NationStates Jolt Archive

The Head Clerk of Sassafroon has sent the following proposal to the United Nations, in the interests of International Security.

Begin:

The right of the several nations to a well-reasoned
defense shall not be abridged. Therefore, be it
resolved that,

1. All nations may raise and keep an emergency
response team consisting of trained individuals,

2. A nation may use all or a portion of said emergency
response team (ERT) to respond to threats within his
borders, including but not limited to earthquakes,
volcanic eruptions, rioting, wildfire, hurricanes, famine, and emergency police action,

3. No nation may use its ERT to infringe upon the
sovereignty of another nation; the ERT shall not constitute a military, though the members of the ERT may be members also of a military. No ERT shall, in its capacity as an ERT, be allowed within the borders of another nation except as specifically requested by the nation into which entrance is desired,

3a. Addendum to 3. A nation's ERT MAY constitute a military when another nation threatens military action against it, but only for purposes of defense.



While this resolution grants permission of defense, it
makes no requirement therefore, nor does it sanction
use of defense for offensive purpose.

This resolution specifically limits the rights of the United Nations to infringe on the rights of the several nations to form a well-reasoned defense against threats to their homelands and sovereignty.

:End

Please share opinions regarding the wording of the proposal, and whether it merits the examination of the United Nations. Thank you.

Counter proposal:

"No nation has the right to tell me what i should do with my money."

Inasmuch as the wording of Sassafroon's proposal was carefully modulated to grant the right to nations, rather than require it of them, I submit that your counter-proposal does not address any of the issues in Sassafroon's.

Since the proposal does not require or actually DO anything...why bother passing it?

It seems as if the resolution is simply RECOMMENDING that all nations set up ERTs within their borders. As such, it is useless and carries no weight.

Ahh, but the proposal sets limits upon what the UN may do to limit the organization of armed forces to protect the peace of a nation.

Prime Minister Kan-Tut wonders who would really benefit from this proposal; the nations or the corporate giants who will supply vast amounts of weapons, food and other military materials to these newly formed armies?

However, as the majority of his nation relies on the income of the Soda Industry and its export relationship with warring countries and their armies, the Prime Minister realises the true potential of this proposal to the corporate sector of Derminia and at the moment makes no further comment."

Minister War-Ke
Ministry of National Defence

May, may, may, may, may...
So what? You might as well say, "Every nation may paint its parliament blue." Or it may not. This does nothing, except for introduce an idea. It doesn't mandate anything, it doesn't restrict anything, it doesn't limit or expand any government's power. All it does is introduce another meaningless piece of red tape.

Quite the contrary, it explicitly limits the rights of the UN to legislate on behalf of its member nations.

I really liked this proposal. Not only does it prevent the UN from enacted counter measures, it gives nations the right to defend themselves in such a manner as deemend appropriate by this resolution. I must compliment the author. I will urge my delegate to vote for it.
Please, everyone support this resolution. It aides in the common defense of all nations.

The Most Serene Republic of Hyper Evilness greatly supports this resolution. The creation of ERT's is a good idea, as is the concept of 'may' by allowing countries that have the means to create them without specifically requiring them. It also generates a framework for the collective action of nations in cases of emergency. Finally, it limits the power of the United Nations to infringe upon sovereignty, but allows enough infringement capability to be useful.

Our Republic shall contact our regional delegate and should this proposal reach quorem, support this proposal to the fullest extent.

Yes, you two have hit exactly on the point of this proposal; the goal is to establish limits on the power of the UN to interfere in its member nations's governments.

Counter proposal:

"No nation has the right to tell me what i should do with my money."

This resolution does not mandate anything; it is permissive only.
Why raises the question: Why is it necessary at all?

This resolution is designed to limit the rights of the UN.