NationStates Jolt Archive

Lets look at the past UN resolutions:

Replanting Trees
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

Fair trial
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Required Basic Healthcare
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

Protect Historical Sites
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

MANDATORY RECYCLING
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

Gay Rights
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Ban Single-Hulled Tankers
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

Stop privacy intrusion
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

DVD region removal
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Education For All
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

Metric System
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Most of these, are not only ridiculous, but are clearly out of the mandate of the United Nations. You are making it ILLEGAL if I do not provide education for all? What if my country is a rural country, undeveloped as it is, and cannot AFFORD to provide government funded education?

I MUST adopt the Metric system? DVD Region Removal? Are you kidding?

Replanting Trees? How in the WORLD would you enforce something like that? Isnt this something that should be up to the nations?

Required Basic Healthcare?

Granted, you will say "well, people voted on this so you must accept it." That, of course, is true. My question is WHY are we passing such resolutions? These are ridiculous.

My respect is extended to Wolfish for his reasonable resolution on the treatment of P.O.W.

Required Basic Healthcare?

That was subsequently repealed.

:tantrum: These resolutions do make me mad. That's why I'm proposing resolutions to ammend them. On that subject, I ask you to log you support for the "Ammend Gay Rights Resolution" proposal.

the Great Dausmaniac :mrgreen:
via Chancellor Wilhelm Jackson

We see nothing wrong with the passed resolutions. A lot of them are commonly already practiced by Yshurak's citizens without enforcement. It helps spread peace and keeps the Earth healthy.

These resolutions seem arbitrary. If you want your citizens to act one way, by all means. But it is ridiculous that such things are wasting the time of the U.N. The RHB was replaced, not repealed if I remember correctly.

The Kingdom of Sergia stands for self-determination. Government is only place to protect the natural rights - outside of that, if the individual does not harm,violate, or infringe on the rights of another then it is not the business of the Government.

"I agree that the United Nations is far overstepping its boundaries!" U.N. Delegate Alex Baron shouts. "We must do something about this before our soverignty is completely wiped out by incredibly inappropriate United Nations resolutions!"

"I agree that the United Nations is far overstepping its boundaries!" U.N. Delegate Alex Baron shouts. "We must do something about this before our soverignty is completely wiped out by incredibly inappropriate United Nations resolutions!"

leave the UN perhaps?

"My main concern," says Blamgolian Representative Darron Smith, "is that the UN may decide to substitute itself as a ruling body to all the Nations in the world. This can be of grave concern to all. I agree that some of the resolutions need to be repealed. Not necessarily all of them, mind you, but those that would prevent a government from reasonably ruling its nation."

"Remember that nations are not naughty children who should be forced to hold the UN's hand. Remember that ultimately, they are the force of its people."

"I agree that the United Nations is far overstepping its boundaries!" U.N. Delegate Alex Baron shouts. "We must do something about this before our soverignty is completely wiped out by incredibly inappropriate United Nations resolutions!"

leave the UN perhaps?

Better yet, just shoot the silly bluehelmets when they try to enforce resolutions you don't like on your country. If the RL UN is anything to go by, it's not like they can do anything about it. Some countries may get upset though...

OOC: Is killing the UN personnel OK by the rules?

ooc:- Lets see now....According to another thread once a resolution is passed it cannot be repealed, as such any proposal that trys to do so will be deleted. (Good I'm sick of these people who vote no, lose & then immediatly place a proposal repealing the past proposal.)

OOC: Is killing the UN personnel OK by the rules?

If its done IC-wise then yes..if you mean stoppping the proposal well as above no.

IC:- "Frankly I don't know why you stay in the UN if you don't like being affected by its proposals. I mean you only join the UN to further its goals right? If not WHY THE HELL ARE YOU IN THE UN? Sheesh its simple UN = putting up with the proposals passed; don't like it? then leave the UN and run your country the way you want theres nothing stopping you!"

Better yet, just shoot the silly bluehelmets when they try to enforce resolutions you don't like on your country. If the RL UN is anything to go by, it's not like they can do anything about it. Some countries may get upset though...

OOC: Is killing the UN personnel OK by the rules?

Here's an idea, leave the UN, you don't want to be in it, I don't want you in it, if you're shooting my troops who are doing the role that you agreed they could do by being a member of the UN.

Kev
Today's spokesman for Nebbyland

<<OOC yes, and it's one roleplay war a lot of people will get involved in. However not complying with the rules is not an option.>>

Better yet, just shoot the silly bluehelmets when they try to enforce resolutions you don't like on your country.


We've adopted this as policy.

These resolutions seem arbitrary. If you want your citizens to act one way, by all means. But it is ridiculous that such things are wasting the time of the U.N. The RHB was replaced, not repealed if I remember correctly.

The Kingdom of Sergia stands for self-determination. Government is only place to protect the natural rights - outside of that, if the individual does not harm,violate, or infringe on the rights of another then it is not the business of the Government.quite the UN.Just because you're conservative dosn't mean you should have evrtyhing your way.

Required Basic Healthcare?

That was subsequently repealed.

OOC: Wait a minute. I thought repeals were not allowed because they changed the "mechanics of the game." If repeals are allowed, why can't we repeal the idiotic Common Sense Act II?

That is correct. YOU CAN'T REPEAL ANY PASSED RESOLUTIONS as it stands right now. Perhaps that will change.. but there is nothing in the works at the moment except discussion among the mods.

Stephanie
Forum Mod

IC:
Better yet, just shoot the silly bluehelmets when they try to enforce resolutions you don't like on your country.


We've adopted this as policy.

That's downright stupid. If you enter the UN (which we did not), then you agree to abide by it's rules and thus accept to implement the resolutions passed. Any resolutuions, not just the ones you like. By not doing so, you are trying to force your opinions upon others by voting for proposals you like and against ones you don't, expecting others to accept your votes, while on the other hand you are ignoring the votes of others if they happen to be not what you like. Now that's not democracy nor anything similar and not a viable option for members of the UN, as if everyone would do that, you could simply just dissolve the UN completely as anybody would just do what they like anyway. Therefore, you only have two options:

1) stay in the UN, vote and also abide or
2) leave the UN and do what you like and don't interfere with the UN's decisions in any way

If you stay in the UN but do not obey ALL decisions of it, that's at least fraud

OOC: doesn't one have to swear stuff or at least sign treaties when entering the UN?

IC: and if I were in the UN, I'd request you to be kicked out. If you start shooting the UN personnel while you're in the UN, I'd kick you out even more, as that's a clear action of disrespect for the UN and shows that you are just fooling them to get the things you like without paying anything back.

Treysha Naghê, Archshaman,
Ministry of Science and Technology, Zhudor

This kind of reply is reminiscent of the all-too-common American mantra of "if you don't love it, leave it". It's the closed-minded response of the majority who want nothing more than to quash the discussion at hand. The fact is, many nations belonging to the UN agree with the Sergians. There is too little thought and discussion regarding the appropriate role of the UN when voting on resolutions - the resolutions Sergia cited in beginning this discussion are all reflective, we are sure, of the politics of the UN membership. But like any organization, if we stray too far from our mission statement we cease to be effective in any meaningful way - driving members away, starting conflicts (i.e. "shoot the bluehats"), letting good intentions in general turn into a myriad of unintended consequences. Idumea proposes that all discussions on UN resolutions begin with the UN mission statement, and that all resolutions be required to advance the mission of the UN.

As Stephistan wrote in the sticky "Mandate of the UN": "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."

The point I think those of us who are having problems with the resolutions that have been recently passed is that they violate the UN mandate. The UN is currently acting as if it is a world government and passing resolutions that look, smell, and taste like laws. We are asking only that we stick to the mandate and stop the knee-jerk passage of any feel-good resolution that comes to the floor.

8)

I think one of the issues many people have is the structure of Nation States. In the real world, the UN can pass every law and resolution it wants, but each individual country must then ratify those laws within their own borders or refuse to recognize them.

In the game, nations are just automatically brought into compliance.

In reality, you could pass this common sense act in the UN. but then, the act would go to each country's respective govnerment to ratify. In the US, the Senate and House would both have to approve and the President sign it in order for it to become law in the United States.

If 100 laws were passed and 0 were ratified in a particular member nation, it would be up to the other nations to either FORCE compliance, URGE compliance, or ignore the rogue nation's actions. We are not given the CHOICE here of compliance or not, and hence the UN has suddenly been able to become this tyrannical, neo-socio-communist mecca that runs roughshod over nation's sovereignity.

here's the truth: None of us have nations. With the way the UN has progressed, none of us here really have sovereign nation states at all...we have localities within a greater nation, the NS UN.

- aherm -

I'd rather not leave the UN, since it is a big part of this game. However, the whole proposal/voting thing needs a big upheaval. As much as I dislike the UN and it's horridly silly proposals, I'll stay in it. That doesn't mean I'll follow the resolutions exactly though :twisted: I mean, the laws are always up for interpretation, right? Now, back to executions!

This kind of reply is reminiscent of the all-too-common American mantra of "if you don't love it, leave it"

I am not the least bit american and we do not blindly embrace their thinkings.

It's the closed-minded response of the majority who want nothing more than to quash the discussion at hand.

We are not even in the UN.

The fact is, many nations belonging to the UN agree with the Sergians. There is too little thought and discussion regarding the appropriate role of the UN when voting on resolutions - the resolutions Sergia cited in beginning this discussion are all reflective, we are sure, of the politics of the UN membership.[/qoute]

This may well be the case. I did never intend to say that the current UN workings are unquestionable. If it came through that way, I apologise. The intention was to say "You agreed upon abiding, you therefore have to abide. You may, especially, not shoot people, but leave any time." as that's the case. As in any democracy-style society, one always may express their concerns and try to change current standards through diplomatic channels, but not through violence. That I should have added as option 3).

[quote=Idumea]But like any organization, if we stray too far from our mission statement we cease to be effective in any meaningful way - driving members away, starting conflicts (i.e. "shoot the bluehats"), letting good intentions in general turn into a myriad of unintended consequences.


Definitely this ist the case. However, especially for a member of the UN (as such being supposed to actually have good intentions!) the simple thought "shoot their people" is against anything the UN is or was meant to be about, as it looks to me.

Idumea proposes that all discussions on UN resolutions begin with the UN mission statement, and that all resolutions be required to advance the mission of the UN.

As Stephistan wrote in the sticky "Mandate of the UN": "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."

The point I think those of us who are having problems with the resolutions that have been recently passed is that they violate the UN mandate. The UN is currently acting as if it is a world government and passing resolutions that look, smell, and taste like laws. We are asking only that we stick to the mandate and stop the knee-jerk passage of any feel-good resolution that comes to the floor.
8)

This is to be done without violence, though. Protest and similar things are to be brought to the UN members by diplomatical means, not by bullets. If you have no other means, then either the UN is throughly corrupted, or your arguments are not valid. I believe neither to be the case. If, however, one of these cases would fit, the only solution is to leave the UN. Also if one does not want to go through diplomacy. That's because of the UN mission statement which can well be interpreted as "we don't shoot other people unless they attack us, and that not even necessarily".

Despite that, Zhudor follows most of the resolutions under critic, as they are regarded as good advice, at the same time agreeing that they may be out of the UN's scope.

Treysha Naghê, Archshaman,
Ministry of Science and Technology, Zhudor

I am not the least bit american and we do not blindly embrace their thinkings.

Didn't mean to imply American status on anyone - I know how distasteful many nations find the idea (though personally, I feel good about it). Also didn't mean to single Zhudor out on the Leave the UN question - I was reading through the thread and saw the idea represented two or three times and thought it needed to be spoken to.


This is to be done without violence, though. Protest and similar things are to be brought to the UN members by diplomatical means, not by bullets.

Couldn't agree more. Discussions like this are what makes the UN an instrument of good - since the UN states in its mandate that it exists in part to make the world a safer place, using force as the first club out of the bag is definitely contrary to the spirit of the organization.

Despite that, Zhudor follows most of the resolutions under critic, as they are regarded as good advice, at the same time agreeing that they may be out of the UN's scope.

Well said - agreed!

8)

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

While we must agree with you who think that far too many UN proposals are idiotic, we have to scratch our heads in puzzlement at your suggestion to leave the UN. If you leave the UN, you will have no input in the process of proposals and resolutions. If you disagree with a proposal, vote against it, and try to convince other nations (or, better yet, regional delagates) that you are correct.