NationStates Jolt Archive

The following Proposal has been submitted for your approval. This proposal is the result of a collaboration (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2616151) by several nations using an Open Forum model we sincerely hope other UN members will adopt.

Please search the UN Proposals Library using the word Duties to register your Approval. We thank you in advance for your careful consideration of this proposal.

This proposal has been submitted using the following criteria:

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

Category: Political Stability
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Frisbeeteria
Voting Ends: Thu Feb 12 2004


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 been submitted once before, but failed to meet quorum due to a few apparent problems. The entire time this proposal was up, server lag was at its worst. Second, due to a tactical mistake on my part, it was posted right before update instead of right after, giving it only 3 days instead of the usual 4 to get approvals. Finally, it never made it past page 4 on the Proposals list. This one should be on Page 1 this Saturday.

If you gave approval once before, we ask that you approve it a second time. Thanks for giving it your consideration.

Frisbeeteria.

The Rogue Nation of Greenspoint was wondering when this proposal would make it back into the queue. Thanks Frisbeeteria. We'll make sure our U.N. Delegate knows it's back.

James Moehlman
Asst. Manager ico U.N. Affairs

I support this proposal again, :D

Though CoM is not a regional delegate, we encourage *all* regional delegates to support this proposal so it may make it to UN as a resolution. In fact, this proposal may help to reduce many of the complaints and arguements currently in the UN.

The nation of Sophista is quite pleased to pledge its support for this resolution, even if that means only one vote, and will stand firmly in any debate that surfaces around the proposal.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Relations

i like this proposal, and will support it, except for one reason, i dont quite understand what article five is actually saying, if Frisbeeteria could clarify it for me a bit, i will definately support it.

i like this proposal, and will support it, except for one reason, i dont quite understand what article five is actually saying, if Frisbeeteria could clarify it for me a bit, i will definately support it.

This is a good question and we'd be interested in hearing Frisbeeteria's intent as well.

Though as I've tried to explain it to my government (and I could easily be wrong), it sounds as like "if a nation were to declare war on the peace loving people of Mikitivity and we choose to respond to the war by refusing to recognize the aggressor nation, that any other nation could offer our government aid by *also* ignoring the aggressor."

Again, I stress that this is my interpetation of Article 5, and obviously in light of recent peace protests across Mikitivity, a UN endorsed agreement for mutual protection through political means is something my government is very excited about!

i dont quite understand what article five is actually saying
Article 5 isn't so much defining the state of war as acknowledging the way wars are fought among NationStates. As you are all doubtless aware, wars between nations are generally declared in the arena of International Incidents, not far from this very building, in fact.

If (to borrow your national identities for a moment) Estebanotopia declares war on Mikitivity in the halls of the II, using the standard short form declaration, it would sound something like this: "I n00k joo with one million billion nooks."

Mikitivity has two real options. The first would be to answer the challenge with, "Oh yeah? I n00k joo right back. Joo r pwned!" War is declared, and accepted, and the combat begins. The UN plays no role.

The second option would be for Mikitivity to turn their backs and walk from the hall. This begins the automatic sequence for launching the Mark IV IGNORE Cannon, standard issue to all nations, as you are surely aware. For that matter, Mikitivity might not even BE in the halls of the II, in which case the default mode of their IGNORE Cannon is "always on".

Should Estebanotopia persist with his attacks, UN members (in good standing) would be encouraged to add their own national IGNORE Cannon to the battle. As the IGNORE Cannon is the only true shield from n00ks and other weapons of mass distraction, Estebanotopia's attack is nullifed.

-----------------

Frisbeeteria would like to point out that the UN role in War is to mediate and assist in Nation to Nation combat, as required under the Rules of War. The UN does NOT play a role in Regional Combat. Thanks to the fleets of automated helicopters that transport nations intact from Region to Region, there is no impact on national or international sovereignty. The nation remains intact, and thus immune to threats to sovereignty.

Regional combat is therefore subject only to transnational defense pacts, alliances, and similar treaties and organizations. The UN does not have the resources to act as coordinator for all the tens of thousands of nations, but fully expects its member nations to deal with the impact of those sorts of combat on their own.

There is one last recourse: a direct appeal to The Most Glorious Diety of your choice. Miracles have been known to happen, even in the most Neutered of cases. A bit of Divine Cogitation can indeed save the day.

Does that aid you in understanding the true nature of Article 5, gentlepersons?

Does that aid you in understanding the true nature of Article 5, gentlepersons?

Completely. And with that explained, CoM will take this proposal to our regional bloc.

Illaria supports this bill and will take it before their region.

After only one day of languishing on the back pages, Rights and Duties is already has 40% of the approvals needed for Quorum. Thanks, all who've approved so far!

The proposal is currently on page 15 in the List Proposals view, or you can simply search the proposals using the word "duties".

Frisbeeteria once again offers the opportunity to discuss or rebut any portion of this proposal. It took a couple of weeks of fine tuning here in the forums to get it in its present state, but I'm still rather surprised that no one has raised ANY real objection to this. Please, if this proposal has problems, let's get them out in the open before it reaches quorum.

If there are no objections to it, please ask your Regional Delegate to approve it as written. Thanks!

We have studied this proposal in depth and see no substantive reason to raise an objection.

Good luck and many thanks for your hard work.

The Community of Ecopoeia

Oops...that shouldn't have come from my 'experimental comedy' nation. Ah, well...

Oops...that shouldn't have come from my 'experimental comedy' nation. Ah, well...

-- Post deleted by irritated server-lagged user --

It's Thursday, 5 February, and we've reached the halfway point. Huzzah!

I know you're all having difficulty reading the forums - same here. If you feel strongly about this proposal, please telegram any Regional Delegates you personally know or have interacted with, and encourage them to aid in the passage of this proposal. All they need to do is search for "duties" in the List Proposals view and click Approve.

Halfway home while still on Page 15 is quite an accomplishment! Thanks to all who have given their support thus far.

D*** the forums are laggy!

Good luck, I approved it and I will again if it doesn't reach the floor this time... that's my jinxy way of giving luck into something :D

Greetings.

As a relative new-comer to this world, I haven't learned much. But I have been entrusted by my region to represent the proud people of Zenitramazonia in the United Nations. One thing I have learned is that our beliefs coincide nicely with those of Frisbeeteria. Sir, if you ever need the support of Zenitramazonia or the Allied States of Lesser Tyrannus, let us know. We are more than willing to assist you.

El Djere, Lord Praetor, Allied States of Lesser Tyrannus.

Sir, if you ever need the support of Zenitramazonia or the Allied States of Lesser Tyrannus, let us know. We are more than willing to assist you.
As you have already endorsed this proposal and will hopefully vote for it as well ...

http://home.nc.rr.com/ezjtb/images/support.jpg "We thank you for your support"

The Theocracy of Eusebius, though not a member of the United Nations, sent a telegram to its region's U.N. Delegate, the Confederacy of Caligatio, lobbying for this particular bill. Soon after, the bill was approved by the aforementioned nation.

Eusebius fully supports this bill.

( Reprinted on this page for your convenience and reference: )

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.

The server ate my proposal

Rights and Duties of UN States had at least 105 Approvals last night, glowing reports here in the forums, and not a hint of Game Mechanics problems, but I arrived this moring to find that 8 proposals who were due to expire on Feb 7, 2004 were gone without a trace!

I had carefully lobbied for this proposal, telegramming appropriate delegates and keeping you all informed via the Forums, and was hoping to see this proposal make quorum by update time tonight. It would have, too.

Instead, I spent 45 minutes of frustrating server lag just trying to connect to my nation, not even the forums, only to find that mine and seven others that were also scheduled for tonight were gone. I know Enodia didn't do a UN sweep, as he is involved in local elections for at least the next 24 hours. If any mod reads this and knows why this happened, I'd surely appreciate a comment.

I may re-present this once we've moved to the new server. It seems pointless to attempt anything worthwhile when the hardware won't cooperate. In the meantime, I thank all those who were so very positive in their support, and hope you'll help pass this worthy proposal if and when it's actually possible to play this game.

In extreme frustration,
MJ Donovan, CEO, Frisbeeteria

This is a really good proposal, and I was happy to support it. I hope you will re-submit it when the hardware/system problems are a little less frustrating.

We offer our condolences. Bureaucracy can be such a pain.

We just got your telegram, and looked for it. Our condolences. We will approve it as soon as it is re-submitted.

I can safely say I didn't delete the proposal. In fact, I'd whole-heartedly support it if I could (thankfully The Terribian has pledged to, so I don't have to twist his arm).

I can safely say I didn't delete the proposal. In fact, I'd whole-heartedly support it if I could (thankfully The Terribian has pledged to, so I don't have to twist his arm).

I direct this to any / all game mods?

Is there any idea to what happened? And is this frequent?

Not that anything can be done, other than to resubmit the proposal. However, I can attest to the level of work Frisbeetia had gone too. When I noticed him that I started a discussion in my regional board, he popped in to briefly explain to my regional group members what his proposal was really about in simple terms *and* opened the forum for amendements. (Ironically none were suggested, as it was a wonderfully written proposal ... which is rare.)

With that in mind, I've spoken to my government, and they've authorized me to use the resources (time mostly ... and it is limited) to take up some of the Frisbeetian load and email regional bloc delegates encouraging them to endorse the proposal ... SHOULD it be resubmitted.

Though anybody else could resubmit the proposal, it only seems fitting that Frisbeetia do so.

I can safely say I didn't delete the proposal. In fact, I'd whole-heartedly support it if I could.
Here's your chance.

I decided to resubmit this today since so many of you have telegrammed urging me to do so. I won't be able to campaign for it via telegram this week, so please pass the the word to your regional delegates that it is back on the floor.

Thank you for your support, once again.

For Monday, Feb 9 2004, this proposal can be found on Page 13 (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal/start=60) of the List Proposals view.

Better luck this time.

I have endorsed this Proposal three times now. Let's hope it gets through. :D

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

I have endorsed this Proposal three times now. Let's hope it gets through.
Folks, I can't tell you how much I appreciate endorsements like this.

It irks me no end to keep asking you time and again to go back and endorse the same proposal, no matter how worthy. But comments like these from mods, seasoned players, regional delegates, other proposal writers, and the general population of NationStates; have encouraged me to keep submitting it.

With your help, this will be the last round of attempting prior to a General Assembly vote. The fine folks in the North Pacific have offered their help to spead the word. If you want to help us pass this, please visit The North Pacific Forums (http://s2.invisionfree.com/The_North_Pacific/index.php?showtopic=456) and join the campaign. Thanks!

The Confederacy of Caligatio will once again support this resolution to its fullest. Though Frisbeeteria denies that it is not a champion of national sovereignty, the truth is clearly evident.

The nation of Frisbeeteria has laid out one of the best written proposals I've seen in my short time here, and it pleases me to see that the U.N. might finally pass a resolution of use that does not conflict with my country's sovereignty.

Todd M.
President of the Confederacy of Caligatio

For Tuesday, Feb 10, this proposal has moved to Page 6 (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal/start=25)

I have a question regarding the first paragraph of Article 3:

"Every UN Member State has the right to equality in law with every other UN Member State."

I'm just wondering how this would be enforced? It could be quite difficult to monitor. I have endorsed the proposal regardless as it is a duely needed piece of legislation

I am sorry I was not paying attention the first time it was submitted.

The High Priest of Carbanousa

"Every UN Member State has the right to equality in law with every other UN Member State."

I'm just wondering how this would be enforced? It could be quite difficult to monitor.
The enforcement agency in question already exists. The principal requirement for UN membership is that each Member State must accept the results of passage of any UN resolutions. The Compliance Ministry is responsible for seeing that these terms have been met. As they are a totally unbiased, and as far as we can tell, utterly reliable agency; we consider enforcement to be a moot point.

Just checking :wink:

Day 3, Page 4 (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal/start=15)

We're approaching critical mass at this point, with

Approvals: 86
Status: Lacking Support (requires 61 more approvals)
Voting Ends: Thu Feb 12 2004

Can we make quorum today, in defiance of the odds? Your Approval can make it happen!

Day 3, Page 4 (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal/start=15)

We're approaching critical mass at this point, with

Approvals: 86
Status: Lacking Support (requires 61 more approvals)
Voting Ends: Thu Feb 12 2004

Can we make quorum today, in defiance of the odds? Your Approval can make it happen!

My nation, the Confederacy of Mikitivity URGES all regional delegates to quickly endorse this proposal, as it could mark a significant turning point in the history of the NationStates United Nations.

Sincerely,
10kmichael
Confederation of the City States of Mikitivity

I have asked those UN members within the region (Nomadic Desert) to review and approve the proposal.
As previously mentioned, I have already approved the proposal. :roll:

Alas, only the delegate can approve a proposal.

Alas, only the delegate can approve a proposal.
And they have been, in droves. We're currently at 109 of 147 approvals, with only 38 to go. PLEASE - I just don't trust the server - can we get it to quorum by tonight? Once it passes the magic 147 number, it won't go away.

Delegates, get your vote in TONIGHT!

A friendly BUMP, and a note to say that only 22 approvals are now needed for this Proposal to reach quorum. I strongly urge all UN Delegates to give this Proposal their full consideration.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

I approve the un proposal. I see know reason not to.

The nation of Shirresh has already given their support and it is hoped that quorum will be reached on the issue soon. After it is passed though I think perhaps we need to try for an increase in number of approvals for proposals to reach the floor of the United nations. 6% is a very small amount for getting a fringe element to put a proposal forth that is abusive to member states.

The nation of Shirresh has already given their support and it is hoped that quorum will be reached on the issue soon. After it is passed though I think perhaps we need to try for an increase in number of approvals for proposals to reach the floor of the United nations. 6% is a very small amount for getting a fringe element to put a proposal forth that is abusive to member states.

Please note that this has nothing to do with the current Rights and Duties proposal (which I fully endorse).

Anyway, I would be opposed to increasing the endorsement percentage to 6% if the period for endorsements is not also increased.

Here is why:

I am not only a UN diplomat. I serve on the ruling council in my Confederation *and* I also happen to be an environmental scientist. Our neighbor state Trandosha recently had a nasty break-out of the West Nile virus, and thus I've been spending my weekends in Trandosha offering technical aid in the very difficult problem of keeping wetlands but introducing sustainable vector control measures.

If I were a UN Delegate, I'd only have access to computers a fraction of the time necessary to review and endorse proposals! Compared to Trandosha, Mikitivity is a developed nation ... what a laugh! Of course the Trandoshans are good friends of ours and worth whatever aid we can offer. Afterall, should the virus spread, our mountains would provide adequate breeding ground for them in the late spring runoff season and we really don't want to have to relocate the Miervatian population to our other three desert states.

I imagine one of the reasons so many nations don't respond to telegram campaigns is simple: they are away on important business.

So I urge you to consider carefully the balance between disinterest in a proposal and administrative barriers.

Following the big scary update, this proposal is now on page one.

20 approval to go, folks. Throw me a frickin' bone here.

Can't help you much...

I can garantee that the regional delegate in Lusa (our region) will take a look in that proposal as soon as possible.
I strongly agree with this proposition, and i congratulate the Frisbeeteria government for it's making.

I can garantee that the regional delegate in Lusa (our region) will take a look in that proposal as soon as possible.
I strongly agree with this proposition, and i congratulate the Frisbeeteria government for it's making.

Can't help you much...
You helped enough, G&F. Thanks for that early endorsement.

Anyway, I would be opposed to increasing the endorsement percentage to 6% if the period for endorsements is not also increased.

Ahem ...

SalusaSecondus is already considering a solution for this problem, but it definitely won't be implemented until the server problems are resolved. Take a look at Let UN Regional Delegates vote to TABLE Proposals (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=113087), also by your humble narrator.

Returning to our topic at hand now , if you please ...

I'm gonna go make sure my UN Delegate re-approved it this time through.

I'm gonna go make sure my UN Delegate re-approved it this time through.
Rest easy. BigTex is on the case, and NewTexas was an early and fervent supporter.

The free peoples of East Hackney would like to congratulate Frisbeeteria on the fact that his proposal has now reached quoracy. We look forward to voting in its favour when it comes up before the UN.

Comrade Chomsky
Delegate for Foreign Affairs

The free peoples of East Hackney would like to congratulate Frisbeeteria on the fact that his proposal has now reached quoracy.
We are most amused that the fine nation of Nibbleton was one of the first to help this to the floor, but the equally fine nation of Rabbiton was the final nibble needed to bring it to quorum.

Thanks to all who supported this bill. Now, on to the bitch sessions!

Problems? Complaints? Discuss them HERE (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=123088).

I had endorsed it the second time 'round, I wasn't aware that it had gotten accidentally deleted until just now.

We've endorsed it (again) even though it's already in quorum. Can't hurt, in case someone changes their mind and un-endorses it ^-^. The druidic consul has already given me permission to vote in favor once it's up for vote.

--------------------------------
Mediator Phineous Oakhurst, New Eriu's Delegate to the United Nations.

Thanks for the credit, Frisbeeteria!
It's certainyl third time lucky with this proposal, and now we finally have a bill worth passing, good work to everyone who contributed to this effort.

Party On,
Yngwie Malmsteen,
Nibbleton UN Ambassador

Woohoo! :D

It is always nice to see that rare thing, a worthy UN Proposal, reach Quorum! I am confident that when it comes to the final vote, the voices in favour will be overwhelming. And of course I will be encouraging the nations of my region to back me in supporting it.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation

At last.

Mr. Secretary, I rise in strong support of this resolution.

First of all, it is a pleasure to see a well-written, well thought-out resolution reach the floor for voting. It is also a pleasure to see a sponsor of a resolution vigorously participate in the debate on the UN floor. Both of these we find to be rare occurrences. We strongly praise the way that this resolution was drafted, and encourage the delegate from Frisbeetaria to move that it be archived.

Goobergunchia has long stood against the idea that the UN is bound only to international affairs and may not affect domestic issues. At first glance, this resolution seems to be one that we would oppose on these grounds. However, closer review indicates that this is not the case. Articles 1, 2, and 3 simply guarantee the right of each nation to self-determination, which we support. These articles make exceptions for "international law," which Goobergunchia has long held to be the resolutions adopted by the United Nations.

The provisions regarding war are similarly laudable. Articles 4 and 5 merely reaffirm the previously enforced policies regarding war that sadly many small nations do not acknowledge. Articles 6, 7, and 8 deal with the duties of UN Member States with regards to the practices of godmoddery and similarly unfair military practices. Although we fear that they may be difficult to enforce, we support them none the less.

The final section reasserts the powers of the United Nations that sadly many fail to acknowledge. Article 9 notes the fundamental equality of all nations, something Goobergunchia supports. Articles 10 and 11 reinforce the supremacy of the United Nations to national laws, something Goobergunchia has long stood up for (see the debate [ooc: sadly, now purged] on our Outlaw Pedophilia resolution) and nullifying the thought that this is yet another National Sovereignty resolution.

We strongly support this resolution, and I will be casting my vote for it when it is placed for a vote. We commend the delegate from Frisbeetaria for submitting one of the best resolutions in a long time and persevering to get it to quorum.

I yield the floor.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
Founder of the DU Region
UN Member since 18 May 2003
UN Delegate, 19 May 2003 and 8 June 2003 - 28 November 2003

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.

This proposal was commendable except for the above Articles in which our nation cannot accept because it violates sovereignty.

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.
This proposal was commendable except for the above Articles in which our nation cannot accept because it violates sovereignty.
Sorry, but you're wrong.

It can't violate sovereignty, because there is no legally binding definition of sovereignty in UN law. I challenge Islas del Filipinas or anyone else to point me to the UN documentation where sovereignty is explicitly granted. That's the whole reason for this document.

Article 10 doesn't violate sovereignty, it works with Articles 1, 2, 3, and 11 to define sovereignty. You, as a UN member, do not have the unqualified right to sovereignty - you signed that away when you choose to accept the telegram inviting you to join the United Nations. The entire point of this document is to define where your rights as a NationState cross with your responsibilities as a UN member.

Islas del Filipinas, show me sovereignty is more than a toss-away phrase, and I'll listen to your reasons. Whle you're at it, find a way to keep national sovereignty and still allow this UN to function within NationStates. You'll see that it can't be done.

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.

This proposal was commendable except for the above Articles in which our nation cannot accept because it violates sovereignty.

Another way to look at it is, "You can't have your cake and eat it too." This article is saying that nations can't opt out of UN treaties when they feel like it. Furthermore, and this is the important part, it also instructs nations to carry out in good faith the treaties and obligations that the UN member states agree to.

A perfect example of a nation gone wrong is Joccia. This assembly is debating silly topics like marriage, veto powers for developing nations, universal drivers licenses, and doing nothing while the gravest human tragedy of our time is occuring not only in a UN member's borders, but by that government and under the weak justification but the UN made me do it.

In some countries when a homicidal maniac pleads but the devil made me do it the defendant is considered to be insane. I'd argue by the same logic that perhaps that Joccian King Mac III is equally insane and according to his own country's twisted interpetation of UN laws should be provided the same treatment that he has so ruthlessly given prostitutes, elderly, elves, unemployeed, and any political outsider.

My point here is to encourage you all to do something about the genocide in Joccia. You've all read the debate of the NationStates Gay Rights resolution which states that member states have to pass laws to protect all people from discrimination. You've all read the debate of the Universal Bill of Rights, which again prohibits torture, cruel, or inhumane treatment and prohibits the arrest of individuals without charges. You've all read the Legalise Euthanasia and Legal Prostitution resolutions as well. None of the discussions remotely suggested murdering every group that has been protected by these and other UN resolutions. In fact, the debate centered on just the opposite. Read for yourself, you'll see.

However, Mac III purge of all that he considers unfit to live, is no where near a good faith implementation of our resoultions (i.e. binding international treaties).

It is not only critical that Article 10 of the Rights and Duties resolution remain part of the document, but that we stop quibbling over non-life threatening issues and move on to stopping the complete and systematic destruction of all life in Joccia.
I urge you to reconsider your objection to Article 10. No, I ask you to explain to me why should we even bother passing anything if it can be ignored or twisted to the exact opposite.

I'm completely serious here. Why did your nation join the UN? To get a stupid blue banner on your profile? Perhaps you want a blue helmet to put on your security forces? Maybe it is just an excuse to get away from the wife and kids?

If we don't at least agree to meet in the middle and carry out the will of this body in good faith, there is NO POINT behind the United Nations.

If you are concerned that nations will meddle in your private afairs, vote no on most meddlesome resolutions and advocate against them. It is long past time for people to stop pushing the responsiblities of this body on but a few hard working nations and to take their share.

Now with that in mind, I really have important business in the Human Rights Committee room down the hall ...

*the Ambassador from Mikitivity pulls out his telegram clipboard, he would have a palm pilot, but they can't afford such things in third-world nations, shakes his head in disgust whisphering something about "not another 22 million!" and marches towards the rear exit of the Political Committee room*

Since Article 10 deals with enforceability on resolutions that will be passed by the general assembly, I am concerned with the strength of Article 2 which deals with the soveignity of the nationstate.

If a Nationstate protests a resolution passed by the general assembly, what is the nationstates redress under Article 2? There should truely be an international standard of law to test if a resolution is valid under Article 2.

Since Article 10 deals with enforceability on resolutions that will be passed by the general assembly, I am concerned with the strength of Article 2 which deals with the soveignity of the nationstate.

If a Nationstate protests a resolution passed by the general assembly, what is the nationstates redress under Article 2? There should truely be an international standard of law to test if a resolution is valid under Article 2.

From the resolution (soon to be voted on):
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.


I could be wrong here, but "immunities" reads like "exceptions" to me.

The way I've been reading Article 2 is as follows:
Every UN Member State has the right to make its own policies so long as those policies don't conflict with something that it agreed to. If it wants to no longer follow the treaties / resolutions, it can of course leave the UN.

Of course, I like the way the shorter version is written. Hopefully Frisbeeteria can clear this up. But I'm thinking I may have some notes to consult, as he may have already explained this to my nation.

10kMichael

Mr. Secretary,

I thank you for the chance for allowing me, the President of Incorporated States of Ragasa (ISR), to address the general assembly.

ISR has twice applied to the United Nations, but has rejected United Nations membership. While many delegates of this great international body may be quick to dismiss an independent country such as myself, every member must recognize that of the 121,000 countries in the world, only 37,000 are members of the United Nations. In fact, apathy has developed within this body with many proposals unable to obtain quorum.

ISR supports the goals of the United Nations: international security and stability, progressive environmental laws, curtailing human rights abuses, and promoting economic development is in the best interest of EVERY country. However, many independent countries cannot and will not join under the current bylaws.

ARTICLE 10 - EVERY 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 CONSTITUTIONS OR ITS LAWS AS AN EXCUSE OFR FAILURE TO PERFORM THIS DUTY.

You cannot impose democracy upon nation-states.
You cannot impose civil rights upon nation-states.
You cannot impose economic policy upon nation-states.

As soon as the UN imposes edicts upon dissenting nations, the nationstate is no longer viable. In essence, the United Nations has become the nationstate. And that, fellow delegates, is unacceptable to independent nations such as ISR.

If a resolution passed by the United Nations body is viewed as a binding treaty upon the member states, independent states such as ISR would require the overhall of a democratic government which has stood the test of over one hundred years. A general referendum proposed to the people of ISR which grants the United Nations legislative powers superior to it's own legislative body is unacceptable. It would be viewed (rightly so) as subordinating the interests of our citizen to the interests of others.

Unless Article 10 is amended to define which define treaties and other binding agreements, the ISR will be unable to join the United Nations. As the mechanics of the body stands, though the ISR agrees with many UN resolutions, it does not agree with all positions of UN resolutions. Why require that all UN resolutions be binding?

If soveignity is not important, why have nationstates? Is the UN intended to be a supernational government? Who will provide enforcment? In short, nobody. Given the strength of military weapons today, conventional warfare is too expensive to wage and unconventional warfare to destructive. Article 10 tries to provide an enforcement mechanism when no enforcement mechanism can truely be created.

UN resolutions should be posed as a multilateral document which become law among member states that do agree upon ratification of the resolution within their respective legislative bodies.

In an increasingly-rare occurence, the nations (Commerce Heights, Dextremmika, and Lemmistana) that make up the Manhattanite-Dextremmikan-Lemmistanan Joint United Nations Action Committee resoundingly supported the resolution titled "Rights and Duties of UN States". Though the nations were reluctant to support the proposal on the grounds that it would undermine the purpose of the MDLJUNAC, they all agreed that it was an excellent step towards rectifying the circumstances under which Commerce Heights found it necessary to leave the UN and transfer its vote to one of its protectorates.

(OOC: In fact, the committee was so pleased with the proposal that they, for the first time, contacted a UN delegate and got The Greater Federated Democracy of Bedistan's endorsement added to the proposal. ;) )

If I may be permitted to respond, Ragasa ...

You cannot impose democracy upon nation-states.
You cannot impose civil rights upon nation-states.
You cannot impose economic policy upon nation-states.
Since the very founding of the NationStates UN, the above statements are simply not true. The NSUN does indeed have the power to impose civil rights and economic policy on its member nations. Always has. This proposal does not grant that right, it merely recognizes the fact. For some reason, nations joining the UN seem to forget the details proposed and accepted by the founder of the UN, Secretary General Emeritus Max Barry:

UN resolutions are a way to bring all member nations into line on a particular issue; be that environmental, democratic, free trade, or whatever.

On another point:
Unless Article 10 is amended to define which define treaties and other binding agreements, the ISR will be unable to join the United Nations.
It seems to me that you are asking the UN to act as a enforcer for all international law. Am I misreading this? If so, then it must be made clear that the UN does not control or manage the treaties and obligations made independently between nations. The UN is willing to recognize that such treaties may exist, but under UN rules those treaties may not abrogate the resolutions already passed by the UN. The member nations have agreed to this requirement as a condition of their participation in the UN.

The UN cannot regulate all international law, because more than two thirds of all nations do not belong to the UN, and are not subject to its oversight. Rather than wade through the constantly changing alliances, UN memberships, and frequent birth and extinction of the various nations, the UN chooses to let the national leaders handle that themselves.

UN resolutions should be posed ...
We of Frisbeeteria avoid the word 'should' whenever possible when discussing law. We prefer variants of 'is' and 'is not'. This is not what might have been, but rather what has been and what is. There is no room for cloudiness in law.

Does this adeqately address your concerns, or did we miss a portion, Ragasa?

MJ Donovan, CEO, Frisbeeteria

This Resolution is now being voted on the floor of the UN General Assembly.

Ken that this nation, which hight Setting Orange, is against the proposal, for a multitude of reasons. Primus, for reason that it breaketh the forth wall, as shall be exponsed. Wit thee well that for long time it has been the custom of these places that the region of roleplay, know as International Incidents, is to be consensul by reason of the nature of the game. However, wit thee not also that the UN hath no right of interfearance over the shape of the game, for it is but a piece within it? By the faith of my body, I hold that artical 5 to be in contravention to natural order.

Secondus, for it acth to reduce the N00bs, which are passing ammusing.

Malaclepse the Younger, Omnibenevilont Polyfather in Gold, etc.

Secondus, for it acth to reduce the N00bs, which are passing ammusing.


And how exactly does it do that?

10kMichael

Secondus, for it acth to reduce the N00bs, which are passing ammusing.

Malaclepse the Younger, Omnibenevilont Polyfather in Gold, etc.
Nay, Omnibenevilont Polyfather. It gives thee cause to smite the n00bs, in thy mercy. Articles 6, 7 and 8 provideth thee with implements of smiteworthiness.

Alas, the fourth wall was already cracked. We feel we added but little additional damage.

The Most Understanding of Agnostic Corporate States of Frisbeeteria.

The United Socialist States of Resistencia (USSR) will support this UN legislation. These articles will help to make sure that nation states will be an enjoyable activity for all.


USSR