NationStates Jolt Archive

For those of you who don't know, national sovereignty is the right of a nation to make certain decisions for themselves, without interference from an international body such as the UN. In the "real" UN, national sovereignty plays a huge role in limiting the UN's power, since nations like to be able to run their own governments. However, in NationStates, national sovereignty seems to be of little importance. I was wondering if most nations think that UN resolutions should be rejected if they violate national sovereignty. I think that in NationStates, becoming a UN member means giving up some of your national sovereignty, but many think otherwise. Vote away!

When you join a group you agree to certin conditions if you fail to meet those conditions that group then has the right to impose certin restrictions..Your soverenty is in the fact that you have the choice to be a member or not..

You decide to give up your freedom when you join. Oh well. They shouldn't at least make it so obvious.

When you join a group you agree to certin conditions if you fail to meet those conditions that group then has the right to impose certin restrictions..Your soverenty is in the fact that you have the choice to be a member or not.

While that is true, the United Nations is founded on the concept that member nations can VOTE however they want, for whatever reasons they want.

I vote against any resolution that I do not see as an international issue. There is no need for the United Nations to regulate the internal affairs of its member nations.

When you join a group you agree to certin conditions if you fail to meet those conditions that group then has the right to impose certin restrictions..Your soverenty is in the fact that you have the choice to be a member or not.

While that is true, the United Nations is founded on the concept that member nations can VOTE however they want, for whatever reasons they want.

I vote against any resolution that I do not see as an international issue. There is no need for the United Nations to regulate the internal affairs of its member nations.
That might be true, but then what qualifies as an international affair? If it is only things that involve other countries, then it would seem that only war and trade are left, and war is impossible in the NationStates UN, so all we would be left with is trade. The key is that the UN is supposed to provide a way for other nations to coordinate aid and to band together to enforce things like the bans on slavery and landmines. These would seem to be internal affairs, but by agreeing to be a UN member, nations make themselves subject to international law.

I would disagree -- landmines and slavery are very much international issues. You said yourself that war can be an international issue; so can the weapons used, especially in cases of those such as landmines that last for decades after the conflicts they are used in and harm civilians more than the armies they are put in place to stop.

I'll admit that it's fairly subjective, but there are some human rights that I believe should be recognized at an international level -- the right to control one's own body is one of those rights (which covers slavery, if that's not clear).

Youve got to have some rules for membership what would be the point with out goals and rules?

I've said it before but theorethically, given enough resolutions, all of the UN nations will become more identical.

When you join a group you agree to certin conditions if you fail to meet those conditions that group then has the right to impose certin restrictions..Your soverenty is in the fact that you have the choice to be a member or not..

The UN is supposed to be a "democratic" body. It IS NOT. When a minority of members, although they may constitute a majority in a particular vote, are able to impose their will upon the vast Majority of members that is NOT a Democracy THAT is Tyrrany!!!
As a member of a voluntary "democratic" organization I CAN agree to going along with the will of the Majority BUT ONLY if it is the will of the ENTIRE Majority and not simply the majority of those that bothered to vote. The current system of the NS UN works under the premise that "silence is consent" which I , personally, find obsurd for an International body. That would be like justifying Rape of a drunk woman simple because she didn't say "No". It has retained the power to Impose manditory compliance to resolutions made by the passage by a minority of member nations upon the majority but yet if feels it has no right to REQUIRE member nations to Vote on all Resolutions? Again , obsurdity.

The UN is supposed to be a "democratic" body. It IS NOT. When a minority of members, although they may constitute a majority in a particular vote, are able to impose their will upon the vast Majority of members that is NOT a Democracy THAT is Tyrrany!!!

Minority rule? Maybe you just missed those voting buttons, or something, or maybe you don't get the concept that people should consider taking ten seconds to vote if they care so much. I hope you realize that real elections in real life function like this -- if you don't vote, that's your own problem.

The current system of the NS UN works under the premise that "silence is consent" which I , personally, find obsurd for an International body. That would be like justifying Rape of a drunk woman simple because she didn't say "No".

It's really quite simple -- if these people think they're victimized by the UN, they can resign with one click of a mouse at any time. Your metaphor doesn't much work, either -- a much better one for this situation would be "A perfectly sober woman asked a man to get into bed and have sex, had to wait twenty-four hours for his positive response, submitted herself to his will, said nothing during the action, and could have gotten out of the situation at any time by telling him to stop. Has she been raped?"

When you join a group you agree to certin conditions if you fail to meet those conditions that group then has the right to impose certin restrictions..Your soverenty is in the fact that you have the choice to be a member or not..

The UN is supposed to be a "democratic" body. It IS NOT. When a minority of members, although they may constitute a majority in a particular vote, are able to impose their will upon the vast Majority of members that is NOT a Democracy THAT is Tyrrany!!!
As a member of a voluntary "democratic" organization I CAN agree to going along with the will of the Majority BUT ONLY if it is the will of the ENTIRE Majority and not simply the majority of those that bothered to vote. The current system of the NS UN works under the premise that "silence is consent" which I , personally, find obsurd for an International body. That would be like justifying Rape of a drunk woman simple because she didn't say "No". It has retained the power to Impose manditory compliance to resolutions made by the passage by a minority of member nations upon the majority but yet if feels it has no right to REQUIRE member nations to Vote on all Resolutions? Again , obsurdity.
I don't understand what you are saying. If people don't vote, doesn't that count as an abstention, not a yes. Otherwise there would be no "Vote FOR this resolution," button, right? I am fairly new, so maybe I am wrong, but that's the way it appears to me.
Oh, and the word is "absurd" not "obsurd." Normally I wouldn't nitpick, but you spelled it wrong twice.