NationStates Jolt Archive

Through my brief experience and observations in the UN Forum, I have noticed that much of the issue with the resolutions is whether people want the resolutions to be general, or if they think the entire law should be spelled out. Each has it's pros and cons.

A general law is good in that its not complicated and people will generally read it all the way through, but there are almost always "loopholes" that nations could theoretically exploit to "get around" the law.

Specificity gets rid of loopholes, but raises other issues. It can make resolutions hard to understand, which affects the voting, but more importantly it causes some to vote against the resolution based on their objection to a single point. Here there is bickering and arguing over each and every detail.

The Most Serene Republic of Lancamore is interested in the opinions and justifications of any nation that is willing to put theirs forth.

Through my brief experience and observations in the UN Forum, I have noticed that much of the issue with the resolutions is whether people want the resolutions to be general, or if they think the entire law should be spelled out. Each has it's pros and cons.



I can't in good faith vote in your poll.

There are obviously times when brievity are important and others when penning out the details is the best long-term solution.

I think the larger issue of concern can be addressed by the following: Does my resolution create laws that cross boundaries or not?

Take the single-hulled tanker example. Though the debate predates my (and I haven't yet completed my search of the records from that day and age in the NationStates UN), the intent is clear: tankers travel in international waters and are virtually unregulated. Thankfully my Confederation is landlocked and less impacted by careless nations. In this case, there are no existing unilateral laws (though there may be bi-lateral agreements) spelling out how tankers should be constructed and operated in international waters.

Now take a topic like sexual education. Clearly different socities have different opinions on human sexuality. For example, it is common to see people walking in the nude in the Confederation (even the silly snowboarders). Now lets pretend that somebody decided that children need to learn about their bodies and mandated that sexual education be taught in all countries. Some of us have existing sexual education programs, you have to when you've got lots of nudists walking around. If a resolution was passed mandating sexual education, it would be to the resolutions benefit to acknolwedge pre-existing programs and stay away from uni-lateral mandates.

Unilateral mandates are what the recent trend in UN resolutions has been. It is a real shame too.

Others have pointed out that nearly everything proposed here comes under fire. Why is that? The answer is simple: We all are very different and unqiue peoples.

With that in mind, I can't stress how thankful I am that my Confederation was formed when four totally different socities merged. One society needed spice, the others needed water. We've managed through our differences by carefully protecting the rights of the individuals while working on building agreements on what is in our collective benefits. Hence my nation is a Confederation instead of a tight gripped Federation or Union.

An ancient Miervatian expression comes to mind:
Infinite Diversity in Infinite Cultures!

Clearly the trend of many specific language resolutions is to build a monoculture. And any ethical biologist will tell you that this is an ecological diaster in the making. But at the same time, in order to cooperate and diversify we need a common starting point as well.

Both approaches are useful, but the skill lies in measure how much of each should be used and when.

Wow, that is possibly one of the best thought out posts I have ever seen. Here here!

*PW bangs his desk (parliamentary style) in appreciation*