious of doing so.

It seems to me that the move to real, enforceable, even “legislated” International Law is on the rise (are the various “sanction regimes” attempted over the last decades an example of this tendency?) and that a focus of that movement is and/or will be more and more the United Nations.

No, a “Parliament of Nations” does not yet write planetary law, and then send the gendarmes in to enforce it.

But the world community is, in its many-bodied and bumpy way, evolving -- pushing ever further in building both the consensus and institutions (and adapting existing institutions) to require certain definite standards of international behavior.

And the UN is, if not the only one, a natural and continuing focal point of that effort…


:) Thanks Stephistan AND Dragongate (and others)...

*phew* Finally finished reading the whole darn thing. Or at least most of it. :p Nice debate Dragon and Steph :) I profess my complete and utter ignorance on all topics, well... for the most part.


And as a fun part of this post.... I forget the exact words of the email that goes around ... somthing like... "The last time the Americans tried to invade Canada, we beat them back to their white house where we burned it" (I'm *sure* that is mostly exaggerated, but still fun).

As for the US invading Canada now, Canada, unlike Iraq, is a member of NATO. I believe that a declaration of war against one NATO member is a declaration of war against them all? I would like to believe that Canada has many more allies willing to come to it's defence than Iraq did.

And for future reference... adding insults to a highly skilled debate just takes away one's credibility.

:?: If this is the real world UN does that mean that we're all in danger of some moron trying to invade our country? coz if we are thats pretty shitty.

Psylos wrote:
I think the world needs a global government. The UN needs to evolve into something like that. I'm tired of the xenophobic nationalistic views of the world leaders and of their 'real politiks'. There is only one people.

Trebarunia replied:
Tell me you don't believe that yourself! There is only one people? Are you blind? Has it not occured to you that about every country has its own culture? Thus, there are at least 200 cultures, which means some 200 peoples? Secondly, a world government would be EXTREMELY bureaucratic, and inevitably corrupt. Furthermore, idealogical differences are at this stage far too great to accomplish what you want, so for your idea to succeed the world would have to become a homogenic mold.
Please tell me that is absolutely not what you want this world to lead to!

To which I say:
Given, this is a month old, but I feel I must speak up. Very few people I have talked to are (seriously) in favour of a World Government, while I strive to make it my life's work (yeah, I mean it; go on; flame me). The reasons I have heard against a world government all run along the lines of: there are too many people; it would be too hard; the US would dominate; it (I) would become corrupt; rights would be supressed. None of these reasons have any sway with me, however, as I believe such things could be overcome.
Coupled with these problems is that of ideological differences, notably (in my mind) those of economic policy (Capitalism vs Communism) and religion (Christianity vs Islam, and others). These too, I believe, could be overcome by a truly benign global movement; one which held the health and safety over its citizens above all else, and made no action to the contrary.

How would I (or anyone) do this? Start by making clear the aims of the movement: Peace for all humanity. Now, in my mind this is different from "world peace", that being simply a worldwide absence of war. No, peace for all humanity would be not only an absence of war, but also an absence of conflict, fear, injustice and poverty, and the presence of ample food and shelter for the whole world, and all people living upon it. Coupled with this would be an interest in expanding our scientific and philosophical horizons, and conserving and protecting the environment. In light of this kind of "mission statement", noone could oppose the World Government movement without having their dedication to humanity publicly questioned.
A clear and popular mission statement is key to any successful (long-term) political movement, whether it be the Bolshevik's (Russian Communists, pre-1917) "Peace, Bread and Land" or Hitler's many (many) political catchphrases.
However, the wrong kinds of party ideals can be the downfall of a party (see the previous two for examples); the use of a scapegoat only works as long as the people are gullibe, and images of bringing a nation glory only bring it into conflict with others. The universal "Peace for all humanity" is probably the most glorious goal of all and no (decent) human being could ever dispute that.

The next thing I would do is outline the structure of the planned government; potential member nations would be worried that any one other nation would hold too much power and that they would lose their own, and also that their own cultures would be "watered down" in favour of the global culture. This would not be a problem when coercing (such a despicable word, yet the best) "developing nations" to join the world government, as the gains to their people and promises of economic success for their nation would be bait enough. Economically strong nations, however (such as Europe, Japan, America and Australia), would need their fears allayed.
This would be done with the following structure: At the bottom, regional governments, the structure of which is decided on by the people who live there, and with powers to run their countries day-to day; above that, a global senate/council/name-isn't-important-you-get-the-idea, similar to the United Nations, to which each region would s/elect a number of representatives based on population, and this "parliament" would be the major legislative body; there would be a second regulative body to which only one representative would be s/elected per region, and this would be a regulating body to the "parliament"; finally, above these, would be a s/elected cabinet, headed by one or two individuals- this would be the final power. Outside this basic structure would be the courts (with global jurisdiction) and two organisations which would make certain that corruption would not run rampant: The Council of Advocates and The Guardians of the People (these names are indicative of purpose, and sound cool, but are fairly unimportant).
The Council of Advocates, which would have regional branches, would be a forum for ANYBODY to bring forth a problem to representatives, who would then advocate the cause of the complainant to the appropriate level of government. This forum would hear concerns from the widest variety of people, be they a priest or a terrorist, and would greatly reduce problems in the world- In my experience, most conflicts are misunderstandings, and if both parties understand and sympathise with the other's motivation, they tend to compromise.
The Guardians of the People (or INSERT OTHER NAME HERE) would replace the regular military, as no region could legally raise their own. These soldiers would be highly educated, trained and most importantly, inducted heavily to believe in human rights and uphold honour at every tuen. These servants of the people would also double as the government's intelligence agencies.

There's more of course, but I doubt people could read any more of this opinionated stuff. Given, it's idealistic to believe that this could be achieved in a lifetime, but I think that a global government, and eventually a government for all humanity's lands, could be successful if the ideal of "peace for all humanity" was applied by a truly benign government.
I'd like to state also, that all of this is opinion, and I present as fact only that which I have observed as such in my (given, limited) experiences with people anf through my studies.

Okay, I shut up now, cuz this is a stickied post and I don't think people want to read a rant this long (although, reading the majority of the topic...)

Look me up; sondogz@hotmail.com if you've got comments on the world government (flames=no thanks), as long as they're constructive.

-Mayhem, Advocate of the Allied States of the A and H Dynasties.

Oh, and by the way: I mean it.

First - I'm sorry if I added to the "personalization" of this thread. But I just really didn't like Dragon's insulting tactics and blatant misstruths... so I thought he deserved to be called on it. But the bulk of my previous post was still intended to be my views on the subject at hand.


Now, regarding the concepts brought up by The AH Dynasties...

An interesting, utopian concept - but to consider some possible issues working against such a plan:

Top five populations as of 2001
1 China 1,273,111,290
2 India 1,029,991,145
3 United States 278,058,881
4 Indonesia 228,437,870
5 Brazil 174,468,575

The fact is that many of the most populous nations are those that are still developing. Giving a representational weighting based on population alone puts a good chunk of the power in the hands of countries that are perhaps not yet equiped to use it well. If these countries are given the power to elect the world court to handle outside issues - then you rapidly will find yourself with a stacked courthouse in the same manner as political appointments have caused the US supreme court to be weighted more heavily with a conservative flavour.

My other issue would be the definition of the seperation of powers. What represents "running the country day-to-day", and what issues need to be addressed globally. This is where scope has to be clearly reigned in as countries must be allowed to enact local legislation to meet world guidelines in a culturally apropriate (and sensitive) manner. Otherwise the world government will quickly be viewed as a world dictatorship.

And that is really the hardest part of world government. Most people would say that they are already taxed and legislated to within an inch of their lives. Adding another layer that has the ability to overrule local decisions simply adds to costs and the time it takes to effect positive change. In most cases, I think that the UN model is correct in that it brokers treaties which allow regional flexibility to reach compliance rather than laying down a strict set of laws.

Frankly, I think that if the UN security council permanent members didn't constantly corrupt the process for their own self-interest, it would be a far more workable model than what you propose.

But that's just my opinion. Certainly moving towards a UN managed army to handle peacekeeping would be an improvement over the current situation where diferent countries take on diferent duties, and switchovers in the command structures are in constant need. Having countries post units to this global army for terms of duty under a permanent command structure would streamline the deployment process and make it more reactive. Instead of today's situation where countries must steo up and volunteer troops for each and every action.

Some interesting concepts to mull over though....

-Z-

Yo.
When I say "population-based representation", I mean more like an extra rep. or two for any region with a population of over 100 million.
Regardless, the equally-powered global senate would be like the Australian Senate; any bill has to be passed by the upper house and then given the stamp of approval by the highest powers before it can be passed. Thus, no small group of countries could have major control.
That, and with the "guardians of the people" concept, I have always envisioned troops recruited straight from the people, rather than simply extricated from normal militaries. This way, they give up their loyalty to the nation for loyalty to "peace for all humanity". The government houses, clothes, feeds, and educates them and their families, and they become a sort of upper class like the knights of the middle ages.

-Mayhem, in a rush

Yo.
When I say "population-based representation", I mean more like an extra rep. or two for any region with a population of over 100 million.

Just a quick question, why would you believe or feel, that the best representation would be based on a populace base instead of a countries record on the international stage?

Peace,
Stephanie.

<i>why would you believe or feel, that the best representation would be based on a populace base instead of a countries record on the international stage? </i>

Not that I'm agreeing or disagreeing, but a country's record on the international stage is an entirely SUBJECTIVE qualification. Record based on what? In whose eyes? By what standards?

There are really only a couple ways for a representational body like the UN: Population based (like a U.S. House of Reps or UK House of Commons) or one/two votes per country (like a US Senate).



Back to the original thread, however, I agree with the actual UN mandate...complying with UN suggestions on internal affairs can be encouraged or rewarded, but not required (as that violates a nation's sovereignity). International disputes and trans-national interaction should be the realm of the UN. When a country's internal actions begin to affect other countries sovereignity (unstable governments leading to mass refugees, state sponsored terrorist camps who then leave to cause havoc elsewhere, etc.), it becomes a UN issue.

It is not the role of the UN, either real or NS, to homogenize the world into one way of thinking and acting, but to HARMONIZE the way member nations interact with each other.

<i>why would you believe or feel, that the best representation would be based on a populace base instead of a countries record on the international stage? </i>

Not that I'm agreeing or disagreeing, but a country's record on the international stage is an entirely SUBJECTIVE qualification. Record based on what? In whose eyes? By what standards?

There are really only a couple ways for a representational body like the UN: Population based (like a U.S. House of Reps or UK House of Commons) or one/two votes per country (like a US Senate).



Back to the original thread, however, I agree with the actual UN mandate...complying with UN suggestions on internal affairs can be encouraged or rewarded, but not required (as that violates a nation's sovereignity). International disputes and trans-national interaction should be the realm of the UN. When a country's internal actions begin to affect other countries sovereignity (unstable governments leading to mass refugees, state sponsored terrorist camps who then leave to cause havoc elsewhere, etc.), it becomes a UN issue.

It is not the role of the UN, either real or NS, to homogenize the world into one way of thinking and acting, but to HARMONIZE the way member nations interact with each other.

I actually disagree with the whole "World Government" idea.. I was just trying to find out what the posters reasoning was for their position.

I do agree with the UN and it's mandate though completely.

Peace,
Stephanie.

The UN here is just used to get power... it is a tool, all the proposals seem kinda peripheral. It'll be better in NS2 at least.

<QUOTE>Just a quick question, why would you believe or feel, that the best representation would be based on a populace base instead of a countries record on the international stage? <END QUOTE>

Because it's democratic, and Democracy is currently the most successful system around.
-Giving representation based on countries' records is what happened at the end of World War Two: the UK Russia and USA won, so they got automatic power, and France and China got seriously beaten down, so they got representation too.
Populational representation is what happens in the lower house here in Australia; there are a number of electorates, divided by population boundaries, and each electorate votes in a representative. This way, each community has a say in national politics.
Above that, as a regulating body, we have a senate house, where bills are passed. STATES EACH HAVE EQUAL REPRESENTATION IN THE SENATE- Each state votes in 12 senators, and each territory 6, so that while the more populous states have a greater say in the lower house, the senate is equal. The Senate can propose bills (laws) which are then given to the House of Representatives to pass, then the Senate must pass it again, with any modifications before it becomes law. It is then given the "royal seal of approval" by the Viceroyal Governor-General, the Queen's representative and effective head of state.
My proposed system is based upon the Australian one, to be honest, because it is a working example of a reasonably democratic system.
Population-based representation is important because it means that any bills passed on to the upper house is a representation of the will of the majority, and the regulating body is important to stop any one group from becoming too powerful.

-Mayhem, Advocate of the Allied States of the A and H Dynasties.

<QUOTE>Just a quick question, why would you believe or feel, that the best representation would be based on a populace base instead of a countries record on the international stage? <END QUOTE>

Because it's democratic, and Democracy is currently the most successful system around.
-Giving representation based on countries' records is what happened at the end of World War Two: the UK Russia and USA won, so they got automatic power, and France and China got seriously beaten down, so they got representation too.
Populational representation is what happens in the lower house here in Australia; there are a number of electorates, divided by population boundaries, and each electorate votes in a representative. This way, each community has a say in national politics.
Above that, as a regulating body, we have a senate house, where bills are passed. STATES EACH HAVE EQUAL REPRESENTATION IN THE SENATE- Each state votes in 12 senators, and each territory 6, so that while the more populous states have a greater say in the lower house, the senate is equal. The Senate can propose bills (laws) which are then given to the House of Representatives to pass, then the Senate must pass it again, with any modifications before it becomes law. It is then given the "royal seal of approval" by the Viceroyal Governor-General, the Queen's representative and effective head of state.
My proposed system is based upon the Australian one, to be honest, because it is a working example of a reasonably democratic system.
Population-based representation is important because it means that any bills passed on to the upper house is a representation of the will of the majority, and the regulating body is important to stop any one group from becoming too powerful.

-Mayhem, Advocate of the Allied States of the A and H Dynasties.

Thanks for answering my question. I think it's a horrible idea personally. It would never work from an economic stand point unless the world were to turn into complete socialists. However, at least I understand more where you are coming from, even if I disagree with you. I think Zeppistan's argument made a lot more sense. I don't think it would or could work. Nor do I think I would want it to. However, it's always good to discuss different ways things could work, makes people have to think, for that I thank you :)

Peace,
Stephanie.

Stephistan might be interested in (Professor of International Law at Tufts) Michael Glennon’s “realist” take on international law and the UN in the May/June 2003 issue of Foreign Affairs. (A view Dragongate might be sympathetic with…)

A fairly random quote:

“…But these idealists might remind themselves that the international legal system is, again, voluntarist. For better or worse, its rules are based on state consent. States are not bound by rules to which they do not agree. Like it or not, that is the Westphalian system, and it is still very much with us. Pretending that the system can be based on idealists’ own subjective notions of morality won’t make it so.” [p 31]

:D Credit (?) to Stephistan that I couldn’t read Foreign Affairs without thinking of this NationStates thread…

Stephistan might be interested in (Professor of International Law at Tufts) Michael Glennon’s “realist” take on international law and the UN in the May/June 2003 issue of Foreign Affairs. (A view Dragongate might be sympathetic with…)

A fairly random quote:

“…But these idealists might remind themselves that the international legal system is, again, voluntarist. For better or worse, its rules are based on state consent. States are not bound by rules to which they do not agree. Like it or not, that is the Westphalian system, and it is still very much with us. Pretending that the system can be based on idealists’ own subjective notions of morality won’t make it so.” [p 31]

:D Credit (?) to Stephistan that I couldn’t read Foreign Affairs without thinking of this NationStates thread…

Thank you.

I understand this. I tried my very best to explain that I understood this to Dragongate.

On the most part this is true. I will again though repeat, it is not the case for all International law. Such as I have pointed out on many occasions in this thread. Mostly "The Hague Conventions on Warfare " and "The Geneva Conventions", as well as now in large part the ICC even to non signatory countries outside of their own borders. Also the UN SC can most certainly enforce it's will and or political pressure onto a non signatory country. These are absolutes and are in no way "voluntary" These were all along the only points I was attempting to get across.

Much more was made of it by Dragongate for reasons quite frankly unknown to me, other then perhaps he wasn't clear on these international laws, which ended up being rather obvious by the end of the debate. I think much of Dragongate's arguments while some correct and some not, were based on a new American arrogance that we in the world have seen emerge since 9/11. While I can understand it was a horrible and horrific event, it doesn't negate that the following of certain treaties and conventions are mandatory by all countries. He seemed to have trouble understanding that just because I can knock you down because I'm bigger then you, that I should.

However, I never argued that UN treaties were binding to non signatory countries, nor, did I ever claim that countries couldn't pull out of treaties they were signatory to. With these exceptions.

Peace,
Stephanie.

World Bank Group: Provides loans and technical assistance to developing countries to reduce poverty and advance sustainable economic growth.

Someone has a sense of humour... :lol:

Down the UN! Up independence and nationalism!
Max

boo!

The problem with modeling the NationStates U.N. on the real-world U.N. is that their missions and capabilities are almost entirely complementary.

The real-world U.N. primarily exists to provide an international framework for disputes between countries: How they can share resources, defend one another, and resolve disputes without resorting to violence. It is not, primarily, intended to change the internal laws of member countries.

The NationStates U.N., by contrast, is incapable of doing anything *but* changing the internal laws of member countries. Look at the categories of resolutions available: With only a few exceptions, they all address *intra*national politics, not the relationships between sovreign nations.

Sincerely,
Javier Hootenany
Undersecretary to the United Nations Ambassador for NationStates Rules and Regulations
Community of Gurthark

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

*bump*

I think I can understand after reading through here a few times. Could I have a spot on the wall next to you? :D

*bump*

Regards,
Sakbutt

Do you play the sackbut? Or the trombone? Or the didgeridoo?

Do you play the sackbut? Or the trombone? Or the didgeridoo?

What's the didgeridoo? That's a funny word :lol:

Do you play the sackbut? Or the trombone? Or the didgeridoo?

What's the didgeridoo? That's a funny word :lol:

An Australian aboriginal instrument. It's the sound you always hear when someone goes to Australia in a movie or TVs. That low weird humming.

We feel that the "real-life" United Nations would be greatly improved by a) Giving the General Assembly more power; and b) removing the category of "permanent members" entitled to sit and cast a veto on the Security Council. The system of "permanent members" made some sense after WWII, when the leading allied nations were entitled to some special consideration. But it's been nearly 60 years since the war ended, and all of the former axis powers have long been reintegrated into the world community. Countries like the U.S., Russia and China do not have especially good records of upholding the principles of the U.N., and they no longer deserve special privileges.

Do you play the sackbut? Or the trombone? Or the didgeridoo?

What's the didgeridoo? That's a funny word :lol:

An Australian aboriginal instrument. It's the sound you always hear when someone goes to Australia in a movie or TVs. That low weird humming.

It's a common novelty among trombone players because the techniques for playing them are very similar.

We feel that the "real-life" United Nations would be greatly improved by a) Giving the General Assembly more power; and b) removing the category of "permanent members" entitled to sit and cast a veto on the Security Council. The system of "permanent members" made some sense after WWII, when the leading allied nations were entitled to some special consideration. But it's been nearly 60 years since the war ended, and all of the former axis powers have long been reintegrated into the world community. Countries like the U.S., Russia and China do not have especially good records of upholding the principles of the U.N., and they no longer deserve special privileges.

The problem I see with removing the permanent members, is the good chance that the US, Russia, and/or China would leave the UN. Seeing how part of the reason (in my opinion) that the UN is a joke now is due to a lack of serious interest on the part of these nations (especially the US) if they leave it would basically end the UN as a major player on the international scene (if it could be considered one now.)

The UN is inherantly a corrupt entity. While its existence suggests the cooperation of nations in solving worldly problems, its structure is implausible. While it has, in some instances, become a useful tool in sorting out problems, it has also become a giant beaurocracy. Sovereignty of nations should be respected, yet these so-called "United" nations seek to impose their quazi-socialistic liberal views on every nation that is party to their madness. Additionally, in cases where the UN is needed the most they are standing by idoly. Such an instance would be the genocide in Rwanda, the nuclear crisis in North Korea, the invasion of Kuwait, the use of chemical weapons by Saddam Hussein on Kurds, the list goes on and on... Now, it seems that the principle purpose the UN is to try and counter-balance US power internationally. It seeks to try and act as a "check" against the most powerful nation on earth, despite the fact that the nation of the US, more so than any other, has been a force for good throughout the world. This entity, like the League of Nations before it is utterly impotent. Were it not for the fact that we are unfortunately a party to this organization, it would collapse just as well. Finally, the UN is also a hypocrytical organization. How is it that the United States receives more scrutiny than any other nation, yet Libya is the head of the UN Committee on Human Rights? Additionally, Saddam Hussein's Iraq was slated to chair a conference on Disarmament in February 2003, replacing Iran who was the former chair of this committee! Looking at these facts, I believe it is obvious what steps the US should take regarding the UN: The US out of the UN, and the UN out of the US. 8)

The UN is inherently a corrupt entity.

Corrupt? In what sense are you using this word?

While its existence suggests the cooperation of nations in solving worldly problems, its structure is implausible.

Its hardly “implausible” since it obviously exists.

While it has, in some instances, become a useful tool in sorting out problems, it has also become a giant beaurocracy (sic).

It’s a quite useful tool in many instances and the existence of the United Nations as a forum and a facilitator has been invaluable in helping to develop vast numbers of international agreements on everything from licensing merchant marine captains to puzzling out standards for transporting hazardous cargo. I agree that it could use a firmer hand in its administration but then, what large organization could not.

Sovereignty of nations should be respected, yet these so-called "United" nations seek to impose their quazi (sic)-socialistic liberal views on every nation that is party to their madness.

The myth that the UN has the power to “impose” some worldview on the United States is just that, a myth. The Charter makes it clear that it cannot. No doubt part of the problem here is the constant moronic blather by some people (at least one of whom is active here) that it can. This is nothing more than the wishful thinking of leftists, especially those from impotent little countries dreaming of being able to tell the United States what it can and cannot do. No worry; there is no international law right for them to do so.

Additionally, in cases where the UN is needed the most they are standing by idoly (sic). Such an instance would be the genocide in Rwanda, the nuclear crisis in North Korea, the invasion of Kuwait, the use of chemical weapons by Saddam Hussein on Kurds, the list goes on and on...

The ability of the UN to react is, perforce, limited to what is brought before it and what it can achieve consensus on. It’s a bit much to complain, on the one hand, that it does too much and, on the other, that it does too little. And, I’d remind you that the UN did react to most of the situations you’ve mentioned even if not in the manner that you would have liked.

Now, it seems that the principle purpose the UN is to try and counter-balance US power internationally. It seeks to try and act as a "check" against the most powerful nation on earth, despite the fact that the nation of the US, more so than any other, has been a force for good throughout the world.

Well, I’m certainly a fan of the United States and its foreign policy. But the UN is not an entity. “It” doesn’t seek to do anything by itself but only acts as its member states direct within the context of the Charter. Argue with France if you like but don’t blame the UN.

This entity, like the League of Nations before it is utterly impotent. Were it not for the fact that we are unfortunately a party to this organization, it would collapse just as well.

Indeed, just as it would if any of the lesser, but still important, powers upped and left. I’d be careful about referring too much to the League since its collapse may well have been a major cause of World War II. That was hardly America’s finest moment.

Finally, the UN is also a hypocrytical (sic) organization. How is it that the United States receives more scrutiny than any other nation, yet Libya is the head of the UN Committee on Human Rights? Additionally, Saddam Hussein's Iraq was slated to chair a conference on Disarmament in February 2003, replacing Iran who was the former chair of this committee!

Here you simply have no clue as to how the UN is supposed to operate or the reasons that it is configured the way it is.

The UN is set up to be non-judgmental regarding its member states precisely so that the less than pleasant nations of the world will continue to be members. A world forum loses much of its purpose if, for whatever reason, nations refuse to join or leave for slight cause.

Looking at these facts, I believe it is obvious what steps the US should take regarding the UN: The US out of the UN, and the UN out of the US. 8)

As should now be clear, you really have little grasp of the facts. A bit of genuine thought about these issues might be beneficial.

Welcome back, Dragongate!

R/
StarWalker of Kaolynth

First off, I'd like to applaud you on your oh so geniune condascention. Its really a nice touch. :wink: Second, my implications that it is implausible were correct, not insofar as the UN cannot exist, but rather that it has not performed its duties as correctly as its proponents claim. Additionally, your claim that the UN is not an entity fraudulent at best. The fact that it has a military force, police or otherwise, proves that it is indeed an entity capable of imposing its will.

"Indeed, just as it would if any of the lesser, but still important, powers upped and left. I’d be careful about referring too much to the League since its collapse may well have been a major cause of World War II. That was hardly America’s finest moment."

And I'd be careful about making broad and sweep generalizations about history. Had you actually took time from your UN sycophantry to learn about history, you'd have learned the two most significant causes of World War 2 was the depression in America and the over-punitive Treaty of Versailles, which caused a chain reaction across the world. The weakened state of an already troubled German economy allowed a situation in which Fascist/Paramilitary organizations could more easily take power. Thus, enters Hitler's Nazi party. As for Japan, they had already begun their territorial advances in China while the League of Nations still existed!

"It’s a quite useful tool in many instances and the existence of the United Nations as a forum and a facilitator has been invaluable in helping to develop vast numbers of international agreements on everything from licensing merchant marine captains to puzzling out standards for transporting hazardous cargo. I agree that it could use a firmer hand in its administration but then, what large organization could not."

On this point, I concede that the UN is useful on issues of commerce and trade, but this should be the extent of its abilities. I argue that it has too much influence. Why is it, that an entity that exists for the purpose of "debate" (that's the keyword here), has a military force? If people believe that it needs a military force, then obviously the definition of the UN's role in the world has to be changed. No longer would it be simply a debating forum for the world, but rather it is now a political entity, bent on carrying out its will through means of force if necessary. I simply pointed out in my earlier post that in times when the UN is called upon to use this force, it stands by idoly, sheltered behind meaningless filibuster.

"The myth that the UN has the power to “impose” some worldview on the United States is just that, a myth. The Charter makes it clear that it cannot. No doubt part of the problem here is the constant moronic blather by some people (at least one of whom is active here) that it can. This is nothing more than the wishful thinking of leftists, especially those from impotent little countries dreaming of being able to tell the United States what it can and cannot do. No worry; there is no international law right for them to do so."

Believe me, there is no myth about it. Just because they havent succeeded, doesn't mean they havent tried. Kofi Annan and others badgered the US about it's Pro-Israeli policies, and have used the forum to condemn Israeli actions against terror. This, although it has no concrete effect, is an attempt by the UN to impose its worldview.

"The ability of the UN to react is, perforce, limited to what is brought before it and what it can achieve consensus on. It’s a bit much to complain, on the one hand, that it does too much and, on the other, that it does too little. And, I’d remind you that the UN did react to most of the situations you’ve mentioned even if not in the manner that you would have liked."

Tell me, what exactly did the UN do in Rwanda, when a million people died; because I must have missed it. And what about North Korea? This is a problem that still continues on as we speak. The only sense that I've gotten from the UN is that they want the US to take care of it. It has been the US that has put forth multi-lateral debates including China, Russia, South Korea, North Korea, and Japan. In regards to Kuwait, it was US and UK forces that liberated Kuwait. If we had left it up to the UN, Kuwait would probably still be in Hussein's control. My original assertion that the UN was and is asleep at the wheel are valid.

Here you simply have no clue as to how the UN is supposed to operate or the reasons that it is configured the way it is.

"The UN is set up to be non-judgmental regarding its member states precisely so that the less than pleasant nations of the world will continue to be members. A world forum loses much of its purpose if, for whatever reason, nations refuse to join or leave for slight cause."

That's a rationalization and you know it. The fact is that these are more than slight causes that should disqualify certain nations from chairing certain committees. You needn't look far to find the atrocities committed by some of these UN members. You can tell the families of people murdered at the hands of these regimes why their government should chair a committee on human rights. It is utterly irresponsible for the UN to leave its committee membership up to alphabetical order.

"As should now be clear, you really have little grasp of the facts. A bit of genuine thought about these issues might be beneficial."

Right back at you Dragongate.

Sorry about the typos in my last post, i was in a hurry so i didnt really check it for grammer, and i didnt use the quoting tool on this forum to quote Dragongate.

The problem with modeling the NationStates U.N. on the real-world U.N. is that their missions and capabilities are almost entirely complementary.

The real-world U.N. primarily exists to provide an international framework for disputes between countries: How they can share resources, defend one another, and resolve disputes without resorting to violence. It is not, primarily, intended to change the internal laws of member countries.

The NationStates U.N., by contrast, is incapable of doing anything *but* changing the internal laws of member countries. Look at the categories of resolutions available: With only a few exceptions, they all address *intra*national politics, not the relationships between sovreign nations.

Sincerely,
Javier Hootenany
Undersecretary to the United Nations Ambassador for NationStates Rules and Regulations
Community of Gurthark

I want to clarify this a bit.

The problem is that relationships between nations, within NationStates, are governed exclusively by the game's rules, while what goes on *within* a nation is determined in part by that nation's laws. Resolutions passed in the United Nations alter member nations' laws. They do not change the game's rules. Therefore, the United Nations is capable of affecting member nations' national politics, but it is not capable of mediating interactions between nations.

This is just the opposite of the real-world United Nations.

Sincerely,
Javier Hootenany
Undersecretary to the United Nations Ambassador for NationStates Rules and Regulations
Community of Gurthark

You make it very clear what side of the political fence you sit on. Henry Kissenger [sic] is no doubt regarded internationally as a war criminal but only by morons, communists (which is the same thing) , and snot nosed children.

Mr. Dragongate, you are an enigma. You seem to embody both the best and the worst of America; on the one hand educated, articulate, and a champion of the world's powerless, and on the other snide, condescending, and overzealous in the use of your powers (such as they are).

As a fellow American, I've read this thread with great interest. This particular quote is the one that moved me to respond.

I am neither a moron, a communist, nor a snot-nosed child. And yet I am torn on the issue of Kissinger as war criminal. Chris Hitchens (author of The Trials of HK) presents a rather straightforward argument that establishes two seemingly undeniable propositions: on at least one occasion, Henry K. conspired to commit murder, and that on numerous other occasions, Henry K. was the primary force behind certain acts that could quite plausibly be considered war crimes. The murder victim was General Rene Schneider, who was the Commander in Chief of the Chilean Army, whom I am assuming Stephistan was referring to earlier in this thread. According to the 09 September, 1970 minutes of the "40" Committee, the Kissinger-chaired panel that oversaw U.S. covert operations, the Chilean military had a strong tradition of neutrality in political affairs, a rarity on the South American continent. General Schneider was known as an officer committed to upholding the Chilean constitution and therefore opposed to the rumored incipient coup against newly elected Socialist President Salvador Allende by a right wing would-be junta of current and former Chilean military officers. Using U.S. Government communications cables from the CIA and documents from the State Department and White House, Hitchens relates the facts of Kissinger's direct involvement in the direction, planning, financing, and general support by the organs of the U.S. Government in the plot to remove General Schneider. Upon learning of these activities I felt personally betrayed - much like I felt during and after Iran-Contra, and wished for some accounting, a pound of flesh...

However. I can also understand that Hitchens (and those who agree with him) is disproportionately fixated on burning Kissinger as a symbol of American abuse of power. Anyone who has ever controlled military power in any country is responsible for the death of innocent people. One could argue that wielding the kind of power the United States government does precludes the luxury of moral high ground. I can understand the US government's reluctance to cede jurisdiction to a world court, given the level and scope of international anger with our country (definitely pre-dating Bush, and certainly surviving him).

Frankly I would love to see some pissant country try to arrest an American citizen on such specious charges as have been leveled against Henry K. I'd enjoy watching the situation play out.

But here's a bit of news for you. We've had a serious regime change here in the USA. There is no longer any branch of our government which is controlled by the left wing and American attitudes have changed.

Indeed, for decades the United States put up with a long list of outrages without reacting as a superpower should. The last few months have demonstrated a different attitude.

Think or say whatever you like, we obviously don't care. Act against our citizens and this country will retaliate.

I doubt we'll be invading Canada anytime soon but I remind you that the United States has just finished obliterating the armed forces of a nation on the other side of the planet using only a fraction of our forces. That nations armed forces were considerably larger than Canada's and, in many respects, better equipped.

Just for the record, the majority of citizens within this country do care, very deeply, about what the world thinks and says. And take the responsibilities of being the lone remaining superpower very seriously. Dragongate, by your own actions as spokesperson for an NGO, you demonstrate that you care. These tantrums should be beneath you.

Ok, I've read this entire thread, and I still have a couple of questions about the point of the UN with regard to this game, and no I don't really care to debate about the real UN. It is also entirely possible that my question is more of a technical nature, ane therefore offtopic, but in a thread specifically about the UN it seemed to work.

What happens once a resolution is passed? Looking in the UN forum there is discussion about a resolution regarding HIV. I haven't looked at the results if there are any as Kapikui is not in the UN, but let's assume it passes. So what? What really changes? Does someone take it and write code to make the Nations in the UN follow that resolution? Since AIDS doesn't appear to be much a part of this particular game, what will happen with that particular issue if it passes(or was passed)? Will anything actually change in the game or does the NSUN only serve as a location for people to vent their spleens about particular issues?

The FAQ says that member nations are required to abide by UN resolutions, but how is this accomplished? The issue submission form has some very clear instructions for using it, and much of it could be taken and applied with very little human intervention. You state what the issues are, the various options, and what likely effect they will have. With the UN resolutions, however there is none of that, and most of the resolutions I've read don't seem to be adaptable to the game at all.

So what purpose does the UN have in this game? I can't see any way to enforce or even implement the resolutions passed, nor do I see any way to obedience to anything that is passed. Once again I don't care about moral or legal arguments. I want to have some idea technically what is happening. Are they just posted and all UN members are just expected to do the right thing? Does someone go in and write a bunch of new code every time something is passed? What happens?

How dare you! Kissinger ordered the illegal bombing of Cambodia. He's a war criminal, you prat.

OOC: Half the game is role-playing. That's why the UN exists. But, back to the topic.......

How dare you! Kissinger ordered the illegal bombing of Cambodia. He's a war criminal, you prat.

Prat? To whom are you referring, good Demo-Bobylon?

I would say the UN is just a very weak form of global government. What it is, is not all to it. What it can be is the key.

And this game describes it very well. Ruled by a form of democratic behavoir it can influence the internal situations by making laws/resolutions that a nation is forced to follow.

So what it can do, just look at the effect ;), that is pretty much all. Though you can also apply it nicely in roleplaying.

To there seem to be some form of constituiton too like no discrimation, etc. :P Which proposals will be kicked out. Not trully democration, but very very realistically :).

who wants to trade uranium for crack ?

Kissinger.

Kissinger.

LoL. Of all the evil, imperialistic realpolitikos, Kissinger's my favorite :lol:.

Him and Bismarck. Even though I completely disagree with most of their foreign policy ideas, they DO have some of hte best quotes ever ;).

regardless of Dragongate or Stephistan's qualifications: in my huble opinion, Dragongate is a better arguer on the whole. :wink:

regardless of Dragongate or Stephistan's qualifications: in my huble opinion, Dragongate is a better arguer on the whole. :wink:

A better arguer? A subjective opinion. While he does have a wonderful command of the English language, to my mind anyone who descends to personal attacks as often as he does completely undermines his worth as a debater.

Besides, it is supposed to be a debate on a subject, not a competition for best presentation. And he was caught in too many errors....

But hey - at least you were entertained by it. Although if it is your "Huble" opinion... doesn't that mean you have too narrow a focus (not to mention fuzzy vision)?

No wait... that would be Hubble.... my bad!

:wink:

-Z-

The UN has a sacred responsibility. On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Assembly called upon all member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration and "to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories."

Our NationStates would do well to use this as our guiding priciple. To demostrate that cooperation is not winning, losing, or compromise. That the dream of Martin Luther King would be born in the hearts of all people.
When he accepted the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964 he said:

"I believe that even amid today's mortar bursts and whining bullets, there is still hope for a brighter tomorrow. I believe that wounded justice, lying prostrate on the blood-flowing streets of our nations, can be lifted from this dust of shame to reign supreme among the children of men.

I have the audacity to believe that peoples everywhere can have three meals a day for their bodies, education and culture for their minds, and dignity, equality and freedom for their spirits. I believe that what self-centered men have torn down, men other-centered can build up. I still believe that one day mankind will bow before the altars of God and be crowned triumphant over war and bloodshed, and nonviolent redemptive goodwill will proclaim the rule of the land."

The UN is trying to strangle your independence... abolish the UN!

The UN is trying to strangle your independence... abolish the UN!

The UN has no desire to encroach on national soverignty. You gotta be kidding. Why don't we just abolish anything that smacks of a worldwide attempt to make peace.

The Holy Republic of the States Of Stephenson agree with this assement of the United Nations. While nations do relinquish some soverign powers when they join an international organization such as the United Nations, individual states should be given the option to accept or reject laws that their populace has deemed unaceptable.

The problem with this idea is that it is the same concept as nullification, one of the reasons for the US Civil War. Domestic policy is one of those things that is best left to those that it governs. We do not believe that one nation should have the right to use the United Nations to force their political ideology on another nation. This has happened in the past. The United Nations has passed legislation requiring member nations to pass laws that endorse homosexual marriages. This policy does not sit well with many UN members, as several voted against the proposal.

While losing and winning votes is an important part of democracy, not every issue that the United Nations implements will save or destroy human civilization. Nations should have the right to implement their own domestic policy and be given the option to partake or reject international mandates. If the United Nations is serious about enforcing its rules, they need to be popular with most of the membership, with the clause that dissenting states do not have to comply. It is our understanding that UN legislation are proposed as resolutions that are non-binding.

The United Nations needs to become a world government if it wants to pass actual laws. Under the current structure, the United Nations does not have the power to pass laws. If nations would like the United Nations to exercise the actual powers of a government, then the world needs to develop a system like the European Union or the federal US model. Under this type of system, those nations that choose to participate could surrender all national soverinty to the United Nations. Then laws could be passed on issues such as same-sex unions (We are using this as an example.)

Under the current UN system, all legislation passed are resolutions that are non-binding. They cannot be enforced in nations choose to reject them. If nations and their leaders want a world government, then make the UN a world government, not an international instution. Of course, if this happens, then something just like the UN would emerge to compensate for the change in the international political system. The UN is about choice, pure and simple. Nations must choose to accept or reject what it says.

The UN is inherantly a corrupt entity. While its existence suggests the cooperation of nations in solving worldly problems, its structure is implausible. While it has, in some instances, become a useful tool in sorting out problems, it has also become a giant beaurocracy. Sovereignty of nations should be respected, yet these so-called "United" nations seek to impose their quazi-socialistic liberal views on every nation that is party to their madness. Additionally, in cases where the UN is needed the most they are standing by idoly. Such an instance would be the genocide in Rwanda, the nuclear crisis in North Korea, the invasion of Kuwait, the use of chemical weapons by Saddam Hussein on Kurds, the list goes on and on... Now, it seems that the principle purpose the UN is to try and counter-balance US power internationally. It seeks to try and act as a "check" against the most powerful nation on earth, despite the fact that the nation of the US, more so than any other, has been a force for good throughout the world. This entity, like the League of Nations before it is utterly impotent. Were it not for the fact that we are unfortunately a party to this organization, it would collapse just as well. Finally, the UN is also a hypocrytical organization. How is it that the United States receives more scrutiny than any other nation, yet Libya is the head of the UN Committee on Human Rights? Additionally, Saddam Hussein's Iraq was slated to chair a conference on Disarmament in February 2003, replacing Iran who was the former chair of this committee! Looking at these facts, I believe it is obvious what steps the US should take regarding the UN: The US out of the UN, and the UN out of the US. 8)

The States of Stephenson agree. How can the UN function when all it does is to counteract everything the US does? I mean, the US pays for most of the UN, so why does everyone in the UN hate the US? The US should stop paying for people to critize them. That is what newspapers are for.

Don't get me started on the US and the UN, as the US annoys many in the UN because it wields its "Veto" way too often, one of the reasons the UN doesn't work is because of the veto powers the larger nations hold over the smaller ones, I can't remember how many times the US has used its Veto, but I do know among the nations that have that power it has wielded it most often.

Don't get me started on the US and the UN, as the US annoys many in the UN because it wields its "Veto" way too often, one of the reasons the UN doesn't work is because of the veto powers the larger nations hold over the smaller ones, I can't remember how many times the US has used its Veto, but I do know among the nations that have that power it has wielded it most often.

You would be correct in my opinion on all counts.

Also a little stat trivia.. The US has used it's right to VETO more then any other nation ever in the UN's history.

Israel holds the record for the most resolutions passed against them.. however most of those resolutions have been VETO 'd by the Americans. I could list them.. but the list is really long. I actually did list them in the General forum some weeks back.

Peace,
Stephanie.

Don't get me started on the US and the UN, as the US annoys many in the UN because it wields its "Veto" way too often, one of the reasons the UN doesn't work is because of the veto powers the larger nations hold over the smaller ones, I can't remember how many times the US has used its Veto, but I do know among the nations that have that power it has wielded it most often.

You would be correct in my opinion on all counts.

Also a little stat trivia.. The US has used it's right to VETO more then any other nation ever in the UN's history.

Israel holds the record for the most resolutions passed against them.. however most of those resolutions have been VETO 'd by the Americans. I could list them.. but the list is really long. I actually did list them in the General forum some weeks back.

Peace,
Stephanie.

You are both right, however, the United States and the other nine wealthiest nations in the world pay for 75% percent of the UN's budget but command only 10 votes in the General Assembly. The poorer nations of the Global South pay for 25% (sometimes, they do owe 3.1 billion to the UN at the moment) but expect the US and the other wealthy nations to foot the bill for programs that they may or may not oppose. I do not blame the US for using its veto power. Why should it pay to be insulted by the UN and pay for programs to help nations that attack the US? I mean, pro-US or not, I believe that this point would be universal given the circumstances. If I was the US, I would also use my veto power. The Americans also had a problem like this once with the British called taxation without representation. In the case of the UN, they are being forced to pay without decent representation. Why should a nation who pays the miniumum of 0.01 have more rights than a nation like the US who pays 22% of the TOTAL UN budget?

Don't get me started on the US and the UN, as the US annoys many in the UN because it wields its "Veto" way too often, one of the reasons the UN doesn't work is because of the veto powers the larger nations hold over the smaller ones, I can't remember how many times the US has used its Veto, but I do know among the nations that have that power it has wielded it most often.

You would be correct in my opinion on all counts.

Also a little stat trivia.. The US has used it's right to VETO more then any other nation ever in the UN's history.

Israel holds the record for the most resolutions passed against them.. however most of those resolutions have been VETO 'd by the Americans. I could list them.. but the list is really long. I actually did list them in the General forum some weeks back.

Peace,
Stephanie.

You are both right, however, the United States and the other nine wealthiest nations in the world pay for 75% percent of the UN's budget but command only 10 votes in the General Assembly. The poorer nations of the Global South pay for 25% (sometimes, they do owe 3.1 billion to the UN at the moment) but expect the US and the other wealthy nations to foot the bill for programs that they may or may not oppose. I do not blame the US for using its veto power. Why should it pay to be insulted by the UN and pay for programs to help nations that attack the US? I mean, pro-US or not, I believe that this point would be universal given the circumstances. If I was the US, I would also use my veto power. The Americans also had a problem like this once with the British called taxation without representation. In the case of the UN, they are being forced to pay without decent representation. Why should a nation who pays the miniumum of 0.01 have more rights than a nation like the US who pays 22% of the TOTAL UN budget?

Hey, Canada helped found the UN.. and unlike the US has all it's dues paid up to date and is one of those "wealthiest nations " and Canada doesn't even have a seat on the S.C. Canada has to rotate like umm Iran. The balance of power in the UN is flawed. A simple correction would be to take the VETO power away from the super 5. This would lead to fair and balanced representation in the UN. Just because you give some thing more money.. doesn't mean you should dictate all the policy. That's not right, or fair. I say equal representation is the way to go!

Yes, but if you take the veto power away, what is the incentive for the US to stay in the UN? The League of Nations falied because the US did not participate. And your point about Canada is irrelevant because the US is currently up to date with the UN, thanks to Sept. 11. If the US has no veto power, then there really is no reason for the US to pay for the UN. Your point about equal representation for all is a good point, but the international political system is not a utopia.

Apparently it's mandate is to spread the liberal agenda, if the proposals are any indication.

Yes, but if you take the veto power away, what is the incentive for the US to stay in the UN? The League of Nations falied because the US did not participate. And your point about Canada is irrelevant because the US is currently up to date with the UN, thanks to Sept. 11. If the US has no veto power, then there really is no reason for the US to pay for the UN. Your point about equal representation for all is a good point, but the international political system is not a utopia.

Perhaps.. however, it not like the US listens to the will of the UN anyway.. and further.. if the VETO is left in place there should at least be some limitations on it. I don't think it's right that 5 countries dictate world policy. So basically the world is being run by 5 countries which can VETO any thing they like. I think the UN needs to be fixed. I also suppose the answer to that fix is not an easy one. I certainly don't have all the answers. I do believe that as it stands it's being pretty useless since 9/11. I suppose it wouldn't really matter if the US left the UN to be honest. They don't listen to what the rest of the world wants anyway... as stated, not since 9/11. I guess there is no such thing as an easy fix!

Peace,
Stephanie.

The UN should never be a "world government". The Right to self determination of every member nation should always be preserved. If any member Nation should not wnat to participate on any even action of the UN they should be free to "not do so". The success of the UN depends of the mutual respect and cooperation of all member nations not on tyrrany by majority vote.

The UN should never be a "world government". The Right to self determination of every member nation should always be preserved. If any member Nation should not wnat to participate on any even action of the UN they should be free to "not do so". The success of the UN depends of the mutual respect and cooperation of all member nations not on tyrrany by majority vote.

Here here!

As President of the Republic of Vaston, I must express my dismay at the passing of this resolution. The rules are clearly stated in the "Mandate of the UN" sticky post. It says the following: "So, in conclusion we can see that the U.N. does affect not domestic policy unless a people are in need of it."

This resolution has devastated the economy of Vaston, as well as many of my fellow U.N members' economies. The U.N has overstepped its bounds and has affected *domestic* policy. I call for a repeal of this resolution immediately.

As President of the Republic of Vaston, I must express my dismay at the passing of this resolution. The rules are clearly stated in the "Mandate of the UN" sticky post. It says the following: "So, in conclusion we can see that the U.N. does affect not domestic policy unless a people are in need of it."

This resolution has devastated the economy of Vaston, as well as many of my fellow U.N members' economies. The U.N has overstepped its bounds and has affected *domestic* policy. I call for a repeal of this resolution immediately.

The States of Stephneson agree.

The States of Stephenson Ministry of Labor