19-11-2003, 15:48
To date, nearly all the mandates have specifically limited the rights of the UN's member states; the rest have been trivialities or game-mechanics items. Is there some good reason why mandates cannot specifically limit the rights of the UN? It's natural in governments that aren't de facto dictatorships; take the government of the United States. Most of the amendments to the Constitution specifically limit the right of the government to interfere in the lives of its citizens. That is, the government is self-limiting. Or, take for example my homeland of Sassafroon, where the right to pursue gainful employment can not be abridged by the government. I see no reason that the UN cannot also be self-limiting in its resolutions, and essentially grant rights, not only to the people of its member states, but indeed, rights to its member states also. Sassafroon has submitted a proposal to limit the rights of the UN, but the key objections seem to revolve around the fact that the proposal does nothing to limit the rights of nations, and will therefore be worthless. If the UN is a dictatorship which grants no rights to its member states, then indeed my proposal has no place on the floor of the UN, but if the UN has potential to be a self-limiting government, then my proposal is a step in that direction.
What say those in charge?
What say those in charge?