NationStates Jolt Archive

The Lone Star Republic Parliament has been advised by its UN Ambassador and fellow UN member nations to recommend the formation of a Nation's Rights Coalition. It is a loose international, inter-regional confederation of states that feel their sovereignty in national issues has been overstepped by UN Resolutions in force.

Due to the clamour raised around such resolutions as a ban on vegetation clearing, loss of copywrite enforcement to an international bureaucracy (UCPL), and other threats to national power (e.g., the pro-prostitution proposal in quorum and talk of religious practice bans), the Lone Star Republic Parliament sees fit to request support for a collective voting bloc that can easily vote out resolutions that trample on our national sovereignty, as well as make revisions to resolutions passed or those being proposed. The goal: 10,000 voting members.

Additionally, the Lone Star Republic wishes to adopt as many proposals for nations rights as possible. This means that any nations who intend to propose a national sovereignty resolution, or who simply wish to uplift the current state of the UN, should join our coalition.

For now, this only involves a poll. With enough support, we can restore the lofty purpose of the UN--to encourage INTERNATIONAL cooperation, not force independent ideas on all members. At the conclusion of the poll (Friday, February 6), coalition members will discuss and submit a comprehensive resolution that addresses our needs, recommend changes to gameplay in the appropriate forum, and raise national sovereignty awareness in the world. No one will be, nor can they be, forced into voting with us, but a support group like this can greatly improve the weeding-out of senseless resolutions.

Vote now! Get the word out! Do not give up! Advise all of your region members to participate!

Together, we can preserve our peoples, cultures, and values, and restore the dignity of the UN!

Peace and prosperity,
The Lone Star Republic

I fully support it. In fact, count in my 12-member region. ASLN (Apocalyptic League of Sovereign Nations) is based on anti-UN ideals. Consider the ASLN to be a member in this coalition. We all believe in our democratic rights to sovereignty.

~ Zekia Kelleigh
Prime Minister of Kryozerkia

Founder of ASLN

I am going to write to my regional representative about this...sounds good
I don't like the way the UN is leaning myself

Then you can always leave. When you join up, you forsake some of your soverieng ty to be able to influence the sovereignty others.

I think it is you, Corvus Regius that is misunderstanding the purpose of the UN, not me...

I think it is you, Corvus Regius that is misunderstanding the purpose of the UN, not me...
Incorrect. Corvius has the system worked out.

Because the UN inflicts compliance upon its member states (unlike in the real world, where a semi-voluntary system exists), all member states abandon a certain degree of sovereignty by joining. That said, they also gain the opportunity to infringe on the sovereignty of other member nations, so it's a double-edged sword.
While I think this particular voting bloc is possibly a large hue and cry about a rather minor issue which is made clear throughout the game, it's welcome to try to preserve sovereignty.

The UN will never work if people are constantly trying to cause its downfall. We should, instead of arguing, work together so that the UN can succeed.

I think it is you, Corvus Regius that is misunderstanding the purpose of the UN, not me...
Incorrect. Corvius has the system worked out.

Because the UN inflicts compliance upon its member states (unlike in the real world, where a semi-voluntary system exists), all member states abandon a certain degree of sovereignty by joining. That said, they also gain the opportunity to infringe on the sovereignty of other member nations, so it's a double-edged sword.
While I think this particular voting bloc is possibly a large hue and cry about a rather minor issue which is made clear throughout the game, it's welcome to try to preserve sovereignty.

Incorrect. The UN is designed as an entity to assist in the functioning of interactions between nations. It is not merely designed as a tool to enforce a single legal structure upon the member states as per the majority rule.

At least, this is the case if it is even remotely modelled off of the real UN. While a certain amount of sovereignty is given up in order to be a member, the extent of sovereignty given up in this iteration of the UN is much larger, demanding that all nations obey a specific set of rules detailing all aspects of their governance.

In light of this, I find that this coalition is quite legitimate. In addition, you must note that what is requested is not a removal from the UN, but a voting block within it to defy liberal pandering and demanding of specific legal actions in defiance of national sovereignty. He is asking to change the current UN stances, which is his right as a UN member. With 10,000 votes backing him (assuming success), he will crush opposition and defeat these proposals in the future, making your point quite thoroughly moot.

I support his stance wholeheartedly and will add voice to campaigning should I find the time in my busy schedule to waste on this endeavor.

I, founder of the region of Western Cosmopolitan Unity, counting 6 nations, will advice my members not to support such illegal activities against the neutral UN. The majority decides, this democratic system works allready for over 2000 year. When such outlaworganisations try to break the democratic system itself of the UN, i'm afraid the UN only will still excist on paper. The UN needs a mandatorial power to succeed in their nobel goals without any obstruction of anti-democratic powers (like this organisation).

I think it is you, Corvus Regius that is misunderstanding the purpose of the UN, not me...
Incorrect. Corvius has the system worked out.

Because the UN inflicts compliance upon its member states (unlike in the real world, where a semi-voluntary system exists), all member states abandon a certain degree of sovereignty by joining. That said, they also gain the opportunity to infringe on the sovereignty of other member nations, so it's a double-edged sword.
While I think this particular voting bloc is possibly a large hue and cry about a rather minor issue which is made clear throughout the game, it's welcome to try to preserve sovereignty.

Incorrect. The UN is designed as an entity to assist in the functioning of interactions between nations. It is not merely designed as a tool to enforce a single legal structure upon the member states as per the majority rule.

At least, this is the case if it is even remotely modelled off of the real UN. While a certain amount of sovereignty is given up in order to be a member, the extent of sovereignty given up in this iteration of the UN is much larger, demanding that all nations obey a specific set of rules detailing all aspects of their governance.

In light of this, I find that this coalition is quite legitimate. In addition, you must note that what is requested is not a removal from the UN, but a voting block within it to defy liberal pandering and demanding of specific legal actions in defiance of national sovereignty. He is asking to change the current UN stances, which is his right as a UN member. With 10,000 votes backing him (assuming success), he will crush opposition and defeat these proposals in the future, making your point quite thoroughly moot.

I support his stance wholeheartedly and will add voice to campaigning should I find the time in my busy schedule to waste on this endeavor.
Given that we neither of us debate the legitimacy of the proposed coalition, we can gloss over the ideological differences which would see (I assume) your good self join it, while I remain resolutely outside.

That said, you do make the assumption that the UN which exists here follows the model of the real-world one - that is, that it is a means to an end, with that end being closer interaction between the member states.
This is an assumption which can be proven untrue by reference to the game mechanics, specifically the "UN Compliance Ministry". To take the current resolution as an example; if you vote Against but it passes, you will receive a telegram politely informing you that "laws have been enacted to make your nation comply with the resolution".
As we are both aware, in the real-world UN the passage of a resolution by any organ designated for that purpose (Security Council or General Assembly) frequently means absolutely nothing. States can and do ignore motions condemning their actions (Israel comes to mind) from the Assembly and large and weighty tomes can and have been written about Iraq's compliance or lack thereof with Security Council resolutions.
However, in game mechanics terms, if I get a particular resolution passed and you're a UN member then there's nothing very much that you can do other than resigning or gritting your teeth and putting up with more "liberal pandering".
As a result, I commend the idea of this voting bloc in that it may seek to "balance the ledger" in terms of proposals and resolutions. I eagerly await the first example of its functioning.

There are already a couple largish coalitions of nations set up as alternatives to the UN. Why not simply join them, rather than go to all the trouble of starting from scratch?

I would like to have more information on these coalitions, because the citizens of Voof-land, afer only a few days in the United Nations, are already thoughly disenchanted with the entire idea, and wish to preserve their sovreignty.

?Liberty is impossible without morality, and morality is impossible without faith.? Alexis de Tocqueville

Voof-land has spoken.

The Lone Star Republic Parliament wishes to express appreciation for the many and varied thoughts, both for and against, this coalition. We would like to take this time to outline more specific "IS" and "IS NOT" factors of this coalition:

This coalition IS aimed at providing a voting block that can both suggest revisions to UN resolutions, push pro-sovereignty resolutions (conservatively), and vote out resolutions that blatantly interfere with national issues, if necessary. It will open forums to discuss the impact of resolutions on national sovereignty and provide a procedure for members to vote in an organized manner. It is for all regions and all member nations.

This coalition IS NOT to be a tight confederation, nor will it force members to vote a certain way regarding on-the-fence resolutions. The coalition does not seek the end of the UN, but to balance the whims of the majority by making them aware of their own right to govern. While a council of nations will be necessary to organize a 10,000-member organization, no single nation will be in control of the entire works.

If you are aware of any other pro-sovereignty, pro-UN coalitions out there, encourage them to add their voice to our cause. Encourage disenchanted former UN members to give it one last try. We wish to have 10,000 member nations, and at least 100 regional delegates to add their support.

You are being heard. Add your support, and you will continue to be heard.

Peace and Prosperity,
The Lone Star Republic Parliament

Nations don't have rights in and of themselves, only individuals have inherent rights. We will support any UN Resolution that upholds individula rights and nullify any resolution that harms them.

It is my belief this simply won't work, I doubt enough votes could be had, what is needed is reform as to what resolutions can be brought forward for a vote, and I, for one, am tired of recieving the "you will comply" letter, as such, as long as the UN is set up in such a way that member states are forced to uphold laws they disagree with, my nation will wash it's hands of the UN.

The last few resolutions have been both childish and bordering on extremly bad taste, and stepping outside a game persona, I happen to think it's an extremly poor idea to permit a 'resolution' come to a vote that is a religoius affront to better then half the planet in real life, just because some people on a game board think it's 'cool.'

Maybe you think it prudish, but I have been playing the game for a long time, my pop is past 2,000,000,000 and this is the first time I was moved to post, as well as leave the UN.

Nations don't have rights in and of themselves, only individuals have inherent rights. We will support any UN Resolution that upholds individula rights and nullify any resolution that harms them.

Then cease the acceptance of resolutions your UN obviously doesn't follow, for it is defying the rights of religions to ban practices, especially in cases of theocracy, or is democracy the only legitimate form of government and you the only source of what is right and just and properly free for human beings?

Are you truly so arrogant, little brother, that you would claim this knowledge of what all rights must be for every people in every situation?

The Cove supports the freedom of the individual. We will join your confederacy.

Nations don't have rights in and of themselves, only individuals have inherent rights. We will support any UN Resolution that upholds individula rights and nullify any resolution that harms them.

Then cease the acceptance of resolutions your UN obviously doesn't follow, for it is defying the rights of religions to ban practices, especially in cases of theocracy, or is democracy the only legitimate form of government and you the only source of what is right and just and properly free for human beings?

Are you truly so arrogant, little brother, that you would claim this knowledge of what all rights must be for every people in every situation?

The UN has overstepped its bounds time and time again. However, it is the only governing council with any real authority. I believe that it would be better it stay within the UN and try to bring some form of dignity back to it than to start a completely new system that cannot bring some form of authority to the table. The UN, if you will recall, was started to handle international issues i.e. people trying to take over the world/genocidal activities. To this purpose should the UN stay, it should leave national sovereignty, if it does not fit the above criteria, intact.

Nations don't have rights in and of themselves, only individuals have inherent rights. We will support any UN Resolution that upholds individula rights and nullify any resolution that harms them.

Then cease the acceptance of resolutions your UN obviously doesn't follow, for it is defying the rights of religions to ban practices, especially in cases of theocracy, or is democracy the only legitimate form of government and you the only source of what is right and just and properly free for human beings?

Are you truly so arrogant, little brother, that you would claim this knowledge of what all rights must be for every people in every situation?

The UN has overstepped its bounds time and time again. However, it is the only governing council with any real authority. I believe that it would be better it stay within the UN and try to bring some form of dignity back to it than to start a completely new system that cannot bring some form of authority to the table. The UN, if you will recall, was started to handle international issues i.e. people trying to take over the world/genocidal activities. To this purpose should the UN stay, it should leave national sovereignty, if it does not fit the above criteria, intact.

For similar reasons, we of the Holy Empire find it appropriate to remain and fight unfair litigation as opposed to leaving, as some arrogant members of this august body insinuate. It is as if they find a dissenting opinion regarding the purpose of the organization so anethema that their only response is to say "if you do not like it, leave." They are irresponsible. One does not sacrifice what can yet be salvaged.

Hence the coalition.

The Armed Republic of Struckman has decided to throw it's support to the Nations Right's Coalition.The Nation of Struckman is the UN Delagate of Paradoxia and will urge other members to support the NRC.After seeing this thread and what other nations posted to me in other threads and in private,Struckman has dumped it's previous proposal for a Global Prostitution Ban in favor of one that let's individual Members decide what is right and what is wrong.

Ban UN Prostitution Resolution (page 20 UN listing Proposals)

The Armed Republic of Struckman has decided to throw it's support to the Nations Right's Coalition.The Nation of Struckman is the UN Delagate of Paradoxia and will urge other members to support the NRC.After seeing this thread and what other nations posted to me in other threads and in private,Struckman has dumped it's previous proposal for a Global Prostitution Ban in favor of one that let's individual Members decide what is right and what is wrong.

Ban UN Prostitution Resolution (page 20 UN listing Proposals)

Excellent news, brother. We are pleased for all the assistance available.

The Sovereign People's Republic of MTXOracle would like to join the coalition.

As a newly formed nation we have to learn the roaps, and in beginign to learn how NationStates works we have noticed a flaw in this system.

We woud like to ask if there is any way to work Within the UN to show more strenthg behind just meer votes from representatives, who may sometimes not be around to address the issues.

The Independant nations need to have a vote not just some reigeonal "potenate" the un is not the US Sennate, and should not be run as such. If this is to come to pass, it is our belif that if we can sway the hand of the voters within the un we would be able to effectivly reform the governing body to the way it should be instead of just abandoning it all togheher.

I hope this made sense.

I support the UN from a peace-maker standpoint, however the UN in the Game has taken it too far and is infringing on our rights as our own Sovereign nations. Perhaps they should regulate the issues that come and go, so we don't have to vote on stupid things like "legalise Prostitution", but on more important stuff such as "increase Med supply" or the sort...

Oh and to answer MTXOracle, maybe the UN should have a Strongly agree to Strongly disagree system. And if the reps not there than the UN will answer for them by their Gov style...

At the conclusion of the poll (Friday, February 6), coalition members will discuss and submit a comprehensive resolution that addresses our needs, recommend changes to gameplay in the appropriate forum, and raise national sovereignty awareness in the world.
Lone Star Republic, Frisbeeteria crafted, with the help of several other nations, a most carefully worded proposal that defined national sovereignty in NationStates. It failed to reach quorum, in large part due to problems with the UN voting system (OOC - server lag was horrible that weekend). We have every intention of resubmitting this proposal in a few days.

Frisbeeteria fully supports the concept of sovereignty, but also supports the idea that UN membership comes with certain responsibilites as well. We welcome the support of this coalition, and welcome any additional suggestions. Here is the full text of our proposal:

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.

If any UN member has any issues with the phrasing or layout of this proposal, please visit this topic (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=117900) and add your suggestions there. Thank you for your suppport.

It is a start Frisbeeteria, but I am unsure it addresses the internationally forced laws invoked by the UN recently that defy national sovereignty.

The Lone Star Republic Parliament would like to step in between the exchanges between Frisbeeteria and Kokablel for a moment. Firstly, we commend both nations for taking such an active role in lobbying for national sovereignty. Secondly, we want both nations to continue garnering support and proposing comprehensive resolutions that will address governing boundaries.

For the time being, however, the fact is that the nation's rights movement is in its infancy. The Lone Star Republic is carefully reading each post and proposition that can help shape the final form of the coalition and its mission. We consider Frisbeeteria's proposition as a common-sense step in the right direction. Unfortunately, as it deals with articles of warfare as part of national responsibility, it is beyond the scope of this movement. We encourage pushing a UN-member responsibilites resolution, but not WITH the national sovereignty issue presented here.

Our coalition seeks to strengthen the INTERNATIONAL role of the UN itself. All nations, regardless of their personal agendas, are encouraged to help ENFORCE this by drawing voting down petty or simply unacceptable resolutions and focusing attention to more international issues.

Do not be discouraged. The Lone Star Republic wants nations like Frisbeeteria to continue to post their resolution ideas here and foster "sovereignty awareness" whereever they may be.

To the representatives of Kokablel, you have been with us from the beginning. We want your continued, steadfast support; your zeal inspires and fires us in our resolve. Please, though, refrain from harshly countering on-the-fence or opposing nations; rather, endeavor to strike compromises with their viewpoints. Our forum will welcome peoples with varied opinions and ideologies who will not always agree with the majority.

Again, many thanks to the support shown so far. The Lone Star Republic acknowlegdes the pledges of all supportive nations. You can help us verbalize the actions we will take together by recommending the wording of our first resolution (to be submitted after the coalition is better organized). Please also add your ideas regarding the structure of the coalition. More details regarding this will be posted at week's end.

Peace and prosperity,
The Lone Star Republic

We will note the usefulness of Sections I and III for the support of our overall goals, save that we have an added desire that is somewhat difficult for us to phrase at this time.

We wish it to be clear what it is that international law and UN jurisdiction actually entails. This is, perhaps, the very heart and source of our argument. Beyond this, however, we feel that brother Frisbeeteria has hit upon a good start in our overarching goals.

Regarding our debate in other topics, we have gotten into a disagreement of sorts. while Frisbeeteria seems to take a rather pragmatic approach, we of the Holy Empire are far stricter in this matter, desiring the defense of national sovereignty rather pointedly. As you said earlier, ours is a disparate coalition. In this regard, we agree to disagree with Frisbeeteria to an extent in that we fight for common goals important to our individual nations.

After all, considering my nation's laudable policies, I doubt many will truly agree with our methods or beliefs. It is simply unlikely.

I agree and you my support. However, I am going to hold off right now
on rejoining the UN until I see in what direction it will be heading.

The UN will never work if people are constantly trying to cause its downfall. We should, instead of arguing, work together so that the UN can succeed.

Well spoken.

The Confederate City-States of Mikitivity voted yes with rights, because there is a growing trend for nations with little foresight to create legislation (typically just proposals) to purposefully hamper with the development of other sovereign states. The UN is where the house cleaning needs to remain, not the creation of new "Leagues" or Coalitions.

This of course does not mean that nations shouldn't find and build effective voting ("regional") blocs. This practice seems to already be in wide spread use.

It has come to the attention of the Lone Star Republic that a vital part of the United Nations assembly has yet been unaddressed in our zeal for uplifiting this body--the veteran members of this assembly.

As we are a young, fledging republic and novices at UN activity, we seek the leadership and experience of UN veteran nations. If any of you supporters of national sovereignty can find sympathetic nations, especially those who have left out of disgust of senseless resolutions, urge them to take an active role in leading us through the quagmire of UN politics.

With high hopes,
The Lone Star Republic Parliament

Peace and Prosperity!

In general, the Commonwealth of Merric supports an individual nation's sovereignty. However we do not support this sovereignty over issues like civil and human rights. For that purpose we are against this coalition, and believe that if you join the UN, you inherent certain risks - such as giving up some of your sovereignty. The UN in NationStates is not mimicing the UN on Earth and is designed to impose regulations on member states through a democratic process of all those states.

~The Grand Vizier of Merric

In general, the Commonwealth of Merric supports an individual nation's sovereignty. However we do not support this sovereignty over issues like civil and human rights. For that purpose we are against this coalition, and believe that if you join the UN, you inherent certain risks - such as giving up some of your sovereignty. The UN in NationStates is not mimicing the UN on Earth and is designed to impose regulations on member states through a democratic process of all those states.

~The Grand Vizier of Merric

Ahhh, but what civil rights are constituted in what is given up? When is it fair to control unjust action on the part of other nations and when is it simply invasive pandering to a specific viewpoint?

Your viewpoint is yours, but we are entitled to disagree. Whatever it is designed as, we feel that the UN is best as an entity which acknowledges national sovereignty and serves to make more fluid the relations of the nations, solving issues of serious civil rights violations but not intervening hypocritically in other nations because of individual proclivities held by a majority of states.

Can does not mean Should, and at the very least we are entitled to 'impose regulations on member states through a democratic process of all those states' in response, killing previously accepted legislation if we can garner the votes. Would you have no reform and merely pure uniformity? Are we actually one massive nation or individual nations?

I don't know about this at all, A country who is barely founded two weeks trying to change the whole world?? While your zeal is of course admirable, it appears that perhaps you've bitten off more than you can chew, something like this take more than good intentions to get off the ground, there can be alot of reading and groundwork involved... My advice, look before you leap, there are too many hole in what you are trying to do, and not enough solutions: I bet you are American! :mrgreen:

Down with the UN I say. Curse it to the bowels of Hades.

Do not be discouraged. The Lone Star Republic wants nations like Frisbeeteria to continue to post their resolution ideas here and foster "sovereignty awareness" whereever they may be.
Lone Star, you might consider dropping the patronizing tones when referring to nations that have been actively pursuing national sovereignty issues since before your nation was founded. This is not a new idea. If you want to offer leadership, so be it, but don't be so infernally smug about it.

MJ Donovan, CEO, Conglomerated Oligarchy of Frisbeeteria

(*yawns* fucking C-Pap. If I ever find the man or woman who created that infernal contraption, I will do things that are decidedly unchristian to them.

Frisbee, I don't think he intended to be patronizing. To an extent don't take what is said in this place too seriously. I realize that you're far more the long term-member than either he or I, but remember that many here are playing roles. When I look around there is a tendency amongst people here to make declarations that don't always have the same level of diplomacy of an average person, largely because they fit with the 'style' of nation the person is running.

Hence, for me, you get a lot of religious tripe from made up sacred texts and really arrogant shit flying out of my mouth regularly. Gotta love theocracies.)