NationStates Jolt Archive

MAJOR REVISION! (22 Jan 04, 9:00 PM)

Declaration on Rights and Duties of UN States:

Purpose:
UN membership in NationStates is a choice, not a requirement. Those of us who chose to participate have certain responsibilities to ourselves, each other, and the entire NationStates community. At the same time, we as NationStates have certain rights and responsibilities that we do not willingly give up when we chose to join the UN. It is therefore vital to clearly delineate what constitutes sovereign law versus UN sanctioned international law. This document will attempt to enumerate those most basic of rights, as they exist within and as defined by the United Nations of NationStates.

Section I: The Principle of National Sovereignty:

Article 1
§ Every UN Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.
Article 2
§ Every UN Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.
Article 3
§ Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

Section II: The Art of War:

Article 4
§ Every UN Member State has the right of individual or collective self-defense against armed attack.
Article 5
§ War in the World of NationStates is defined as a consensual act between two or more NationStates. Any and all NationStates may, at their discretion, respond to declarations of war on NationStates who wish to avoid war. The recommended method is a barrage of I.G.N.O.R.E. Cannons.
Article 6
§ Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from fomenting civil strife in the territory of another NationState, and to prevent the organization within its territory of activities calculated to foment such civil strife.
Article 7
§ Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from giving assistance to any NationState which is acting in violation of Article 5, or against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
Article 8
§ Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from recognizing any territorial acquisition by another NationState acting in violation of Article 5.

Section III: The Role of the United Nations:

Article 9
§ Every UN Member State has the right to equality in law with every other UN Member State.
Article 10
§ Every UN Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty.
Article 11
§ Every UN Member State has the duty to conduct its relations with other NationStates in accordance with international law and with the principle that the sovereignty of each UN Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law.

This proposal has not yet been placed before the Regional Delegates for approval. Based on previous comments in the United Nations forum, Frisbeeteria would like to offer a period of comment and discussion before putting such a broad and wide-reaching proposal up for approval.

Your comments are welcome.

If you are reading this for the first time today (January 22, 2004), the first one-and-a-half pages may not make sense. They refer to a since-deleted draft, and the Article numbering will be entirely different. The ideas themselves have, for the most part, been incorporated into the current draft.

Again, your comments are welcome and may be incorporated in the final draft.

For reference sake, we intend to file this Proposal under the following classification:

Political Stability

A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.

Strength: Significant

Article 6
§ Every NationState has the duty to treat all persons under its jurisdiction with respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, without distinction as to race, sex, language, religion, or sexual orientation.


I think this change should be made (in italics).

Article 6
§ Every NationState has the duty to treat all persons under its jurisdiction with respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, without distinction as to race, sex, language, religion, or sexual orientation.
I think this change should be made (in italics).

My knee-jerk reaction is to agree with you, but upon consideration ...

I think that ALL of Article 6 should be removed from this Declaration, since it's already been covered in previous resolutions:

A) The Universal Bill of Rights
B) Gay Rights
C) Religious Tolerance

but primarily because I've chosen to code it as Political Stability rather than Human Rights.

This Declaration is primarily about defining the limits of National Sovereignty, and adding Human Rights to the mix is likely to kill the entire thing. Rather than pick and choose among all the different Human Rights possibilites, I think it would be wiser to leave that to another declaration.

The Rogue Nation of Greenspoint has a question regarding certain assumptions underlying this resolution, and we have an objection to one point.

The Question: Is this resolution intended to be a mutually agreed upon codification of defintions of rights and duties each NationState already has, or is it intended to be a U.N. mandated grant of said rights and duties to the member NationStates?

The Objection: Article 14 We do not accept the principle that the sovereignty of each NationState is subject to the supremacy of international law and would and will oppose the implication of a duty to so accordingly conduct our relations.

James Moehlman
Asst. Manager ico U.N. Affairs
Greenspoint

Fair questions, Mr. Moehlman. The entire point of this is not to grant ANY new rights to the UN, rather to clearly limit the ability of the UN to TAKE for itself privileges that rightfully belong to nations.
The Question: Is this resolution intended to be a mutually agreed upon codification of defintions of rights and duties each NationState already has, or is it intended to be a U.N. mandated grant of said rights and duties to the member NationStates?
Article 1 states
§ Every NationState has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

The UN is acknowledging that it DOES NOT have sovereign rights over an individual nation. It grants no new rights, neither does it take away any. It's just a declaration and confirmation of the current status.

The Objection: Article 14 We do not accept the principle that the sovereignty of each NationState is subject to the supremacy of international law and would and will oppose the implication of a duty to so accordingly conduct our relations.
As to your objection, it's simply an acknowledgement of existing law. Allow me to quote from the NationiStates UN FAQ:

So I'm a UN member. Now what?

The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest. However, it's a double-edged sword, because your nation will also be affected by any resolutions that pass. (You can't just obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations do.)

Like it or not, you agreed to these terms when you accepted membership in the NationStates UN. International law automatically applies to NS UN members. Non UN members are not bound by this convention, but as a UN member you do not have a choice in this matter. This is not a new right, simply a restatement of facts consistent with the rest of the document.

While I realize this does not satisfy your objection, it can't realistically be removed. It's just quoting that which already is, and as such belongs in any document titled: Declaration on Rights and Duties of NationStates

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Perhaps we've not been clear enough as to why this deserves your support. This proposal is designed to LIMIT the UN, not grant them ANYTHING.

Every day we hear conversations in the halls and offices of the UN about how this proposal and that will attempt to impose this or that on our sovereign nation. Nowhere in the list of UN proposals is there an EXPLICIT list of what areas the UN can and can't operate in. Consequently, we see proposals offering to turn us all into communists of legalize abortion or mandate that we offer a free education. Somebody thinks every one of those ideas is wonderful, and somebody else thinks the same thing means the end of the world as we know it. They're ALL right, and ALL wrong.

This Declaration seeks to codify in very specific and unambiguous terms exactly what is expected of UN members. It defines the areas where the UN is not welcome, and points out in clear language the obligations we have already commited to by joining the UN. Almost everyone in the UN has described one of more of these articles as if they were already embedded into our laws ... but no one ever wrote them down before. We've just been assuming these were obvious.

Assume no longer. Here's the list. Give it a look, and offer your additions, subtractions, and comments.

A few observations:

First, the proposal is very well-written, and quite the breath of fresh air for that reason alone. :) Better, it does an excellent job at outlining nations' relationships with one another as well as with the greater UN. I applaud an outstanding piece of international diplomacy.

Next, I agree that, while Article 6 is the most wonderful of the fourteen, it indeed does not belong among the others, and should be developed into its own proposal. (I await its introduction.)

Of the remaining thirteen articles, nine are "duties" and four are "rights". As I consider the proposal in its entirity, I wonder if the rights and duties ought to be divided into separate documents? One would not combine the "Bill of Rights" (a document that grants and protects a person's rights and freedoms) with "The Ten Commandments" (a document which limits his "rights" and places requirements upon him). While perhaps a silly anaolgy... I would likewise question whether all thirteen of these articles belong in the same document, or would be better presented in two (or more?) separate proposals.

On a more granular level, I read:


Article 1
§ Every NationState has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

Article 2
§ Every NationState has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.


and wonder if these two rights could be condensed into one? I almost read Article 2 to be a subparagraph of, or a supporting argument to, Article 1.

Similarly,


Article 3
§ Every NationState has the duty to refrain from intervention in the internal or external affairs of any other NationState.

Article 4
§ Every NationState has the duty to refrain from fomenting civil strife in the territory of another NationState, and to prevent the organization within its territory of activities calculated to foment such civil strife.

could perhaps be combined into one article, as the latter could be construed to be a specific case (again, a subparagraph of?) the former.

In sum, while I endorse each of the articles individually, I argue that they would be better presented in more than one proposal, if for no other reason than to increase the chances of their being passed.

Nope. Still not supporting it.

I would likewise question whether all thirteen of these articles belong in the same document, or would be better presented in two (or more?) separate proposals.
Two reasons:
1: Would you vote to go out to dinner with friends, have a great time, then vote whether or not to pay for it? Of course not, the two are inextricably linked. With the right of services received comes the duty of paying for it. Likewise for the UN, a Declaration of Rights and Duties enumerates both pros and cons of belonging. They can't really be separated and maintain any strength.

2: I coded this as a Political Stability act. I don't think as a simple Declaration that anyone should have to take TWO hits on their national statistics to pass a single bill. I'd have coded it Mild instead of Significant, but I think it genuinely deserves a Significant rating. Since it doesn't really change a whole lot execpt by exclusion, Strong would have been too much.
wonder if these two rights could be condensed into one?
There are good and valid reasons for leaving them separate, but I'll look at it more closely and consider combining them. A shorter proposal has a better chance in this game, as has been pointed out by numerous UN nations.
Nope. Still not supporting it.
Can we ask why, Heru Ur? You've been quite eloquent at stating your rationale in other topics, and I'd like to hear your objections in this one as well.

Article 3
§ Every NationState has the duty to refrain from intervention in the internal or external affairs of any other NationState.
It seems to me that this means no Nationstates can interact, as they are intervening with each other's external affairs.
On a less severe point, it could still mean that if a war broke out between two nationstates, neither side could ask it's allies to help in the conflict, and no humanitarian aid could be provided.

Major Johnson
Nibbleton

Article 3
§ Every NationState has the duty to refrain from intervention in the internal or external affairs of any other NationState.
It seems to me that this means no Nationstates can interact, as they are intervening with each other's external affairs.
On a less severe point, it could still mean that if a war broke out between two nationstates, neither side could ask it's allies to help in the conflict, and no humanitarian aid could be provided.
Your second point is specifically addressed in

Article 12
§ Every NationState has the right of individual or collective self-defense against armed attack.

As to your first point, I agree that it can be a bit intimidating. In the context of the rest of the Declaration, I think it's obvious that it refers to matters of economic, political, and social policy. I can see that perhaps it would be better if those specific inclusions were enumerated. The trouble I see is sins of omission - what if we forget some of the most basic of areas of consideration? In any case, we submit the following for your consideration as a possible amendment. Changes in italics.

Article 3
§ Every NationState has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, except as enumerated elsewhere in this document.

I don't like it. It's clumsy and overwordy. But I'll open the floor for debate ...

The UN is acknowledging that it DOES NOT have sovereign rights over an individual nation. It grants no new rights, neither does it take away any. It's just a declaration and confirmation of the current status.

The Rogue Nation of Greenspoint would like this point explicity spelled out, so that no doubt remains.

James Moehlman
Asst. Manager ico U.N. Affairs
Greenspoint

The UN is acknowledging that it DOES NOT have sovereign rights over an individual nation. It grants no new rights, neither does it take away any. It's just a declaration and confirmation of the current status.
The Rogue Nation of Greenspoint would like this point explicity spelled out, so that no doubt remains.

Article 1
§ Every NationState has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState or the United Nations, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

Would that cover your request, Greenspoint?

Well, love, I'll be honest with you. I'm not quite sure if I'm hungover or still drunk from last night (BTW, be a darling and feth me anothe rbloody Mary, and grab a couple of those adorable little olives with the cocktail onions stuffed inside), but from what I've seen, the proposal as a whole is pretty good.

As for the rewording of article 3, yes it's a bit awkward, but with such an important issue, it's best not to leave things too open to interpretation. ("Interpretation," of course, being Latin for "blatant abuse.") I also like the rewording of article 1.

And now I'm off for martinis and trade negotiations.

Ta-ta,
Helen

Yea, let me give you some very key issues and how I feel they will affect my nation:


Article 3
§ Every NationState has the duty to refrain from intervention in the internal or external affairs of any other NationState.


If your duty it to ignore external events generated to other nations, then you will be duty bound to initially ignore events that occur to your neighbor. Even with the provision to uphold the defense of member nations under that UN charter, your first action is to take no action UNTIL the UN advises you. This is what happens in real life - where a country that is on the font line of aggression must take no action or be branded a "rogue nation" by the UN. For better security, it should allow that you may take direct action on issues that threaten the immediate peace in your region. This is more provocative, but it allows you to respond to "fanatics" of a nation near you who are promoting seperatists activities within an already volatile nation, for example.

Without this ability, you can not enforce...

Article 7
§ Every NationState has the duty to ensure that conditions prevailing in its territory do not menace international peace and order.

...in any due time without issuing a proposal and going through the ordeal therein. Would you want to wait around for 2 weeks to find out IF the UN decides that the recent assassinations of a nearby nation's leader and his entire family by a new religious, fanatical leader who believes himself to be God and who has gathered an army nearly the size of your own and who proclaims your nation an enemy to his followers prosperity and everlasting life, are cause for action?

No, you would take immediate action to protect your nation, including a pre-emptive attack upon the zealot and his new army. You would possibly seek aid of allied nations and approval by the UN, but you could not afford to risk the UN siding with the enemy and leaving you vulnerable.



Article 8
§ Every NationState has the duty to settle its disputes with other NationStates by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

Article 9
§ Every NationState has the duty to refrain from resorting to war as an instrument of national policy, and to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another NationState in any other manner inconsistent with international law and order.

My duty is to my people, not to the UN. My first duty is to provide them the essentials for developing a healthy, prosperous life and enjoyment of their entire life without duress or harm. Second is to defend my nation by any means at my disposal, from any nation or group deemed as a threat to my people and which would, even by merest possibility of, cause harm to my nation. This means that if said zealot even mentioned "I think the Empire of Heru Ur is the evil satan and we must kill them all to find God" that I would take immediate action. What action I take is up to me, not the UN. That does not mean I would send nukes, but it doesn't prevent me from launching an attack in order to eliminate this self-proclaimed enemy of my nation.

The rest is pretty much falling through at this point. You can not allow the UN to set the rules and conditions by which YOU run YOUR country. If you do, you might as well hand over the keys to the UN (and those annoying, babbling fools that propose anything just to get some attention) and logout.

Article 1
§ Every NationState has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState or the United Nations, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

Would that cover your request, Greenspoint?

Actually, that verbage seems to contradict the part about international law being applied to all member nations. Rather than incorporate the statement into one of the Articles, The Rogue Nation of Greenspoint would like to see a separate article or even a preamblesque statement along the lines of:

It is not intended that the hereinafter mentioned rights and duties are granted to the individual nationstates by the United Nations body, but that this document is intended solely as an acknowledgement and codification of those rights and duties the individual nationstates already possess, whether members of the United Nations or not.

We think that would suffice.

James Moehlman
Asst. Manager ico U.N. Affairs
Greenspoint

First, let me thank all the Members who have contributed to the revision of this proposal. We are gratified at the thoughtfulness of reponses given, and have attempted to include suggestions wherever practical. This process has been far superior to the typical "post and then argue" approach that has been prevalent recently.

Heru Ur, I have edited the initial post to include the discussed revisions to Article 1 and Article 3. In my opinion, including the word unrequested removes the requirement that the UN be first point of contact and explicitly allows for Nation-to-Nation contact outside of this body. The other edits go quite a bit further than originally specified in defining which sovereignties cannot be touched by the UN. In my opinion, this largely negates your objections vis-a-vis the later articles.

Greenpoint, I've changed the fourth paragraph and added a fifth, as follows:Whereas it is therefore desirable to recognize and enumerate certain basic rights and duties of NationStates, in the light of new developments of international law, and in harmony with the Charter of the United Nations, (removed) and

Whereas this Declaration is intended solely as an acknowledgement and codification of those rights and duties the individual NationStates already possess, whether members of the United Nations or not.
You can not allow the UN to set the rules and conditions by which YOU run YOUR country. If you do, you might as well hand over the keys to the UN (and those annoying, babbling fools that propose anything just to get some attention) and logout.
If you think my edits have not resolved these issues, please offer suggestions of how they could be altered to your satisfaction. Failing that, I guess we'll just have to mark you down as a "No". :)

The UN is acknowledging that it DOES NOT have sovereign rights over an individual nation. It grants no new rights, neither does it take away any. It's just a declaration and confirmation of the current status.
The Rogue Nation of Greenspoint would like this point explicity spelled out, so that no doubt remains.

Article 1
§ Every NationState has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState or the United Nations, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

Would that cover your request, Greenspoint?

Would an amendment such as this mean that the UN no longer has any power of member nations?

The Rogue Nation of Greenspoint would be able to support this draft of the proposal.

James Moehlman
Asst. Manager ico U.N. Affairs
Greenspoint

Lag-induced duplicate post.

Article 1
§ Every NationState has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState or the United Nations, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

Would an amendment such as this mean that the UN no longer has any power of member nations?
First take: No. See articles 3 and 14.

Second take: Hmmm. After the Greenspoint Amendment, maybe the italicized portion is no longer needed. It's certainly clearer if we leave that portion off.

Thoughts?

Isn't this whole thing a game mechanics problem?

I think you set a dangerous precedent. There is no ability to ammend policies, or repeal them, as is present in the real UN. Were this proposal to be approved, there would be no turning back. While it may appear sound, some rogue nation may seek to turn the policy to their whim and then hide under its loophole.

I appreciate your effort to create a well thought and well planned proposal and I salute such an effort in this mire of inequity and ineptitude.

I have decided to rejoin the UN. I like this proposal. It gives me the right to govern the way I wish even if it goes against the UN.

Isn't this whole thing a game mechanics problem?
We've been very careful not to make it so, OP. What aspects of this do you see that violate game mechanics? I'll agree that Article 14 touches on the game mechanics that make the UN work in NS, but it makes no effort to change them in any way. Look it over carefully, and please respond if you see something we've missed.

I think you set a dangerous precedent.
Me too, Heru Ur. I hope I'm setting a precedent of creating collaborative compositons that are carefully vetted by some of the brighter minds on the forums. That's always dangerous.

Obviously, you meant the opposite, and that's also true. Still, given what's been approved in the past (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions), I'm willing to take that chance. Every proposal that has gone before has some aspect that was questioned, even questioned heavily at the time. By comparison, I'm ready to stand by this Declaration with no small amount of pride.

It may be all moot in any case. I still haven't submitted it to the Proposals page, and don't intend to do so until debate has had a chance to wind down. Hopefully by then, enough forums readers will have seen and considered it that approvals will come easily. If not, so be it. We're giving it a try, and that in itself may be enough.

Article 1
§ Every NationState has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState or the United Nations, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

*squits* I have a bit of a headache so forgive me if I misconstrued the legababble...

This LOOKS like it says that the UN has no power over any NationState.

Also a thought. You might want to give a breif plain-english summary of the whole thing at the top, and then proceed with the legababble afterwards, indicating that it's the wording of the legababble that is used in the proposal, but the common english is just to get the gist of it.

Otherwise you'll find many state delegates won't vote for it because they don't understand it (You have to realise many nationsstates have poor or non-existat education systems.)

I admittedly didn't read the whole proposal (again, re: the migrane), but I did read the comments to it. I shall look over the proposal again tomorrow morning.

Isn't this whole thing a game mechanics problem?
We've been very careful not to make it so, OP. What aspects of this do you see that violate game mechanics? I'll agree that Article 14 touches on the game mechanics that make the UN work in NS, but it makes no effort to change them in any way. Look it over carefully, and please respond if you see something we've missed.


"whether members of the United Nations or not."

The UN has no authority outside of the UN.

"§ Every NationState has the right to equality in law with every other NationState."

Yet delegates are MORE equal? Such a proposal would limit their power. Not only that, newer regions have "founders rights" making them above others.

Article 7
"§ Every NationState has the duty to ensure that conditions prevailing in its territory do not menace international peace and order."

Half of the resolution I have seen could be a direct cause for conflict, thus is a threat to peace.

"Every NationState has the duty to refrain from resorting to war as an instrument of national policy"

Then why do I have a military? What happens someone violates this law?

"International law" is referenced yet there really aren't any laws for the interaction between nationstates.

"Article 1 states
§ Every NationState has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government. "

However, you waive that right when you join the UN.

"Article 12
§ Every NationState has the right of individual or collective self-defense against armed attack."

Armed attack or war? What means can be used? This could be an indirect way to give an army to the UN. That a little too much power.

Oppressed Possums, had I submitted each of the articles seperately, all of your criticisms would be valid. But as this is being submitted as a single document, it is within the bounds to make a broad statement early on and identify variations and exceptions later in the document.

Your comments about Article 7 and some of the other war-related lines have been bothering me since I posted this. My model for this was a real-world proposal, referenced in the second post of this topic, and some of the conditions in it aren't really applicable to NationStates. In game mechanics terms, we DO have explicit permission to have RP wars, support each other via alliance or treaty, and so on. I'll try to incorporate that into a new draft.

I see no reason to change Article 12. It doesn't call for UN forces. It says "collective". You can gather friends or allies to support you in self-defense. It does not obligate any member nation or the organization itself to support the battle.

I'm going to take some time to re-evaluate the phrasing on war and conflict, and do a bit of editing on the layout as well. Maybe even get rid of a Whereas or two, while I'm at it. :) As I've stated earlier, I appreciate the various feedbacks that have been given, and I don't intend to post this as a proposal until it reflects something that has a chance of acceptance and passage.

MAJOR REVISION! (22 Jan, 9:00 PM)

The first post has been replaced with the current revision, but I reprint it here for your convenience. Please provide comments, as major sections have been removed and rearranged.

Declaration on Rights and Duties of UN States:

Purpose:
UN membership in NationStates is a choice, not a requirement. Those of us who chose to participate have certain responsibilities to ourselves, each other, and the entire NationStates community. At the same time, we as NationStates have certain rights and responsibilities that we do not willingly give up when we chose to join the UN. It is therefore vital to clearly delineate what constitutes sovereign law versus UN sanctioned international law. This document will attempt to enumerate those most basic of rights, as they exist within and as defined by the United Nations of NationStates.

Section I: The Principle of National Sovereignty:

Article 1
§ Every UN Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.
Article 2
§ Every UN Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.
Article 3
§ Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

Section II: The Art of War:

Article 4
§ Every UN Member State has the right of individual or collective self-defense against armed attack.
Article 5
§ War in the World of NationStates is defined as a consensual act between two or more NationStates. Any and all NationStates may, at their discretion, respond to declarations of war on NationStates who wish to avoid war. The recommended method is a barrage of I.G.N.O.R.E. Cannons.
Article 6
§ Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from fomenting civil strife in the territory of another NationState, and to prevent the organization within its territory of activities calculated to foment such civil strife.
Article 7
§ Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from giving assistance to any NationState which is acting in violation of Article 5, or against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
Article 8
§ Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from recognizing any territorial acquisition by another NationState acting in violation of Article 5.

Section III: The Role of the United Nations:

Article 9
§ Every UN Member State has the right to equality in law with every other UN Member State.
Article 10
§ Every UN Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty.
Article 11
§ Every UN Member State has the duty to conduct its relations with other NationStates in accordance with international law and with the principle that the sovereignty of each UN Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law.

[OOC]For the purposes of commentary:

All the Whereas comments have been replaced with a new paragraph called Purpose. Edits are welcome.

The articles have all been renumbered and put into relevant sections for ease of readability.

Article 5 is completely new, and is the most likely source of commentary, both positive and negative. I'm frankly having difficulty coming up with good ways to phrase how war is role-played while still remaining partially in character. Your suggestions would be appreciated.

Article 11 has a new clause that seeks to recognize the FACT that membership in the UN creates mandatory changes in a nation's stats. If anyone can improve on the phrasing there, I'd appreciate that as well.

Proceed with the shredding!

Frisbeeteria, you've done an excellent job on this proposal, and you've done well incorporating the various changes that have been requested, and I think this document is very strong. At this point I believe we're down to Picking Nits as it were.

The nit we'd like to pick is this:
Article 11
§ Every UN Member State has the duty to conduct its relations with other NationStates in accordance with international law and with the principle that the sovereignty of each NationState is subject to the supremacy of international law, as is required by the overriding by-laws of the Community of NationStates.

Our proposed change:
Article 11
§ Every UN Member State has the duty to conduct its relations with other NationStates in accordance with international law and with the principle that the sovereignty of each NationState UN Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law, as is required by the overriding by-laws of the Community of NationStates.

Also, it seems to us that it should not reference the 'Community of NationStates' but rather the United Nations, the former seeming to refer to an OOC institution. We'd also like to see mentioned that the supremacy of international law is basically voluntary as is evinced by virtue of the fact all UN Member States had to ask to join. I'd have written that into my proposed change above but I couldn't come up with decent verbage so soon after lunch. :)

Jmac
Chief Bottle Washer
Greenspoint

Article 11
§ Every UN Member State has the duty to conduct its relations with other NationStates in accordance with international law and with the principle that the sovereignty of each NationState UN Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law, as is required by the overriding by-laws of the Community of NationStates
Nit has been picked.

The 'Community of NationStates' is my way of refering to all the NationsStates, whether in the UN or not. I could say, "The World" but I liked 'Community of NationStates' better.

The 'Community of NationStates' is my way of refering to all the NationsStates, whether in the UN or not. I could say, "The World" but I liked 'Community of NationStates' better.

Right, and IC there is NO set of over-riding international laws that governs all nations. The closest there would be is the UN. So to talk about the over-riding internation laws IC it MUST refer to the UN, otherwise it appears that you're going OOC and referring to the game rules themselves.

Jmac

Right, and IC there is NO set of over-riding international laws that governs all nations. The closest there would be is the UN. So to talk about the over-riding internation laws IC it MUST refer to the UN, otherwise it appears that you're going OOC and referring to the game rules themselves.
I'm willing to pay that price, Greenspoint. I've already made oblique reference to OOC rules in Article 5, both with the 'consensual agreement' and the I.G.N.O.R.E. Cannon (which is in there to give just a smidgen of humor). I'd put something in the first paragraph if I could think of a way to sneak it in, but it evades me.

If I take it out, we'll get the usual assortment of n00bs who will bitch that 'the UN doesn't control what happens in MY country!' Tough luck, chum - if you're a UN Member, they sure do. I'd rather take the mild step OOC and leave it in place.

Hmmm. Would you prefer "the World of NationStates"?

The UN is acknowledging that it DOES NOT have sovereign rights over an individual nation. It grants no new rights, neither does it take away any. It's just a declaration and confirmation of the current status.
The Rogue Nation of Greenspoint would like this point explicity spelled out, so that no doubt remains.

Article 1
§ Every NationState has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState or the United Nations, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

Would that cover your request, Greenspoint?

Would an amendment such as this mean that the UN no longer has any power of member nations?


Yes Nibbleton I believe that this resolution would do just that. If this resolution would be passed it would render UN powerless. All the UN could do is diplomacy but it would no longer be able to pass resolutions. This is something that I believe the game moderators would delete since im sure it would not go along to well with the game mechanics. If this is passed and there will be no point to the UN. Article 1 renders the UN obsolete and I hope that the writer of this resolution realises this. Everything else about the resolution I believe is good. But i would vote against it because of Article 1. :?







Carl Toodubleu
Holy Empire of The Muaddib
UN Ambassador

Article 1 renders the UN obsolete and I hope that the writer of this resolution realises this. Everything else about the resolution I believe is good. But i would vote against it because of Article 1.
Ambassador Toodubleu, this was a work-in-progress topic. It's pretty much done now, but if you can get yourself elected as a UN Regional Delegate, you can help with the approval process. You'll find that the offending phrase is gone. Should be good to go.

This proposal has been submitted under the name Rights and Duties of UN States. The final version is here:

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=117900

Please make all future responses in the topic that contains the actual submitted version.
This topic is effectively closed.