NationStates Jolt Archive

This is the full version of a proposal I recently submitted to the UN (it was too long, so I shortened it in order to submit it as a proposal). Feel free to debate it and whatnot...it would also be nice if it could get some exposure and possible support as well. :roll:

Category: Political Stablility
(A Resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order)

Resolution Name: The Global Contract

Description: In that all nations of the United Nations will agree to the Global Contract as a basis for governmental rights and sovereignty, and when it can be suspended in favor of the general stablity of the global community.

Before addressing the resolution, it is important to differentiate between a government, a nation, and the global community. The global community consists of all nations. A nation consists of a unified group of people. A government is established by the people of a nation in order to serve said nation. For example, all European Nations make up a part of the Global Community. The people of Britain can establish a government to serve the needs of the British people. This government enters into a contract with the people, where the people give up some of their rights in order for the government to effectively serve and protect its people. (Basically, the Social Contract).

First and foremost, it is important to establish the rights of governments. Governments are obligated to serve and protect its own people. Nothing else ought to take precedence above this single obligation. Indeed, no single government posseses an obligation, whether it be legal or moral, to interfere with the affairs of another government unless through the United Nations. Any conflicts within or between governments should be resolved by the governments themselves or through the United Nations, without mitigation by a government independent of the United Nations. Therefore, a government's sovereignty is declared supreme, and no external force (save the United Nations, see below) has a right to interfere with this sovereignty, whether through war, trading, or international mitigation.

In the event that this obligation to the people is not fulfilled, the people reserve the right to abolish their government and form a new one. If necessary, the United Nations can intervene if a government refuses to be dissolved, even if the people wish it.

However, an independent government cannot interfere in a civil conflict of this nature unless it is through the United Nations. Even in time of strife, a nation's (the people's) sovereignty must be upheld. In the absense of a government, unless the United Nations has delegated itself to governing a nation, the people possess control of their nation and inherit the sovereignty origianlly bestowed upon their government.

However, the United Nations reserves the right to set the limits of this national sovereignty in order to protect the global community as well as the increase the quality of life for the citizens of said community. A nation may file a grievance to the United Nations concerning another nation, and a vote will be held in the United Nations in order to decide whether the nation in question's sovereignty ought be revoked. A three-fourths majority is necessary for a nation's sovereignty to be revoked, wherein the national government must surrender its obligation to serve its people, instead handing that obligation to the United Nations.

If a government fails to comply, the United Nations reserves the right to use military action in order to force the regime out of power.

Note that if the sovereignty of a nation is revoked, it is revoked to the United Nations. Another government cannot establish itself on the people of a nation whose sovereignty is revoked unless authorized by the United Nations or established by the people of the nation in question.

A government also must sacrifice a lesser amount of its sovereignty to the United Nations when the International Community establishes global laws, such as enviromental laws, trade laws, disarmament laws, etc. Only laws passed through the United Nations can influence the laws of a national government. If a single, individual government establishes a law, that law does not apply to any other nation unless that nation's government willingly establishes it.

The laws of the United Nations are absolute, and can override a government's sovereignty over its nation.


In summary, this resolution:

Establishes the idea that a government's only obligation is to its people. A government does not have the right to interfere with the obligation of another government, whether through law, mitigation, trade, etc.

Establishes the right of the people to dissolve their government if it does not adhere to its obligation. If the government refuses to be dissolved, the United Nations reserves the right to interfere.

Establishes that a people inherit their government's sovereignty over themselves if the government is dissolved, unless the United Nations itself has accepted the burden of governing the nation. (For example, in the event that the government was forcibly dissolved by the United Nations after failing to adhere to the laws of the global community.)

Establishes the idea that the United Nations reserves the right to override a government's sovereignty, whether through international laws (trade, disarmament, enviromental, etc.) or through direct dissolvement of the government.

Establishes a way for governments to file grievances against other governments. A vote can then be held in the United Nations, where a 3/4 majority can dissolve the government and delegate control of the nation to the United Nations itself, until the people can establish a new government in its place.

Through this resolution, the efficiency and stability of the global community (as well as the protection and lives of the people therein) supercede both governments and nations.

Proposed by The Empyreal Enlightened Magi of the Most Serene Republic of East Caelum, under the rule of the Second (Sophoric) Dynasty.

Strength: Strong

The good people of the Republic of Palania would stand in negation to several aspect of this proposal. Most notably, the people of Palania stand firmly in opposition of you statement that international obligation, outside of the UN , for moral reasons does not exist. For one, Moral Obligations Exist For Rectifying International Social Injustice. Ultimately, any problem of individual rights being removed or of different individuals being treated unequally abroad is a problem of human dignity, and thus transcends any sort of borders and qualifies as an international conflict as intrinsic human rights being removed in any one region affect all of humanity. If a conflict exists between human rights and power of the government in a nation, then all of humanity is morally bound to mediate and work for individual rights. Thus, all people, including American citizens, have an obligation to rectify this moral wrong occurring and perpetuating. However, Iris Young, Professor of Political Science at University of Chicago, states “obligations of social justice are primarily owed by institutions rather than by individuals [because] Individuals usually cannot act alone to promote justice; they must act collectively”. If people cannot act individually to ensure social justice in foreign nations, then they must turn to institutions such as national governments to shoulder this burden. Therefore, if American citizens cannot work individually to create global justice through a distributive justice model, then they must turn to the government to use it’s international clout to work for justice. All people within the US are also benefited when oppressive international regimes have their power removed or limited. If a state does not respect basic human rights, such as degrees of individual freedom and autonomy, then that state is an outlaw state working against the goals of humanity. John Rawls (Law of Peoples 81) states “Decent people do not tolerate outlaw states. Outlaw states are aggressive and dangerous, all peoples are safer and more secure if such states change, or are forced to change.” If the US intervenes in these human rights conflicts of social injustice that transcend borders, then both US citizens and the peoples of other nations are ultimately benefited. Second, national sovereignty shouldnt normally conflict with this moral obligation. Any conflicting claims of national sovereignty above international intervention ultimately fail because any sort of just and legitimate government would give it’s own people rights and work for those. If a foreign government removes rights or brings it’s own people to a war, then it is no longer legitimate because it is not working for the best interests of it’s people. If a national government in an area where the US intervened, or the national governments of nations that were in conflict do not ultimately value their own individuals, then those governments are illegitimate. Thus, any sort of regime where the US intervenes through its own power cannot have a legitimate conflicting claim of national sovereignty. Fernando Teson states “the ultimate justification of the existence of states is the protection and enforcement of the natural rights of the citizens, a government that engages in substantial violations of human rights betrays the very purpose for which it exists and so forfeits not only its domestic legitimacy, but its international legitimacy as well”. If a government deprives it’s own people of rights, then not only is the US government morally obligated to intervene but there are no harms to the national sovereignty of the area as the government that would currently be in place would be an illegitimate one. If a government in an area where the US intervenes is illegitimate, then there can be no conflicting claim of national sovereignty. Rather, the only possible way to ensure the welfare of civilians in an area with an illegitimate government or with governments at ware is ultimately to intervene; anything else is not morally justified.

That the proposal is a political stabilty proposal, alone will cause me to not support it. That it is strong, will cause me to fight it fiercely.

Regardless of how well written it is (and from what I read it is very nice), political freedoms are the hardest aspect of one's nation to raise, and the easiest to ruin, so naturally, you can expect strong opposition.